Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2007/14
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2007
Public sitting
held on Friday 23 March 2007, at 10 a.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 vendredi 23 mars 2007, à 10 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. Perhaps it will assist if I say that, having looked at the
plans of Honduras for the morning, the Court is minded not to take the traditional coffee break.
Mr. Colson, you have the floor.
Mr. COLSON: Thank you, Madam President . Madam President and Members of the
Court, before I begin the presentation that I planne d, perhaps I could just respond very quickly to
the question that was raised yesterday ab out the satellite image that was shown in
Professor Sands’s presentation. This is a Landsat image; it was taken on 12 January2003. It can
be obtained from the United States geological survey for a nominal fee and we will provide the
technical details, including the website from which this can be given, in a letter that will be
provided to the Court next week.
2. My task this morning is to address a sel ection of issues. I will begin by discussing
relevant circumstances, as proposed by Mr.Brow nlie in his discussion on 6 March, and you can
find that discussion on pages 42 through 50 of that transcript. The reason we are coming back, is
that he claimed earlier this week that Honduras ha d only addressed his presentation in a, what he
said, was a “piecemeal fashion” (CR2007/12, p.46) . So I will go at it directly one by one; and
then, second, I will take up starting-point issues that remain; third, I will discuss certain
geographical concepts relevant to maritime delimitation; and last I will say a few words about
delimitation method, including the enclave idea that has been suggested by Nicaragua.
Relevant circumstances
3. To begin this discussion of relevant circumst ances, I must say that we are not reticent to
engage Mr.Brownlie in a discussion of the case la w. However, since much of what he said
concerning relevant circumstances has in fact b een set aside in the case law, we have not felt
obliged to spend the Court’s time going over his argu ments which really revive all concepts, some
of which have disappeared, most have been set asid e and at least one is totally new. Also, aside
from the treatment of such arguments in the jurisp rudence, Nicaragua has failed to provide factual
evidence in support of the relevant circumstance arguments that he has set forth. - 11 -
4. The first relevant circumstance suggested by Mr. Brownlie is what he calls the “incidence
of natural resources in the disputed area”. He supports this proposition by a quote from the
NorthSea Continental Shelf cases, a quote from Tunisia/Libya, and then he jumps right to
Cameroon v. Nigeria and tries to distinguish what the Court said there, which was, of course, that
oil conduct is relevant if it demonstrates a tacitagreement. He skips over all of the other cases,
however. And, in particular, he skips over the Gulf of Maine case, which he otherwise quotes
extensively. In that case, there was an abundan ce of evidence presented by the parties about the
incidence of natural resources in the disputed area. Yet the arguments made by Nicaragua’s
counsel disregard totally what the Chamber of th e Court said in that case, where it was confronted
with that abundant evidence of the incidence of na tural resources and where its task was to delimit
a single maritime boundary. What the Chamber of the Court said was that in consideration of a
single maritime boundary it is the geographical ci rcumstances pertaining to the delimitation area
that are the circumstances to be applied. That discussion is at paragraphs 194 and 195 of that
Judgment. This Court has conti nued to apply that standard when it has addressed the delimitation
of a single maritime boundary. So, on the la w, Mr.Brownlie surely overstates his case ⎯ and
besides that, one is entitled to ask where are the facts pertaining to specific natural resources that he
wishes the Court to take into account?
5. The second relevant circumstance suggested by Mr. Brownlie is “the principle of equitable
access to the natural resources of the disputed area”. In Gulf of Maine, the Chamber indicated that
this consideration might be a factor if a delimitation line would create “catastrophic
repercussions” ⎯ “catastrophic repercussions”, that is the phrase used by the Chamber ⎯
“catastrophic repercussions” for one party or the othe r. And it did not find them to exist in that
case. In Jan Mayen, based on extensive evidence presented by the parties, the Court adjusted the
line it proposed to adopt in a rather minor way, in one section, to ensure that both parties had
access to the capelin resource that was very important to both countries. This is the only example
in the cases where an adjustment has been made to a provisional line of delimitation in order to
ensure equitable access to resources. Again, th ere are no facts presented by Nicaragua about the
catastrophic repercussions that would arise for Nicaragua’s economic well-being if the Honduran
proposal were adopted, nor has any evidence been presented that would demonstrate a Nicaraguan - 12 -
resource use, a real and present use, that might be very important and something to take into
account.
6. Mr.Brownlie criticized Professor Greenwood’s response on this point as not coming to
grips with what he called the “legal considerati ons and judicial authority presented on behalf of
Nicaragua” (CR2007/12, p.47). Yet all Mr.Brownlie referred to in the first round in support of
his argument were the Jan Mayen and Newfoundland and Labrador-Nova Scotia cases. Now, I
have just answered with respect to Jan Mayen where compelling evidence was put forward about
the capelin fisheries so as to cause the Court to adjust the provisional line of delimitation.
7. What about the Newfoundland and Labrador-Nova Scotia arbitration? As is often the
situation, courts and tribunals may review the ar guments of the parties and note that they cannot
rule out that a principle advanced could be applicable, but then we often find that they do not apply
that principle or make use of that principle in the boundary line that is established. Counsel for
Nicaragua quoted a long passage from that award that is of this character. What did the tribunal
really do in that case? Mr.Brownlie showed a map from the award ⎯ it is coming up on the
screen (DAC2-1 ⎯ IB37)–-- that shows the claim lines of the parties ⎯ the claim lines of the
parties ⎯ and you can see the Nova Scotia claim line which wanted about half of the area that was
known as the Laurentian sub-basin, which was an ar ea that is presumed to have some petroleum
potential. What he did not show you was the line that the tribunal established. Here it is. That
tribunal in no way was influenced by this argument, or by the presence of the Laurentian sub-basin,
which could have been, but was not, a relevant circumstance. The tribunal awarded a boundary
that was solely based on the geographic circumstan ces of the case, attributing virtually all of the
Laurentian Basin as shown here to Newfoundland and Labrador.
8. The third relevant circumstance is “the Nicaraguan Rise as a single geological and
geomorphological feature”. Yes, Honduras has been dismissive of this argument, just as the Court
has dismissed arguments about geology and geomorphology. After the North Sea Continental Sea
cases, counsel in later cases, the cases that followed, believed that the key to victory was to be
found in the geological structures and the geomorphological characteristics of the ocean floor. And
in Tunisia/Libya, in Gulf of Maine , in Libya/Malta, and even in United Kingdom v. France, the
pleadings were full of such information and expert opinion. In Libya/Malta, more than two - 13 -
decades ago, the Court said enough of this, noting that at least within 200miles of the coast, the
entitlement of a coastal State to maritime spa ce was based on distance a nd had nothing to do with
sea-floor topography and geological structures. Since then, and until now, geology and
geomorphology have been removed from the case la w, and Honduras believes that is where they
should remain.
9. However, Nicaragua wants to repackage things. Nicaragua says that its argument about
geology and geomorphology is different. It is not about the demonstration of a sea-floor or sea-bed
division, but, instead, the argumen t goes, that where there is “uni ty and uniformity” –– “unity and
uniformity”–– of the sea-bed, a phrase that is taken from the Canada-France arbitration, and
ironically where the phrase was used in connectio n with the continental shelf running from the
Arctic all the way to Florida, which was said to be one of unity and uniformity. But nonetheless,
Nicaragua argues that in such cases of a united and uniform sea-bed they must be shared between
two States. Well, first, a delimitation in law is not about sharing out the areas of the continental
shelf. That being said, obviously, delimitations di vide maritime space. But nowhere in the award
of the Canada-France arbitration can you find the proposition that where you have a specific
united and uniform continental shelf feature, it must be shared between the two States. The
argument about the Nicaraguan Rise is that there is a geomorphological feature, and since it is
uniform, it must be shared. This is an entirely new idea that has never been put to this Court or to
an arbitral tribunal in a maritime boundary case. It is made up. There is no precedent for it, and it
does not help. If the authority for this proposition is the Canada-France arbitration, it is weak
authority, for that is a case where most observers would say that such principle as put forward by
Mr.Brownlie was not in any event applied. This third relevant circumstance proposition is
inventive, and it is without foundation in fact, the practice of States, or the law.
10. The fourth relevant circumstance is “security considerations”. Let me deal with this by
asking: what “security considerations”? Pr ofessor Greenwood asked the same. Mr.Brownlie
responded that Professor Greenwood was taking too narrow a view. I do not know what that is
supposed to mean. But further, Mr. Brownlie did not tell us still what those security considerations
were. Thus, no case has been made out by Nicar agua that the Honduran line would create any
security problems for Nicaragua. In the cases, this has been one of those factors that the Court and - 14 -
tribunals have said they do not rule out, but even in the United Kingdom v. France case, where
some very strong real security-based arguments we re made, this factor was not applied by the
arbitral tribunal and it has never been taken into account by the Court.
11. The fifth relevant circumstance Mr. Brow nlie proposed is “access to the main navigable
channel in the adjacent coastal area”.
12. In response, first, as parties to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the freedom of
navigation beyond the territorial sea and the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea are
guaranteed. So, to begin, this is a non-i ssue. That this was an issue in the Beagle Channel case
only highlights that the circumstances where such a consideration has been taken into account are
very different from those here. Here, the law of the sea applies to the territorial sea and the
exclusive economic zones of the Parties.
13. This response on the law should be dispositiv e of this argument, but there are two other
facts, or non-facts that we would note. Mr. Brownlie connects this argument to the port that is said
to exist at the town of Puerto Cabo Gracias a Dios that is said to exist at the mouth of the river, as if
ships bound to this port must be ensured that they can sail down the bisector line.
14. On Monday, the Agent of Nicaragua came back to the issue of the town of Cabo
GraciasaDios that is suggested to be a port of significance for Nicaragua at the mouth of the
Rio Coco. The evidence he produced began with an enlargement of a portion of British Admiralty
chart2425, that is found in his figure CAG2-5 ⎯ and it is now shown here on the screen
(DAC2-2). You can see there is a shaded area th at presumably denotes a little town, and there is a
notation of a hotel. The Agent then pointed out in his next graphic, which we are not going to
show ⎯ it was CAG2-6 ⎯ that the information on this char t dates from perhaps the nineteenth
century, and in the next graphics he provided statistics ⎯ those were his figures CAG2-7 and
CAG2-8 ⎯ that date from the 1920s about economic activity. Now, before moving on and
addressing the substance of the argument, I simply want to note that if the notations on this chart
represent a Nicaraguan community, it is further evidence of Nicaragua’s unlawful occupation on
the north bank of the Rio Coco.
15. In any event, if you look closely at the 1962 Mixed Commission map that is now on the
screen (DAC2-3) you see that it says that such to wn as might have been in this location was - 15 -
destroyed in 1941. United States nautical charts, shown now (DAC2-4), indicate that ruins exist at
this location. Nonetheless, the Agent referred to a website that still lists this port in a Listing of
Ports of the World. However, Nicaragua has provided no current or even modern information
about this port ⎯ we have no photographs of this port, we have no statistics concerning the
importance of this port and if one examines the la rge modern fold-out map of Nicaragua that was
included as mapB in VolumeIII of Nicaragua’s Memorial (DAC2-5) you will find no town of
Nicaragua on that map anywhere near the mouth of the river. Instead, you will see a number of
other ports along the Nicaraguan coast and here th ey are marked with an anchor symbol that
appears on that Nicaraguan map that was put into evidence. There is no anchor symbol, there is no
name of a town near the mouth of the river on Nicaragua’s map.
16. As for the Main Cape Channel, the reas on Mr.Brownlie wants to make it a relevant
circumstance in this delimitation is so that Nicar agua can argue that the islands south of this
passage are under Nicaragua’s sovereignty, and th at it marks the location of what Nicaragua
believes would be an equitable solution. That na vigators sail their ships between islands rather
than through the midst of island clusters is obvious. And that these passages take on names is
unremarkable.
17. On British Admiralty chart2425 ⎯ and we are now showing the entire chart
(DAC2-6) ⎯ besides the Main Cape Channel that has been listed and that we have talked about in
this case, there are four other passages, or channe ls, shown on this chart alone. We have Mosquito
Channel, we have Edinburgh Channel, we have Porgee Channel and we have Tinkham Channel.
18. These passages do not relate to territorial s overeignty. They do not allocate or attribute
sovereignty on one side from that on the other. Nor do they mark international maritime
boundaries. We might remind ourselves that in the Gulf of Maine case again, the United States
tried hard to make a channel ⎯ called the Northeast Channel ⎯ a relevant circumstance, and
Canada tried to make the Great South Channel a relevant circumstance — both being passageways
shown on nautical charts. Suffice it to say that neither the United States nor Canada succeeded.
19. None of the relevant circumstances that have been put forward by Nicaragua’s counsel
are relevant here. - 16 -
Starting-point issues
20. Let me turn now to some starting-point issues.
21. The Parties apparently now are in agreem ent that the Rio Coco forms islands in the
mouth and over time those islands become attach ed to the mainland on one side or other of the
river. The fact that the river has formed a peninsula that is in the shape of a cone is evidence of the
fact that the build-up on either side of the river has been symmetrical over time.
22. The Parties however apparently disagree a bout the sovereignty over islands in the mouth
of the river, before they become attached to the mainland. While ProfessorPellet acknowledged
that the King of Spain’s Award provides that th e islands in the river belong to Honduras, he
asserted that the present island in the mouth of the river is really part of the right bank of the river
and thus it belongs to Nicaragua.
23. Honduras emphatically disagrees with Nicar agua’s interpretation of the 1906Award of
the King of Spain which Honduras believes is clear in this regard that the islands in the river belong
to Honduras.
24. This is a critical point of difference betw een the Parties concerning the interpretation of
the 1906 Award.
25. In this regard, I should point out that Honduras has made use of these islands which, as
we know, come and go but they may be present for a few years. For example, Professor Sands has
spoken of the markers that were placed on some of the islands, including Bobel Cay, in 1975 as
part of a Geofix survey conducted for Union Oil Company. As part of that same project, in 1972, a
marker was placed on the island that was then present in the mouth of the river.
26. On the screen we are putting a page from our Annexes (DAC2-7) ⎯ this is page151
from the report of the Geofix survey that was conduc ted for Union Oil. The full report is found at
Volume II, Annex 264, of the Rejoinder. This page is a station description of the marker placed on
the island in the mouth of the river that was then there. Now, two things I would simply note.
First, the writer of this report attributes the isla nd to Honduras. Second, the writer of this report ⎯
and the report is dated April-May 1975 ⎯ says that the marker that was placed on the island in
1972 is in danger of disappearing due to erosion. Now there is more information on this that can
be found at page 152, and there are actually photographs of this station at page 153 of Volume II of - 17 -
the Rejoinder. All of this is to say that Hondur as regards the islands in the mouth of the river to
appertain to Honduras in accordance with the 1906 Award of the King of Spain and has acted
accordingly.
27. A different question concerns the location of the thalweg at the mouth of the river.
Honduras fully accepts what the King of Spain’s Award says. But there is no evidence before the
Court as to where that thalweg is now. This is a complex question, particularly when unstable
islands and shoals form in the mouths of rivers.
28. Mr. Brownlie, in the 6th edition of his work “Principles of Public International Law”, has
this to say, at page 159 under the heading “Boundary Rivers” ⎯ I do not intend to read the whole
thing but, after describing some of the complex ities, he says in the last sentence (DAC2-8):
“Judicial expertise is called for, particularly in relation to the determination of the main channel
among several arms of a river.” Thus, at least we can say that this authority believes that
determining the main channel among several arms of a river may be complicated.
29. In the Botswana/Namibia case, the Court was faced with the job of trying to decide
where the “main channel” was around Kasikili/Sedudu Island within the meaning of an 1890 treaty.
I do not argue that this present situation is exactly the same, but the fact that the Court noted that
such determinations raise complex questions is re levant. The Court said, at paragraph30 of its
Judgment:
“The Court finds that it cannot rely on one single criterion in order to identify
the main channel of the Chobe around K asikili/Sedudu Island, because the natural
features of a river may vary markedly along its course and from one case to another.”
(Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999(II),
p. 1064, para. 30.)
30. The point is that the legal and factual issues at the mouth of the Rio Coco are
complicated, and they have not been argued in these proceedings. Indeed, that was Nicaragua’s
position in the written pleadings and Honduras has fo llowed its lead. For this reason, Honduras
believes that it is not appropriate for the Court to engage in a ddressing any of these questions, and
should leave it to the Parties to address these co mplexities in the area between the 1962Mixed
Commission point and the seaward fixed point that both Parties agree the Court should establish.
31. Of course the Parties remain in disagre ement as to where the seaward fixed point should
be. We are placing again on the screen the set of satellite images from 1979 to 2006 (DAC2-9). - 18 -
We will not go through this in detail but anyone lo oking at these images would see that the river is
running east, you can identify the latitude of 15° N. It is hard not to appreciate, in viewing these
images, that if the islands that form in the mouth of the river did not exist, the mouth of the river, as
marked by the headlands of the river, points basically east in each of these images.
32. That is why Honduras believes that the seaward fixed point it proposes, which lies east of
the mouth of the river, as formed by the headlands of the river, is the appropriate starting-point.
Now on the screen (DAC2-10) we are showing what happens if the Court applies the equidistance
methodology as suggested by Nicaragua. The seaward fixed point will either be to the north-east
of the river mouth if one assumes Nicaragua owns the island, and it will be to the south-east if
Honduras owns the island. Instead, the seaward fixe d point proposed by Honduras lies directly off
the river mouth. It is for the Parties, in Hondur as’s submission, to decide how the boundary is to
follow the thalweg from the 1962Mixed Commission point, it is for the Parties to address the
question of the unstable islands in the river mouth, and it is for the Parties then to extend the
boundary to the seaward fixed point to be establishe d by the Court. That is what both Parties
requested up to the time they arrived in The Ha gue, and Honduras still believes that is the correct
procedure.
Geographical concepts in maritime delimitation
33. Turning now to issues pertaining to geographical concepts in maritime boundary
delimitation.
34. In the cases, the relevant area for consideration of a maritime boundary problem is the
area in which the delimitation takes place. This delimitation must take place in the area seaward of
Cabo Gracias a Dios. The relevant area does not in clude all of the maritime space that lies within
200miles of the coast of both countries. Now on the screen is Nicaragua’s relevant area.
(DAC2-11 ⎯ IB33/JPQ4). This is an extreme suggestion, and one may ask, why does
Mr.Brownlie stop here? Why not include the coasts of the two countries in the Pacific Ocean?
This suggestion by Nicaragua, that the Court shoul d evaluate a delimitation problem by trying to
figure out all the maritime space that the two count ries can claim, has absolutely no support in the
case law. - 19 -
35. I am reminded that the Agent of Nicara gua, in his first presentation on 5 March referred
to the Honduran port of Puerto Lempira. And he said: “located nearly 100 km from the pertinent
area”. Here is the map he showed (CAG1-15), a nd Puerto Lempira is highlighted and he said:
“Puerto Lempire is 100km from the pertinent area” . Now I have already dealt with the Puerto
Gracias a Dios label that is on this figure, so I will not refer to that again. The Agent came back on
19March in his presentation (CR2007/11, p.25, para.57) and said that Puerto Lempira is again
“well over 100 km distant from the area in dispute”. The Agent of Nicaragua placed the pertinent
area or the area in dispute about 100km from Puerto Lempira which can only mean that he
understands that the pertinent area, or the relevant area, or the area in dispute, lies off the mouth of
the RioCoco. This is a far different perspective about what is relevant or pertinent than what
Professor Brownlie suggests in the map of the relevant area (return to CAG2-11).
36. The reasons for the extreme relevant area are two. First, in order to construct the bisector
that leaves to Nicaragua the Honduran islands north of 15°N, Nicaragua must create a line of
extraordinary length that connects the Hondur as-Nicaragua land boundary terminus to the
Honduras-Guatemala land boundary terminus, which just so happens to run at a bearing that then
enables the construction of the bisector proposal.
37. What was said on Tuesday (CR 2007/12, p. 42, para. 18) in this regard by Mr. Brownlie
is really extraordinary. He said: “Using a coast al direction supported by the entire length of the
coast ensures that each and every point on the coastli ne . . . is allowed an equal contribution to the
delimitation.” I am tempted that this is nonsense but perhaps I should be softer and say this is
nonsense in so far as maritim e delimitation is concerned. Should the coast of Florida have been
allowed to contribute equally to the delimitation in the Gulf of Maine case as much as the coast of
Maine and Nova Scotia? Indeed, both Canada and the United States tried to argue that parts of
their respective coasts that did not front on the Gulf of Maine were nonetheless relevant to the
delimitation. The Chamber had none of it. Ni caragua’s relevant area and relevant coasts are
contrived for the sole reason of placing the bisector line so as to attribute the disputed islands to
Nicaragua. It has no basis in law, no precedent, in the law and practice of maritime delimitation.
38. There is a second reason for the extreme rele vant area and that is to ensure that the
proportionality scheme that was set out on Tuesday (IB3-27) can be made to work. - 20 -
39. Proportionality as a test of equity is not about creating artificial areas and then creating
ratios using coast-line lengths. There are too many variables, too many subjective decisions, to be
made in making these ratios work out right whic h in earlier cases opposing counsel always seemed
to be able to do. That has led the Court to reject these arguments and to apply a more general
evaluation of whether the line it proposes to creat e is an equitable line in the totality of the
circumstances.
40. The fact that in the Caribbean Sea more maritime space will appertain to Honduras than
to Nicaragua is simply the result of the political geography of the region ⎯ just as the reverse is
true in the Pacific Ocean where more maritime space will appertain to Nicaragua than to Honduras.
It is not the function of the law of maritime delim itation to make sure that each State gets the same
amount, or close to the same amount. Nonetheless, th is is the thrust of Nicaragua’s argument and
this is the reason for the extreme relevant area picture that we are now taking down off the screen.
41. If, one however, considers the coasts that face the delimitation area, and considers the
area off those coasts, one gets a different pers pective on proportionality and one that is more
enlightening. On the screen (DAC2-13) we ar e bringing up the northern section of British
Admiralty chart2425. It shows the coast of both countries in the vicinity of the land boundary
terminus. The land boundary reaches the sea basica lly in the middle of the coast shown on this
chart. It is the maritime area shown on this chart, that lies off the relevant coasts of the Parties.
You can see that 15°N latitude basically divid es the maritime area shown on this chart roughly
equally, just as the relevant coasts shown on this ch art are roughly equal in length. And, besides,
that latitude separates the islands that belong to Honduras from those that belong to Nicaragua.
Delimitation method
42. I shall now turn to a few considerations about delimitation method.
43. This delimitation begins at the tip of a ca pe or peninsula. This is an unusual geographic
situation to be sure and it led Nicaragua to clai m for much of its pleadings that the equidistance
method could not be applied. But Nicaragua has finally come around to the view that it is not
impossible to apply the equidistance method in the circumstances. - 21 -
44. This is a meaningful shift in the Nicaraguan argument. Furthermore–– and now
returning to British Admiralty chart2425 with lines that we have placed on this figure
(DAC2-14) –– as Honduras has said, since the coast of Nicaragua from Laguno Wano in Nicaragua
to Cape Falso in Honduras are on the same longitude, one can consider that the coastal front of the
two countries is a straight line running from sout h to north, and thus the common coastal front
faces east. And as Honduras has said, and indeed as Nicaragua has said, a geometrical approach to
delimitation in the circumstance of a straight coast shared by two States will often yield up a
perpendicular to that common coastal front as an equitable delimitation. Of course, Nicaragua does
not agree that there is a common straight line coastal front here, because it believes the cape causes
the entire coast of Central America to turn sharply to the left.
45. However, as we have seen, the cape, which presumably has been formed over the
centuries by sediment deposition of the Rio Coco, is clearly symmetrical in shape. It sits in the
middle of the common eastward facing coastal front . Capes and peninsulas are often said to be
special circumstances, but such statements need to be consider ed in light of where the land
boundary is located in relation to a cape. In this case, the land boundary is not to the north of the
cape, or to the south of the cape, it is in the middle of the cape and extends to the eastern tip of the
cape. This presents an unusual situation but it is not one that is impossible to analyse.
46. Perhaps a few simplified illustrations would prove useful. (DAC2-15) Here we have a
straight coast with a curving line illustrating the land boundary; and we see a perpendicular
extending from the coast as an equitable delimitati on. Next we place on the diagram (DAC2-16) a
cape and show the land boundary reaching the sea to th e north of the cape. As this figure says,
StateA will argue that the cape is a circumstance that must be discounted in order to produce an
equitable delimitation. What happens if the land boundary reaches the sea to the south of the cape?
(DAC2-17) Here we understand that State B will argue that the cape is a circumstance that must be
discounted to produce an equitable delimitation. But what if the land boundary hits the coast at the
tip of the cape? (DAC2-18) That is shown here. Is there any reason to say that this would not be
an equitable solution? - 22 -
47. This is a modest demonstration, but it shows the assessment of geographic circumstances
that one must take into account where the land bounda ry is located in connection with the relevant
geographic features.
48. Now I close by a short discussion of the enclave solution or enclave suggestion made by
Nicaragua in response to JudgeKeith’s question. The essence of an enclave situation is that one
finds that islands that belong to one party are on the wrong side of a line of delimitation that is
being proposed. Usually that line of delimitation is the median or equidistance line. Here in
Nicaragua’s example the islands are on the wrong side of the bisector line.
49. A few examples from State practice may be inst ructive and we will turn to four of them.
One is the Channel Islands between the United Ki ngdom and France that the Court of Arbitration
addressed in its 1977 Judgment. A second relates to the treatment of certain Australian islands in
the Australia-Papua New Guinea delimitation which entered into force in 1985 and the full report
on that can be found in International Maritime Boundaries, Volume II, report 5-3. The third is the
treatment given to four Italian islands in the Italy-Tunisia boundary agreement that entered into
force in 1978, and the full report there can be found in International Maritime Boundaries ,
VolumeII, report8-6. And the fourth exampl e that we shall discuss is the Saudi Arabia-Iran
delimitation of 24October1968, and that can be found in International Maritime Boundaries ,
Volume II, report 7-7.
50. Putting now on the screen a figure (DAC2-19) showing the United Kingdom v. France
situation. The Court of Arbitration found that the Channel Islands rested up against the coast of
France. Obviously, the islands were on the wrong side of the median line of the English Channel
between France and the English coast that was ot herwise deemed to be an equitable boundary in
this area. The Court of Arbitration did not have the authority to delimit the boundary between the
Channel Islands and the coast of France. The Court of Arbitration did have the authority, however,
to determine that the Channel Islands, on the side that faced England, were to be limited to a
12-nautical-mile belt that effectively when th e territorial sea boundary would be ultimately
established would mean that the Channel Islands w ould be fully enclaved by French waters. In
other words the waters of France would fully surround the waters attributable to the United
Kingdom’s Channel Islands. - 23 -
51. A more complex situation is the Australia -Papua New Guinea delimitation, and that map
is now before you (DAC2-20). In the Torres Stra it there are Australian islands that lie right up
against Papua New Guinea. We will highlight th ree of these and I will no doubt say their names
incorrectly ⎯ they are: Boigu, Duaun and Saibai. A nd there are also some others. In this
agreement there are a complex set of co-opera tive arrangements that pertain to sea-bed and
fisheries and environmental measures. So as you examine this map, the dotted lines represent these
various areas in which these various arrangement s take place, and they do not indicate the
territorial sea boundaries of these islands. As for the territorial sea of the Australian islands that are
on the wrong side of the Torres Strait and lie up against the coast of Papua New Guinea, the treaty
provides in Article 3 (2) that the territorial seas of such islands shall not extend beyond 3nautical
miles from their coast.
52. Let us turn to a third example and that is the Italy-Tunisia situation. This is a
demonstration of the technique of semi-enclav ing (DAC2-21). The parties were in general
agreement that the boundary in the channel between Sicily and Tunisia should be the median line,
but there was the problem of four Italian islands that lie near the middle of the channel and on the
wrong side of the median line. The solution in this case was not to encl ave these islands fully, as
such, surrounding them completely with Tunisian waters. Instead, Pantelleria, Lampedusa and
Linosa each received an arc of jurisdiction of 13 nautical miles ⎯ meaning a 12nautical-mile
territorial sea and a 1nautical-mile arc of continental shelf, and Lampione received just a
12 nautical-mile arc, and that was because Lampione was uninhabited. As you can see in this case,
the result is a median line that c onnects to these arcs, or bulges of jurisdiction, so that Tunisian
water does not completely surround the Italian waters.
53. The Saudi Arabia-Iran boundary in the Arabian Gulf is another example of the
semi-enclaving technique (DAC2-22). In this case, the line of delimitation is a median line, but as
this median line runs from south to north it first en counters a Saudi island, Al Arabiyah, and then it
encounters an Iranian island, Farsi, as the median line runs up the middle of the Gulf. In this
situation, when the median lin e encounters these two islands in the middle of the delimitation
problem, the line of delimitation, from south to nort h, first runs east in a 12-mile arc around the - 24 -
Saudi island, a line of latitude provides a transition, and then the line of delimitation runs west in a
12-mile arc around the Iranian island.
54. Is there anything to be learned from this? One thing we might conclude is that where the
technique of full enclaving has been applied ⎯ such as in the United Kingdom v. France or
Australia-Papua New Guinea situations ⎯ these are situations where islands lie right up against the
coast of the neighbouring country. The Honduran islands are not right up against the coast of
Nicaragua. Thus, the suggestion of Nicaragua in answer to Judge Keith, which proposes a full
enclave of these islands, with a 3 nautical-mile br eadth for the Honduran islands, has no support in
the practice of States. Second, where islands app ear near the middle of the delimitation problem,
as they do here, the answer has been, as it was in Tunisia-Italy and as it was in Saudi Arabia-Iran,
to use the semi-enclaving technique. Thus, as wa s done in those two cases, the primary line of
delimitation is followed, when the islands that are in the middle of the problem are encountered, the
line of delimitation winds around those islands in an arc, creating a semi-enclave, so as not to
separate those islands and their maritime areas from that of the mainland country. Also, ⎯ and this
bears on the question ask ed by JudgeSimma ⎯ as we have seen in the two examples of the
semi-enclaving technique, the practice has been to en sure that the semi-enclaved islands receive at
least a full 12 nautical-mile territorial sea.
55. Madam President, that brings me to the end of my presentation on a selection of issues,
and I hope that it has proved useful to the Court. I thank the Court for its attention, and I would
now ask you to call upon Professor Quéneudec.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Colson. We now call Professor Quéneudec.
M. QUÉNEUDEC :
Le rôle de l’équidistance en l’espèce
1. Madame le président, Messieurs les juges, je ne sais pas si, au cours du premier tour des
plaidoiries, j’ai joué au professeur de géographie, comme on l’a gentiment dit. Je sais seulement
que, dans ma précédente plaidoirie, je me suis attaché à présenter à la Cour, de façon aussi - 25 -
objective que possible, les données géographiques essentielles qui conditionnent le problème de
délimitation maritime sur lequel la Cour doit se prononcer.
2. Les données qui ont été présentées à cette occasion n’ont pas été vraiment contestées par
le Nicaragua. Ces données géographiques doivent d onc être regardées comme établies et admises
par les deuxParties à la présente instance. Il est dès lors inutile d’y revenir durant ce deuxième
tour.
3. En me fondant sur la géographie de l’affaire telle qu’elle a été précédemment décrite, je
souhaiterais aujourd’hui présenter à la Cour quelqu es observations relatives au rôle que peut jouer
ici la méthode de l’équidistance pour tracer la ligne de délimitation.
4. Ces observations s’imposent, semble-t-il, dans la mesure où le droit de la délimitation
maritime place désormais la méthode de l’équidi stance au cŒur de la démarche qu’il convient de
suivre, et ce, aussi bien dans le cadre de la rè gle coutumière dite des «principes équitables et
circonstances pertinentes» que dans le cadre de la règle conventionnelle combinant «équidistance et
circonstances spéciales».
5. Ces observations sont, d’autre part, rendues nécessaires en raison de l’apparente évolution
qu’a connue la position du Nicaragua à ce sujet.
1 2
6. Dans ses écritures , puis lors du premier tour de la phase orale , le Nicaragua avait
considéré que le principe de l’équidistance ét ait inapplicable en l’espèce pour des raisons
techniques. Or, dans ses plaidoiries du deuxième tour, il a paru disposé à admettre que le tracé
d’une ligne d’équidistance pouvait être envisagé, au moins à titre d’hypothèse 3.
7. Ainsi, à l’appui de sa tentative de réfu tation de la présentation qui avait été faite par
4
M.Colson lors de l’audience du 16 mars , le professeur Brownlie n’a pas hésité à produire, à
l’audience de mardi dernier, plusieurs croquis où étaient représentées diverses lignes provisoires
d’équidistance [illustrations IB3-9 à IB3-16, dans le dossier des juges].
1 MN, vol. I, p. 158, par. 23, et p. 159, par. 25 ; RN, vol. I, p. 10, par. 1.18.
2
CR 2007/2, p. 16, par. 33.
3 CR 2007/12, p. 43-46, par. 25-32.
4 CR 2007/10, p. 24-31, par. 123-148. - 26 -
8. La Partie adverse n’a toutefois pas tiré de ces illustrations, dont cer taines étaient pourtant
particulièrement suggestives, toutes les conséque nces auxquelles on pouvait s’attendre. Bien au
contraire, on a continué, de l’autre côté de la barre, à défendre l’idée de l’impossibilité pratique
d’appliquer en l’espèce la méthode de l’équidistance, et ce tout en traçant des lignes provisoires
d’équidistance, sans percevoir sans doute ce qu’il po uvait y avoir de contradi ctoire dans une telle
attitude.
9. Cette idée était, par exemple, à la base de la position défendue l undi après-midi par le
professeur Pellet.
10. Le conseil du Nicaragua nous a dit, en effe t, que la ligne de délimitation devait remplir
les conditions imposées par les dispositions pertinen tes de la convention des NationsUnies sur le
droit de la mer, qu’elle devait donc «dans son premier tronçon se rapprocher autant que faire se
peut de la ligne d’équidistance», mais qu’il fallait tenir compte de la circonstance spéciale résultant
notamment de «la limitation à pr atiquement deux des points sur l esquels on peut prendre appui
5
pour construire [cette] ligne» .
11. Ce qui revenait à dire que l’existence de deux points de base seulement sur la côte
continentale du Honduras et du Nicaragua représe ntait une circonstance spéciale au sens de
l’article15 de la convention de 1982 et que, dès lors, l’équidistance ne pouvait pas être utilisée
pour tracer une ligne de délimitation.
12. A n’en pas douter, il s’agit là d’une bien étrange position. Où a-t-on vu que le nombre
réduit des points de base susceptibles d’être rete nus comme étant des points appropriés pour le
tracé d’une ligne d’équidistance, où a-t-on vu qu e le nombre réduit de ces points devrait être
regardé comme une circonstance spéciale de nature à écarter le recours à l’équidistance ?
13. Remarquons tout d’abord que, lorsque la configuration côtière est telle que seuls
deux points peuvent être déterminés sur la côte po ur servir de points de base à partir desquels sera
construite une ligne d’équidistance provisoire, il n’en résulte de prime abord aucune impossibilité
technique pour tracer la ligne.
5
CR 2007/11, p. 42, par. 30. - 27 -
14. Surtout, le fait que deux points de base seulement commandent tout le tracé d’une ligne
de délimitation au large de deux côtes adjacentes n’ est pas en soi un facteur d’inéquité. C’est la
simple traduction de la géographie côtière. C’est en particulier le reflet du fait que les côtes
pertinentes aux fins de la délimitation ne sont pas très étendues de part et d’autre du point
d’aboutissement à la mer de la frontière terrestre.
15. Une ligne d’équidistance prenant appui sur deux points de base ne pourrait à priori
présenter un caractère inéquitable que si elle devait être tracée sur une grande distance au large des
côtes ; ce qui ne peut certainement pas être le cas lorsque la zone concernée par la délimitation est
un espace de dimension modeste dans une mer semi-fermée, comme précisément c’est le cas ici.
16. Dans l’affaire de la Frontière terrestre et maritime ent re le Cameroun et le Nigéria
(Cameroun c. Nigéria ; Guinée équatoriale (intervenant)) , deux points de base seulement ont ainsi
été retenus par la Cour «comme points d’ancrag e terrestre pour la construction de la ligne
d’équidistance», à savoir les «points les plus méri dionaux sur la laisse de basse mer du Nigéria et
du Cameroun de part et d’autre de la baie formée par les estuaires de l’Akwayafé et de la rivière
Cross» (arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 443, par. 292).
17. Ces deux points sont identifiés sous l es noms de WestPoint et EastPoint sur le
croquis12 joint à l’arrêt du 10octobre2002 [figure JPQ2 1]. Et la Cour se souviendra
certainement que, dans l’arrêt qu’elle a rendu dans cette affaire, elle a ajouté la précision suivante :
«Etant donné la configuration des côtes et l’esp ace circonscrit dans lequel la Cour a compétence
pour opérer la délimitation, aucun autre point de base n’a été nécessaire à la Cour pour procéder à
cette opération.» (Ibid.)
18. Il en était de même, dans l’arbitrage de 1977, entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Pour
l’établissement de la délimitation du plateau con tinental dans le secteur atlantique, le tribunal
arbitral n’avait utilisé que deux points de base, l’ un sur la côte anglaise, l’autre sur la côte
française, pour tracer chacune des deux lignes provisoires d’équidistance [figure JPQ2 2].
19. La première était construite à partir d’un point choisi sur l’île d’Ouessant du côté français
et, du côté britannique, à partir d’un point choisi sur la plus occidentale des îles Sorlingues (Scilly
Islands). La seconde ligne d’équidistance prenait appui sur le même point de base à Ouessant du
côté français et, de l’autre côté, sur un point situ é à l’extrémité de la péninsule de la Cornouaille - 28 -
anglaise (Land’s End) . Et l’on sait que la ligne retenue par le tribunal fut ensuite tracée à
mi-chemin entre ces deux lignes provisoires d’équidistance.
20. Dans le cas présent, la configuration des portions de côte des deux Etats qui sont
pertinentes aux fins de la délimitation conduit à sélectionner deux points de base très proches l’un
de l’autre. Ces points de base sont, en effet, n écessairement situés sur la côte de chacun des deux
Etats dans la région du cap Gracias a Dios. En d’ autres termes, il s’agit de retenir deux points sur
la côte de part et d’autre de l’embouchure du Rio Coco.
21. Il y a certes ici une difficulté, mais ellen’est cependant pas insurmontable. N’oublions
pas, en effet, la sage parole de Sénèque : «Ce n’est pas parce que les choses sont difficiles que nous
n’osons pas. C’est parce que nous n’osons pas que les choses paraissent difficiles.»
22. La difficulté tient ici à ce que l’identification des points les plus orientaux sur la laisse de
basse mer du Honduras et du Nicaragua de part et d’autre de l’embouchure du RioCoco, cette
identification est rendue délicate par le caractère inst able de la côte dans ce secteur. Cet aspect de
la situation n’est pas contesté et a été souligné à diverses reprises des deux côtés de la barre.
23. Appelée à se prononcer en 2007, la Cour ne peut évidemment pas se référer à des
données remontant à vingt ou trenteans et qui sont aujourd’hui dépassées. Elle ne peut pas non
plus tenter de se fonder sur ce que pourrait être la situation au début du siècle prochain, en se
perdant en conjectures. Il lui faut statuer en prenant la situation de fait telle qu’elle est
actuellement, qui constitue pour elle «une donnée…un fait sur la base duquel elle doit opérer la
délimitation» ( Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun
c.Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale (intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil2002 , p.443 et 445, par.295),
pour reprendre la formule utilisée en 2002.
24. Or, grâce à l’image satellite en date 29 novembre2006 qui lui a été présentée par le
Nicaragua, la Cour dispose de données tout à fait récentes sur le contour de l’extrémité des deux
côtes continentales (mainland coasts) se trouvant de part et d’autre de l’embouchure du fleuve
[figure JPQ2 3.1].
25. A partir de cette image, nos experts ont ré ussi à identifier un point localisé sur la laisse
de basse mer à l’extrémité de chacune de ces côtes. Ces deux points de base peuvent alors servir
d’ancrage terrestre au tracé d’une ligne provisoir e d’équidistance, c’est-à-dire au tracé d’une ligne - 29 -
dont tous les points sont équidistants de ces de ux points de base. La ligne ainsi tracée suit un
azimut de 78,8°.
26. Cette ligne ne tient absolument aucun compte des îles, qu’il s’agisse de celles se trouvant
à l’embouchure du Rio Coco ou des îles situées plus au large [figure JPQ23.2]. C’est pourquoi,
elle passe au milieu du groupe d’îles appartenant au Honduras et se trouvant dans la partie de la
zone en litige située au nord du 15 eparallèle.
27. Or, chacune des îles de ce groupe, et en particulier BobelCay, Port Royal Cay,
Savanna Cay et South Cay (ou Cayo Sur), engendre une mer territoriale d’une largeur de 12 milles
marins [figure JPQ2 3.3].
28. Il en résulte que ces îles peuvent exercer une incidence sur le tracé de la ligne provisoire
d’équidistance tirée depuis le continent [figure JPQ2 3.4].
29. Pour tenir compte de l’existence d’une cei nture d’eaux territoriales autour de ces îles, la
ligne d’équidistance est alors affectée de deux bom bements vers le sud, qui ont pour résultat de
placer les îles en question dans une demi-enclave, d’une manière qui n’est pas sans rappeler le tracé
de la ligne de délimitation entre l’Italie et la Tunisie que M. Colson évoquait tout à l’heure.
30. On ne doit toutefois pas perdre de vue que le Nicaragua, de son côté, exerce sa
e
souveraineté sur d’autres formati ons insulaires situées au sud du 15 parallèle, notamment
Edinburgh Cay et Edinburgh Reef. Le 16 mars dernie r, lors du premier tour, avait été présenté à la
Cour le croquis DAC 21 sur lequel était tracée une li gne provisoire d’équidistance à partir des îles
appartenant respectivement à chacune des Parties [figure JPQ23.5]. Cette ligne d’équidistance
entre les îles a été reportée sur la carte qui est maintenant à l’écran.
31. Sur cette carte, on voit à présent trois indications. Il y a, d’une part, la ligne
d’équidistance tirée à partir de deux points de base sur la laisse de basse mer bordant la côte
continentale (Equidistance : mainland-to-mainland). Il y a, d’autre part, deux bombements ou
renflements provoqués par la demi-enclave de 12milles autour des îles honduriennes (12 miles
semi-enclave of the Honduran Islands) . Il y a enfin la ligne d’équidistance tracée entre les îles
honduriennes et nicaraguayennes qui a été ajoutée (Equidistance between the islands).
32. De la combinaison de ces deux dernières indications, il résulte nettement que la ligne
d’équidistance entre les îles hondurie nnes et les îles nicaraguayenn es a pour effet de limiter la - 30 -
projection maritime des premières et, par voie de conséquence, de modifier le tracé de la
demi-enclave autour de ces îles, comme on le voit sur cette nouvelle projection [figure JPQ2 3.6].
33. On aboutit ainsi au tracé d’une ligne d’équi distance provisoire prenant appui à la fois sur
la côte continentale des deux Etats située en fa ce de l’aire de délimitation et, prenant appui aussi
sur les côtes des diverses îles qui se trouvent dans la zone pertinente.
34. Madame le président, il est bien évident qu’il s’agit là d’un exercice consistant à voir le
résultat auquel on aboutit si l’on commence par trac er une ligne provisoire d’équidistance donnant
effet à toutes les côtes pertinentes des Parties, que ces côtes soient continentales ou insulaires.
C’est la première étape prescrite par l’application pure et simple des règles contemporaines du droit
de la mer relatives aux délimitations maritimes entre Etats.
35. Il reste alors, dans une seconde étape, à évaluer le caractère plus ou moins satisfaisant ou
raisonnable de ce résultat provisoire, puisque la norme fondamentale de toute délimitation maritime
est qu’elle doit aboutir à une solution équitable. Cette évaluation suppose la mise en balance de
l’ensemble des circonstances, qu’elles soient spéciales ou pertinentes.
36. Le poids respectif à accorder à ch aque circonstance suppose que soit dressé un
recensement aussi complet que possible des diffé rents facteurs susceptibles de conduire à un
ajustement, ou à un déplacement ou à une modifica tion de la ligne provisoire d’équidistance sur
tout ou partie de son tracé.
37. C’est le seul moyen d’accorder à ces éléments la place qu’ils méritent, même si le nom
de l’un d’eux, «Coco Marina», évoque plutôt une danseuse de ca baret qu’une opération conjointe
de prospection pétrolière.
38. C’est évidemment la terrible responsabilité du juge de procéder à cette mise en balance.
39. Pour l’assister dans sa tâche, il n’est sans doute pas inutile ni indifférent de comparer
avec attention la ligne provisoire d’équidistance que nous venons de décrire avec la ligne suivant
le 15eparallèle que le Honduras considère comme deva nt constituer la frontière maritime avec le
Nicaragua (figure JPQ2 3.7). - 31 -
40. Dans sa duplique, le Honduras avait déjà été amené à envisager les effets d’une ligne
provisoire d’équidistance afin de tester le caract ère équitable de la ligne traditionnelle suivant
le 15 parallèle qu’il revendique . 6
41. M.Colson a renouvelé l’expérience à la fin du premier tour des plaidoiries, lors de
l’audience du 16 mars dernier, afin de démont rer que la ligne demand ée par le Honduras satisfait
grandement au critère du résultat équitable lorsqu’on la compare à une ligne provisoire
d’équidistance 7.
42. Nous avons repris cet exercice aujourd’hui en y introduisant une nouvelle façon d’établir
la ligne provisoire d’équidistance, non point pour le plaisir de montrer la relativité qui affecte
inévitablement le tracé de lignes dites provisoires, mais pour aider les membres de la Cour à se
forger leur propre jugement, en les priant d’excuser l’audace de cette formule.
43. Nous croyons, en effet, que le rôle d’un conseil devant la Cour ne consiste pas seulement
à exposer et soutenir les thèses d’un Etat. Sa tâche est aussi celle d’un auxiliaire de justice qui se
doit d’aider la Cour, dans la mesure de ses faibl es moyens. Telle était en tout cas l’ambition qui
m’a animé. J’espère y être parvenu.
Madame le président, Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie de l’attention que vous avez bien
voulu me prêter.
Madam President, as there will be no coffee break this morning, could you please give the
floor to Professor Greenwood now.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Quéneudec. We now call Professor Greenwood.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Court.
1. Before the distinguished Agent of Honduras presents the formal submissions of Honduras
to the Court, it falls to me briefly ⎯ and, given the hour, I promise that I will be brief,
Madam President ⎯ to sum up the case of Honduras and to show what is in issue between the
Parties. While the argument in two rounds of written and oral pleadings has ranged over a large
number of subjects, Honduras’s case can be summed up in ten propositions.
6
DH, vol. I, p. 130-131, par. 8.16-8.20.
7CR 2007/10, p. 24-31, par. 123-148. - 32 -
2. First, Madam President, it is clear that the Court is now faced with two separate
disputes ⎯ one concerning sovereignty over the islands, the other concerning the delimitation of a
single maritime boundary. The first of those two disputes was not put to the Court until Nicaragua
amended its case on the opening day of the oral hearings, and its closing submissions put the matter
in the strangest way ⎯ asking the Court to adjudge and declar e that the Court has to decide the
question of sovereignty, rather than requesting, as is usual, a decision that the islands belong to the
claimant State. Nevertheless, Honduras accepts th at the issue of sovereignty over the islands is
squarely before the Court and that the Court should decide both of those disputes.
3. Secondly, in addition to these two disputes, Nica ragua has changed its case again in an
attempt to put before you a third issue, namely, the precise location of the last section of the
land ⎯ or riverine ⎯ boundary in the mouth of the river Co co and sovereignty over an island in
the mouth of the river. That issue is, of course, governed by the Award of the King of Spain of
December 1906. That Award, which is binding on both Parties, determines that the boundary shall
follow the thalweg of the main channel of th e river. However, Madam President, because
Nicaragua did not raise this matter at any time until after the opening of the oral hearings, there is
no evidence before the Court as to the location of the thalweg or, indeed, as to which of the
channels near the river mouth is the “main channel” identified in the King of Spain’s Award.
4. Honduras therefore maintains that the result is that the Court does not have before it the
evidence necessary to determine the location of this boundary and therefore the Court simply
cannot resolve the question. Accordingly, Honduras maintains the submission, set out in its written
pleadings, that the starting-point of the maritime boundary should be a point to seaward of the
mouth of the river and that the Parties should be enjoined to agree upon the delimitation of the
boundary between that point and the point fixed by the Mixed Commission in 1962.
5. Thirdly, the dispute regarding sovereignty over the islands has to be resolved in
accordance with the law applicable to title over land territory. That is not in any way altered by the
fact that this dispute co-exists with a dispute about the maritime boundary which falls to be decided
by application of the Law of the Sea Convention. That Convention is irrelevant to the issue of title
to land, whether the land in question is mainland or insular, and irrespective of the size of the
territory in question. Moreover, because it is s overeignty over land territory which determines the - 33 -
course of a maritime boundary and not the other way round, the dispute regarding sovereignty over
the islands has to be resolved first. We do not understand that that proposition is seriously
contested any longer by Nicaragua, as Mr. Brownlie candidly admitted last Tuesday.
6. Fourthly, Madam President, the evid ence before the Court shows that it is Honduras
which has sovereignty over the main islands ⎯ that is to say, Savanna, South Cay, Port Royal and
Bobel, as well as the other islands, cays, rocks, reef s and banks which are in dispute. That title is
an original title derived from the doctrine of uti possidetis juris and confirmed by post-colonial
effectivités.
7. If, however, the Court is not satisfied that Honduras has such original title, then ⎯ and
this is our alternative line of argument ⎯ the matter falls to be decided by examining which of the
two States has made out a superior claim based upon the actual exercise or display of authority
over the islands, coupled with the necessary sovere ign intent. If that question arises, then the
evidence is clear: Honduras, and only Honduras, has manifested an intention to act as sovereign
and engaged in the actual exercise of authority ov er the islands. Nicaragua, by contrast, has made
no claim based on uti possidetis other than one passing remark by one of its counsel. Instead, it
asserts an original title, based on adjacency, which is without foundation in law or in fact. And it
has offered no evidence of any effectivités, no evidence that any of its officials has ever even visited
any of the islands in question.
8. Fifthly, once sovereignty over the islands has been determined, it is then for the Court to
delimit the maritime boundary. And the Parties ag ree that this should be a single maritime
boundary, and that it should be established in accordance with the provisions of Articles15, 74
and83 of the Law of the Sea Convention, and the corresponding principles of customary
international law.
9. The sixth point , Madam President, is that there is no dispute that Savanna, South Cay,
PortRoyal and Bobel are islands, within the m eaning of Article 121(1) of the Law of the Sea
Convention. They therefore generate a territorial sea in the same way as any other land territory.
The same is true of all other islands, cays, rock s, reefs and banks in the area, which meet the
criterion of being above water at high tide. The br eadth of the territorial sea of both Parties is
12 nautical miles and there is therefore no justifica tion, we say, for employing a different standard - 34 -
with regard to the islands. Moreover, the base points from which the territorial sea around each
island is measured are located on the low-wate r line, in accordance with Article5 of the
Convention. In addition, since some of the isla nds in question have fringing reefs or associated
low-tide elevations located less than 12nautical miles from the islands, Articles6 and 13 of the
Convention provide for the use of those reefs and low-tide elevations in constructing the baselines.
10. My seventh proposition , Madam President ⎯ and it would appear that this is now
8
contested by Nicaragua, whatever it may have said in the past ⎯ is that the main islands are not,
in the words of Article 121 (3) of the Convention, “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own”. Members of the Court have seen the evidence of contemporary
habitation of Savanna and South Cay and of recen t habitation on Bobel and Port Royal. Reading
the witness statements, it is plain that the inhab itants are not modern-day hermits, deliberately in
search of hardship for the body the better to tend to the soul. They are working people who have
gone to the islands for economic re asons. Nicaragua’s change of tactic in invoking Article 121 (3)
is markedly at odds with the facts and show s once again how little Nicaragua knows about the
islands it now claims as its own.
11. Since the main islands do not fall within Article 121 (3), they generate an entitlement to a
continental shelf and exclusive economic zone as well as a territorial sea. The maritime boundary
has to take account of those entitlements and of the right of Honduras to a territorial sea around all
of the islands, rocks, reefs, cays and banks under its sovereignty.
12. Turning then, Madam President, to the maritime boundary, the eighth proposition
concerns the starting-point for that boundary. Fo r the reasons I have al ready summarized, that
starting-point cannot be located at the point fixed by the Mixed Commission in 1962 and will
therefore have to be located seaward of the mouth of the river. Both States have offered points to
serve as starting-points. The Honduran one is to be preferred because it is neutral as regards the
dispute over the location of the thalweg and the im possibility of resolving that dispute in these
proceedings is the reason for using a seaward st arting-point in the first place. The Honduran
8
Contrast CR 2007/11, p. 33, para. 12 (Pellet) with CR 2007/1, p. 62, para. 45 (Elferink). - 35 -
starting-point, which is shown on CJG3.1, is located at 14° 59.8' N latitude, 83° 05.8' W longitude,
and it is on the same line of latitude as the Mixed Commission point.
13. Ninthly, Madam President, once the starting-point has been determined, it is then
necessary to determine the methodology to be fo llowed. Honduras maintains that there is no
reason to depart from the practice almost universally adopted in the modern jurisprudence, both of
this Court and of other tribunals, that is to begi n with a provisional equidistance line, and we see
one shown here on CJG3.2 ⎯ that is, in fact, taken from the diagram that Professor Quéneudec has
just shown you. The line shown has been presente d earlier by Honduras but it is also instructive to
consider the provisional equidistance line belatedl y offered up by Nicaragua, which is shown on
the next slide (CJG3.3). We would, of course, take issue with this line in its first section, where it
has been constructed on the basis of assumpti ons which are unfounded and are certainly not
supported by evidence regarding the location of the thalweg and the title to an island in the mouth
of the river Coco.
14. The Court will, though, have noted that the Nicaraguan provisional equidistance line uses
base points on both Media Luna and Logwood, whic h are shown as islands on the British charts
officially recognized by Nicaragua. That fact will , of course, be reflected in our answer to the
question asked by His Excellency Judge Gaja earlier this week.
15. Although Honduras contends that the mar itime boundary follows a different course from
the provisional equidistance line, it neverthe less recognizes the utility of the provisional
equidistance line as a tool for determining the equitable nature of the maritime boundary proposed.
16. Lastly, Madam President, Honduras conte nds that the maritime boundary should follow
the 15th parallel ⎯ or to be more precise, the line 14° 59.8' N ⎯ from the starting-point, eastwards
until the jurisdiction of a third State is reached. That is depicted here on diagram No. 4 (CJG3.4)
which, again, is taken from the pictures Professor Quéneudec has just shown you.
17. Honduras maintains that there are four principal reasons for the adoption of this line.
18. First, the evidence shows that it is the traditi onal boundary between the maritime spaces
of the two States, rooted in uti possidetis juris and in the practice of the Parties over a long period.
19. Secondly, this line takes account of the islands falling under the sovereignty of each Party
while not giving them the entirety of the maritime spaces to which they would be entitled. By - 36 -
contrast, Nicaragua’s line ignores the islands co mpletely. Although Mr.Brownlie denied that
earlier this week, it will not have escaped the Court’s notice that he said nothing at all about how
his bisector line was influenced by the islands, and that for the very good reason that they plainly
had no influence upon it at all. As for Nicara gua’s last-minute suggestion of a 3-mile enclave
around the islands ⎯ in answer to the question by His Excellency Judge Keith ⎯ well, that was a
prayer for mercy between the stirrup and the ground, if ever there was one. It is contrary to
principle, it disregards the fact that both States have long claimed a territorial sea of 12 ⎯ not 3 ⎯
miles, and it has no precedent in a geographical configuration of the kind which we see here, as
Mr. Colson has just demonstrated.
20. Thirdly, Madam President, the Honduran line takes account of all relevant circumstances,
in particular, the geographical circumstances of the relevant coasts on either side of the land
boundary at the mouth of the Rio Coco, the area that lies off those coasts, the islands that belong to
each Party, and the conduct of the Parties that reflects agreement over a long period regarding
many issues, including that of equitable access to natural resources.
21. Lastly, the Honduran line meets the need ⎯ identified by both Parties ⎯ for a line which
is simple and clear.
22. Madam President, Honduras recognizes that its line entails a departure from the
provisional equidistance line ⎯ though, it must be added, to the benefit of Nicaragua, not to
Honduras. In advancing that line, Honduras has been faithful both to principle and to the modus
vivendi followed by both States until 1979. It has done that rather than adopting the popular
litigation tactic of advancing a maximalist claim in the hope that the Court will “split the
difference”. Nevertheless, Honduras accepts that, if the Court rejects its submission ⎯ that the
15thparallel is the existing maritime boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua ⎯ then an
adjusted equidistance line provides the basis for an alternative boundary.
23. Madam President, I thank the Court for its kind attention and invite you to call upon
His Excellency Ambassador Roberto Flores Bermúdez, to close the case of Honduras.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Greenwood. I now call upon His Excellency
Ambassador Flores Bermúdez. - 37 -
FMLr.RES:
Final submissions by the Agent for Honduras
1. Madam President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is my honour as Agent of
Honduras to appear before you to present the final submissions of Honduras.
2. Before doing so I hope that you might perm it me to make a few brief concluding remarks
on three basic points which touch on themes that have recurred throughout the hearing.
3. First, a word about the islands of which you ha ve heard so much. Honduras has always
thought that it would be difficult to dissociate the islands from the mainland territories of each
province when they became independent in 1821. Th at is why we have always taken the view that
just as Cape Gracias a Dios has marked the bounda ry between the mainland territories of the two
countries ⎯ as the King of Spain’s Award confirmed just over 100years ago ⎯ so the
15thparallel, which runs from Cape Gracias a Di os operates as the boundary between the island
territories of the two States.
4. Madam President, you and your colleagu es have heard detailed legal argumentation on
that question. Let me just add a personal note. I have listened with some surprise to the
speculation from the Nicaraguan team about what conditions on those islands might be like. And, I
say “with surprise” ⎯ because I have no need to speculate about the islands; as Foreign Minister
of my country I have been there, as have seve ral of the Honduran counsel. I have visited the
islands. I have talked with the members of the fishing communities who live there. They are few
in number but that does not make them insignifica nt or relegate their concerns, their livelihoods
and their way of life to the footnotes of legal pleadings.
5. Life on those islands may not be easy but the fisher folk have built a thriving community
there. It is a community that has recognized H onduran jurisdiction for many decades. It is the
Government of Honduras ⎯ the Government which I have th e honour to represent and of which I
was formerly a Minister ⎯ which alone has sought to fill the functions of government in those
islands. Indeed, it is the only G overnment whose representatives have ever set foot on them in
modern times. - 38 -
6. You get an important taste of that commun ity’s way of life from their witness statements
but going to the islands and meeting the people paints a picture which no witness statement can
adequately express.
7. The second issue, Madam President, bears on the single maritime boundary. Nicaragua’s
application seeks a new maritime boundary with Honduras in the Caribbean Sea. This new
maritime boundary has been designed without regard to the real geography of the area and is
wholly unsuited to the facts on the ground, the practice of the Parties over many decades or the
equitable circumstances which figure so large in the law of the sea.
8. Our counsel has explained why Nicaragua’s far-reaching claim has no legal, geographical
or historical basis. We believe it is right that the Court should first confirm Honduras’s title on the
islands. And only after that can it turn to the questio n of maritime delimitation. It should do so on
the basis of the rules set forth in the 1982 Convention. As you have heard this morning, it is
entirely in accordance with those rules for the Court to uphold the traditional maritime boundary
along the 15th parallel, which is firmly grounded in history and in the practice of the Parties over
several decades, a practice which amounts to a ta cit agreement. The traditional line achieves an
equitable solution. It respects both Parties’ histor ic uses and titles. It respects many years of oil
concessions and of fisheries licences. It respects th e need for stability and finality in the maritime
boundary, in accordance with the 1906 Arbitral Award.
9. Lastly, Madam President, let me say a word on the relationships between Honduras and
Nicaragua. We are conscious that the resolution of this dispute will allow the Parties to continue to
develop close and fraternal relations. Over the past seven years, Honduras has sought to participate
in these proceedings with respect for the Court a nd recognition of the close and friendly relations
we have with our neighbour. Although, during these oral proceedings my good friends across the
room have attempted to question the integrity of our evidence, though falling short of accusing us
of fabricating an ethereal presence in this courtr oom to influence decisions, we remain confident
that our differences on this case will come shortly to an end.
10. We look forward, working together with Nicaragua, to make the best of our
commonalities, our shared destiny in the Central American integration pr ocess and in our joint - 39 -
engagement in global issues that concern us both. We are sure that the judgment of the Court will
be a valuable asset for that purpose.
11. Madam President, pursuant to Article 60 of th e Rules of Court, I shall now read the final
submission of the Government of the Republic of Honduras.
Having regard to the pleadings, written and oral, and to the evidence submitted by the
Parties,
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. The islands Bobel Cay, South Cay, Savanna Ca y and Port Royal Cay, to gether with all other
islands, cays, rocks, banks and reefs claimed by Nicaragua which lie north of the 15th parallel
are under the sovereignty of the Republic of Honduras.
2. The starting-point of the maritime boundary to be delimited by the Court shall be a point
located at 14° 59.8' N latitude, 83° 05.8' W longitude. The boundary from the point determined
by the Mixed Commission in 1962 at 14°59.8'N latitude, 83°08.9'W longitude to the
starting-point of the maritime boundary to be de limited by the Court shall be agreed between
the Parties to this case on the basis of the Award of the King of Spain of 23December1906,
which is binding upon the Parties, and taki ng into account the changing geographical
characteristics of the mouth of the river Coco (also known as the river Segovia or Wanks).
3. East of the point at 14°59.8'N latitude, 83°05.8'W longitude, the single maritime boundary
which divides the respective territorial seas, ex clusive economic zones and continental shelves
of Honduras and Nicaragua follows 14° 59.8' N latitude, as the existing maritime boundary, or
an adjusted equidistance line, until the jurisdiction of a third State is reached.
To conclude our participation in this stage of oral proceedings, I wish to express, on behalf
of the Agents and Co-Agent of Honduras and of our distinguished counsel, the skilful advisers and
counsellors and of all the members of our delegation, our deepest appreciation to you
MadamPresident, and to each of the distinguished Members of the Court, for the attention you
have kindly provided to our presentations.
May I also offer our thanks, Madam President, to the Court’s Registry and to the team of
interpreters and translators who have not only had to listen to and read our presentations, but even - 40 -
to repeat them. Our recognition is also extended to the Nicaraguan delegation and to its counsel for
their contribution to these proceedings.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Your Excellency. The Court takes note of the
final submissions which you have read on behalf of the Republic of Honduras as it took note on
Tuesday 20 March of the final submissions of the Republic of Nicaragua.
This brings us to the end of three weeks of hearings devoted to the oral arguments in this
case. And I should like to thank the Agents, counsel and advocates for their statements and for the
helpful folders prepared for us in accordance with Practice Direction IXter. In accordance with the
usual practice I shall request both Agents to re main at the Court’s disposal to provide any
additional information it may require.
With this proviso, I now declare closed the oral proceedings in the case concerning Maritime
Delimitation between Nicaragua and Hondur as in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras).
The Court will now retire for deliberation. The Agen ts of the Parties will be advised in due course
as to the date on which the Court will deliver its Judgment.
As the Court has no other business before it today, the sitting is now closed.
The Court rose at 11.55 a.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Friday 23 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)