Public sitting held on Monday 19 March 2007, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean S

Document Number
120-20070319-ORA-01-00-BI
Document Type
Number (Press Release, Order, etc)
2007/11
Date of the Document
Bilingual Document File
Bilingual Content

Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected

CR 2007/11

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THHEAGUE LAAYE

YEAR 2007

Public sitting

held on Monday 19 March 2007, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Higgins presiding,

in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the
Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)

________________

VERBATIM RECORD
________________

ANNÉE 2007

Audience publique

tenue le lundi 19 mars 2007, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de Mme Higgins, président,

en l’affaire de la Délimitation maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras dans
la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua c. Honduras)

____________________

COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -

Present: Presieigtgins
Vice-Prsi-Kntasawneh

Ranjevaudges
Shi
Koroma
Parra-Aranguren

Buergenthal
Owada
Simma
Tomka

Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna

Skotnikov
Judges ad hoc TorresBernárdez
Gaja

Couevrisrar

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -

Présents : Mme Higgins,président
Al-Kh.vsce-prh,ident

RanMjev.
Shi
Koroma
Parra-Aranguren

Buergenthal
Owada
Simma
Tomka

Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna

Skjoteiskov,
BeTroáesz.
jugesaja, ad hoc

Cgoefferr,

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -

The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassa dor of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,

as Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

H.E. Mr. Samuel Santos, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua,

Mr.Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., member of the English Bar, Member of the International
Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of

Oxford, member of the Institut de droit interna tional, Distinguished Fellow, All Souls College,
Oxford,

Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Research Associate, Neth erlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht

University,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, Member and former Chairman of
the International Law Commission,

Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Professor of International Law, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr.Robin Cleverly, M.A., DPhil, CGeol, F. G.S., Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty
Consultancy Services,

Mr. Dick Gent, Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty Consultancy Services,

as Scientific and Technical Advisers;

MsTania Elena Pacheco Blandino, First Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Nicaragua in the

Kingdom of the Netherlands,

MsNadine Susani, Doctor of Public Law, Centre de droit international de Nanterre(CEDIN),
University of Paris X-Nanterre,

as Assistant Advisers;

Ms Gina Hodgson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Ms Ana Mogorrón Huerta,

as Assistants.

The Government of the Republic of Honduras is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Max Velásquez Díaz, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras to the French Republic,

H.E. Mr. Roberto Flores Bermúdez, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras to the United States
of America,

as Agents; - 5 -

Le Gouvernement de la République du Nicaragua est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Carlos José Arguëllo Gómez, ambassad eur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du

Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme agent, conseil et avocat ;

S. Exc. M. Samuel Santos, ministre des affaires étrangères de la République du Nicaragua,

M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., membre du barreau d’Angleterre, membre de la
Commission du droit international, professeur ém érite de droit international public (chaire
Chichele) à l’Université d’Oxford, membre de l’Institut de droit international,Distinguished
fellow au All Souls College d’Oxford,

M. Alex Oude Elferink, research associate à l’Institut néerlandais du droit de la mer de
l’Université d’Utrecht,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université Paris X- Nanterre, membre et ancien président de la

Commission du droit international,

M. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, professeur de droit international à l’Universidad autónoma de Madrid,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Robin Cleverly, M.A., DPhil, CGeol, F.G.S., consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty
Consultancy Services,

M. Dick Gent, consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty Consultancy Services,

comme conseillers scientifiques et techniques ;

Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, premier secrétaire de l’ambassade de la République du
Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Nadine Susani, docteur en droit public, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),
Université de Paris X-Nanterre,

comme conseillers adjoints ;

Mme Gina Hodgson, ministère des affaires étrangères,

Mme Ana Mogorrón Huerta,

commaessistantes .

Le Gouvernement de la République du Honduras est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Max Velásquez Díaz, ambassadeur de la République du Honduras auprès de la
République française,

S. Exc. M. Roberto Flores Bermúdez, ambassad eur de la République du Honduras auprès des

Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

comme agents ; - 6 -

H.E. Mr.Julio Rendón Barnica, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Co-Agent;

MrP.ierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law, University of Paris

(Panthéon-Assas), and the European University Institute in Florence,

Mr. Luis Ignacio Sánchez Rodríguez, Professor of International Law, Universidad Complutense de
Madrid,

Mr.Christopher Greenwood, C.M.G., Q.C., Profess or of International Law, London School of
Economics and Political Science,

Mr. Philippe Sands, Q.C., Professor of Law, University College London,

Mr.Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, professeur émérite de dr oit international à l’Université de ParisI
Panthéon-Sorbonne,

Mr. David A. Colson, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & MacRae, LL.P., Washington, D.C., member of the
California State Bar and District of Columbia Bar,

Mr. Carlos Jiménez Piernas, Professor of International Law, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid,

Mr. Richard Meese, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris,

as Counsel and Advocates;

H.E. Mr. Milton Jiménez Puerto, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras,

H.E. Mr.Eduardo Enrique Reina García, Deputy Mini ster for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Honduras,

H.E. Mr. Carlos López Contreras, Ambassador, National Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

H.E. Mr.Roberto Arita Quiñónez, Ambassador, Director of the Special Bureau on Sovereignty

Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

H.E. Mr. José Eduardo Martell Mejía, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras to the Kingdom of
Spain,

H.E. Mr. Miguel Tosta Appel, Ambassador, Chairm an of the Honduran Demarcation Commission,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

H.E. MsPatricia Licona Cubero, Ambassador, Advi ser for Central American Integration Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Advisers;

Ms Anjolie Singh, Assistant, University College London, member of the Indian Bar,

Ms Adriana Fabra, Associate Professor of International Law, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, - 7 -

S. Exc. M. Julio Rendón Barnica, ambassadeur de la République du Honduras auprès du Royaume
des Pays-Bas,

comme coagent ;

M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit in ternational public à l’Université de Paris

(Panthéon-Assas) et à l’Institut universitaire européen de Florence,

M. Luis Ignacio Sánchez Rodríguez, professeur de droit international à l’Université Complutense
de Madrid,

M. Christopher Greenwood, C.M.G., Q.C., professeur de droit international à la London School of
Economics and Political Sciences,

M. Philippe Sands, Q.C., professeur de droit au University College de Londres,

M. Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, professeur émérite de droit international à l’Université ParisI
(Panthéon-Sorbonne),

M. David A. Colson, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., membre du
barreau de l’Etat de Californie et du barreau du district de Columbia,

M. Carlos Jiménez Piernas, professeur de droit international à l’Université de Alcalá (Madrid),

M. Richard Meese, avocat à la cour d’appel de Paris,

comme conseils et avocats ;

S. Exc. M. Milton Jiménez Puerto, ministre des affaires étrangères de la République du Honduras,

S. Exc. M. Eduardo Enrique Reina García, vice-mi nistre des affaires étrangères de la République
du Honduras,

S. Exc. M. Carlos López Contreras, ambassadeu r, conseiller national au ministère des affaires
étrangères,

S. Exc. M. Roberto Arita Quiñónez, ambassadeur, directeur du bureau spécial pour les affaires de
souveraineté du ministère des affaires étrangères,

S. Exc. M. José Eduardo Martell Mejía, ambass adeur de la République du Honduras auprès du

Royaume d’Espagne,

S. Exc. M. Miguel Tosta Appel, ambassadeur, président de la commission hondurienne de
démarcation du ministère des affaires étrangères,

S. Exc. Mme Patricia Licona Cubero, ambassad eur, conseiller pour les affaires d’intégration
d’Amérique Centrale du ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme conseillers ;

Mme Anjolie Singh, assistante au University College de Londres, membre du barreau indien,

Mme Adriana Fabra, professeur associé de dro it international à l’Université autonome de

Barcelone, - 8 -

Mr. Javier Quel López, Professor of International Law, Universidad del País Vasco,

Ms Gabriela Membreño, Assistant Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Sergio Acosta, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Honduras in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,

as Assistant Advisers;

Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,

Mr. Thomas D. Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,

as Technical Advisers. - 9 -

M. Javier Quel López, professeur de droit international à l’Université du Pays basque,

Mme Gabriela Membreño, conseiller adjoint du ministre des affaires étrangères,

M. Sergio Acosta, ministre conseiller à l’amba ssade de la République du Honduras au Royaume
des Pays-Bas,

comme conseillers adjoints ;

M. Scott Edmonds, cartographe, International Mapping,

M. Thomas D. Frogh, cartographe, International Mapping,

comme conseillers techniques. - 10 -

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets today to hear the

second round of oral argument of the Republic of Nicaragua. Nicaragua has this afternoon until

6o’clock and tomorrow from 10a.m. until 1p.m. fo r this purpose. So I now give the floor to

His Excellency, Dr. Argüello Gómez.

Mr. ARGÜELLO: Thank you, Madam President.

1. Madam President, Members of the Court, at the start of the second round of oral

pleadings, it is necessary to set the record st raight on certain assertions made by the Honduran

Government during the first round of pleadings.

Free trade treaty of 1998

2. Honduran counsel assured the Court repeat edly last week that the Government of

Nicaragua had signed a treaty, a free trade agreement, in the Dominican Republic on 16 April 1998

called in Spanish the “Tratado de Libre Comerc io Centroamerica-Republica Dominicana”, which

defined the territory of Honduras as including th e cays presently in dispute. Furthermore,

Honduran counsel fearlessly attested that this treaty was “approved by Nicaragua’s own National

Assembly on 23 November 2000, by Decree No. 119-2000” (CR 2007/7, pp. 46-47, paras. 60-62).

3. Madam President, Members of the Court, th is statement by Honduras is simply not true.

A free trade treaty was signed in Santo Domingo on the dates indicated but this treaty had no such

description of the Honduran territory. Honduras has not provided a text of this treaty or the

appropriate references as to where the authoritative text might be located, but simply provided in

the judges’ folders a highlighted excerpt of what was alleged to be the relevant text. This morning,

Nicaragua deposited with the Registry two copies of the full text of this treaty in its original and

only official language ⎯ Spanish ⎯ with a translation of the pertinent text. The full text of this

treaty can also be read and verified in the web page of the Nicaraguan Assembly and the web page

of the SIECA, Secretaria de Integracion Centroamericana (Secretariat for Central American

Integration) (http://www.sieca.org.gt/op3-2.htm). We have also included in the judges’ folders a

copy of the relevant article of the treat y taken from the publication of the Nicaraguan Gazette of

7March2002, No.46 (judges’ folders, doc. No.1) and, as an added example, the same relevant - 11 -

passage in the Gazette of El Salvador of 27May1999, No.98 (judges’ folders, doc.No.2).

(CAG2-1) The relevant article is Article 2.01 in Chapter II titled “General Definitions” (CAG2-2).

Article2.01 reads: “Definitions of general app lication. Unless otherwise stated, for the purposes

of this law, it will be understood that: . . . (CAG2-3) Territory: refers to the territory of each of the

Parties.” No annexes were tied to this Article. No other definition was given of the territory of

each Party.

The4r.efore,

(a) I categorically attest and declare that the so-called excerpt from “Annex to Article 2.01” to the

1998 free trade agreement reproduced in the graphi c identified as PS1-23-2 is not a true and

valid annex to the said treaty.

(b)The Decree of the Nicaraguan National A ssembly, approved on 23November2000 and

published in La Gaceta No. 226 of 28 November 2000, sanctioned the treaty of 1998 as it reads

in the copy deposited in the Registry by Nicara gua. This can be confirmed in the web pages

indicated above. This treaty had no annex with the description of the Honduran territory put

forward by Honduras’s counsel last week. Th e excerpt from this Decree reproduced in

graphicPS1-24 of the judges’ folders which pur ports to have ratified the treaty with the

non-existent annex is therefore, to say the least, misleading.

5. Honduran counsel concluded his remarks on the consequences of the alleged text of this

treaty as follows:

“This treaty of free trade explicitly recognizes Honduran sovereignty over the
islands. It makes a nonsense of the argumen t as to the critical date. There was no
dispute over sovereignty of the islands in 1998 when the treaty was signed in April of

that year, there was no dispute over soverei gnty in the islands when that treaty was
approved by Nicaragua’s National Assemb ly in November2000. There was no
dispute over sovereignty in the islands when Nicaragua’s instrument of ratification
was deposited in 2000. Quite simply, this treaty demolishes Nicaragua’s claim to

sovereignty over the islands. It is totally unarguable.” (CR 2007/7, p. 47, para. 62.)

6. I will not say more on this issue that h as been brought before the Court until the last

moment, but request that the Court draw the obvious consequences from this incident. These

consequences are totally unarguable. - 12 -

INPESCA fishing contract

7. The second assertion by Honduras that must be set straight was made by Professor Sands

while attempting to set aside any Nicaraguan effectivités in relation to fishing activities north of the

15th parallel. He referred to a l obster fishing permit that extended to the north of the 15th parallel,

that was granted to a Mr. Ramon Sánchez Borba on 17 November 1986 by the Nicaraguan fisheries

authorities (INPESCA). Allegedly this was protest ed by the Honduran authorities at the highest

level. According to Honduran counsel the Nicar aguan reaction was to amend the contract limiting

the fishing permit to areas south of parallel 15 (CR 2007/7, p. 35, para. 35).

8. This assertion had first been made in the Honduran Counter-Memorial (para.6.50) and

Nicaragua pointed out in its Reply that Honduras did not produce “the note with which the

Nicaraguan Foreign Minister would have responde d to the missive from his Honduran counterpart,

had the latter been received”. Furthermore, Nicar agua indicated that the purported modification of

Clause 6 of the concession “appears in a certifica tion signed not by Luis Adrián Pichardo Chávez,

who signed the [original] INPESCA concession, but rather by an unnamed legal adviser, who in

any case lacked the power to make such a modificat ion”. And that “according to Article 6 of the

Organic Law of INPESCA the General Director ⎯ and Assistant Director if invested with this

responsibility ⎯ was the only person authorized to sign and modify contracts with persons to

whom fishing licenses were granted”. Nicaragua provided a sworn statement from the then

General Director of INPESCA, Dr. Pichardo Chávez. Dr. Chávez stated that he did in fact sign the

contract with Mr.Sánchez Borba and that he was the only person authorized to modify said

contract. He further stated “during the en tire time that he worked at INPESCA [he was

GeneralDirector until 1988] he never authorized any modifications to that contract”. And

Dr. Pichardo Chávez adds, “in no case were these [ar eas for fishing exploitation] limited to spaces

south of Parallel fifteen (15)”. INPESCA, he c oncludes, “had several Legal Advisors, but their

responsibilities did not include the power to sign or modify fishing concession contracts, therefore,

any such actions by any of those Advisors would have been in violation of the Statutes of the

institution and without any legal value” (see RN, Vol. II, Ann. 38, p. 174).

9. At the time Nicaragua was preparing th e Reply to the Honduran Counter-Memorial it was

under the constraint that the pleadings before the Court were subject to limitations on the - 13 -

publication of their content. Therefore, alt hough it was obvious to Nicaragua that the facts put

forth by Honduras could not have any basis on realit y, the liberty for investigating the matter was

limited. The relations between Nicaragua and Honduras in 1986 and 1987 were very tense. In fact,

Nicaragua had filed a case against Honduras before this Court in July1986, the case concerning

Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras). Furthermore, Honduras had a

few days later signed a treaty with Colombia wh ereby each party recognized all the territorial

claims they had against Nicaragua, including the Honduran allegation that the 15°N parallel was

the delimitation line in the Caribbean. The signing of this treaty was protested by Nicaragua in no

uncertain terms, reminding Honduras in a Note of 8September1986 that the treaty “pretends to

divide between Honduras and Colombia extensive z ones that include insular territories, adjacent

seas and continental shelf that historically, geographically and legally correspond to the

sovereignty of Nicaragua” (MN, Vol. II, Ann. 70, p. 162).

10. In any case, the Nicaraguan Reply as alr eady indicated made clear what must seem

obvious under any legal system, that one of the le gal advisers of the Nicaraguan fishing institute,

INPESCA, was not authorized to negotiate or alter contracts of that institute. Furthermore, that the

Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry had no records of the Note purported to have been sent by the

Honduran Foreign Ministry with respect to this fishing contract.

11. Since the pleadings of this case have now been made available to the public, we have

with less constraints been able to investigate this matter further. This very superficial investigation

now that the present proceedings have b een made public has brought to light ⎯ or at least to our

attention ⎯ the following quite pertinent facts necessary to properly evaluate this issue.

12. The “legal adviser” that signed the document annexed to the Honduran

Counter-Memorial as Annex 124 and of which an excer pt is reproduced in the graphics attached to

the judges’ folders by Honduras ⎯ graphic PS2-24 ⎯ accompanying the presentation of

ProfessorSands, is Mr.Octaviano Ocon Lacayo. Th is person has the following record that we

have found in a preliminary search:

(i) he was suspended for a period of two years as a Notary and Attorney by the Nicaraguan

Supreme Court in 1992, by judgment of 4December1992, for irregularities in the

exercise of his duties; - 14 -

(ii) he was again suspended in the exercise of his duties for a period of five years for further

irregularities by judgment No.129 of the S upreme Court of 3September1996. The

pertinent passages of this judgment might be illustrative. The Supreme Court said:

“Whereas:

the Supreme Court of Justice has the facu lty to pursue information on all cases
reported to it or of which it otherwise has cognizance and in which an official crime
has been committed by a lawyer and notary pub lic . . . In the present case, the Court

gave ample opportunity to Dr. Octaviano Ocon Lacayo, to inform whatever he wished
with respect to the complaints filed agains t him. . . but Dr. Ocon Lacayo ignored the
issue... Furthermore, the recidivism of this professional is fully proved, since in
spite of being under the prior sanction of th e suspension of his professional duties, he

continued acting as such . . .

Therefore [the Supreme Court] resolves:

I. To admit the complaints filed by Mr.Victor Manuel Mayorga Sanchez,
Mr.Edgard Jose Zamora Peralta and Mrs. Maria Esther Gomez Castillo against
Doctor Octaviano Ocon Lacayo.

II. In consequence, to suspend Doctor Octaviano Ocon Lacayo, for the term of
five years in the exercise of his profession as an attorney and notary public . . .”

13. A certification of the record of Mr. Ocon given by the Supreme Court of Nicaragua has

been filed with the Registry and is now also on the screen (CAG2-4). The two decisions cited in

the certification may also be perused in the web page of the Nica raguan Supreme Court,

(http://www.poderjudicial.gob.ni/bijun/2002/Sente_fmto_web/1990_1997/199…).

14. It should be pointed out that the suspension by the Supreme Court is independent of any

criminal or civil charges that may be brought agains t the lawyer or notary who is being sanctioned.

The constraints of time since the oral pleadings of last week have not made it possible to obtain

further information on Mr. Ocon with the exception of the information published in the Nicaraguan

newspapers that he is currently being accused for falsifying a public deed.

(http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/NoticiasWebs.nsf/0/0cdb4989ec2ea07e0…

nDocument&Click=)

15. It should also be added, that independently of the proceedings before this Court, now that

the information of Mr.Ocon’s actions have come under public knowledge, the Nicaraguan

authorities are under the constraints of Nicaraguan la w and will have to investigate and ultimately - 15 -

prosecute Mr.Ocon for falsification of public docum ents and/or usurpation of public functions or

whatever other criminal category his behaviour might fall under.

16. Professor Sands’s summary of his version of this incident was to apologize to the Court

“for descending into such mind-numbing detail, but we are really concerned that the Court should

be directed to specific evidence so that it can see for itself what the evidence actually says, not

what Nicaragua claims that it says” (CR 2007/9, p. 29, para. 36).

17. I certainly agree with the distinguished Honduran counsel that apologies are in order and

that the Court should “see for itself what the evidence actually says”.

Conduct of Nicaragua since 1979

18. The claim of change of conduct by Nicaragua since 1979 was made on several occasions

in the written pleadings. During my first pleading, I stated that,

“In view of the attempts by Honduras to characterize the dispute as something
originating in the conflicts of the 1980s in the Central American area, it is necessary to
set the record straight. The claims by Nicaragua in these proceedings reflect the

invariable position of all the Governments of Nicaragua that have been faced with the
problem of the maritime delimitation in the Caribbean Sea” (CR2007/1, p.30,
para. 53).

19. This statement was followed by a tour of the position of the Governments of Nicaragua

since the 1970s to the present on the issue presently in dispute before the Court; that is, an

overview of the position on the maritime issues between Nicaragua and Honduras from the period

of the Somoza Governments dating from 1936 to 1 979, to the present-day Government in office

since January of this year (CR 2007/1, pp. 31-33, paras. 54-61).

20. I presumed that prudence would dictate to Honduras to let this issue be. But it has been

directly and indirectly played up during these oral pleadings. Thus, Professor Piernas said:

“Je me propose également de prouver, en suite, que la position et la conduite du
e
Nicaragua, par rapport à la fixation du 15 parallèle comme limite maritime entre les
deux Etats, ont radicalement changé en 1979, avec le triomphe de la révolution
sandiniste.” (CR 2007/7, p. 48, para. 6.)

21. Professor Sands took the question for granted and stated that,

“Nicaragua’s oil concessions confirm tacit agreement between the Parties,
peacefully applied as such for approachi ng two decades, until 1979 when Nicaragua

saw fit to unilaterally change its practice.” (CR 2007/9, p. 21, para. 20.) - 16 -

22. And, in the final pleading, Mr. Colson appa rently considered closing the issue by saying

that: “Before the change in government in Ni caragua in 1979, Nicaragua made no claim to

jurisdiction north of the latitude of Cabo Gracias a Dios.” (CR2007/10, p.19, para.103.) And

added: “But Nicaragua has chosen to disavow wh at has gone before. As a political matter that

may be its right, but international law transcends such political changes.” (CR2007/10, p.36,

para. 166.)

23. The conclusion should thus apparently be that since Honduras has now “said it thrice”

what it tells us three times is true, as the Bellman cried in the poem of the “Hunting of the Snark”

by Lewis Carrol 1.

24. So, unfortunately I will be constrained to bring the snark out into broad daylight.

25. The attempt by Honduras to portray befo re this Court the events after 1979 as being

caused by a change by the Nicaraguan Government of its previous territorial policy is frankly

beyond words. It was this same Court to whic h Nicaragua had recourse inMarch1984 when it

filed an Application that initiated the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and

against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) . It was this same Court to which

Nicaragua had recourse in July 1986 when after the Judgment in the previous case it filed a parallel

Application against the Government of Honduras that is known as the case concerning Border and

Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras). Both of these cases involved inter alia

armed actions against Nicaragua from Honduran terr itory. Most of these were land incursions but

there were also numerous encounters at sea both in the Caribbean ⎯ including the areas presently

in dispute and further south ⎯ and in the Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacific side.

26. To come now before this Court and attempt to portray Nicaragua as the aggressor against

Honduran territory is again, I repeat, beyond words. The change of policy that occurred was on the

part of the Honduran authorities who considered that the difficult international situation Nicaragua

1
“The Hunting of the Snark”, by Lewis Carrol
“Just the place for a Snark! the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide

By a finger entwined in his hair.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.” - 17 -

was going through, lent itself to pushing forward its most aggressive and maximalist territorial

policies. With this statement I am not attempting to turn the issue on its head. This was exactly the

position that Nicaragua asserted before this Court in June 1991 during the oral pleadings in the case

between Honduras and El Salvador in which Nicaragua was granted a limited right of intervention;

I refer to the case concerning Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras:

Nicaragua intervening). In this case, the position of Honduras in its dispute with ElSalvador

involving the Gulf of Fonseca had been, as late as 1978, that no agreement could be reached if

Nicaragua was also not a party. When that case came before the Court in 1986, the position of

Honduras had changed and it was more than willing to divide up the waters in that area without the

intervention of Nicaragua. In view of this volte -face of Honduras, the Agent of Nicaragua in that

case stated ⎯ and the Court will excuse me for quoting myself since I was that Agent:

“It would be quite surprising if Honduras ⎯ as late as 1978 ⎯ had believed the
situation in the Gulf gave it rights outside the Gulf, to have omitted any reference to
this important consideration... Perhap s the difference was that in 1978 Nicaragua
was not in the same international situation as in 1986 when the compromis was signed:

in troubled waters abound fishermen).” (CR 91/43, pp. 25-26.)

27. It should be noted that these pleadings were taking place just over oneyear after the

Sandinista Government was out of power in Nicaragua and a new Government was in place.

28. But going back to what had been happeni ng in the 1980s, it is illustrative to recall some

of the early events and incidents relating to the maritime spaces presently in dispute.

29. In 1982 Nicaraguan coastguards captured some Honduran fishing boats in the area that is

presently in dispute before the Court. This incident originated the first official claim by Honduras

that the 15thparallel was the line of maritime de limitation. Honduras sent a Note of protest to

Nicaragua dated 23 March 1982 stating that,

“On Sunday the 21st of this month, tw o coastguard launches of the Sandinista

Navy penetrated as far as Bobel and Medi a Luna Cays, 16miles to the North of
Parallel 15. This has been traditionally recognised by both countries to be the dividing
line in the Atlantic.” (MN, Vol. II, p. 44.)

30. The Reply of the Foreign Minister for Nicaragua dated 14 April 1982 is most illustrative:

“Your Excellency refers in your Note that on Sunday, March21st, two of our
Coastguard ships ‘penetrated as far as Bobel and Media Luna Cays, 16miles to the

North of Parallel15. This has been trad itionally recognized by both countries to be
the dividing line in the Atlantic.’ This a ffirmation, to the least, surprises us, since
Nicaragua has not recognized any maritime frontier with Honduras in the Caribbean - 18 -

Sea, being undefined until today th e maritime boundary between Honduras and
Nicaragua in said sea.”

It must be recalled that this is the year 1982 and that these territorial claims referred to the

15thparallel and Bobel and Media Luna Cays... and so the Note I am quoting went on to point

out that:

“Nicaragua observes with profound surp rise and concern that the Enlightened
Government of Honduras, is recently referri ng to certain territorial matters in a

somewhat hasty manner, under difficult ci rcumstances, as if these sudden and
excessive territorial aspirations were destined to devise the pretexts to justify a major
scale of aggressions against Nicaragua.” (MN, Vol. II, pp. 44-45.)

31. A year later, on the occasion of replying to other incidents, the Nicaraguan Foreign

Minister addressed a Note to his Honduran counterpart on 19 April 1983, stating that:

“Nicaragua cannot accept the considerations you state in your Diplomatic Note

when you say that the Bobel and Media Luna Cays are located in jurisdictional waters
of Honduras. As the same Government of Honduras has admitted on different
occasions, those territories are not Honduran territories. It is opportune to recall that
Nicaragua has not delimitated its jurisdictional waters in the Caribbean Sea, this being

the only zone that is pending delimitation between our two countries.

Finally, it is convenient to clarify that the meetings between our respective
Naval Chiefs did not succeed nor could they continue, not because of Nicaragua, but

rather due to the attitude assumed by the Armed Forces of Honduras in increased
support to Somocista mercenaries who attack our country, and also to the attacks upon
our territory by that same army.” (MN, Vol. II, pp. 48-49; emphasis added.)

32. This correspondence from the early 1980s highlights what was really happening.

Honduras was attacking, among several other places, the Nicaraguan positions in the area in

dispute and not the other way around. If there is any doubt on this point, it might be well to consult

the cases brought by Nicaragua before this Court when it was under attack by Honduran forces and

forces operating out of Honduras. In passing it migh t be recalled that both the UnitedStates and

Honduras contested the jurisdiction of the Court and tried to avoid by all means having those cases

come before it. If it had been a question of Nicaragua attacking Honduran territory the jurisdiction

of this Court would have been courted and not avoided. But, 20 years later Honduras now comes

spinning the story around and it turns out that Nicaragua was attacking Honduras!

33. Mr.Colson ended his reference to the issu e of the presumed change of position of the

Nicaraguan Government in 1979 in relation to its purported previous agreements on boundaries by

declaring that “international law transcends such political changes”. Nicaragua certainly agrees

with Mr. Colson and has been proving it with deeds since at least the 1980s. - 19 -

Colombia

34. Parallel to the allegations of Nicaraguan change of conduc t, Honduras claims that this

change that purportedly occurred in 1979 can also be seen with respect to Nicaragua’s relations

with Colombia.

35. In spite of the impression an outsider to this case might receive after listening to the

pleadings and the repeated mentions of Colombia , the dispute of Nicaragua with that State is

another issue that is independently before the C ourt. Therefore, I will limit my comments to the

bare minimum.

36. The dispute with Colombia did not begin in 1979. It began many years before that date.

Colombia claimed for the first time in the 1960s that a treaty it had signed with Nicaragua in 1928

had delimited the maritime areas between both States even though this limit according to Colombia

ran along the 82ndmeridian of longitude which is located more than 90miles from the coast of

Nicaragua. Nicaragua protested this claim immediately it was made, that is, in the 1960s.

Furthermore, Nicaragua claimed sovereignty over some cays that are still presently under dispute

with Colombia. Thus Nicaragua protested a 1972 treaty of Colombia with the United States of

America whereby the latter apparently seemed to disregard the Nicaraguan claim to these cays. All

this information may be found in the appropriate place: the Application and Memorial filed by

Nicaragua against Colombia in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute

(Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Legislation

37. Honduras has tried to make an issue of its legislative references to the cays located in the

area in dispute. Particular emphasis has been placed on the Honduran Constitutions of 1957, 1965

and 1982 that purportedly include certain of these maritime features in their description of

Honduran territory.

38. Conversely, the fact that the Nicaraguan Constitutions have no mention of these features

is attempted to be portrayed as signifying that Ni caragua did not consider these features to be part

of its territory. The pertinent Articles referring to national territory in the Nicaraguan Constitutions

from 1948, 1950 and 1974 are reproduced in the Nicaraguan Reply (Vol.II, Ann.34, p.163). In - 20 -

effect, the Nicaraguan Constitutions only describe the national territory in the most general terms.

Thus Article 5 of the 1950 Constitution is typical:

“The national territory extends between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the
Republics of Honduras and Costa Rica. It also includes the adjacent islands, the

subsoil, the territorial sea, the continenta l shelf, the continental slopes and the air
space and the stratosphere.”

The 1987 Constitution approved during the Sandinista Government has no flights of fancy like its

Honduran counterparts ⎯ in spite of the Honduran claims of a Sandinista policy of territorial

aggression ⎯ and this Constitution simply reiterates the basic content of the 1950Constitution

cited above.

39. No special reference is made to the insu lar territories apart from stating that the national

territory “also includes the adjacent islands”. This is not because Nicaragua attaches no importance

to its insular territories since it has significant is lands in the Caribbean, such as Corn Island and

2
Miskito Cay. These two islands, respectively, are over 10.5 and 21.6km in size and are

permanently and considerably inhabited. These islands are over 420 and 1,000 times larger than

the largest cay presently in dispute, and are not singled out by name in the Nicaraguan

Constitutions. Therefore, no inference must be made or can be made from the absence of any

mention by Nicaragua to the insignificant features involved in this case.

40. Nicaragua does not believe that by listing territories in its Constitutions it would acquire

or establish sovereignty over them. Honduras on the other hand has had a different approach to the

definition of its territory in its Constitutions. Ge nerally, mention is made in these Constitutions of

specific features of the national territory claimed by Honduras even if it is under contention with

third parties.

41. Thus, for example, Article 10 of the H onduran Constitution of 1982 for the first time ––

and I repeat, for the first time –– listed in its na tional territories certain cays over which it claimed

sovereignty:

“The following belong to Honduras: the... cays: Zapotillos, Cochinos,
Vivorillos, Seal or Foca (or Becerro), Ca ratasca, Cajones or Hobbies, Mayores de

Cabo Falso, Cocorocuma, Palo de Campech e, Los Bajos, Pichones, Media Luna,
Gorda and Los Bancos, Salmedina, Providencia, De Coral, Cabo Falso, Rosalinda and
Serranilla and all others located in the Atla ntic which historically, geographically and

juridically correspond to it.” - 21 -

42. This list included for the first time Me dia Luna, which is presently in dispute with

Nicaragua; Rosalinda, which has several claimant s including Nicaragua and Honduras; and also

Los Bajos and Serranilla. The inclusion of th ese latter two will serve to amply illustrate the

irrelevance of any mention of territory in the Honduran Constitutions.

43. To begin with Serranilla cays. These cays claimed by Honduras in its Constitution for

the first time in 1982, were recognized as Colomb ian territory in the treaty Honduras signed with

that country four years later, on 2 August 1986. Is this to be taken as a sign of the importance that

States have to give to the wishful thinking expressi ons contained in the territorial definition of the

Honduran Constitutions? Does this imply that Stat es must be attentive to protest any of these

wishful thinking manifestations in the Honduran Constitutions?

44. Since Nicaragua claims the cays Honduras graciously recognized as Colombian, with the

generosity of one who gives away what does not be long to him, Nicaragua sent a protest Note to

Honduras reaffirming its sovereign rights over the cays recognized as Colombian in that treaty and

to all the other cays in the area presently in disput e. The pertinent part of the protest Note of

8 September 1986 reads as follows:

“The referred instrument pretends to divide between Honduras and Colombia
extensive zones that include insular territories, adjacent seas and continental shelf that

historically, geographically and legally correspond to the sovereignty of Nicaragua.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On the basis of the inalienable rights of Nicaragua to protect and defend the
territorial integrity of the nation, the Republic of Nicaragua rejects the treaty
subscribed between Honduras and Colombia on August2, 1986; it manifests that it
does not recognize nor admits any effect what soever of the referred instrument, and

reaffirms its sovereign rights over the Cays, sandbars and islands that constitute the
maritime and insular territory of Nicaragua to which the treaty in question pretends to
apply.” (MN, Vol. II, Ann. 70, p. 162; emphasis added.)

45. It must be emphasized that up until this moment ⎯ 1986 ⎯ Honduras had never

officially claimed sovereignty over the cays presently in dispute. The only prior references to the

cays in dispute were in the context of claimi ng that these features were located north of the

15thparallel. But even up to the moment of signing the treaty with Colombia in 1986, Honduras

had made no official claim to sovereignty ove r these cays independently of their location. - 22 -

Therefore, it is the more telling that Nicaragua was the first to officially lay claim to those cays in

the Note above cited.

46. Up to the present I have been referring to the Honduran Constitution of 1982 which is the

first one to refer to the cays just mentioned of Serranilla and also to Media Luna. The

Constitutions prior to this date do not mention Media Luna. Th e only cay mentioned in those

Constitutions which Honduras claims is located in the area in dispute is the Cay Palo de Campeche.

47. Honduras claims that the reference to Palo de Campeche is a reference to a cay in the

area in dispute that was always known as Logwood Cay. But Honduras has not proved that

PalodeCampeche is one and the same as the L ogwood Cay located in the area in dispute in

international charts that date from the earliest times. There are no official Honduran maps referring

to Palo de Campeche in that area. The only ma p Professor Sands was able to conjure up with the

name Palo de Campeche is an unofficial map da ting from 1933. The Honduran official map from

that same year has no mention of Palo de Campeche, as is the case with all Honduran official maps.

48. It is true that Campeche can be translated as “Logwood” but this does not mean

automatically that the names are inte rchangeable. For example, the 1971 Indice Geografico of

Nicaragua, which is in Spanish, lists the following islets as pertaining to Nicaragua under the

following names: Media Luna: Logwood, Bobel, Savanna, South, Half Rock, Alargado Reef and

Cock Rock. Some of the names ar e given in Spanish, if they are known under that name, such as

Media Luna and Alargado, and the others under thei r English appellation. This same practice is

reflected in the names given to these features in the graphics specially prepared for this case and

that have been presented by Honduras. For exampl e, graphic PMD-1 refers to Cayo de la Media

Luna and Arrecife Alargado, but to Savanna Reefs and Port Royal Cay.

49. But the important question is not whether th is Palo de Campeche is or is not one and the

same as the Logwood Cay in the area in dispute. The whole Caribbean area was used for the

exploitation of trees and it is not unusual for cays to have been accorded this name. The names of

cays are recurrent. Thus, we have a Media Luna cay that is part of the very important island chain

of Honduras further north, the Bay Islands.

50. The more important question is why this Palo de Campeche Cay, even if it is the original

Logwood Cay, should be singled out in the Honduran Constitution and should have provoked a - 23 -

reaction from Nicaragua? The Counter-Memorial of Honduras clearly states that: “The original

Logwood Cay and Media Luna Cay ar e both now submerged.” (CMH, Vol.1, p.14, para.2.3,

footnote 2.)

51. This provokes two further remarks: if Palo de Campeche is really Logwood Cay as

Honduras would have, then why did the Honduran Constitution single out a feature that is

permanently submerged to grace its listing of national territories? And even more to the point, why

list Palo de Campeche that, if it is located in the area in dispute, is permanently under water and not

mention the cays that Honduras is presently singling out as being part of their national territory,

that is, Bobel, Savanna, Port Royal and South Ca ys? Is it not rather strange that the Honduran

Constitutions do not list as part of the national territory any of the cays presently claimed by

Honduras that lie to the south of the Main Cape Channel and to the direction of the bisector

claimed by Nicaragua?

52. One important fact to be considered is that the cays listed in the Honduran Constitutions

put forth in these oral pleadings, that is, Gorda, Vivorillos, Cajones, Cocorocuma, Caratasca, Falso,

Cabo Gracias a Dios and Pichones, are cays of equi valent size as those of Bobel, Savanna, Port

Royal and South Cays which are presently under dispute. If those cays located to the north of the

Main Cape Channel and the propo sed Nicaraguan bisector have been blessed with mention in the

Constitution, why were the cays located to the south of the Main Cape Channel not so blessed?

53. Honduras purports to find significance in the fact that the Nicaraguan Constitutions do

not list the cays in dispute in spite of the fact that the Nicaraguan Constitutions have never included

lists of islands, even of very important islands and not the minor features presently in question. Yet

Honduras without a blush passes over the fact that it s Constitutions, in spite of having an extensive

shopping list of properties, have never listed the cays in dispute. It should not be lost to sight that

this absence is the only significant feature in all th is argument. And it only points to the fact that

the Honduran claim of sovereignty over these features is of very recent date. At best, it dates from

1982 when the first mention of Media Luna Cay was made in a Honduran Constitution. In spite of

the fact that according to the Counter-Memorial of Honduras Media Luna Cay is also permanently

submerged, it is nonetheless a cay that, contrariwi se to Campeche Cay, is unmistakably located in

the area in dispute. - 24 -

Honduran written statements

54. Honduras has taken issue with some of the comments made by Nicaraguan counsel with

respect to certain assertions in the written statements it filed as evidence (see CR2007/6, p.31,

paras.63-64). The distinguished counsel of Honduras, Mr.Greenwood, considered that these

comments by Nicaraguan counsel might be “wholly improper”. I must confess to being a bit

surprised by this call of atten tion. In the first place, what appears to be emphasized by the

distinguished counsel is the apparent superior quality of these witness statements because they

were “the product of a visit to the islands by one of my colleagues ⎯ a member of the English Bar”

(p. 31, para. 65). But if the comments by Nicara guan counsel were improper, which I consider not

to be the case, they would be improper irrespec tive of whether it was a member of the Bar of

Honduras or of the English Bar who prepared the evidence.

55. But, perhaps more to the point, the fact is that I do not know what written statements

Honduran counsel is referring to. The statem ents commented on by Nicaraguan counsel were

rendered before a Honduran notary public upon th e request of a Honduran political authority ⎯

usually a mayor or governor of the area or city where the statement was being taken. The notary,

as is the normal case, simply recorded what the witness wished to state without any examination on

his part. None of the testimonies indicates that any member of the English Bar was present during

the statements or was in any way involved. Presu mably, if a member of the English Bar had been

present or had prepared this evidence, this fact would have been placed on record as, for example,

the presence of translators when this was th e case was put on record in these same written

statements.

Port of Cabo Gracias a Dios

56. During my first pleading on 5March, I emphasized the importance of the Nicaraguan

Port of Cabo Gracias a Dios as the only port historically located in the area in dispute (CR 2007/1,

p.26, paras.37-38). The reason for this importance was that the cays claimed by the Parties are

located roughly 50 km away from Cabo Gracias a Dios and well beyond the fishing grounds of the

population centred around Cape Gracias a Dios. Th ese cays were thus visited either by foreign

sailing vessels hailing, for example, from Cayman on their turtle fisheries routes, or by the

population located further south in indisputable Ni caraguan territory that could easily navigate a - 25 -

continuous succession of cays separated by only a few miles distance one from another up to the

Main Cape Channel that basically divides the maritime areas of each Party.

57. The importance of this port in establishing the effectivités in the area in dispute is also

paramount since it was naturally the centre of mar itime activity in the area. The nearest Honduran

port was established well into the twentieth cen tury and it was not located on the Caribbean

coastline but inside the Caratasca Lagoon and well over 100 km distant from the area in dispute.

58. Presumably the importance of this port and its connection to the main navigation

channel ⎯ which, I must point out, has been significantly ignored in all the Honduran pleadings ⎯

is the reason why the existence itself of this port was quite curiously questioned by Honduras

(CR 2007/10 (Colson)).

59. The Port of Cabo Gracias a Dios was recognized as Nicaraguan in the treaty signed with

Honduras in 1869, referred to in the Memorial of Nicaragua (p. 21), and in my previous pleading of

5March (CR2007/1, p.23, para.28). The Arbitral Award of the King of Spain attributed the

sovereignty of the town of Cape Gracias a Dios to Nicaragua as is again explained in the previous

pleading of 5March (CR2007/1, p.24, para. 29). This port figures (CAG2-5) in the British

Admiralty chart No. 2425 that was elaborated from surveys dating (CAG2-6) from the period 1830

to 1843, as we can see on the screen. During the fi rst half of the twentieth century spanning from

approximately 1910 to 1930, the Nicaraguan tax collection, including import and export duties, was

under the control of United States government offi cials. The information culled from this was

published periodically by the United States State Department. (CAG2-7) On the screen are pages

taken from a publication titled Nicaragua, an economic and financial survey by

Mr. W.W. Cumberland. This illustration is taken fro m a copy of this book located in the library of

the Peace Palace. (CAG2-8) On page48 on the scr een we can see table No.10 on the Value of

Imports and Exports by ports of Entry and Embarc ation (1922-1926). The first on the list is the

Port of Cabo Gracias a Dios. Apparently the St ate Department had no doubts on the existence,

location and business transactions of this Nicara guan port. (CAG2-9) More current information

may be located on the web page titled “Ports of the World” (http://www.navis.gr/portswld/) now on

the screen. - 26 -

A NSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS FORMULATED BY THE JUDGES TO THE P ARTIES

60. Madam President, Members of the Court, I will now address the questions formulated by

the judges to the Parties. The issues given form al response here will be further addressed by my

colleagues in the course of today’s and tomorrow’s pleadings.

J6d1.e ad hoc Gaja formulated the following question to both Parties: “May Logwood

Cay and Media Luna Cay be currently regarded as islands within the meaning of Article121,

paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?”

62. Nicaragua’s answer to this question is as follows:

63. In accordance with information presently av ailable to the Government of Nicaragua, the

cays of Logwood and Media Luna are now submerged and cannot be regarded as islands within the

meaning of Article 121, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

64. This information coincides with the stat ement made by the Government of Honduras in

its Counter-Memorial. In it Honduras stated that “the original Logwood Cay and Media Luna Cay

are both now submerged”(CMH, Vol. 1, p. 14, para. 2.3, footnote 2).

65. Judge Keith formulated the following question to the Republic of Nicaragua:

“What consequences for the location of a single maritime boundary would
Nicaragua draw were Honduras to have sovereignty over some or all of the islands and

maritime features which are located north of the parallel of latitude 15' North?”

66. The position of Nicaragua is that the lo cation of the single maritime boundary is not

dependent on or affected by the attribution of sovereignty of any of the islands and maritime

features to either Party. The construction of the line of delimitation put forth by Nicaragua is not

based on the minor features in question but rather on the coastal fronts of the Parties, as stated in

the Nicaraguan Memorial (Vol. I, Chap. IX, para. 31):

“The direction of the bisector proposed by Nicaragua is calculated by taking
into account the general direction of the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Honduras.

The islets and rocks off the mainland coasts ha ve not been taken into consideration in
this exercise.”

67. The Honduran Counter-Memorial is in agreement on this point. It states that: “Honduras

does not use these islands as basepoints, and claims neither shelf nor economic zone for the islands

as such.” (Vol. 1, p. 141, para. 7.28.) - 27 -

68. The position of Nicaragua is that sovere ignty over these islets and cays should devolve

on the Party on whose side of the line of delimitation they are finally located.

69. If the islets and cays specifically identified and claimed by Honduras ⎯ that is, Bobel,

Savanna, Port Royal and South Cay ⎯ were to be attributed to Honduras and were thus to be

located within Nicaraguan territory (CAG2-10), th en the position of Nicaragua is that these small

features should be enclaved within a territorial sea of 3miles. In this respect there would be no

impingement on the line of delimitation that would be drawn based on the coastal fronts of the

Parties or on any similarly equitable line that th e Court may determine. This enclavement would

be within the spirit of the Honduran claim that woul d limit the extent of the territorial sea to the

most southerly islands it claims, so that it would not cross the line claimed by Honduras. A graphic

of this enclavement is provided as an illustration of the effects of this exercise.

70. If all of the islands and maritime featur es, which are located north of the parallel of

latitude 15° N, were to be under Honduran soverei gnty, then Nicaragua cannot give a clear answer

to the question of JudgeKeith. Nicaragua do es not know how many islands and features are

involved or their locations since the basic survey s of this area date from the first half of the

nineteenth century and this is an area where these features emerge and disappear periodically and

often.

71. Madam President, Members of the Court, the continuation of the pleadings during this

second round will be in the following order. During the course of this afternoon’s pleadings, and

immediately after this Agent’s presentation, Professor Alain Pellet will generally address the issues

before the Court, including the question of cays and other maritime issues as well as the applicable

law and the issue of the critical date. Next, Dr.Alex Oude Elferink will address basically the

question of the maritime features in the area in dispute.

72. During tomorrow’s pleadings, Professor Antonio Remiro Brotóns will address the issues

of the conduct of the Parties and the question of uti possidetis iuris.

73. Following that, ProfessorPellet will address basically the issue of the starting-point of

the delimitation. - 28 -

74. Next, Mr.Ian Brownlie will address the question of the maritime line put forth by

Nicaragua, as well as some comments on certain points of the law of the sea pertinent to these

proceedings.

75. Finally, the Agent will return with a s hort statement and the presentation of Nicaragua’s

final submissions.

Thank you, Madam President and Members of th e Court, for your kind attention. And now,

Madam President, may I ask you to call Professor Pellet.

The PRESIDENT : Thank you very much, Your Excellency. I now call Professor Pellet.

M. PELLET: Thank you very much, Madam President.

L A NATURE ET L ’OBJET DE L ’AFFAIRE ,LE DROIT APPLICABLE

ET LA DATE CRITIQUE

1. Madame le président, Messieurs les juges, durant ses plaidoiries de la semaine dernière, le

Honduras a déformé, avec persévér ance, les thèses nicaraguayennes ⎯sur beaucoup de sujets (et

l’ambassadeur Argüello vient d’en relever un certain nombre), mais, tout spécialement et d’abord,

sur la nature et l’objet mêmes de l’affaire que le Nicaragua vous a soumise. Bien qu’elles soient un

peu caricaturales, ces déformations systématiques nous ont paru mériter une brève mise au point au

moment où nous entamons nos plaidoiries du second tour ⎯d’autant plus qu’elles ont une

incidence sur des aspects importants et récurrents de l’argumentation respective des Parties, en ce

qui concerne, notamment, le droit applicable ou la date critique. Tel est l’objet de mon

intervention, cet après-midi.

I. L’objet du différend

2. Madame le président, dans sa présentation initiale, M. l’agent du Honduras a formulé cinq

observations générales dont la deuxième nous inté resse plus spécialement pour l’instant. Elle

portait sur ce que l’ambassadeur Velásquez a qualifié de «sudden and dramatic change of direction

2
that was taken last week [i.e., during its first round of pleadings] by Nicaragua» . lis en entier ce

qu’il a dit à cet égard, car c’est ensuite devenu un leitmotiv pour les conseils du Honduras :

2
CR 2007/6, 12 mars 2007, p. 11, par. 7. - 29 -

«The Court will have noted that Nicaragua’s Application brought only a
maritime delimitation dispute to the Court. This led the Court to identify this case as

the case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the
Caribbean Sea. There was no reference to any dispute regarding sovereignty over
islands in the Application. On the contrary, Nicaragua chose not to address the islands

that lie most closely to Honduras’s coast , islands that have long been treated as being
subject to the sovereignty of Honduras. Now Nicaragua has come belatedly to
3
recognize the fact that the islands are a central part of the geography.»

3. And the distinguished Agent of Honduras added: «Sovereignty over the islands has a

decisive impact on the maritime delimitation. The fact that Nicaragua had nothing to say about the

islands in its Application speaks loudly about the me rits of the new claim it has chosen to make, at

4
this unprecedentedly late stage.»

4. Et, en conseils disciplinés qu’ils sont, nos collègues de l’autre côté de la barre de

renchérir, non sans dramatiser :

⎯ le professeur Greenwood : «Then, Madam President , we had the extraordinary spectacle of the

claimant telling the Court on the first day of the oral hearings that it wanted to turn the case

about a maritime boundary, which it had chosen to put to the Court, into a case about title to

5
land as well.» ;

⎯ Professor Sands: «since last Monday, things have changed; Nicaragua has changed its

position. It has now put the issue of sovereignt y over the islands squarely before the Court for

the first time, and apparently it intends to change its submissions to that end.» 6;

⎯ et pour sa part, le professeur Dupuy a insisté sur la prétendue «exhumation tardive de [l’intérêt

7
du Nicaragua] pour les cayes» et est allé jusqu’à prétendre «que la Cour, comme le défendeur,

peuvent s’estimer aujourd’hui trompés sur la na ture véritable et le contenu réel de cette

8
affaire» .

5. Je crois sincèrement, Madame le président, que les indications données au début de nos

plaidoiries du premier tour par l’agent du Nicaragua 9, ne méritaient pas un tel tir nourri ⎯ qui se

3Ibid.

4Ibid., par. 8.
5
Ibid., p. 15, par. 6 ; voir aussi p. 17, par. 14 ; CR 2007/6, p. 47, par. 14 (Sánchez).
6
CR 2007/7, p. 19-20, par. 2 ; voir aussi : p. 21, par. 6 ; p. 22, par. 8 ; p. 24, par. 11 ; p. 45-46, par. 58-59 (Sands)
ou CR 2007/8, p. 11, par. 4 (Jiménez Piernas).
7CR 2007/8, p. 37, par. 7.

8Ibid., p. 37-38, par. 8.

9CR 2007/1, p. 46, par. 103. - 30 -

révèle, en réalité être un pétard mouillé ! Et je me permets de rappeler à nos amis de l’autre côté de

la barre que, pour déterminer «le but et … l’objet véritable de la demande», la Cour

«ne saurait… s’en tenir au sens ordinair e des termes utilisés; elle doit considérer

l’ensemble de la requête, les arguments déve loppés devant la Cour par le demandeur,
les échanges diplomatiques qui ont été portés à son attention et les déclarations
publiques faites au nom du gouvernement demandeur.» ( Essais nucléaires (Australie
c. France), C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 263, par. 30 ; (Nouvelle-Zélande c. France), p. 467,

par. 31 ; Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Espagne c. Canada), compétence de la
Cour, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 448-449, par. 30-33.)

6. Il est exact que le Nicaragua n’a pas form ellement demandé, dans les conclusions de son

mémoire et de sa réplique, que les îlots, cayes (grâce au professeur Quéneudec ⎯ professeur de

géographie, dit-on ⎯ je sais maintenant que l’on doit prononcer «cailles») ⎯ les cayes donc, bancs

et autres formations marines se trouvant au s ud de la ligne bissectrice qui devrait séparer les

espaces marins relevant respectivement des deuxpays ⎯contrairement à ce que le Nicaragua se

propose de faire dans les conclusions définitiv es qu’il déposera demain. Mais il n’y a rien

d’extraordinaire à ceci :

1) cette conséquence découle des conclusions des écritures du Nicaragua ;

2) ce n’est que suite à l’insistan ce de la Partie hondurienne sur «les îles» que le Nicaragua a jugé

utile ⎯pas indispensable, simplement utile, Madame le président ⎯ et plus clair, de préciser

expressément ce qui n’était auparavant qu’implicite ; mais,

3) il n’en résultera nulle modification de la nature même de l’affaire et le Honduras ne le prétend

d’ailleurs pas.

Voyons ceci un peu plus en détail.

7. Le Honduras part d’un postulat qu’une lecture objective des écritures du Nicaragua

dément: même si la souveraineté sur les forma tions marines se trouvant au sud de la frontière

maritime entre les deuxpays n’a pas fait l’objet de conclusions formelles (Submissions), le

Nicaragua a constamment indiqué, dans ses écritures, qu’il devait en aller ainsi. Selon le

professeur Greenwood, par exemple, le mémoire aurait été «largement» silencieux sur le sujet

(«[T]he Memorial was … largely silent on this subject.») 10 Je ne sais pas ce que mon contradicteur

et ami entend par «largement»; mais ce que je sais c’est qu’à la page144 de son mémoire, le

10
CR 2007/6, p. 15, par. 5. - 31 -

Nicaragua souligne sans la moindre ambiguïté, que «all islets and rocks under the sovereignty of

Nicaragua are situated to the south of the [b isector line] and those under the sovereignty of

11
Honduras to the north of the line» ; et que, à la page 166, celle qui précède immédiatement les

conclusions, le Nicaragua ⎯ dont le souci premier est d’obtenir une délimitation sûre et définitive,

énumère, de façon non limitative, les îlots et rochers qu’il revendique comme siens et réserve

expressément ses droits à leur égard ⎯ droits préservés par la ligne bissectrice qui, selon lui, doit

former la frontière maritime entre les deuxpays, si bien qu’il n’y avait aucune raison d’aller plus

loin à ce stade. En tout cas, le professeur Jiménez Piernas ne s’y est pas trompé, puisque, mercredi

dernier, il a dénoncé ⎯avec une véhémence peut-être excessive ⎯ «l’escalade des prétentions

erratiques et invraisemblables du Nicaragua c ontre le Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes, avec la

présentation de son mémoire à la Cour réclamant sa souveraineté, pour la première fois, sur toutes

les îles au nord du 15 eparallèle…» . 12

8. Il est du reste à la fois révélateur et assez extraordinaire que, dans son contre-mémoire, le

Honduras, ait accusé le Nicaragua (si c’est une accusation ?) d’avoir essayé «surreptitiously … to

transform a delimitation case into a litigation on the attribution of s overeignty over insular

13
territories» . Voilà, Madame le président, qui ne cadre guère avec la soi-disant «volte-face», le

«sudden and dramatic change of direction» qu’aurait, selon l’agent et les avocats du Honduras, subi

la thèse du Nicaragua à la faveur des plaidoiries orales: puisque celui-ci avait déjà

«subrepticement» modifié la nature de l’affaire d ès son mémoire, cette soi-disant nouvelle position

nicaraguayenne n’a pas dû surprendre nos amis hondur iens autant qu’ils le prétendent avec une

ingénuité douteuse, que l’on a du mal à prendre très au sérieux.

9. Du reste, le moins que l’on puisse dire, c’est que le Honduras ne s’est pas laissé abuser par

le caractère prétendument «subreptice» de cette soi- disant réorientation de l’affaire : il ne consacre

pas moins de quarante-sept pages de son contre-mém oire à tenter d’établir sa souveraineté sur les

e 14
îles et les eaux environnant le «15 parallèle» (cette cinquantaine de pa ges s’ajoutant d’ailleurs à

11
MN, p. 144, par. 42.
12
CR 2007/8, p. 11, par. 5 ; les italiques sont de nous.
13CMH, p. 68, par. 4.32 ; voir aussi CR 2007/8, p. 37, par. 6 (Dupuy).

14CMH, chap. 6, p. 87-132. - 32 -

de nombreuses autres mentions éparses portant sur le statut juridique des îles en question); et le

Honduras conclut à ce que la Cour donne dûment e ffet aux îles relevant de sa souveraineté ⎯ ce

qui implique évidemment que la haute juridiction se prononce sur la souveraineté en question.

10. En réponse aux longs développements du contre-mémoire hondurie n, le Nicaragua a

abordé successivement la question de la pertinen ce des effectivités en matière de délimitation

15
maritime, qui fait l’objet du chapitreV de sa réplique , et celle du titre sur les îlots et rochers,

16
traitée dans le chapitre VI , dans lequel le Nicaragua revendique clairement la souveraineté sur les

îles en litige en précisant que le contre-mémoire ne lui laisse «no other choice but to deal with the

17
issue of sovereignty over the islets in much more detail in this Reply» . Et le Honduras aurait été

surpris, il y a quinze jours, de la position prise par le Nicaragua lors des plaidoiries orales ⎯ alors

qu’elle reflétait strictement celle déjà prise dans les écritures ? Alors que c’est lui, Honduras, qui a

voulu réduire l’affaire à cette question en se dérobant à toute discussion sérieuse sur la délimitation

maritime proprement dite ? Allons donc !

11. D’ailleurs, la duplique hond urienne est plus révélatrice encore. Le Honduras y décerne

18
un satisfecit au Nicaragua : «Nicaragua now … recogni zes the central importance of the islands»

et il affirme dans des termes étrangement semblables à ceux utilisés la semaine dernière et dont j’ai

cité des extraits tout à l’heure : «In its Reply, Nicaragua now advances an entirely different line of

argument…» 19. Je puis accepter, Madame le président, que l’on fasse une fois «le coup» de

l’ébahissement ⎯mais deuxstupéfactions feintes successivement, c’est tout de même beaucoup!

Quoi qu’il en soit, bien que toute allu sion aux îles eût disparu des conclusions (Submissions) de la

duplique, cette fois, la question de la souveraineté du Honduras sur les îles occupe près de la moitié

20
du texte . Et ce pays voudrait que la Partie nicaraguayenne ne s’y intéressât point, Madame le

président ? C’est, de la part des conseils du H onduras, faire peu de cas de leurs propres écritures

ou d’un certain masochisme ! Cela revient à dire : «Nous avons écrit des pages et des pages sur la

15RN, p. 71-89.
16
RN, p. 91-139.
17
RN, p. 93, par. 6.5.
18DH, p. 15, par. 2.11.

19Ibid., par. 2.12.

20DH, voir notamment p. 41-50, 53-77, 79-106 ou 119-122. - 33 -

souveraineté sur les îles; mais surtout n’en tenez pas compte, ceci est sans rapport avec la

délimitation maritime, seul objet de la requête nicaraguayenne…»

12. Au demeurant, cette posture, curieuse, reflète assez bien la position du Honduras sur le

fond: celui-ci donne en effet l’impression d’être passablement embarrassé par sa propre

démonstration ⎯dont il ne se décide pas à tirer les con séquences. En substance, Madame le

président, le problème se pose ainsi :

⎯ la Partie hondurienne consacre une énergie énor me à tenter d’établir sa souveraineté sur

l’ensemble des petits îlots et cayes se trouvant au nord de ce qu’elle persiste à appeler «le

e
15 parallèle» ;

⎯ mais ensuite (et je ne me prononce pas, pour l’instant, sur le caract ère probant de cette

démonstration ⎯ ce sera fait par Alex Oude Elferink), le Honduras se garde bien d’en tirer les

conséquences qui, en bonne logique, devraient s’imposer.

13. Prenons les trois questions qu’a posées le professeur Dupuy durant sa plaidoirie du

21
14 mars :

⎯ Première question : Les formations marines revendiquées par le Honduras sont-elles des îles au

sens de l’article 121 de la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer? Réponse de

notre contradicteur: «Oui» 2. Nous sommes d’accord (au moins pour certaines d’entre elles

⎯comme vient de le dire l’ambassadeur Argüello en réponse à la question posée par

M.lejugeGaja, ce n’est pas le cas, par ex emple, pour des «cayes» (qui n’en sont pas à

strictement parler) Logwood et Media Luna) ; il en va de même pour de nombreux rochers ou

hauts-fonds découvrants se trouvant dans la zone litigieuse.

[Projection 1 : Qatar c. Bahreïn (AP 2-1)]

⎯ Deuxième question : «Si oui, ces îles ont-elles droit à leur propres zones maritimes ?» Réponse

23
de M. Dupuy : «Oui» encore . La nôtre serait plutôt : «Oui, en principe.» Pour deux raisons :

d’une part, certaines de ces îles (sans doute toutes, à vrai dire) relèvent du paragraphe3 de

l’article 121 ; elles «ne se prêtent pas à l’ha bitation humaine ou à une vie économique propre

21
CR 2007/8, p. 42, par. 20.
22
Cf. ibid., p. 43, par. 22.
23Cf. ibid., p. 43, par. 24. - 34 -

[et] n’ont [donc] pas de zone économique exclus ive ni de plateau continental»; d’autre part,

24
ces formations, fort bien décrites par notre contradicteur comme des «îles confettis» , sont si

minuscules, si instables, si insignifiantes, si inhospitalières que, dans les circonstances de

l’espèce, il n’est pas envisageable de leur donne r, concrètement, un effet quelconque sur la

délimitation ⎯exactement d’ailleurs de la même f açon que la Cour a reconnu, dans Qatar

c. Bahreïn, que Qit’at Jaradah (que l’on peut voir su r la carte projetée à l’écran) était «une île

[se trouvant sous la souveraineté de Bahreïn]» (Délimitation maritime et questions territoriales

entre Qatar et Bahreïn (Qatar c. Bahreïn), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil2001 , p. 100, par. 197) «qui

doit comme telle être prise en considération aux fins du tracé de la ligne d’équidistance» (Ibid.,

p.99, par.195), mais, aussitôt après, la Cour lui dénie tout effet sur la délimitation maritime

entre les Parties ( Ibid., p.104 et 109, par.219-220). Il doit en aller de même de nos cayes.

M.Oude Elferink y reviendra. En tout cas, ceci dispense de s’interroger plus avant sur la

question de savoir s’il s’agit d’îles du paragraphe 2 ou du paragraphe 3 de l’article121 de la

convention de Montego Bay.

⎯ Et, du même coup, ceci répond à la troisième ques tion posée par notre contradicteur, celle qui

est relative à l’incidence des îles dont le Honduras fait un si grand cas, sur la délimitation : elles

n’en ont aucune.

[Fin de la projection 1; projection 2: Ab sence d’effet des cayes sur la ligne hondurienne

(AP 2-2)]

14. Il est d’ailleurs intéressant que, pour sa part, M. Dupuy se garde bien de répondre à sa

propre question ; ou plutôt, il nous assure que les îles sont pertinentes aux fins de la délimitation à

laquelle le Nicaragua a prié la Cour de bien vouloir procéder 25 ⎯ mais il se garde bien de préciser

dans quelle mesure, et comment cette pertinence se traduirait concrètement. Et je le comprends,

Madame le président, car, en réalité, après s’être donné toutes les peines du monde pour affirmer sa

souveraineté sur ces îlots, le Honduras ne leur donne pas non plus le moindre effet sur le tracé de la

ligne qu’il propose : celui-ci suit le parallèle 14° 59' 48", un point c’est tout. Comme le montre le

o
croquis n 2 projeté mercredi dernier par M.Dupuy puis par M.Colson vendredi, et qui est à

24
Ibid., p. 48, par. 38.
25CR 2007/8, p. 44, par. 26. - 35 -

l’origine de celui que vous pouvez voir en ce moment, cette ligne ne doit rien aux cayes : c’est une

ligne droite, artificielle, qui n’accorde ⎯ à juste titre, du reste ⎯ aucun effet aux îlots en question.

26
Dès lors, au risque de peiner nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre , nous maintenons que, sur ce

point au moins, les deux Parties sont d’accord : «the islands and islets in the area have no [effects/]

consequences on the delimitation» 27.

[Fin de la projection 2]

15. On en revient donc à l’essentiel, Madame le président: comme ceci a été dit

excellemment et sobrement par le professeur Quéneudec au début de sa présentation de mercredi

dernier : «[L]’objet de la présente instance» est «une affaire de délimitation maritime où, ce qui est

en cause, c’est le tracé d’une ligne unique de délimitation» 28. Le fait que l’une des Parties ait

annoncé son intention de demander que la Cour co nstate que les formations marines se trouvant

d’un certain côté de cette ligne relèvent de sa souveraineté, ne change certainement pas la nature de

l’affaire. Du reste, comme je l’ai déjà relevé, la Partie hondurienne se garde bien de le prétendre et

de soulever l’irrecevabilité de cette conclusion annoncée 29: il est vrai qu’en procédant ainsi, elle se

tirerait une balle dans le pied ; c’est le Honduras, pas le Nicaragua, qui s’efforce de mettre les îlots

au centre de notre affaire.

16. Est-ce à dire que ceux-ci n’y ont aucune place ? Certainement pas : pour minuscules et

inhospitaliers qu’ils soient, ce sont des îles susceptibles d’appropriation (je précise d’ailleurs que le

fait de les qualifier d’îlots ne change rien à le ur nature juridique, nous en sommes d’accord, mais

ceci a le mérite de mettre en évidence leur extr ême petitesse). S’ils ne peuvent, raisonnablement,

produire aucun effet sur le tracé de la frontière maritime entre les deux Etats, à l’inverse, la

délimitation que la Cour retiendr a ne saurait déplacer le titre territorial dont l’un ou l’autre des

deux Etats en litige pourrait se prévaloir à leur égar d (sans qu’ils doivent d’ailleurs nécessairement

suivre tous le même sort). Encore faut-il, pour l’établir, déterminer quel est le droit applicable au

26
Cf. DH, p. 5, par. 1.13, ou p. 15, par. 2.13 ; CR 2007/8, p. 37, par. 7 (Dupuy).
27
RN, p. 10, par. 1.17 et 1.19.
28 CR 2007/8, p. 15, par. 2.

29 Voir plus haut, par. 6. - 36 -

présent litige et en faire une application correct e. Ce sera mon deuxième point, Madame le

président.

II. Le droit applicable

17. Dès lors que le différend soumis à la Cour concerne une affaire de délimitation maritime,

il va de soi que les règles applicables pour son rè glement sont, prioritairement, celles qui figurent

dans la convention de 1982 (à la quelle, je le rappelle, les deux Etats sont parties), et plus

précisément celle qui figure dans ses articles 15, pour ce qui est de la délimitation de la mer

territoriale, et 74 et 83 en ce qui concerne resp ectivement la zone économ ique exclusive et le

plateau continental. Certes, nous disent nos c ontradicteurs, qui reconnaissent tout de même

30
l’applicabilité du droit de la mer, du bout des lèvres souvent , avec un peu plus d’allant s’agissant

de mon ami Pierre-Marie Dupuy, qui s’aventure à proclamer (à juste titre d’ailleurs) que

«le Nicaragua n’a pas désavoué l’affi rmation faite par le Honduras dès son

contre-mémoire lorsqu’il avait affirmé que «l e droit applicable dans cette affaire est
constitué par le droit international général de la mer tel qu’exprimé par la pratique des

Etats, les articles pertinents de la convention de1982 sur le droit de la mer et la
jurisprudence internationale, dont en premier lieu celle de la Cour internationale de
Justice»» 31.

Mais… «la terre domine la mer» ⎯ et voilà lâchée la seconde formule magique dont se délectent

les professeurs Greenwood 32, Sánchez , Sands ou Dupuy . 35

18. Je ne reviens pas, Madame le président, sur l’ incongruité qu’il y a, de la part de nos amis

de l’autre côté de la barre, à nous reproche r d’avoir répondu à leurs arguments concernant,

précisément, les questions de souveraineté sur le s îlots, alors même que toute leur stratégie

judiciaire est fondée sur leurs revendications territoriales à l’égard de ces mêmes îlots. Il n’y a pas

de mystère : nous sommes partis de l’idée ⎯ qui nous paraît toujours difficilement contestable ⎯

selon laquelle ces cayes et autres formations marines relèvent ⎯et ont toujours relevé ⎯ de la

30 Cf. CR 2007/6, p.12, par.14 (Velázquez) ou CR 2007/9, p. 39, par.2 (Colson). Voir aussi CMH, p.59-61,
par. 4.5-4.9 ; RH, p. 11, par. 2.1.
31
CR 2007/8, p. 39, par. 12.
32
CR 2007/6, p. 15, par. 8 ; voir aussi p. 17, par. 12 et 14.
33 Ibid., p. 58, par. 41 ou p. 60, par. 45.

34 CR 2007/7, p. 20, par. 5.

35 CR 2007/8, p. 38, par. 10 et p. 51, par. 52. - 37 -

souveraineté du Nicaragua ; MM. Oude Elferink et Re miro Brotóns y reviendront tout à l’heure et

demain. Dès lors, que le Honduras le conteste, il était normal et nécessaire que nous répondions à

ses prétentions en nous plaçant sur son terrain, celui du «droit de la terre» et, plus précisément, du

droit applicable à l’acquisition de la souveraineté territoriale.

19. Mais une remarque prélim inaire, Madame le président, avant de m’interroger sur la

consistance de ce droit et de ses effets dans notre affaire : il faut relever que les revendications du

Honduras sur les cayes situées au sud de la ligne bi ssectrice sont, quoi qu’il en dise, extrêmement

récentes. Pour ne prendre que deux exemples ⎯ mais ils sont assez frappants :

⎯ il n’en a pas fait état lorsqu’il a accepté le princi pe de négociations en vue de la fixation de la

frontière maritime entre les deux Etats en 1977 36 ;

⎯ pas davantage qu’il n’a, à ma connaissance, pr otesté contre la conclusion de la convention

37
du12novembre1993 entre la Colombie et la Jamaïque qui, pourtant, le «prive» de la

souveraineté qu’il prétend revendi quer sur Serranilla et Rosalinda ⎯et ceci jusque dans sa

Constitution (depuis 1982 seulement ⎯ date suspecte, il est vrai); bien au contraire, il se

38
prévaut de ce traité de 1933 ⎯ bien à tort, pour contester les droits du Nicaragua ! Il est vrai

que par le traité qu’il a lui-même conclu av ec la Colombie en 1986, le Honduras a reconnu la

souveraineté de celle-ci sur Serranilla.

20. En s’abstenant d’affirmer sa souverain eté sur les îlots qu’il revendique aujourd’hui

devant la Cour en des circonstances dans lesquelle s, à l’évidence, il l’aurait dû, le Honduras fait,

39
pour le moins, planer un doute considérable sur le sérieux de ses revendications .

Madame le président, si vous souhaitez faire une pause, ce que je suppose, ceci est peut-être

le bon moment car ensuite je vais me lancer dans une longue démonstration.

36 o
Note n 1025 du 20 mai 1977, CMH, vol. 2, p. 69, annexe 20.
37CMH, vol. 2, annexe 11, p. 41.

38Voir CMH, p. 143, par. 7.37 ; CR 2007/7, 13 mars 2007, p. 56, par. 23 e) (Jiménez Piernas), CR 2007/8, p. 46,
par. 35 (Dupuy).

39Parmi une jurisprudence très abondante, voir notamment : Pêcheries norvégiennes, C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 139 ;
Sentence arbitrale rendue par le roi d’Espagne le 23 décembre 1906 , C.I.J. Recueil 1960, p. 213; Temple de Préah
Vihéar, C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 31; Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime , C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p.408-409,
par. 80; Différend territorial, C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p. 36, par. 68. Voir aussi SA, Conseil fédéral suisse, 24 mars 1922,

Validité de la sentence arbitral e de la régeote María Cristina , RSA I, p.223 ou RGDIP, 1922, p. 462; CPA,
23 octobre 1909, Grisbadarna Banks, AJIL, n 4, 1910, p.226-227 et 233-235 ou 4avril1928, Ile de Palmas , RSA II,
p. 839 ; SA, 28 décembre 1993, Rann de Kutch, RSA XVII ; 9 octobre 1998, Questions de souveraineté territoriale sur un
groupe d’îles dans la mer Rouge, première phase (souveraineté et délimitation maritime), Erythrée/Yémen, par. 307. - 38 -

The PRESIDENT: Then we will take this perfect time. Thank you. The Court rises briefly.

The Court adjourned from 4.25 to 4.40 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Professor Pellet.

M. PELLET : Thank you very much.

21. Madame le président, Messieurs les juges, la riche jurisprudence de votre Cour constitue

un florilège irremplaçable des règles applicable s en matière de preuve de la souveraineté

territoriale ⎯ à la fois en général et sur de très petits territoires. On peut y ajouter quelques grands

arbitrages, au premier rang desquels la célèbre sentence de MaxHuber dans l’affaire de l’ Ile des

40
Palmes . Il ne me paraît pas utile de vous infliger un cours de droit international sur ces règles :

vous les connaissez mieux que moi. Nous somme s largement suffisants d’en rappeler les bases

telles qu’elles ont été succinctement et clairement exposées par la Chambre de la Cour dans

l’affaire du Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, voir

notamment p.587, par.63) et constamment réa ffirmées depuis lors, à peu près sous la même

forme, souvent par simple renvoi. (Voir notamment, Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et

maritime (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua (intervenant)) , arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p.398,

par. 61 ; Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c.Nigéria;

Guinée équatoriale (intervenant)), arrêt , C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 353, par. 68, p. 354, par. 70 ou

p. 415, par. 223 ; Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Pu lau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie), arrêt ,

C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 678, par. 126 ; Différend frontalier (Bénin/Niger), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2005,

p. 120-121, par. 47 ou p. 127, par. 77. On peut les résumer ainsi :

⎯ lorsqu’un Etat peut se prévaloir d’un titre juridi que sur un territoire, celui-ci prévaut sur toute

autre prétention ;

⎯ dans ce cas, «il y a lieu de préférer le titulair e du titre» et les effectivités ne sont d’aucun

secours et ne peuvent déplacer le titre ; tout au plus peuvent-elles le confirmer ;

40
SA, 4 avril 1928, Ile de Palmas (Etats-Unis c. Pays-Bas), RSANU II, p. 842. - 39 -

⎯ ce n’est que «[d]ans l’éventua lité où l’«effectivité» ne coexis te avec aucun titre juridique

[qu’]elle doit inévitablement être prise en considération» ( Différend frontalier (Burkina

Faso/République du Mali), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 586-587, par. 63).

22. On pourrait penser, Madame le président, que, dans notre affaire, le Honduras se prévaut

d’un titre juridique qu’il aimerait trouver dans le principe uti possidetis juris. Mais il est tellement

peu confiant dans ce fondement improbable, qu’après avoir consacré de longs développements à la

question de l’uti possidetis maritime, tout à fait fascinante intellectuellement en effet ⎯ mais peu

concluante en l’espèce, il abandonne cette impasse pour se caler sur la jurisprudence relative à

l’occupation de territoires sur les quels aucun titre territorial clair n’est établi: et d’abord sur les

affaires relatives au Groënland oriental et à Ligitan et Sipadan 41, qui concernent des «prétention[s]

de souveraineté fondée[s], non pas sur quelque acte ou titre en particulier , tel qu’un traité de

cession, mais simplement sur un exercice continu d’autorité» ( Statut juridique du Groënland

o
oriental, arrêt, 1933, C.P.J.I. Recueil série A/B, n 53, p. 45 ; Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et

Pulau Sipadan, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 682, par. 134 ; les italiques sont de nous).

23. On ne saurait faire aveu plus franc de l’in existence de tout titre originaire sérieux… Et,

ici encore, on comprend l’embarras de nos contra dicteurs: comment pourrait-on prétendre à la

continuation d’une «possession» coloniale espagnol e sur des espaces marins comme le plateau

continental ou la zone économique exclusiv e, dont nul ne pouvait évidemment envisager

l’existence en1821? Comment le Honduras aura it-il pu succéder à la capitainerie générale du

Guatemala ou à l’intendance de Comayagua qui n’avaient aucune compétence en matière maritime,

celle-ci étant centralisée aux mains de la Couronne d’Espagne et de l’ Apostadero de Cuba, en

contraste avec ce qui se passait pour le territoire terrestre ? S’il pouvait y avoir un uti possidetis sur

le continent, c’est parce que celui-ci était divisé en circonscriptions territoriales délimitées de

manière raisonnablement précise (et pas toujours, loin de là, en suivant des parallèles ou des

méridiens). Mais, sur la mer, rien de tel : point de circonscriptions maritimes ; point de vice-rois ;

une gestion centralisée à l’extrême considérant l es mers «espagnoles» comme un tout, comme l’a

41CR 2007/6, p.29, par. 57 (Greenwood) ou CR 2007/7, p. 21-22, par.7 ou p.32, note25 (Sands - qui

affectionne de rajouter dans des notes de bas de page des éléments qui auraient dû figurer au texte). - 40 -

42
montré AntonioRemiroBrotóns lors du premier tour de plaidoiries ⎯et il y reviendra

brièvement demain quoique nos contradicteurs supposés ne l’aient, à vrai dire, pas vraiment

contredit sur ce point.

24. Point de titre territorial hondurien sur les îlots fondé sur l’ uti possidetis donc. Et le

Honduras en est bien conscient qui passe directement à l’autre fondement possible de la

souveraineté territoriale ⎯ possible en l’absence de titre seulement : les effectivités. Mais c’est

faire preuve de beaucoup de précipitation : faute de titre hondurien, il n’est pas malséant, Madame

le président, de s’interroger sur le titre que peut fa ire valoir le Nicaragua sur les îlots en question

puisque, les Parties en sont d’accord 43, pour négligées, mal connues et, parfois, intermittentes,

qu’aient été les îles en question, elles ne sont pas terrae nullius.

[Projection 3 : L’adjacence des îles (AP 2-3)]

25. Le titre dont se prévaut le Nicaragua n’est autre que le titre alternatif que le Honduras

44 45
n’hésite pas à revendiquer également : celui de l’adjacence . M. Colson invoque à cet égard les

traités conclus par l’Espagne, respectivem ent avec le Nicaragua le 25juillet1850 46 et avec le

Honduras le 15mars1866 4; aux termes des articles premiers de ces deuxtraités, la reine

d’Espagne renonce à toute prétention sur les an ciennes provinces du Nicaragua et du Honduras

«avec [leurs] îles adjacentes». Mais, Madame le président, ceci conforte la position du Nicaragua,

et nullement celle du Honduras !

26. L’adjacence n’est pas une notion susceptible de manipulation : ce qui est adjacent, c’est

ce qui est près ⎯ et lorsque plusieurs choses, ou îles, ou côtes sont plus ou moins proches les unes

des autres, ce qui est le plus près. Or, l’adjacence parle en faveur du Nicaragua, pas du Honduras

⎯ quoique celui-ci s’efforce de laisser croire.

42 CR 2007/3, p. 18 à 25, par. 11 à 41 (Remiro Brótons).

43 Voir par exemple: CMH, p. 82, par. 5.27 et 5.88, p. 82; DH, p. 51, par. 3.61; CR, 2007/3, p.36, par.86
(RemiroBrótons); CR 2007/6, p.26, par. 46 et p. 28, par. 51 (Greenwood); CR 2007/6, p. 46, par.12; p.54, par.32;
p.58, par. 41, p. 59 (Sánchez); CR 2007/7, p. 21, par. 6 (Sands); p. 50, par. 10 (Jiménez Piernas) ; CR 2007/8, p. 45,
par. 31 (Dupuy), CR 2007/9, p. 42, par. 16 (Colson).

44 Voir RN, p. 127-128, par. 6.90-6.92 et p. 138-139, par. 6.118 a) et b).

45 CR 2007/10, p. 14, par. 38 (Colson); voir aussi p. 30, par. 148 ou CR 2007/6, p.26-27, par. 47 ou p.28,
par.52-53 (Sands); CR 2007/7, p. 10, par.52 ou p.17-18, par. 73 (Sánchez); p. 49, par.10 (JiménezPiernas);
CR 2007/9, p. 42, par. 16 (Colson).

46 RN, annexe 11.
47
CMH, vol. 2, annexe 8. - 41 -

27. On retrouve ici la tendance de la Partie hondurienne à convertir (de force !) la proximité

en un faisceau de parallèles et de méridiens en fai sant faire «le signe de la croix» pour reprendre la

48
jolie expression de Pierre-Marie Dupuy , à toutes les limites territoriales et maritimes de la région.

Mais ces lignes géodésiques sont de pures conventi ons à usage géographique ou cartographique et

sans connotation juridique particulière en l’absen ce d’instrument le prévoyant expressément.

[Rotation de l’image selon un angle de 37°] Il su ffit de faire subir une rotation de 37°à l’image

que vous voyez à l’écran pour faire apparaître le caractère totalement artificiel du quadrillage

auquel nous soumettons notre planète ⎯ la ligne horizontale que vous voyez maintenant à l’écran,

n’est autre que la bissectrice ; l’autre ligne, celle qui a un air penché, c’est la ligne hondurienne.

28. Il résulte tant du simple bon sens que de la jurisprudence (et je pense en particulier à

l’arrêt de la Chambre de 1992 dans l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime

(El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1992 , p. 579, par. 367-368

49
ou encore la sentence rendue dans la première phase de l’affaire Erythrée/Yémen ) et, surtout, des

traités par lesquels l’Espagne reconnaissait l’i ndépendance des Etats parties au présent différend,

que la souveraineté sur les îlots adjacents à ses cô tes appartient au Nicaragua en vertu d’un titre

traditionnel. Il faudrait, pour le déplacer, un acco rd exprès des Parties. Un tel document n’existe

pas et les quelques effectivités dont se prévaut le Honduras sont, moins encore, à même d’effectuer

une translation —et je dis «quelques effectivité s», Madame le président, car, malgré les talents

d’illusionniste du professeur Sands (qui, je le dis en passant à titre de droit de réponse, me prête un

50
goût pervers pour les vampires, avinés de surcroît , que je n’ai nullement!), ces effectivités sont

peu nombreuses et incertaines et, surtout, doivent être mises en parallèle avec celles que peut

aligner le Nicaragua. Ceci étant, je le répète, ce concours d’effectivités n’a pas grand sens dès lors

que l’un des Etats en cause peut se prévaloir d’un titre (l’adjacence), et l’autre, le Honduras, pas.

[Fin de la projection 3]

29. Au demeurant, comme l’a dit l’agent du Nicaragua il y a quelques instants, ceci ne nous

conduit pas à esquiver la question qu’a posée M.le juge Keith à l’issue de l’audience de

48
CR 2007/8, p. 45, par. 29 (Dupuy).
49
Sentence arbitrale, 9 octobre 1998, ILR, vol. 114, par. 474.
50CR 2007/7, p. 25, par. 12. - 42 -

51
mercredi dernier et que l’agent du Honduras a relu tout à l’heure ce qui me dispense de le refaire .

Il s’agit, avec tout le respect dû au juge Keith, d’une question hautement hypothétique, bien sûr

⎯ ce que son libellé au conditionnel établit d’ailleurs très clairement.

30. L’hypothèse est donc que le Honduras sera it souverain sur certaines îles situées au nord

e
du 15 parallèle. Nous n’avons d’ailleurs aucun doute sur le fait qu’il l’est ⎯ mais uniquement sur

celles qui se trouvent également au nord de la biss ectrice, au nord du MainCapeChannel. Mais

admettons qu’il le soit aussi sur les quelques îlots sur lesquels le professeurSands a, lors de sa

première plaidoirie de la semaine dernière, fa it porter l’essentiel de ses efforts pour tenter de

persuader la Cour: les cayes Bobel, Savanna, et Sud (South Cay) dont le Honduras a montré à

plusieurs reprises des images 52(à l’exclusion de tout autre). Il résulte de ce que j’ai dit que la ligne

de délimitation maritime entre les deux Etats devrait répondre aux exigences suivantes :

⎯ partir de l’extrémité du thalweg du Coco à l’embouchure du fleuve ;

⎯ remplir les conditions imposées par les articles 15, 74 et 83 de la convention sur le droit de la

mer — c’est-à-dire, dans son premier tronçon se rapp rocher autant que faire se peut de la ligne

d’équidistance tout en tenant compte des ci rconstances spéciales pouvant exister (en l’espèce

l’alluvionnement rapide du fleuve et la limita tion à pratiquement deux des points sur lesquels

on peut prendre appui pour construire la ligne) ; dans le second secteur, «aboutir à une solution

équitable» —ce que la bissectrice permet de réaliser mieux que toute autre solution

(M eBrownlie y insistera à nouveau demain) ; et puis, troisième exigence, la ligne devrait, dans

l’hypothèse retenue par le juge Keith, [Proj ection 4: L’enclavement des cayes revendiquées

par le Honduras (AP2-4)], laisser les cayes (sur lesquelles sa souveraineté est

hypothétiquement établie) à ce pays ⎯ étant entendu cependant que, vu leurs caractéristiques,

ces cayes ne sont susceptibles de produire aucun effet sur la ligne autre que celui induit par leur

seule existence ⎯ et c’est déjà beaucoup, vu ce qu’ils représentent. Sur le croquis qui est

projeté en ce moment et que vous avez déjà vu, Madame et Messieurs les juges, lors de la

51CR 2007/10, p. 37.

52Voir les cartes PS 1.11, P.S. 111-1, PS 1.11-2 et PS 1.11-3, dansle dossier des juges du Honduras du
13 mars 2007. - 43 -

présentation de l’ambassadeur Argüello, elles sont dotées d’une mer territoriale de 3 milles

marins.

31. Il en résulterait une enclave, au profit du Honduras, dans la zone maritime sur laquelle le

Nicaragua a des droits souverains. Et ceci n’aura it rien d’une solution extravagante. Est-il besoin

de rappeler que dans l’affaire de la Délimitation du plateau continental de la mer d’Iroise, entre la

France et la Grande-Bretagne, le tribunal arbitral a refusé d’ attribuer aux îles Anglo-Normandes

(peuplées de plus de cent trente mille habitants de façon permanente — un petit peu plus que Bobel

assurément, qui n’a aucune population stable) le pl ein effet demandé par la Grande-Bretagne, et a

décidé de les enclaver dans le plateau continental français 53. De même, le traité du

18décembre1978 entre l’Australie et la Pa pouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée reconnaît l’existence de

petites enclaves australiennes, dotées d’une mer territoriale de 3 milles marins, près des côtes de la
54
Papouasie .

32. J’ajoute que, bien entendu, la solution à retenir est susceptible de plus ou de moins, selon

que la Cour serait convaincue que le Honduras a établi l’existence d’un titre sur quelques-unes des

cayes en question, ou sur une seule, ou sur d’autres, le problème étant qu’en tout état de cause,

comme l’a souligné l’agent du Nicaragua tout à l’heure, personne n’est en mesure d’indiquer

55
précisément le nombre des îlots en question, et que le Honduras lui-même s’en est bien gardé .

[Projection 5 : Ligne proposée par le Nicaragua (AP2-5)]

33. Ceci étant, Madame le président, nous avons présenté cette ligne par déférence pour

M.le juge Keith. Mais le Nicar agua maintient intégralement ses prétentions: la souveraineté sur

les îlots situés au nord du parallèle 14°59'48" nord et au sud du «Main Cape Channel» lui

appartient et une application convenable des rè gles applicables à une af faire de délimitation

maritime devrait conduire la Cour à retenir la ligne bissectrice proposée par le Nicaragua, seule

susceptible en l’espèce d’aboutir à un résultat équitable pour chacune des Parties.

[Fin de la projection 5]

53
Sentence arbitrale du 30 juin 1977, RSANU XVIII, p. 226-227, par. 189-192 et p. 229, par. 193.
54
ILM 1979, p. 291.
55Voir sentence arbitrale, 9 octobre 1998, Questions de souveraineté territoriale sur un groupe d’îles dans la mer
Rouge, première phase (souveraineté et délimitation maritime), Erythrée/Yémen, par. 241. - 44 -

34. Madame le président, avant d’en terminer pour aujourd’hui, je souhaiterais, avec votre

permission, dire quelques mots de la question de la date critique sur laquelle les Parties sont en

profond désaccord et qui a des conséquences, pe ut-être pas décisives, mais certainement non

négligeables, au moins sur l’argumentation respective du Nicaragua et du Honduras.

III. La date critique

35. Madame le président, la question de «la date critique» est souvent l’objet de joutes

délicieuses entre les juristes des deux Parties lors de l’examen par la Cour de litiges territoriaux.

La présente affaire ne manque pas à la tradition. Les deux Etats en présence ont recours à la notion

de date critique et semblent être à peu près d’accord sur sa fonction essentielle qui est de

⎯ neutraliser les actes postérieurs à sa survenance ;

56
⎯ sauf si ceux-ci sont la pure continuation d’une pratique antérieure .

Les Parties s’opposent en revanche, je le crains, sur la notion même de date critique.

36. Nos amis honduriens en ont une conception un peu floue. Ils l’invoquent à des fins très

variées et multiples. Ainsi: «To the extent that the issue of title turns on the application of uti

57
possidetis, the critical date is 1821» selon le professeurGreenwood , qui invoque l’arrêt de la

Chambre constituée dans l’affaire du Différend terrestre frontalier, insulaire et maritime , mais en

oubliant de relever que le passage auquel il se réfè re précise que «dans le cas des précédents

arbitrages latino-américains relatifs à des frontières, c’est maintenant la sentence arbitrale qui est

déterminante» ( Différend frontalier terrestre, insulai re et maritime (ElSalvador/Honduras;

Nicaragua (intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p.401, par.67) ⎯pour nous, donc, 1906 ⎯

ou, peut-être plus exactement : 1906, à la lumière de 1960, date de votre arrêt dans l’affaire relative

à la Sentence du roi d’Espagne . Pour leur part, bien que M. Gr eenwood ait limité l’effet de cette

date critique à la souveraineté sur les îles 58, les professeurs Sánchez et JiménezPiernas la

transforment en date à tout faire ; à les en croi re, tout est joué en 1821, qu’il s’agisse du territoire

59
terrestre des parties, des îles ou de la mer .

56Voir par exemple CR 2007/3, p. 38-39, par. 4-5 (Elferink) ou CR 2007/6, p. 26, par. 42 (Greenwood).
57
CR 2007/6, p. 25, par. 43.
58CR 2007/6, p. 25, par. 43.

59Voir notamment CR 2007/6, p. 57, [par. 16] ; p. 57, par. 38 (Sánchez) ; 2007/7, p. 47, par. 4 (Jiménez Piernas) - 45 -

37. A vrai dire, 1821, 1906 et 1960 sont des dates importantes dans le déroulement du litige

territorial entre les deux Etats mais, d’une part, il s’agissait (au moins dans les deux derniers cas)

exclusivement du différend relatif aux frontières terre stres et, d’autre part, avec tout le respect dû à

l’arrêt de la Chambre de la Cour de 1992, il ne s’agit pas à propremen t parler de «dates critiques»

au sens strict (et simple) qu’il convient sans dout e de réserver à l’expression dans une procédure

judiciaire ; comme l’a dit la Cour dans l’affaire de Ligitan et Sipadan, dans un passage du reste cité

60
par le professeur Greenwood la semaine dernière , il s’agit de «la date à laquelle le différend entre

les Parties s’est cristallisé» (Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Pulau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie),

arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 678, par. 135).

38. Dans ce sens technique, il est assez facile de déterminer la date critique dans la présente

instance: c’est celle à laquelle les deux Parties se sont entendues sur la né cessité de régler leurs

divergences sur le tracé de leur frontière mariti me; et cette date, n’en déplaise à la Partie

hondurienne, remonte au mois de mai 1977.

39. Je rappelle les faits: par une note du 11 mai 1977, l’ambassadeur du Nicaragua à

Tegucigalpa informe «l’honorable Gouvernemen t du Honduras que [son] gouvernement propose

d’engager des pourparlers en vue de la délimitati on définitive de la zone marine et sous-marine

61
dans l’océan Atlantique et la mer des Caraïbes» ; dès le 20 mai, le ministre hondurien des affaires

étrangères répond que son «gouvernement accepte avec plaisir l’ouverture de négociations» 62.

40. Qu’ont dit les avocats du Honduras à ce propos ? Essentiellement deux choses :

⎯ En premier lieu, ils ont beaucoup glosé sur le mot «définitive». Selon Christopher Geenwood :

«The language used ⎯ far from crystallizing a dispute ⎯ does not even suggest the existence

of one. On the contrary, it suggests that the Pa rties are largely in agreement and all that is

called for is the establishment of a definitive boundary line.» 63

⎯ En second lieu, ils ont souligné que le Nicaragua proposait une négociation sur la délimitation,

non sur les îles.

60CR 2007/6, 12 mars 2007, p. 24, par. 37.
61
MN, vol. 2, annexe 4.
62Ibid., annexe 5 ; voir aussi CMH, annexe 20.

63CR 2007/6, p. 25, par. 41 ; voir aussi CR 2007/7, p. 57, par. 26 (Jiménez Piernas). - 46 -

41. Madame le président, le texte même de cet échange de notes est clair: les

deux gouvernements reconnaissent qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord sur la délimitation de leurs zones

marines respectives ⎯or tel est, très précisément l’objet même de l’affaire que le Nicaragua a

soumise à la Cour. Et, comme je l’ai montré tout à l’heure, il est évidemment absurde de dissocier

la question de la souveraineté sur les îlots ⎯ si elle se pose ⎯ de celle de la délimitation maritime :

quand bien même ils n’ont pas d’effet sur la ligne qu’il vous est demandé de déterminer, celle-ci

doit laisser au Nicaragua les îlots sur lesquels il est souverain, et au Honduras ceux qui lui

reviennent. Si je ne m’abuse, le Honduras rec onnaît ceci ? Mais je mets un point d’interrogation

ici car l’on finit par se perdre dans les subtilités de l’argumentation de nos contradicteurs… Si tel

est bien leur point de vue ⎯ en tout cas, c’est le nôtre ⎯ on ne peut dissocier les deux questions :

la délimitation maritime ⎯qui est l’ objet même du différend soumis à la Cour ⎯ implique

inévitablement que l’on se prononce aussi sur la s ouveraineté sur les îlots, que ce soit au cours de

négociations ou par la voie judiciaire. La sec onde objection de M.Greenwood n’a donc pas lieu

d’être.

42. Quid de la première ? Il est certainement vrai que les circonstances dans lesquelles ces

pourparlers ont été proposés sont assez pauvrement documentées: les deux Parties sont des Etats

en développement, pauvres, et leurs archives ne sont pas toujours aussi complètes et ordonnées que

ce serait souhaitable 6. Il reste tout de même que,

⎯ je viens de le relever, le texte même de l’ échange de notes est clair: les deux gouvernements

reconnaissent qu’il sont en désaccord sur l’exis tence d’une ligne définitive séparant les zones

maritimes relevant respectivement du Honduras et du Nicaragua ; et

⎯ le délai entre l’offre de négociations et son accep tation est inhabituellement rapide: dixjours

seulement, ce qui montre qu’il y avait une certaine urgence ; et

⎯ en effet, cette offre n’a pas été faite «en l’air», par hasard ; elle intervient à la suite de graves

incidents qui sont survenus peu de temps auparavant et qui ont opposé les deux Etats.

43. C’est en effet peu auparavant qu’a eu lie u au moins un incident lié à l’interception de

pêcheurs honduriens par des gardes-côtes nicaraguayens . Cet incident a été, par la suite, monté en

64
Voir CR 2007/7, p. 60, par. 33 (Jiménez Piernas). - 47 -

épingle par le Gouvernement hondurien qui a ét abli un rapport (malheureusement non produit par

le Honduras) se plaignant du non-respect par le Ni caragua de la frontière avec le Honduras, fixée

au 15 parallèle. A quoi le ministre nicaraguaye n des affaires étrangères a fermement répondu, en

tout cas dans une interview du 7 mars 1977 : «Cette affirmation est absolument fausse. La frontière

maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras n’a pas été définie.» 65 Tous les ingrédients du présent

litige sont là ; et c’est effectivement après ces incidents qu’il s’est «cristallisé» par la proposition de

négociations de mai 1977 et son acceptation quelques jours plus tard.

44. Il me semble en outre que le contexte pl us général dans lequel les incidents qui sont à

l’origine de l’offre nicaraguayenne se sont produits a sans doute joué un rôle dans cette proposition.

Certes, le dossier ne contient aucune preuve que le Nicaragua ait eu connaissance des concessions

pétrolières accordées par le Honduras au nord du 15 e parallèle (ni d’ailleurs, à l’inverse, qu’il ait ou

qu’il n’ait pas protesté: tout ce que nous savons ⎯c’est peut-être le début de la sagesse

socratique ⎯ c’est que nous n’en savons rien). En re vanche, il est certain que c’est à partir

de 1975 que le dossier s’est, si je puis dire, «réveillé».

45. Auparavant, rien. Jusqu’en 1963, date à laquelle le Nicaragua se retire de toutes ses

positions côtières au nord du cap Gracias a Dios, ceci relève presque de l’évidence. Et l’on ne

pouvait guère s’attendre à ce que le Honduras se montre très actif au large de ses côtes avant la

création de sa marine, en 1976. Mais, à partir de ce moment, sa politique se fait plus active, voire

carrément agressive : plusieurs des quelques «effectivités» dont il se prévaut datent de cette période

de deux ans (1975-1977) ; sans doute ne s’agit-il là que de manifestations sporadiques et ambiguës

de revendications sur des espaces maritimes ou des îlots appartenant au Nicaragua et qui ne sont

pas de nature à modifier le titre lui appartenant. Alex Oude Elferink va y revenir dans quelques

instants et Antonio Remiro Brotóns, sous un autre angle, demain matin. Il n’en reste pas moins que

cette agitation a très probablement suscité l’inqu iétude à Managua, qui a considéré que le temps

était venu de délimiter définitivement sa frontière avec un Honduras devenu passablement activiste.

46. Quelles qu’aient été les raisons de cette initiative, il paraît en tout cas indiscutable

1) qu’il existait bien un différend entre le Honduras et le Nicaragua au début de l’année 1977 ;

65MN, annexe 3, p. 27-28 (A. Montiel Argüello, Dialogos con el Canciller, Ministerio de Relaciones exteriodes,
Managua, 1977, p. 28-29). - 48 -

2) que celui-ci portait sur la délimitation maritime entre les deux Etats, délimitation qui est

indissociable du problème de la souveraineté su r les îlots, soulevé ultérieurement par le

Honduras ; et enfin,

3) que ce différend, dont la Cour a été saisie pa r le Nicaragua, s’est bi en «cristallisé» avec

l’échange de notes de 1977.

47. D’ailleurs, Madame le président, malgré le rideau de fumée constitué par l’invocation par

66 67 68 69
le Honduras de «dates critiques» aussi variées que fantaisistes (1979 , 1994 , 1999 , 2001

⎯c’est celle qui a la cote, semble-t-il ⎯ ou même le 5 mars 2007 70!), le Honduras ne nie pas

vraiment qu’il en soit ainsi. Ses conseils s’effo rcent bien plutôt de circonscrire le différend en

question à la seule délimitation maritime à l’exclusion de la souveraineté sur les îlots et de déplacer

la «vraie» date critique de 1977 à 1979.

48. Inutile de revenir sur le premier point : la distinction que font nos contradicteurs entre un

différend maritime, d’une part, et un différend insulaire, d’autre part, est totalement artificielle. Et

sur le second, je ne suis pas sûr que le recul de la date critique de deux ans soit d’un grand secours

au Honduras.

49. Ce que je sais en revanche, c’est que le professeur Jiménez Piernas a «tout faux»

lorsqu’il essaie ⎯ en utilisant un vocabulaire presque injurieux pour le Nicaragua et, en tout cas,

pour son gouvernement de l’époque ⎯ d’opposer un «gentil» gouvernement somoziste,

respectueux des «droits» du Honduras et d’une li gne de délimitation traditionnelle à un «méchant»

gouvernement sandiniste qui les aurait soudainement et brutalement remis en question. L’agent du

Nicaragua a excellemment montré, à la fois en in troduisant nos plaidoiries et tout à l’heure, qu’il

n’en était rien. La position que nous exprimons devant vous, Madame et Messieurs les juges, est

celle du Nicaragua ; elle a été celle de tous ses gouvernements successifs.

66
CR 2007/7, p. 48, par. 6 et p.61- 62, par. 36-37 (Jiménez Piernas) ; CR 2007/10, p.19-20, par.103-104
(Colson).
67
CR 2007/8, p. 11, par. 4 (Jiménez Piernas).
68CR 2007/8, p. 11, par. 5 (Jiménez Piernas).

69CR 2007/7, p. 21, par. 6 (Sands) ; CR 2007/8, p. 14, par. 13 (Jiménez Piernas).

70CR 2007/6, p. 26, par. 44 (Greenwood). - 49 -

50. Il n’en reste pas moins que lorsque M. Jiménez Piernas affirme que «la position et la

e
conduite du Nicaragua, par rapport à la fixation du 15 parallèle comme limite maritime entre les

deuxEtats, ont radicalement changé en 1979, avec le triomphe de la révolution sandiniste» 71, il

remet complètement en cause la thèse fondame ntale de la Partie hondurienne et admet que,

depuis1979 en tout cas, le différend qui a été soumis à la Cour en1999 était bel et bien né et

cristallisé. Il a raison, Madame le président, sauf sur la date précise de cette cristallisation qui, je

l’ai rappelé, remonte à deux ans plus tôt. Tocque ville a montré la continuité qui existait entre

72
L’ancien régime et la révolution française, cette même continuité a marqué la politique du

Nicaragua en ce qui concerne la protection de ses frontières, avant et après la révolution sandiniste.

51. Madame le président, il est plus que temps de conclure. Il me semble qu’il résulte de ce

que j’ai dit cet après-midi que :

1) le Honduras a inventé de toutes pièces une di stinction artificielle et illogique entre un litige

portant sur la souveraineté sur certains îlots s itués au nord du parallèle 14°59'48" nord d’une

part, et un différend relatif au tracé de la frontière maritime entre les deux pays, d’autre part ;

2) le différend dont le Nicaragua a saisi la Cour est relatif à la délimitation maritime ;

3) pour le trancher, la Cour doit recourir aux rè gles applicables en la matière, qui sont exprimées

dans les articles 15, 74 et 83 de la convention d es Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer; étant

entendu

4) que le tracé de cette ligne doit respecter la souveraineté territoriale appartenant respectivement à

chacune des Parties sur les petits îlots se trouvant au nord du parallèle 14° 59' 48" ; mais que

5) ceux-ci ne doivent avoir aucun effet sur le tracé de la ligne ainsi conçue ;

6) pour établir la souveraineté respective de ch acun des deux Etats sur les îlots contestés, il

convient de se fonder sur les règles traditionnelles applicables en matière de titre territorial ;

7) celui qui appartient au Nicaragua du fait de l’adjacence des îlots en question par rapport à ses

côtes, adjacence reconnue par les traités conclu s avec l’Espagne en1850 par le Nicaragua et

en1866 par le Honduras, ne peut être remis en cause sur la base des effectivités incertaines

invoquées par le Honduras ;

71
CR 2007/7, p. 48, par. 6.
72A. de Tocqueville,L’ancien régime et la révolution (1856), Paris, Gallimard, 1952, 378 p. - 50 -

8) en tout état de cause, celui-ci ne saurait se préval oir de manifestations d’autorité sur les îlots et

les espaces marins contestés intervenues après la date critique ;

9) et enfin, celle-ci remonte à mai 1977 lorsque, à la suite de divers incidents, le Honduras a

accepté d’entamer avec le Nicaragua des négociations en vue de fixer définitivement la limite

maritime entre les deux pays ⎯ceci est précisément ce qui vous est demandé, Madame et

Messieurs les juges.

Je vous remercie vivement de votre écoute. Et je vous prie, Madame le président, de bien

vouloir donner la parole à M. Oude Elferink.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor Pellet. Dr. Oude Elferink has the floor.

EMLr.ERINK:

The cays in dispute and some questions related to the geography

Introduction

1. Thank you Madam President. Madam Presid ent, Members of the Court, today I will be

addressing certain questions relating to the cays in dispute and geography.

Cartographic evidence and the cays in dispute and the alleged traditional line

2. In its first round of pleading counsel for Honduras showed a number of charts and maps.

It was argued that those charts and maps suppor t Honduras’s claim in respect of the traditional

boundary and the cays in dispute. That simply is not the case. Please allow me to again review the

map evidence and other relevant evidence that has been presented by the Parties.

3. On Tuesday Professor Sands showed you a number of figures. One of them was a

73
close-up of a part of a chart from 1801 . It was remarked that the chart shows the location of the

reefs and islands north-east of Cape Gracias a Dios 74. Two other points were neglected. The chart

does not show a boundary line along the parallel starting from Cape Gracias a Dios (figure AE3-1).

Secondly, the chart clearly shows that the Nicaraguan bank of the Rio Coco is closer to the cays in

dispute than the Honduran bank. Counsel for Ho nduras suggested that at present the Honduran

73
CMH, Vol. III, plate 27.
7CR 2007/7, p. 25, para. 12. - 51 -

75
bank of the Rio Coco is closer to the cays in dispute . That assertion is based on a Honduran claim

to the Nicaraguan island in the mouth of the Rio Coco that was first advanced during oral argument

last week. That claim is unfounded, as will be set out by my colleague ProfessorPellet. The

Nicaraguan bank of the Coco at present extends further seawards than the Honduran bank. The

Nicaraguan coast certainly extended further seaward s in 1801, just 20 years before 1821, the date

of relevance for the uti possidetis juris.

4. Moreover, the Honduran argument that th e present-day geography of the mouth of the

RioCoco should be decisive to establish the title to the cays in di spute on the basis of adjacency

was utterly destroyed by counsel for Honduras. The Court will recall Mr. Colson’s detailed

76
presentation of satellite images of the mouth of the Rio Coco . I do not think it is necessary to

repeat that exercise. What it showed was that, ac cording to Mr.Colson, the mouth of the river is

highly unstable. Sometimes the Honduran bank exte nds further seaward, to be overtaken by the

Nicaraguan bank, and so on. In fact the natural sed imentary processes at the mouth of the river, as

will be reviewed by my colleague ProfessorPelle t, mean that the Nicaraguan mainland nearly

always extends further east than that of Honduras. Honduras’s view of things is hardly a basis for

deciding a title to the cays on the basis of adjacency. Of course, Nicaragua considers that what is

relevant in this respect is the adjacency of the Nicaraguan mainland south of the Rio Coco to all the

cays to the south of the Main Cape Channel. I will return to that argument later.

5. Counsel for Honduras on more than one occasion commented on an 1886map of

Honduras 7. Professor Sánchez Rodríguez observed that this map

“montre la limite entre les deux pays qui se situe au cap de Gracias aDios et sur le

parallèle 15°. Elle a comme particularité de localiser avec précision toutes les îles,
îlots et cayes appartenant au Honduras (au nord du parallèle 15°) et ceux appartenant
au Nicaragua, au sud.” 78

On the screen is a part of the 1886 map (figure AE3-2). The map only shows lines of longitude and

latitude, but no boundary along any of those lines. The map does not make a distinction between

75CR 2007/6, p. 28, paras. 52-53.
76
CR 2007/9, pp. 48-50, paras. 36-46.
77CMH, Vol. III, plate 8.

78CR 2007/7, p. 10, para. 53. - 52 -

the cays to the north and the south of the parallel of 15° N. There is no basis to conclude that this

map lends any support for a boundary along the parallel of 14° 59' 48" N.

6. The 1886 map was also used by Professo rSands to propound that the reference to

Cayo Palo de Campeche in Honduran legislation has to be read as a reference to Logwood Cay. He

showed you a part of British Admiralty chart 2425, identifying Logwood Cay, Half Moon Cay and

79
Bobel Cay .

The PRESIDENT: Dr.Oude Elferink, could you take it a little more slowly for the

interpreters?

Mr. ELFERINK: Yes, of course. He also showed you a close-up of the 1886 map. As he

pointed out, the three cays on that map are identified as Cayo Mora, Cayo Media Luna and Cayo de

Babalonia 80. On a 1933 map of Honduras, Logwood Cay finally made its appearance as Cayo Palo

81
de Campeche . What significance should we attach to that fact? To start, that solitary reference to

Cayo Palo de Campeche is somewhat disappointing, as counsel for Honduras had suggested that on

older maps LogwoodCay is frequently refe rred to by the name Palode Campeche 82. Maybe

Honduras will come up with more maps showing Palo de Campeche, Cayo Mora or a cay with still

some other name. This confusion about the names of cays, if anything, suggests a limited

knowledge of the area.

7. But let us suppose for a moment that Cayo Palo de Campeche that is mentioned in

Honduran legislation is really LogwoodCay. If th at is the case, it just as much shows that it

concerned a paper claim made without any knowledge of the region. First of all, it is important to

clarify one important point that will be illustrated on figure 3. The cay that is now referred to as

LogwoodCay is not the same cay that ProfessorSands showed to you in his presentation last

Tuesday. In the Counter-Memorial, Honduras noted that the original LogwoodCay and

83
MediaLuna Cay are now submerged . The Counter-Memorial also indicates that LogwoodCay

7CR 2007/7, p. 27, para. 16.
80
Ibid.
81
CMH, Vol. III, plate 24; fig. PS1 5.
8CR 2007/6, p. 22, para. 31.

8CMH, p. 14, footnote 2. - 53 -

now is used as another name for SavannaCay 84. In respect of the original LogwoodCay, which

according to Professor Sands is Cayo Palo de Campeche, the Counter-Memorial notes two things,

apart from the fact that it is now submerged. It is mentioned that it is small and without vegetation,

and uninhabited 85. Why refer to that feature to allegedl y claim all the cays in dispute when there

are so many supposedly important islands in the same area, as Honduras submits? Or, why not just

refer to Media Luna? As counsel for Honduras obser ved last Monday, Media Luna is used to refer

to the whole area of cays and reefs to the south of the Main Cape Channel 8.

8. Counsel for Honduras submitted that Nicar agua’s lack of protest against Honduran

legislation that mentions Cayo Palo de Campeche has legal significance 87. That is not the case. Let

me turn to the maps for a moment. Counsel for Honduras showed you a part of a map from 1933

88
that was identified as the “General Chart of Honduras 1933” , on the figure. What he did not tell

you is that this is not an official map of Honduras. What he also did not tell you is that there also

exists [a map from 1933 that is an official map of Honduras.] That map was introduced by

89
Honduras in the Counter-Memorial . Why not show that official map? The answer is simple. The

90
1933 official map, like the 1954 official map of Honduras ⎯ I discussed both two weeks ago ⎯

only shows the cays to the north of the Main Cape Ch annel as part of the territory of Honduras. In

view of that official position of Honduras, one fails to see why Nicaragua should have protested

Honduran legislation that made reference to Cayo Palo de Campeche, a name that was, as far as we

know, only used to refer to Logwood Cay on one map without any specific status.

9. Counsel for Honduras also suggested that LogwoodCay under the name CayoPalo de

91
Campeche was the subject of some of the earlier effectivités on the part of Honduras . However,

there is no evidence of any effectivités on the part of Honduras on Logwood Cay. That should not

84CMH, p. 18, para. 2.3.
85
CMH, p. 18, para. 2.10; p. 18, footnote 19.
86
CR 2007/6, p. 22, para. 30.
87
CR 2007/7, p. 27, para. 16.
88See fig. PS1 5.

89CMH, p. 47, para. 3.36 and plate 24.

90CR.2007/3, pp. 51-53, paras. 41-42.
91
CR 2007/6, p. 22, para. 31. - 54 -

come as a surprise. Logwood Cay was uninhabite d and without vegetation and has disappeared

under the waves.

10. It should be noted that counsel for Honduras last week tried to raise Palode Campeche

from the waves. For instance, it was noted that “there is no dispute between the Parties that

CayoPalo de Campeche, Bobel Cay, South Cay, Savanna Cay, Media Luna Cay and PortRoyal

92
Cay are islands” . Nicaragua accepts that the present day LogwoodCay, referred to in the

quotation as SavannaCay, is an island. Nicaragua rejects that the original LogwoodCay, that

allegedly is Cayo Palo de Campeche, is an island, as it is submerged. The same consideration also

applies to the original Media Luna Cay that is also submerged.

11. Apparently, the fact that Palo de Camp eche is now submerged did not deter counsel for

Honduras from visiting that cay. ProfessorSands showed a figure and observed: “You can see

them highlighted here: Bobel Cay, Port Roya l Cay, Savanna Cay, South Cay, Logwood Cay ⎯

which used to be known as Palo de Campeche ⎯ as well as Half Moon Cay, otherwise known as

MediaLuna Cay. We have spent time on these islands.” 93 You may note that he mentions both

Savanna Cay ⎯ the present-day Logwood Cay ⎯ and Palo de Campeche ⎯ allegedly the original

94
LogwoodCay that is submerged . He even went further. He said that, having set foot on the

islands, he could assure me that they are terra firma and that they are populated 9. As I mentioned

before, apart from the original Logwood Cay ⎯ allegedly Palo de Campeche ⎯ the original Media

Luna Cay is also submerged. According to H onduras, Media Luna Cay is now used to refer to

96
Savanna Cay . The statement of counsel for Honduras i ndicates that he visited two distinct cays:

Savanna Cay and Half Moon Cay. But maybe I misunderstood counsel for Honduras and he just

intended to say that he used his trip to visit other cays in the Caribbean. There is, indeed, a

Logwood Cay in Belize and I would not be surprised if there would turn out to be still others. To

prevent that, counsel for Honduras will have to give us another geography lesson. Let me clarify

that Logwood Cay in Belize apparently lies in the interior.

9CR 2007/7, p. 20, para. 6.
93
CR 2007/7, p. 24, para. 11.
94
CR 2007/7, p. 24, para. 11.
9CR 2007/7, p. 24, para. 11.

9CMH, p. 14, para. 2.3. - 55 -

12. We do not know when the original Logwood Cay and Media Luna Cay became

submerged. However, we may readily assume th at for Logwood Cay this already was the case in

1980 or 1981. As Honduras has indicated, in 1980 a nd 1981 triangulation markers were placed on

Savanna Cay, South Cay and Bobel Cay 97. The marker on Savanna Cay bears the name Logwood

98
on it . We do not have similar information for the original Media Luna Cay. However, the fact

that according to the Counter-Memorial the name Media Luna Cay was used for SavannaCay 99

suggests that the original Media Luna Cay may ha ve disappeared a considerable time before the

Counter-Memorial was written, possibly already before 1980.

13. At this point it may be appropriate to recall that Honduras argues that the reference to

two cays in the area of overlapping maritime clai ms in its 1982 Constitution is evidence of its title

to the cays in dispute. One of those is Palo de Campeche ⎯ according to Honduras the original

Logwood Cay that in 1982 was already submerged. The other is Media Luna Cay. According to

the information that Honduras has provided, this is the original Media Luna Cay. Plate 37C of the

Rejoinder ⎯ showing the cays mentioned in the 1982 Constitution ⎯ places Media Luna Cay at

the position of the original Media Luna Cay. Not at the position of Savanna Cay that is now also

referred to as Media Luna Cay. That can be seen on figure 4 that is on the screen. The only two

cays to the south of the Main Cape Channel that allegedly are included in the 1982 Constitution of

Honduras are both submerged. Probably already before the 1982 Constitution was enacted.

14. Counsel for Honduras also referred to a Note of 25February1977in which the

Government of Jamaica requested permission for its coastguard vessel Fort Charles to enter

100
territorial waters of Honduras of Savanna or Savanilla Cay . Counsel concluded that this

contemporaneous document corroborates a witness statement, which among others refers to

Savanna Cay as Jamaica Cay 10. So now we have five names for Savanna Cay. Not only

Savanna Cay but also Logwood Cay, Media Luna Ca y, Savanilla Cay and Jamaica Cay. But why

should we accept that the Savanna or Savanilla Cay me ntioned in the Jamaican Note is the same as

9CMH, p. 125, para. 6.65.

9CMH, p. 125, para. 6.65.
99
CMH, p. 14, para. 2.3.
10See Note of 25 February 1977, CMH, Ann. 19; CR 2007/7 pp. 39-40, para. 46.

10CR 2007/7 pp. 39, para. 46. - 56 -

the Savanna Cay at issue in these proceeding s? The Note does not provide geographical

co-ordinates. Savanilla Cay might be in the Cayos Cajones to the north of the Main Cape Channel.

It might be in the Bays Islands to the north of the Honduran mainland, where Jamaicans also fish.

Now, with the knowledge that there are numerous cays off the coast of Honduras and with all the

names they seem to have, are we really to be lieve counsel for Honduras that he has correctly

identified Cayo Palo de Campeche mentioned in Honduran legislation as being Logwood Cay?

15. Counsel for Honduras also insists on the fact that as Cape Gracias a Dios is at the parallel

of 15° N that of necessity implies a traditional boundar y along that same parallel. In view of that

insistence, I feel obliged to draw the attention of the Court once more to the 1933 official map of

Honduras. On the screen is an inset included in th at map (figure AE3-5). The inset contains a red

dotted line that is identified as the “linea mariti ma jurisdiccional de Honduras” translated as

102
“jurisdictional maritime line of Honduras” by Honduras . For the sake of clarity that line has

been enhanced on the figure on the screen. The line runs in a south-easterly direction from the

mouth of the Rio Coco. That is well to the south of Honduras’s alleged traditional boundary dating

103
from the colonial era. In response to the Reply , in the Rejoinder Honduras had this to say about

the inclusion of that line: “[a]t that time Honduras may indeed have claimed title over those

islands, as it appeared to do by reference to an official map produced in 1933, which defined the

area over which Honduras had an extended maritime claim” 104. Had Honduras in 1933 forgotten

about its long-standing traditional boundary line along the parallel of 15° N? Or did that boundary

perhaps never exist? The first question can only be answered in the negative. The parallel of 15°

N is a fiction. It did not exist either in 1933 or in 1821.

The adjacency of the cays to Nicaragua

16. The adjacency of the cays in dispute to the cays and the mainland coast of Nicaragua

105
provided the basis of the Nicaraguan title to the cays south of the Main Cape Channel in 1821 . It

will not have gone unnoticed that counsel for Honduras has spent a great deal of time to undermine

10CMH, p. 47, para. 3.36.
103
RN, p.101, para. 6.23.
10RH, p. 94, para. 5.39.

10RN, pp. 127-128, paras. 6.90-6.92 and pp. 138-139, para. 6.118; CR 2007/3, pp. 36-37, para. 89. - 57 -

the existence of that adjacency. For instance, Professor Greenwood in his overview of the case last

Monday suggested that “Nicaragua’s attempt to build a proximity argument on the basis of the

distance between these islands ⎯ that is the cays in dispute ⎯ and EdinburghCay, just south of

the 15thparallel, is really clutching at straws” 106. That misrepresents the Nicaraguan position.

Nicaragua has submitted that the contiguity of all the islands to the south of the Main Cape

Channel is relevant to determin e the title to those cays in 1821 107. As Nicaragua also has pointed

108
out that chain of islands starts from the Nicaraguan mainland coast at Punta Gorda .

17. Last Friday, counsel for Honduras tried to raise doubts about the status of Edinburgh Cay

and the cays on Edinburgh Reef. Let me read paragraph 134 of his statement in full:

“On the Nicaraguan side the controlling base points for the provisional
equidistance line are on Edinburgh Cay a nd Edinburgh Reef, which, relatively

speaking, are somewhat isolated from other Nicaraguan islands. This selection of the
Nicaraguan base points may be generous, particularly in so far as drying features
shown on the reef are concerned. Nicara gua has made no effort to explain these

features to the Court, and Honduras has no independent evidence of their
characteristics. Thus, we are left with only the appearance of these features on
modern nautical charts. In all events, these features on the Nicaraguan side are

smaller than those on the Honduran side and whether they are islands in a legal sense
is an open question. However, since again this is an exercise ⎯ an hypothesis ⎯ we

will give Nicaragua the benefit of the doubt and 109 them as Nicaraguan base points to
construct the provisional equidistance line.”

18. That seems to be an awful lot of words to justify the selection of a couple of base points

for a provisional equidistance line. A provisional line that would be to the south of the parallel of

15° N in any case, whether or not those specific base points would be selected.

19. The reason for belittling the cays just south of the parallel of 15° N obviously is intended

to convince the Court that there is no adjacency between the mainland coast of Nicaragua and the

cays stretching north. Let us suppose for a moment that counsel for Honduras is right. What if

Edinburgh Cay and the cays on Edinburgh Reef were found to be nonexistent? That would not be

relevant to establish the situation in 1821. What can be established about the cays for that date?

Chart2425 of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, originally compiled on the basis of

surveys from 1830 to 1843, shows six cays on Edinburgh Reef (figure AE3-6). Those are the small

10CR 2007/6, p. 28, para. 28 (footnote omitted).
107
CR 2007/1, p. 51, para. 11.
10Ibid.

10CR 2007/10, p. 27, para. 134. - 58 -

dots indicated by the red arrows. Probably not im portant islands, like the cays visited by counsel

for Honduras, but they are clearly indicated as feat ures that are permanently above water. I should

however also point out that chart 2425 also contains data from 1927, not only from the nineteenth

century survey. However, there is the Honduran map of 1886. On the screen is the close-up of that

map (figure AE3-7) that was shown last week by counsel for Honduras. To the south of the

features to which he directed your attention you can see Recife Edinburgh, very similar in shape to

Edinburgh Reef on the close-up we just saw. It can be excluded that the 1886 map was based on a

contemporary survey carried out by Honduras. It is probably sufficient to observe that only in

1976 Honduras established a navy. The only availabl e explanation would seem to be that the

information was taken from chart 2425 that was based on the surveys carried out by Great Britain

between 1830 and 1843, shortly after 1821.

20. That the cays south of the Main Cape Cha nnel are not neatly divided into two groups by

the parallel of 15° N was confirmed ⎯ perhaps inadvertently ⎯ by counsel for Honduras. It was

pointed out that Media Luna is not only used to refer to Media Luna Cay but also to define the cays

and reefs in a larger area 110. Counsel for Honduras then gave a definition of the group 111. The

definition he provided not only includes cays and reefs to the north of Honduras’s supposed

traditional boundary, but also Cock Rock to the south of that line. Figure 8 on the screen identifies

the features that are included in the definition.

The basepoints of Honduras provisional equidistance line

21. Counsel for Honduras insists that all of the features in front of the mainland coasts of the

112
Parties must be taken into account in the construction of a provisional equidistance line . It was

observed that “the provisional baseline is to be developed from the baselines of the two coastal

States” 113. Counsel for Honduras does not cite any authority for this proposition. How could he?

There is no such obligation in respect of the development of the provisional equidistance line. Two

110
CR 2007/6, p. 22, para. 30.
111
CR 2007/6, p. 22, para. 30.
11CR 2007/6, p. 34, para. 78; CR 2007/10, p. 26, para. 129.

11CR 2007/10, p. 26, para. 129. - 59 -

114
weeks ago I recalled the treatment of Filfla by the Court in the Libya/Malta case . That island,

which is much bigger than Honduras’s four important islands taken together 11, was not taken into

account by the Court to establish the provisional equidistance line.

22. There is another, even more important point. Last week counsel for Honduras submitted

that the treatment of Qit’at Jaradah in Qatar v. Bahrain was in conformity with the position of

116
Honduras in respect of the treatment of the cays to the north of Honduras’s parallel . That

conclusion is questionable. Qit’at Jaradah w as taken into account in the establishment of a

provisional equidistance line. The Court found that there was a special circumstance in that case

warranting the choice of a delimitation line passing immediately to the east of Qit’at Jaradah 11.

That adjustment of the equidistance line shows that it makes little sense to assess the equitable

nature of a maritime boundary proposed by a State by comparing it to a provisional equidistance

line. The real test is how Honduras’s parallel co mpares to a boundary line that gives the cays their

proper weight. As the example of Qit’at Jar adah shows the adjustment of the provisional

equidistance line may result in a boundary that passes in the immediate vicinity of a small island.

That solution was the result of the particular ci rcumstances of that case. Other solutions are

available. For instance, in the United Kingdom-France Continental Shelf the Court of Arbitration

in the Channel established an equidistance boundary between the opposite mainland coasts of

France and the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands , not altogether comparable to the cays that

play a role in the present case, were attributed a continental shelf of 12 nautical miles 118.

The turtle fishery dispute

23. The Parties remain divided on a number of points concerning the turtle fishery dispute

that involved Nicaragua and the United Kingdom. This especially concerns the significance of the

work of Commander Kennedy at the British Admi ralty concerning the cays off the mainland coast

114CR 2007/1, p. 61, para. 43.
115
CR 2007/1, p. 63, para. 47.
116
CR 2007/8, p. 58, paras. 75-76.
117I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 104, para. 219

118Arbitral Award, 30 June 1977 (54 ILR), paras. 201-203. - 60 -

of Nicaragua as confirming a Nicaraguan title to the cays. Counsel for Honduras raised four

criticisms in that respect.

24. First, it was suggested that CommanderKennedy may not have been aware of the

119
Honduran Constitution of1957 which cl aimed CayoPalo deCampeche . We do not have the

answer to that supposition. Neither do we know if Commander Kennedy was aware of Honduras’s

official map of1954 that showed that Honduras did not claim any of the cays to the south of the

Main Cape Channel. So let us stick to the facts and let me continue my review of the criticism of

Honduras on the basis of the documents that have been placed before the Court.

25. A second criticism of counsel for Honduras. Again a speculation. Counsel for Honduras

ventures that CommanderKennedy may have been aw are of the occupation of Nicaragua of the

120
territory north of the Rio Coco . This time we do not need to speculate. We have documentary

evidence. Counsel for Honduras quoted from a letter of Commander Kennedy which notes that the

Rio Wanks ⎯ one of the other names of the Rio Coco ⎯ is the boundary between Nicaragua and

Honduras 12. In addition, not one of the British documents related to the turtle fishery dispute in

Annex 39 to the Reply refers to this occupation by Nicaragua 122.

26. A third criticism of Nicaragua’s reliance on Commander Kennedy’s work is that he was

“not expressing any view on behalf of the Unite dKingdom and there is no evidence before the

Court that his ideas were shared by the Govern ment of the United Kingdom or ever communicated

to Nicaragua” 12. The suggestion that the work of Co mmanderKennedy was not related to the

ongoing negotiations between Nicaragua and the Un ited Kingdom is incorrect. The documents in

Annex39 to the Reply indicate that there were communications between the Foreign Office, the

Colonial Office, the Admiralty and officials in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. Those documents

also provide evidence of another point of critical importance. There is no reference to Honduras.

Honduras itself has also failed to place any evidence before the Court that it ever took any interest

in the negotiations between Nicaragua and the United Kingdom.

11CR 2007/7, p. 42, para. 49.
120
CR 2007/7, p. 42, para. 49.
121
CR 2007/7, p. 42, para. 49.
12CR 2007/7, p. 42, para. 49.

12CR 2007/7, p. 41, para. 49. - 61 -

27. A final point of Honduras concerns the fact that Commander Kennedy made it clear that

certain islands might be claimed to be on the continental shelf of Honduras depending on how the

continental shelf boundary would be agreed 124. Counsel for Honduras failed to notice that this

observation only concerned Logwood Cay and Bu rn Cay. Commander Kennedy’s observation did

not concern any of the other cays he mentioned, which also include Bobel Cay, Savanah Cay and

South Cay 125. In conclusion, Honduras fails to refute that the turtle fishery dispute, in which it was

never involved, confirms Nicaragua’s title to the cays.

The geographical relationship of Nicaragua and Honduras with Jamaica

28. Madam President, allow me to say something more about the NicaraguanRise. When

ProfessorGreenwood compared the Nicaraguan Rise to the horn of an “orange rhinoceros” last

126
Monday , I was sure that we were not going to hear anything more from counsel for Honduras

127
about that feature. I was wrong. The Ni caraguan Rise was revisited at great length . However,

counsel for Honduras skirted the points that had been made by Nicaragua in respect of the

significance of the Rise and a diplomatic Note of Honduras of 1995 addressing the significance of

the Rise for the maritime delimitation with Nicaragua 128. There is no need to repeat our argument.

There is however one thing I would like to point out. Counsel for Honduras submitted that

129
Nicaragua uses the Nicaraguan Rise to define the area in dispute . That is no the case. It is

evident that Nicaragua’s analysis is based on the re lationship of the coasts of the Parties. Perhaps

the severe criticism of Nicaragua’s argument is caused by the fact that the Nicaraguan Rise points

north-east in the direction of Jamaica and not east along a parallel. That concern of Honduras is

unfounded. The coastal relationship of Nicaragua and Honduras with Jamaica (figure AE3-9) does

130
not depend on the presence of the Nicaraguan Rise, but on coastal geography .

124CR 2007/7, p. 41, para. 49.
125
Extract from Letter from CommanderKe nnedy, Admiralty to E.C.Burr, Colonial Office, 27November1958
(RN, Ann. 39).
126
CR 2007/6, p. 38, para. 94.
127
CR 2007/8, pp. 17-19, paras. 8-13; pp. 54-55, paras. 61-65.
128CR 2007/1, pp. 66-67, paras. 58-60; CR 2007/2, p. 46, paras. 159-162.

129CR 2007/8, p. 18, para. 9.
130
CR 2007/1, pp. 49-50, para. 6. - 62 -

The oil concession practice of the Parties

29. The oil concession practice of the Parti es will be mainly addressed by my colleague

Professor Remiro Brotóns. As far as the cays in dispute are concerned his analysis confirms what

was said in the first round of oral pleadings of Nicaragua 131. There is just one other point to make

in respect of the cays in dispute. Listening to counsel for Honduras last week the Court may have

gotten the impression that the cays on the Miskito Bank are forested with 30 ft antennae. I noted at

least six instances counsel for Honduras mentioned that 30 ft antenna. It all the time concerned the

same temporary antenna that was placed on B obel Cay in 1975. Counsel for Honduras also

132
submitted that the placement of that antenna on Bobel Cay was authorized by Honduras . The

report to which reference is made in that connection 133does not contain any suggestion that specific

authorization for the placement of the antenna on Bobel Cay was sought from the Honduran

authorities. The report also indicates that it was submitted to the UnionOil Company, not the

Honduran authorities. For the legal implications of this private activity I respectfully refer the

134
Court to my earlier presentation . Regrettably, counsel for Honduras did not comment on that

argument at all.

30. Counsel for Honduras insists that the four cays it has identified as important islands are

135
stable features . The fact that counsel for Honduras was able to identify two submerged cays as

terra firma should make one wary. There is informa tion on one of the cays in dispute which

indicates that it is far from stable. On the screen is a figure (figure AE3-10) comparing a

photograph of Bobel Cay 136from 2000 with a figure of Bobel Cay contained in the report of 1975 I

just discussed. The elongated shape of the Bobel Cay on the figure is completely different from the

square shape of the Bobel Cay on the aerial photograph. Unfortunately, there is no information that

would allow a similar assessment of any of th e other cays Honduras has identified as important

islands.

131CR 2007/3, pp. 61-62, para. 67. .
132
CR 2007/7, p. 30, para. 21.
133
Final Report of GEOFIX Survey Honduras conducte d for the Union Oil Company, April-May 1975
(RH, Ann. 264).
134CR 2007/3, pp. 60-61, paras. 62-64.

135See, e.g., CR 2007/6, p. 23, para. 33.

136CMH, plate 17. - 63 -

The significance of evidence presented by the Parties

31. I will not again treat the Court to a review of the evidence that has been put before it. It

will have become abundantly clear that the Parties remain divided on the significance of that

evidence. Honduras considers that it establishes its title to the cays . Nicaragua is convinced that

the evidence clearly demonstrates that Honduras started to take an interest in the cays themselves in

the latter half of the 1990s. I respectfully refer th e Court to the pleadings of both Parties. For the

moment, I will limit myself to giving you a number of examples of the way counsel for Honduras

dealt with the evidence l ast week to show that argument made by counsel for Honduras should be

very carefully scrutinized and be compared with the evidence that is in the record.

32. Counsel for Honduras at times was econom ical with the facts to fit argument to

Honduras’s case. The Agent for Nicaragua already set the record straight as far as the 1998 trade

agreement between the Dominican Republic and th e Central American Republics is concerned.

That was certainly not the only example. I alr eady noted the silence of counsel for Honduras on

the 1933 official map of Honduras. Let me give you another example. Counsel for Honduras

noted that “in 1975 Argentina requested the right fo r one of its aircraft to overfly [Honduras] by a

route of 15º 17' N, 82º W, on a journey between Argentina and the United States. That passes

137
directly over the area around the islands.” The point 15°17'N,82°W has been plotted on the

figure on the screen (figure AE3-11). The point is located beyond any area of territorial sea. The

cays in dispute are to the west of the point. There is no reason to conclude that this event pertains

to the cays in dispute.

33. Another example of selectivity. Counsel for Honduras referred to the position of

Jamaica in delimitation negotiations with Nicaragua. It was observed that “[t]hose negotiations did

not concern sovereignty over the islands” 138. That is true. But counsel for Honduras ignores the

fact that Jamaica indicated to Nicaragua that it was prepared to accept Media Luna as a base

point 139–– the same Media Luna group that Jamaica allegedly has recognized as being Honduran

for decades.

137
CR 2007/7, p. 40, para. 47. Transcription of diplomatic Note of 30 Oct. 1975, CMH, Vol. 2, Ann. 143.
138
CR 2007/7, p. 39, para. 46.
13RN, Ann. 33, CR 2007/3, p. 47, para. 28. - 64 -

34. Another example. Counsel for Honduras referred to the Indice Geografica de Nicaragua

as a “privately published geographical index of 1971” 140. On the screen we have the title page of

that publication (figure AE3-12). At the top of the page it reads “Ministerio de Obras Publicas” ⎯

Ministry of Public Works –– and “Instituto Geográfico Nacional” ⎯ National Geographic Institute.

That Honduras seeks to characterize this as a pr ivately published work clearly shows that it

understands the implication of the publication. It is one of the elements, not of establishing the title

to the cays in dispute, but confirming the existence of that long-standing title of Nicaragua.

35. The alleged relevance of the regulation of fishing activities will be dealt with by my

colleague Professor Remiro Brotóns as it mainly con cerns maritime areas, not the cays in dispute.

Last Tuesday counsel for Honduras suggested otherwise. He observed:

“[b]ut fishing activity is also rele vant to sovereignty because it shows effectivités in
relation to the islands. Many of the fishermen who work these areas and do so

pursuant to Honduran-granted licences make use of the islands. Some of them live on
the islands and others just visit, and I will come back to this in more detail in my
second presentation.” 141

And indeed, on Thursday counsel for Honduras took you through a number of fishing licences that

had been issued by Honduras 142. However, there is one thing that counsel for Honduras failed to

143
point out. Honduras has submitted documents concerning a number of fishing licences . A

review of those documents shows that all th e licences were issued to commercial fishing

companies. Honduras has submitted no evidence that those companies had any link to the artisanal

fishermen that use the cays. The suggestion th at the fishing licences that Honduras has introduced

pertain to the cays in dispute is thus without basis.

36. Counsel for Honduras insisted that for over 60years third States and international

organizations have recognized the fishing area im mediately to the north of the 15°parallel and

around the cays as falling within the jurisdiction of Honduras 14. Reference was again made to the

145
1943 report by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior . As

14CR 2007/7, p. 44, para. 55.

14CR 2007/7, p. 33, para. 29.
142
CR 2007/9, p. 27, para. 32 and pp. 32-33.
143
CHM, Anns. 119 and 120 and RH, Anns. 256-259.
14CR 2007/9, pp. 25-26, paras. 29-30.

14CR 2007/9, pp. 25-26, para. 29; CMH, Vol. 2, Ann. 162. - 65 -

was pointed out by me, all cays and islands mentioned in the report are to the north of the mainland

of Honduras 14. Counsel for Honduras countered as follows. He noted that the report mentions

fishing banks: “[a]nd this is what it says : ‘They include Gorda Bank, Rosalind Bank,

SerranillaBank, Thunder Knoll and ot hers.’ ... That is a 1943 document, treating the area in

147
question as part of Honduras.” Two points. None of the cays in dispute is located on those

banks mentioned in the report. Secondly, should the Court give any credence to the assertion of

counsel for Honduras that a United States government agency in 1943 considered those banks on

the high seas as part of Honduras?

37. In think the Court should by now have a clear picture of the way counsel for Honduras

dealt with the evidence last week.

Conclusions

38. Madam President, I can be short as far as my conclusions are concerned. As far as the

title to the cays in dispute is concerned, I can re fer you to my conclusions during the first round of

148
pleadings . Nicaragua’s title to the cays dates from 1821. There is no indication that Nicaragua

ever relinquished this claim. The effectivités that Honduras has sought to create in respect of the

cays in the second half of the 1990s cannot replace the Nicaraguan title to the cays.

39. As far as the geography of relevance to the maritime delimitation is concerned it is

especially noticeable that neither Honduras nor counsel for Honduras actually have the intimate

knowledge of the cays in dispute that is claimed.

40. Madam President, I have come to the end of my presentation. I thank you and the other

Members of the Court for your close attention.

I note that we are close to 6 o’clock, Mada m President. Maybe you would care to give the

floor to Professor Remiro Brotóns tomorrow morning? Thank you.

146
CR 2007/3, pp. 46-47, para. 26.
147
CR 2007/9, p. 26, para. 29.
14CR 2007/4, pp. 13-14, paras. 78-80. - 66 -

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Dr. Oude Elferink. The Court rises and the sitting

will be resumed at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

The Court rose at 6 p.m.

___________

Document Long Title

Public sitting held on Monday 19 March 2007, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)

Links