Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - The Court decides not to indicate provisional measures, but to reach a decision on the merit with all possible expedition

LmLr--ir<.'"'.--
[*~y sil~~~ <an;'

--- - L- -.- - -...%---

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PeacePalace,2517KJTheHague.Tel. (0-3924441).Cables:Intercourt,The Hague.

Telefa(070-36499 28).Telex32323.communiqU~

unofficial
for irninediate releasc
Membersof Court + Staff
29-7-91 (15.30) No. 91/24
29July 1991
PostOfficeP.P. 29-7-91 (15.40)

through theGreatBu
I-pinlandv.Benmark)

The Courtdecidesniotto indicate ~toviaiona leasursa.but to reacb
g decisionon themerits withal1 Doaaiblecmeditioir

The following informati isncommunicatedto thePresilby the
Registryof the Internationa Courtof Justice:

Today, 29 July 1991,the InternationaClourtof Justice made an
Order in the case concerning P tassanethro- the Great Bcltby which
it found,unanimously, thatthe circumstance a, theynow present
themselves to the Court,arenot suchas to requirethe exerciseof its
powerunderArticle 41 of theStatuteto indicate provisionr aleasures.

The Courtwas composedas follows:Preaident Sir RobertYewdall
Jennings;Vice-PresidenS thigeruOda; Judges: Manfred Lachs,
RobertoAgo, Stephen M. Schwebel, MohammedBedjaoui, Ni Zhengyu,
JensEvensen, NikolaïTarasaov, Gilbert Guillaume, Mohamed Shahabuddeen,
AndrésAguilarMawdsley, ChristopherG. Weeramantry, RaymoR ndnjeva;
Judges ad-hoP caul Fischerand BengtBroms.

JudgeTARASSOV append asdeclaration to theOrderof the Court.

Vice-President ODJudgeSHAHABUDDEEN an Judgead hoc BROMS
appendseparateopinionsto theOrderof theCourt,

In its Order,the Courtrecallsthaton 17 May 1991Finland
instituted proceedin againstDenmarkin respectof a dispute concerning
passagethroughthe GreatBelt (Storebaelta ),d theprojectby the
Government ofDenmarkto construct a fixt edafficconnection forboth
road and rail traffic acrot sseWest and EastChannelsof the Great
Belt. The effectof thisproject, ani dn particularof theplanned
high-level suspensionlbridgeoverthe EastChannel, woulb de permanently
to close theBalticfo:r deepdraught vessel sf over65 metres'height,
thuspreventing th paissagoef suchdrillshipsand oil rigsmanufactured
in Finlandas requireinore thanthat clearance. The Govenmentof Finlandrequested the Court toadjudgeand declare:

''W That thereis a rightof freepassagethroughtheGreat
Beltwhich applietso al1 shipsenteringand leaving
Finnishportsand shipyards;

(b) That thisrightextendsto drillships,oil rigs and
reasonably foreseeable ships;

That the constructioof a fixebridge over th GreatBelt
as currentlylannedby Denmarkwouldbe incompatiblw eith
the rightof passage mentionein subparagraphM and
abov;

ThatDenmarkand Finlandshouldstartnegotiations, in good

faith,on howthe rightof freepassage,as set out in
subparagraphs to aboveshallbe guaranteed."

On 23May 1991,Finlandfiledin theRegistryof theCourt a request
for indicationof provisionalmeasures,relyingon Article41 of the
Statuteof the Court andArticle73 of theRulesof Court,by whichit
requested thCeourtto indicatethe followin provisionalmeasures:

"(1)Denmarkshould, pendin thedecisionby the Courton
the meritsof theprerentcase,refrain from continui org
otherwiseproceedingwith suchconstructiownorksin connection
with theplannedbridgeprojectovertheEastChannel of the
Great Beltas would impede the passoageships, includindrill
shipsand oil rigs,to and fromFinnishportsand shipyards;

(2)Denmarkshould refrain fra omy otheractionthat might
prejudicethe outcomeof thepresentproceedings."

On 28 June1991Denmarkfiledin theRegistryof theCourtits
writtenobservationson the request foprrovisional measures and
requestedthe Court

"(1)To adjudgeand declarethat ,..theRequestof Finland
for an orderof provisional measurbes rejected.

(2) In the alternative, anin the event thathe Court
shouldgrantthe Requestin whole or ipnart,to indicatethat
Finlandshallundertake to compensatDenmarkfor any and al1
lossesincurredin complyingwithauchprovisional measures,
shouldthe CourtrejectFinland'r aubmissionon themeritsw;

At publichearingsheld from1 to 5 July 1991 theourtheard oral
argument presente on behalfof the twoParties.

On the question ofurisdiction, thCourt,recalling thatit ought
not to indicate provisional measureslessthe provisionisnvckedby the
Applicantappear,primafacie, to afforda basison whichthe
jurisdictionof the Courtmightbe foundedn,otedthatFinlandfounded
the jurisdictionof the Courtprimarilupondeclarations mad by theParties acceptin the compulsorjyurisdictionof the Court,and thatit
had been statedby Denmarkthat theCourt'sjurisdiction on themeritwas

not in dispute. The Court concludetdhatin the circumstanceosf the
case it was satisfiethatit had the powerto indicateprovisional
measures.

The rightwhich Finlandsubmitsis entitledto protection is the
rightof passage througthhe GreatBeltof ships, includingdrill ships
and oil rigs; this right is of particular importanbcecause,according
toFinland,theEast Channelof theGreat Belt is for certain vesselshe
onlypassage-way to andfrom theBaltic. Denmark,whileacknowledging
thatthere is a rightof freepassage through th Danish Straitsfor
merchantshipsof al1 States,deniesthatthereis sucha rightof
passagefor structureu sp to 170 metres high,n the ground,Interalia,
that suchstructures are nos thips. Denmarkcontendsthatno measures
shouldbe granted becausenot evena primafacie case has beenmade out
in favourof Finland. The Courthowever notes that the existencof a
rightof Finlandof passage through thGreatBelt is not challenged,the
dispute betweetnhe Partiesbeingover itsnatureand extent,and

concludes thatsucha disputed right ma be protected byprovisional
measures.

The Court observetshat provisionameasures are onlyjustifiedif
there is urgencyin the sensethatactionprejudicial to the rightsof
either partyis likelyto be takenbeforea finaldecisionis given.
Accordingto theplanne's dchedulefor constructioof theEast Channel
Bridge,no physical hin'dranceor the passagtehroughtheGreatBeltwill
occur beforethe end of 1994; Denmarkcontendsthat bythattime the
casecouldhave been finallydecidedby the Court,so thatno indication
of provisional measuress required.Denmarkalsocontendsthat the
constructionof theEastChannelBridge will hardlr yepresenany
practical hindrance for t passingof drill shipsand oil rigs,inasmuch
as most of theunitsin question will be abl to takeanother routea,nd
the remainder wil le a'blto passunderthe planned East ChannelBridge
if leftpartly unassemble until afterpassageof the bridge.

The Court howeve:notesthatthe right claimed byFinlandis to

passage specifically throu the Great Belotf itsdrill shipsand oil
rigs, without modification or disassem inly,e sameway as such
passagehas been effectedin thepast,and observesthatit cannotat
this interlocutorsytageof the proceedingssupposethatinterference
with theright claime'dbyFinlandmightbe justified on the grouridshat
the passageto and from theBalticof drill shipsand oil rigs mightbe
achievedby other means,whichmay moreoverbe lessconvenient or more
costly. The Court concludetshatif construction works o theEast
Channel Bridgwehichwould obstruct the rig oftpassage claimedere
expectedto be carriedout priorto thedecisionof the Court on the
merits, this mightjustifythe indicatioonf provisionalmeasures.
However the Court placingon record theassurancesgivenby Denmarkthat
no physical obstructioof the East Channe will occur befartehe end of
1994, and consideringt'hathe proceedingosn themerits in thepresent
case would,in the normal course, bcompletedbeforethattime, finds
thatit has notbeen shownthatthe right claimewdill beinfringed by

constructiownork duringthe pendencyof the proceedings. FinlandclaimsmoreoverthattheDanishprojectis alreadycausing
damageto tangible economic intei restsucas Finnishshipyardscan
no longer fully participate tenders regardivesselswhichwouldbe
unableto pass throughtheGreat Belatfter completioontheEast
ChannelBridge,andthatthe existenc of thebridgeproject ishaving
andwillcontinue tohavea negative effec on thebehaviouof potential
customersof thoseshipyards.In thisrespect, however, C thertfinds
thatproofof thedamagealleged hasnot beensupplied.

Finlandobserves furthterattheinter-relatiobetween thvearious
elementsof theGreat Belt proje hasas a consequencehat completion
of any one element would reduce the possio bimiodifying other
elements,and concludethatthere is thusurgency,inasmucae manyof
theactivitiea involvein theprojectanticipatae final closinof the
GreatBeltby excluding practical poseibilitiesaccommodatin Finnish
interests and give ingectto Finnishights in theeventofif thegment
Courtruledin favourofeFinlandon themerits,any claibmy Finland
couldnotbe dealt withby an orderfor restitution,t couldonly be
satisfiedby damagesinasmuchas restitutioinkind woulbde excessively
onerous

The Court,hilenotat present calleduponto determinthe
characterof anydecieionwhichitmightmakeon themerita, observes
thatin principleif it ie establishedhatthe constructioon worke
involvesan infringemenof a legalright,thepossibilitcyannotand
should not b exclude4 of a judiciafinding thateuchworka
mustnotbe continuedor mustbe modifiedor diemantled.TheCourtadds
thatno actiontakenm e lit€by a Stateengagedin a dispute before
theCourtwithanother State canhave anyeffectwhateverae regarda the
legaleituationwhich theCourtis calleduponto define,andsuchaction
cannot improvitslegal positio vis-à-visthatotherState.

Afterobeerving thatit ie forDenmarkto considetheimpactwhich
a judgmentupholdingFinland'claim coul daveuponthe implementation
of theGreatBelt project,andto decidewhether or twhatextentit
should accordingly de ormyodifythatproject,and thatit is for
Finlandto decidewhether or noto promote reconsideratofonays of
enablingdrill shipasndoilri88to par8through theDanishStraitsin
theevent that theCourt ehouldecideagainstit,theCourtstateothat,
pendinga decisionof theCourton themerite,any negotiation between
thePartiee witha view toachievina directandfriendly settleme ist
to be welcomed.
In conclurion, tCheurtdeclaresthrtit ir clearlyin theinterest
of both Partieshattheirreepectivreighta anodbligation8e
determineddefinitivelya earlyas possibleand thereforit io
appropriattehattheCourt,withtheCO-operatio nf the Partiee,nsure
thatthedecision on themeritabe reachewithal1possible expedition, Annexto Press Communiaué 91/24

Judne Tarassovi,n a declaration, express his preoccupatiotnhat
Denmark's East Channel Brid project is so conceived thatvenin the
construction processit would imposseeriouslimitationsnot onlyon
passage for Finlandthroughthe internationa straitof the GreatBelt
but on navigationinto(andout of theBalticby craftof al1 States.
Moreover, its integrati inna wider communications plwould renderit
even lessamenableto mlodificatio if Finlandwere to win the case.

Judge TarassovseestheOrder'smain significance in its reflection
of the Court'sintentioi no forestall the faiaccom~lithat could be
created by any accelerated executioon anunmodifiedproject.
He analyses thoseparagraphswhichemphasize thai tntention,and which
aloneenabledhim, likethe other judges, to concludethatthe
circumstances did not requi the immediateindicationof special I
provisionalmeasures.

JudgeTarassov is furtherof the opinionthat thereference to
negotiationsshouldhave takenthe formof a straightforwarcdal1to seek
a technical methoodf ensuringthe continuanceof free passageas in the
pastbetweentheKattegatand the Baltic,and believesthatthe Courthad
powerto recommend that th Partiesinvite the participatioonf experts
from third countries orproceedunderthe aegisof the International
Maritime Organization.

Vice-PresidenOtda, in his separateopinion, agreesith the finding
thatno urgencyexistedto Justifya grant of interim measures - thatis,
in his view,a sufficientground for rejecting t Finnishrequest- but
regretsthatthe Court did notunderlinethe fact thatsucha grantwould
in any casehave done littleto helpFinland,in that would-be customers
of its shipyards would still have hado weigh theriskof the Court's
finallyrejecting Finland'scase. In fact,the only waythe Court could
assisteitherParty is 'bhandingdowna judgmentas soon aspossible.

Meanwhilethe Courthad beenwell-advised to warnDenmarkthat, if
it should losethe case,it couldnot relyon the Court'sdetermining
thatcompensatiow nouldbe an acceptablealternativeto restitution.

It had not however been necessaroy suggestat this stagethat
Finlandconsiderpromoting reconsideratio of waysto enablingdrill
shipsand oil rigsto continue passint ghroughthe DanishStraits.
It wouldnow be sufficientfor Finlandto recognize the obvious
possibilitythat in the eventof its losing thecaseit mighthave to
abandonor modify any plans to construcdrill shipsand oil rigs higher
than65 metres. Another,in JudgeOda'sview, superfluoucomponentof theOrderwas
the encouragemenotf negotiationpriorto the conclusioof the case.
Whilehe was not opposedto any initiative thearties mightakein that
sense,theyneededthe Courtto resolvesomecentrallegalissuesfirst.
Indeed, their verryeadinesto negotiateon a basisof lawmade it
imperativeto finish the cases speedilyas possible.

JudaeShahabuddeen, ihnis separateopinion,refers tDenmark's
submissionthat,to justifya grantof interimmeasures,Finlandhad been
required, inter aliato showa prima facie casas to the existencof
the rightsoughtto be preserved.In his vfew,Finlandhad indeedbeen
obligedto do so, inthe senseof demonstrating a possibiloity
existenceof the specificrightof passage claimedn respectof drill
shipsand oil rigsof over65 metres'clearanceheight; it had infact
doneso.

The Courtin its Jurisprudence hneverpronouncedon the general
validityof the propositioinnherentin Denmark'submission,and
Judge Shahabuddeerecognized thneeed to avoidany appearanof
prejudgingthe meritsof rightsclaimed.

Nevertheless, given thensensualbasis ofthe Court's
jurisdiction,the exceptional charactofrthe procedurand the
potentiallyseriousimpactof provisionalmeasureson Statesconstrained,
the Court mustbe concerneto satisfyitself that theres at leasta
possibilityof the rightsclaimed existing, thegreeof proofrequired
dependingon the circumstanceof theparticularcase. In
JudgeShahabudden'vsiew,the limitednatureof the required examination
did not create ansignificant risof prejudgment.

JudgeBroms,in his separateopinion,stressesthe importancef
enm m asrurancethatno physicalhindranceto passage througthe
Great Belt willexistbeforethe end of 1994. This,combinewith the
Court'sresolveto finishthe casewellbefore then,had enabled the
issueof urgencyto be seen in a new light adiminished thmeaterial
grounds forindicating provisionmelasures. The Parties,especially
Finland,had furthermorereceivedan additional guarantin the emphasis
laidby theCourton thenorm thata litigant Statecouldnot improve its w
legal positiovnis-à-visits adversary by aactiontakenin the course
of the proceedings.

JudgeBroms points outthat Finland,in the evenof injuryto its
allegedright, is seekingrestitution,ot compensation.He therefore
endorsesthe Court'sdecliningto confirmDenmark's contentitnhat
compensation might ban acceptable alternatishouldFinlandwin its
caseand restitution appearsxcessivelyonerous. He welcomesthe
Court'sencouragemenotf negotiationand considersthatthesemightwell
focuson the technical possibilitiofsmodifying theanishprojectso
as toaccommodatean openingin the fixed-bridgfor tallerdrill ships

and oil rigs,to use their righof freepassage.