Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2011/2
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2011
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Owada presiding,
in the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2011
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 11 janvier 2011, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Owada, président,
en l’affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -
Present: Presiewtada
Vice-Presdenkta
Judges Koroma
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Présents : M. Owada,président
vicepra,ident
KoMroMa.
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Crinçade
Yusuf
Greenwood
XuMe mes
Dojnogshue,
GuMilMu.me
jDgesard, ad hoc
Cgefferr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. René Castro Salazar, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,
Mr.MarceloKohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
member of the Costa Rican Bar,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Manuel Dengo, Ambassador and Chief of Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office
at Geneva,
Mr.Christian Guillermet, Ambassador and De puty Chief of Mission of CostaRica to the
United Nations Office at Geneva,
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
Mr.GustavoCampos, Minister and Consul Ge neral of CostaRica to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Shara Duncan, Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
MsJuliette Marie Revell-Nussio, Research Associ ate at the Lauterpacht Centre for International
Law, University of Cambridge, Barrister,
Ms Katherine Del Mar, Teaching and Research Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva,
Ms Lilliana Arrieta, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
as Advisers. - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S.Exc. M. René Castro Salazar, ministre des affaires étrangères et du culte du Costa Rica ;
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du CostaRica auprès de la
République de Colombie,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur de la République du CostaRica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M.SergioUgalde, conseiller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
M.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit internationa l à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
M.ArnoldoBrenes, conseiller principal auprès du mi nistère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M.ManuelDengo, ambassadeur, représentant pe rmanent du CostaRica auprès de l’Office des
Nations Unies à Genève,
M. Christian Guillermet, ambassadeur, représentant permanent adjoint du CostaRica auprès de
l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève,
M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre et consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,
M. Gustavo Campos, ministre et consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Shara Duncan, conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Juliette Marie Revell-Nussio, Research Associate au Lauterpacht Centre for International
Law de l’Université de Cambridge, avocat,
MmeKatherineDelMar, assistante d’enseignement et de recherche à la faculté de droit de
l’Université de Genève,
MmeLilliana Arrieta, conseiller auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica,
comme conseillers. - 6 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
H.E.MsJuana Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources of
Nicaragua;
Mr.Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of Internati onal Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former member of the International Law Commission,
Mr.AlainPellet, Professor at the University ParisOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, Member and
former Chairman of the International Law Co mmission, associate member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. César Vega Masís, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Mr. Martin Lawrence H., Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
as Counsel;
MsAlinaMiron, Researcher, Centre for International Law (CEDIN), University ParisOuest,
Nanterre-La Défense,
MsCicely Parseghian, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Assistant Counsel. - 7 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S.Exc.M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, amba ssadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
S. Exc. Mme Juana Argeñal Sandoval, ministre de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles de
la République du Nicaragua ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Pari s Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit internatio nal, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Fole y Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux
de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. César Vega Masís, directeur des affaires juridiques, de la souveraineté et du territoire au
ministère des affaires étrangères de la République du Nicaragua,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République
du Nicaragua,
M. Martin Lawrence H., cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux de la
Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, conseiller juridi que au ministère des affaires étrangères de la
République du Nicaragua,
comme conseils ;
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur au Centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mme Cicely Parseghian, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,
comme conseils adjoints. - 8 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The s itting is now open. The Court meets this
afternoon to hear the first round of oral observations of Nicaragua on the Request for the indication
of provisional measures submitted by Costa Rica. I now call upon His Excellency Mr.Carlos
Argüello Gómez, Agent of the Republic of Nicaragua.
Mr. ARGÜELLO GÓMEZ:
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good afternoon. As always, it is a great honour to
be before this highest tribunal of the United Nations representing my country.
2. The Nicaraguan delegation is composed of the Agent, counsel and advocates indicated in
the written list provided to the Court. It is hon oured with the presence of the Minister of the
Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua, Mrs. Juana Argeñal.
3. Mr.President, the sequence of events that has brought the Parties again before the Court
can be explained briefly. It is a repetition of what has been happening for nearly two centuries:
every time Nicaragua attempts to make any substantial use of the San Juan river, Costa Rica finds a
reason for dispute. So it was in 1884 when Nicar agua signed the first canalization treaty with the
United States, Costa Rica decided to navigate the river with a ship of war that led to the Arbitration
of President Cleveland; and so it was a 100years later when there was again talk of an
inter-oceanic canal through Nicaragua, Costa Rica d ecided that it was going to navigate the river
with armed guards that led to the first recour se to this Court. And now, as soon as Nicaragua
begins a modest dredging and cleaning effort in orde r to recover part of the original water flow of
the San Juan river and improve navigation, Cost a Rica finds reasons to start an international
scandal.
4. The ostensible reason is a dispute over a swamp of under 3 sq km located at the mouth of
the San Juan river. But let there be no mistake, the real objective of this dispute is to stop any
attempt by Nicaragua to even moderately dredge and clean up the San Juan river.
5. If Nicaragua is not permitted to continue with its dredging project, which is really scarcely
more than a minor cleaning operation, then Nicaragua will be denied any right at all to dredge and
maintain the flow of the San Juan river. Without even minor cleaning, the river’s mouth will be
dried up in a matter of decades. Then not only will navigation be impossible, but the extensive - 9 -
wetlands of Nicaragua along the lower San Juan that depend on the waters of this river, will be
destroyed.
6. During the previous case brought by Costa Rica, Nicaragua pointed out that there were
more important questions involving the San Juan river than the rights of commercial navigation
granted to Costa Rica. In fact, what is involved is the survival of the San Juan river. It was pointed
out that the river was being heavily silted a nd polluted through Costa Rican operations that
included a then recently-authorized gold mine operation close to the river that involved serious risk
of polluting the river with cyanide. Furthermore, Nicaragua pointed out that at present almost
90percent of the waters of the San Juan flow out through the Colorado branch in Costa Rican
territory leaving a largely unnavigable trickle of water on the side of Nicaragua.
7. When the dispute with Costa Rica arose, and Costa Rica had recourse to the Organization
of American States (OAS), the President of Nicaragua stated that the issues involved in this case
were of a legal nature and could not be resolved by international political organizations. He further
publicly announced, on 2November2010, that Nicar agua would file a case against Costa Rica
before this Court since it was the appropriate instit ution for resolving questions of a legal nature.
PresidentOrtega indicated that the issues to be brought before this Court would involve precisely
the questions that Nicaragua had already anticipated in the previous case with Costa Rica; that is,
the pollution and sedimentation of the San Juan river and the deviation of its waters to the Colorado
branch of the San Juan. Furthermore, he indicat ed that Nicaragua would also claim the right to
navigate out to the Caribbean Sea via the branch of the Colorado river at least until Nicaragua was
able to clean the San Juan river from the sedimen tation provoked by the Costa Rican deforestation
of its territory and recover the possibility of navigating it out to sea
.
8. The reaction of Costa Rica to this announcement was to anticipate the inevitable and bring
a case before the Court. This it has done on its own terms which limit the questions in dispute to
those of interest to Costa Rica. Nicaragua takes this opportunity to confirm that it is preparing a
case against Costa Rica along the lines announced by Pr esident Ortega that involve the real issues
that are at the heart of this dispute.
9. Mr.President, it is important to bring to the attention of the Court that, following the
announcement made by President Ortega, Costa Rica has cut off the possibility of any Nicaraguan - 10 -
vessels entering the Colorado or any other tributari es of the San Juan river. They are installing
chains and other mechanisms to impede any attempts of navigation by Nicaraguan vessels. If there
is any need for a call to not aggravate the situation, this would certainly merit serious consideration.
10. Mr.President, it is evident that the Nicaraguan team cannot adequately address the
presentation made by Costa Rica two hours ago and for which it had nearly two months time to
prepare. Some of these issues will be addressed in this round of the pleadings and others will be
left for the second round. Furthermore, Nicaragua reserves its rights generally on all the statements
of fact and law made by Costa Rica on questions relating to the merits of this case which will be
addressed in due course.
11. In this phase of the case relating to the request made by Costa Rica for interim measures,
two main issues are before the Court. One is wh ether Nicaragua is causing irreparable damage to
Costa Rica by its attempts to clean and dredge parts of the San Juan river and the other is related to
a presumed occupation by Nicaragua of Costa Rican territory and the cessation of this occupation
and all operations inside this territory.
12. The first request, although not correct nor based on true facts, is, at least from a juridical
point of view, a question that may properly be addressed during this phase involving the request for
provisional measures. On the other hand, the seco nd request can only be addressed in the merits
phase of this case, since any decision on sovereignt y over that area may only be resolved after a
complete review of the questions of law and fact relating to these issues. However, it clearly
appears prima facie that Costa Rica’s alleged rights are not infringed nor threatened. These
questions will be addressed by Professor Pellet.
13. Notwithstanding this, it is important to point out the following facts. Firstly, on the issue
of sovereignty over the small wetland at the mouth of the San Juan river.
14. Since most of the Members of the Court ar e more or less familiar with these issues from
the previous case brought by Costa Rica against Nicaragua, allow me, Mr.President, to jump
without much preamble into the heart of the matter.
15. The Nicaragua/Costa Rica border is regulat ed by the delimitation Treaty of 1858, the
Arbitral Award of President Cleveland of 1888 and the five Arbitral Awards of General Alexander
dating from 1897 to 1900. ProfessorMcCaffrey will spell out the law and the legal instruments - 11 -
that are relevant to this question and illustrate th e location of the borderline. For the moment some
brief points.
16. The Awards of Umpire-Engineer Alexa nder decided all questions related to the
demarcation of the borderline. This demarcation ha d one particularity since a considerable part of
the border runs along the right bank of the San Ju an river; no markers could be affixed to a
naturally movable borderline. For this reason Ge neralAlexander, in his first Award, determined
the location of the starting-point to the border at Punta Castilla but from that point in the Caribbean
Sea the next fixed marker is located at a distance of more than 100 km upriver.
17. It is true that General Alexander authorized the tracing of the line along the margin of the
river, but with a clarification that any boundary so demarcated would be subject to the changes of
the river bank and the river channels. Professo rMcCaffrey will read in full the appropriate
paragraphs of these Awards. At present, I will anticipate part of these quotes. General Alexander
noted in his second Award:
“(a)“Today’s boundary line must necessarily be affected in future by all these gradual
or sudden changes . . .
(b) The fact that the line has be en measured and demarcated will neither increase nor
decrease any legal standing that it might have had it not been measured or
demarcated.” (Second Arbitral Award of 20 December 1897.)
18. This line measured and demarcated 113years ago, and that has not been verified in the
field in all the intervening years, is what Costa Rica alleges continues to exist. For Costa Rica, and
I quote Alexander: “The fact that the line has been measured and demarcated” increased its legal
standing and made it invariable.
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, ri ver mouths are in a continual flux. When
General Alexander began his work as umpire he noted that the original Punta Castilla, to which the
Treaty of 40years earlier referred, had disappeared and was now located somewhere in the
Caribbean Sea.
20. All the maps that have been produced since the time of General Alexander have not been
verified on the ground. Nicaraguan maps have the legend stating “this map has not been verified in
the field”. It is on the basis of these unverified maps that Costa Rica bases the international scandal - 12 -
it has made over the issue of sovereignty over 2. 5sqkm of swampland at the mouth of the
San Juan river.
21. A Nicaragua/Costa Rica Bilateral Commission is in existence: it has been meeting on
and off for the last 20 years. In several of th ese meetings the question of determining the location
of the first marker fixing the starting-point of the delimitation line has been discussed. No
agreement was ever reached in these meetings on th is question. The last such meeting in which
border questions were discussed met in San José on 18 and 19October 2006. Point3 of the
minutes of that meeting, which is in docum ent 19, reflects the subjects discussed by the
Sub-Commission of Border Affairs. Among these other questions that were still unresolved was
the fixing of the starting-point of the boundary.
22. Mr. President, Members of the Court, if Nicaragua and Costa Rica have over the years
been unable to determine even the starting-point of the border line, how can Costa Rica insist that
there is a clear border line between both countries? If this border line has not been verified in the
field for over 100 years, how can they claim that maps made in their government offices reflect the
reality on the ground? For their part, as I have just stated, Nicaraguan maps have carefully
excluded any certainty in this respect.
23. Mr. President, apart from the text of the Arbitral Awards of General Alexander, the
reality on the ground has been that Nicaragua has been constantly exercising sovereignty over this
small area in dispute. There has not been any open official presence of Costa Rica in the area since
these Awards have been rendered. On the other hand, Nicaraguan officials have been continually
exercising jurisdiction in the area. We have file d with the Court several affidavits from military
and police officials indicating how they continuall y patrolled and exercised vigilance over the area
of Harbor Head, they have especially paid a ttention to the different channels going from the
SanJuan river to Harbor Head since they are used as hideaways by criminals and specially drug
traffickers.
24. Although it is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, there is a very clear
presumption that Costa Rica has had no presence in the area in one small detail within the recent
memory of the Court. One of the main contentions in the former case brought by Costa Rica
against Nicaragua was that it had a right to patr ol the River San Juan and to supply its security - 13 -
posts along the river. If those records are checked the Court will find no mention of any post at the
mouth of the San Juan or of any need to send pa trols to the area. On the other hand, Nicaraguan
troops have always been based one kilometre away from the area, in the town of San Juan del
Norte.
25. Mr. President, Nicaragua is not occupying Costa Rican territory. It is simply exercising
the sovereignty over this small area that it has always exercised. The last exercise of public
jurisdiction over this area before the present dis pute erupted came about on 2 October 2010. This
episode is described in the affidavit of the Sub-Commander of the National Police of Nicaragua,
Mr. Farle Isidro Roa Traña, in document 5. He states that while patrolling the area of Harbor Head
and its channels, two su spicious speed boats ( pangas) were sighted. When the patrol boat
approached the criminals fled south, that is , towards Costa Rica. One of the fleeing men,
Agustin Reyes Aragon, was recognized as a well-known criminal and drug trafficker. The location
was checked and clear evidence of criminal activities was found. Although these events took place
in the area Costa Rica claims, no immediate claim of so-called “illegal” invasion of its territory was
made by Costa Rica. It was only after the dredger started operations on 17 October that Costa Rica
suddenly claimed on 21October that Nicaragua had invaded its territory and had captured
law-abiding citizens of Costa Rica. The true story is that these were well-known criminals and had
Nicaraguan nationality and were perpetrating their crimes in Nicaraguan territory.
26. In sum, Mr.President, Nicaragua is the St ate that actually exercises jurisdiction in the
area, to use a phrase of Professor Oscar Schacter, quoted this morning by Professor Kohen.
27. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the first four requests for provisional measures
made by Costa Rica are in reality requests for the C ourt to decide on the merits of the case. It is
only by deciding that the area belongs to Costa Rica that the Court may order the withdrawal of
troops and the cessation of the construction of a so -called canal and of the felling of trees and the
dumping of sediment in this area. But apart fro m this fundamental consideration, these four
requests have no present purpose.
28. Costa Rica’s first request calls for “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all
Nicaraguan troops”. There are no troops presently in the swampland. There is no permanent
military post in the area. The statement quoted by ProfessorCrawford of the Organization of - 14 -
American States official, Mr.Caputo, who visited the area on 26November, confirms that there
were no Nicaraguan troops in the area. The patrol of the area is presently done as it has always
been done by boat along the waters of the river which are indisputably Nicaraguan. The Court
cannot order Nicaragua to cease patrolling the area. The area cannot become a no-man’s land for
the benefit of criminals, especially drug traffickers.
29. The presence of Nicaraguan troops in this very difficult area during the months of
October and November of last year was for the purpose of protecting the workers who were
cleaning the channel connecting the river proper with Harbor Head. The presence of these troops
in the area has not been a cause of violence. Not one single Costa Rican citizen has been attacked.
The only violence that has occurred during this in cident was against Nicaragua when a bomb was
thrown at its Embassy in San José on 12 November 2010. The attitude of the Nicaraguan troops to
approaching Costa Rican helicopters as portrayed in the pictures filed by Costa Rica was only
logical. Costa Rican government officials had thr eatened the use of armed force to, so-called,
“retake” the swampland. The real threats can be appreciated in the following statement.
30. The Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion in its 2 November 2010 edition published that the
Security Minister of Costa Rica, Jose Maria Tijerino, had stated that morning to AND News that he
trusts international organisms will work to reso lve military presence in the northern border of the
country and quoted him as saying:
“(c) These people will withdraw either through reason or by force because international
law is on our side, through the mechanisms provided by international law which
include the use of force.” (http://www.nacion.com/2010-11-02/
ElPais/UltimaHora/ElPais2576464.aspx.)
31. This statement by a Minister that handles a budget for security ⎯ in fact military
expense ⎯ of over US$240 million, an amount that is five times higher than the military budget of
the Nicaraguan forces, must certainly be taken seri ously. Furthermore it must be noted that, with
the excuse of the present events, the Government of Costa Rica last December authorized an
increase of this military budget by over $100 million.
32. One of the first uses of this new b udget has been announced. In a note published on
8 January 2011 in the Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion it is stated: - 15 -
“(d) In order to install a defense system for Costa Rica’s territory, the government
began in late December, a series of constr uction work in the vicinity of Calero’s
island in Lemon Pococí.
(e) Yesterday, it showed the field where the government is building Costa Rica’s
Delta helipad, near the Colorado river.
(f) The work includes the construction of a heliport, the installation of fences to
control access to the three rivers in the border area and the opening of roads,
which, for the first time will give access by road to the northern Caribbean region.
(g) This was confirmed yesterday by Security Minister, Jose Maria Tijerino, who
noted that all the works are underway.”
33. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Cost a Rica’s second request is for “the immediate
cessation of the construction of a canal across Costa Rican territory”. No canal was being
constructed or is planned to be constructed in this area. What was being done ⎯ and it is now
over ⎯ was the cleaning of the main channel that flows from the San Juan proper to Harbour Head.
The clearing of this channel and its environmen tal impact will be addressed more fully by
Mr.Reichler. For the present, it must be emphasi zed that this operation of cleaning the channel
was done exclusively by manpower. No dredgi ng machine was involved or even roadwork
equipment. The first cannot navigate the channe l and the second type of equipment would sink in
the swamp. The work was basically done by human labour. It was only in the time of the
Egyptians that we could conceive of anyone cutti ng a canal in this fashion and obviously not in
dense forest. In any case the important thing for present purposes is that the work is over. This
was announced by the President of Nicaragua on 1 December 2010.
34. Costa Rica’s third request is for “the immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal
of vegetation and soil from Costa Rican territory, including its wetlands and forests”. Although, as
indicated before, these environmental issues will be addressed by Mr.Reichler, it must be noted
that Costa Rica has given a list of 197 trees with their species, sizes and GPS locations supposedly
based on field work. It is at least surprising that in a swampland with thick clouds and heavy rains
where it is very difficult to move around ⎯ of necessity by foot ⎯ and where a GPS seldom is
functional, and where there were Nicaraguan workers cleaning a channel, that Costa Rica had been
able to saunter around and measure tree trunks and obtain site co-ordinates. It is certainly
surprising that a country that did not know that the criminal that escaped from the Nicaraguan
police on 2October2010 called Agustin Reyes Aragon was not a Costa Rican citizen but, rather, - 16 -
Nicaraguan, should on the other hand know every single tree in the area including their age. Now
we even have been informed of their relative value vis-à-vis the International Court of Justice.
Nicaragua does not accept the validity of such information.
35. In any case, the affidavit of the Nicaraguan Deputy Minister for the Environment
indicates that after an inspection ⎯ in which dozens of people were involved and helped ⎯ it was
established that 180 trees were cut in the area around the channel and he further identifies the type
of trees involved. In any case, Nicaraguan law dis poses that all felled trees must be replaced by a
larger proportion of new trees and this is already being done in the area where the Nicaraguan
authorities cut down trees necessary for the cleaning operation, but it is also being done in those
areas were there had been trees felled by other unknown persons. These trees were located in
Nicaragua and Nicaragua takes much better care of its forests than Costa Rica.
36. The fourth request calls for “the immediate cessation of the dumping of sediment in
Costa Rican territory”. In so far as this so-called dumping refers to any operations during the
cleaning of the channel, these are over and finished. Besides all the debris from the cleaning of the
channel was set on Nicaragua’s side of the border and the branches and fertile sediments are being
used in the process of replanting the trees.
37. Finally, on all questions of provisional measures relating to the cleaning of the channel, it
must not be lost sight of that an investment was made in the area. It is not a question of wanton
destruction of property. If Costa Rica were to prevail on the merits phase on the question of
sovereignty over this area, the clean channel woul d be of use for Costa Rica. Of course it could
clog it up again, but I suspect that the tourist industry of Costa Rica would not accept that.
38. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the fifth request involves the real object of these
proceedings instituted by Costa Rica. It calls for
“the suspension of Nicaragua’s ongoi ng dredging programme, aimed at the
occupation, flooding and damage of Costa Rican Territory, as well as at the serious
damage to and impairment of the navigation of the Colorado River, giving full effect
to the Cleveland Award and pending the determination of the merits of the dispute”.
39. The present day dredging project was caref ully planned by the Government agency
responsible for river transportation and ports, the Empresa Portuaria Nacional de Nicaragua (EPN),
in the year 2004 and the Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted for approval to the - 17 -
Ministry of the Environment in 2006, and after nearly three years of studies of these environmental
questions the project was finally approved in Dece mber 2008. This protracted process of approval
permitted that two different governments in Nicar agua had a chance to input and review the
project. There is no question by anyone in Nicaragua that the project fulfils all the extensive
requirements of Nicaraguan law, which is entirel y up to date on all matters pertaining to the
environment.
40. In all, the budget for the dredging project is $7.5 million. It turns out that the budgeted
sum does not allow the implementation of the original project that envisioned the removal of over
1.5million metres of sediment of the San Juan river so this has been reduced to around
942,000 cubic metres. If the project is completed successfully it would imply that under 2 per cent
of the waters that presently flow from the San Juan into the branch of the Colorado would continue
to the mouth of the San Juan. This is a reality of which Costa Rica is well aware.
41. The Minister of Foreign A ffairs and Worship of Costa Rica, Mr. René Castro Salazar, in
a public address to the Environmental Commission of the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly on
8September2010 on the question of the possible impact of the announced dredging project by
Nicaragua, stated that studies had been made in order to analyse the impact, and that these studies
showed that the dredging programme would have a minor impact. He stated that it “would not
have the alarming environmental and economic imp act suggested by some media”. This was on
8 September 2010.
42. If there has been any change in the dr edging programme from October to the present
since the Foreign Minister made that statement, it has been to lower the scope of the original
project on which Minister Castro based his assertions. There is no reason for “the alarming
environmental and economic impact” that Costa Ri can authorities have now apparently taken over
from the media.
43. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the sixth and final request of Costa Rica is “that
Nicaragua shall refrain from any other action whic h might prejudice the rights of Costa Rica, or
which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court”. If there were merit in this request it
should properly be addressed to Costa Rica. Since the beginning of the dispute Nicaragua has been
open to and has offered to participate in unconditional bilateral negotiations with Costa Rica. - 18 -
44. The dispute over a 2.5 sq km area at the m outh of the river is something that could easily
be resolved by negotiations and not by brin ging it before political organizations like the
Organization of American States. This question could appropriately have been settled by means of
the Bilateral Commission that has been in place for many years. Costa Rica for her own reasons
has chosen to magnify the issue out of all proportions.
45. This, by the way, was understood by the members of the Organization of American
States. In the meeting of Foreign Ministers th at had been called for 7December2010, the only
Foreign Minister in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica.
46. Mr.President, for the reasons stated, and as will be further elaborated by counsel,
Nicaragua requests that the Court deny the request for interim measures. This completes my
presentation. Thank you for your kind attentio n. Mr.President, may it please you to call
Professor McCaffrey to the podium.
The PRESIDENT: I thank His Excellency Dr. Carlos José ArgüelloGómez, Agent of the
Republic of Nicaragua, for his presentation. I now invite Professor Stephen McCaffrey to take the
floor to give his presentation.
Mr. McCAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. President.
1. Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, it is a great honour and pleasure to
appear before you once again on behalf of the Republic of Nicaragua. Mr. President, Members of
the Court, on 18November2010, Costa Rica brought a case against Nicaragua before this Court
seeking to stop activities Nicaragua is entitled, indeed obligated, to engage in under the relevant
instruments and customary international law. On the same day, Costa Rica filed a Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures in the case. This Request must fail, for the same reason that the
case in chief must fail: it is entirely without legal or factual foundation.
2. The provisional measures requested by Co sta Rica are based on two false assumptions:
First, that Nicaragua’s acts of which Costa Rica comp lains occurred in Costa Rican territory; and
second, that Nicaragua is not entitled to dredge th e San Juan river, over which she has full
sovereignty, so as to remove na vigational obstructions and restore access to the sea. Both of these
false assumptions involve questions that go to the mer its of this dispute and should be dealt with in - 19 -
that phase of the proceedings. Indeed, this is at its core a dispute about sovereignty, which cannot
be resolved at the interim measures phase without prejudicing the rights of one of the parties.
Moreover, as my colleagues will show, there is no imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the
rights of Costa Rica in dispute before the Court that would justify the indication of provisional
measures 1. This is all the more the case since the cleaning of the small channel, or “caño”, of
which Costa Rica complains was completed in late November of last year as we just heard from the
Agent of Nicaragua.
3. Mr. President, in this intervention I w ill outline the legal framework governing the rights
and obligations of the parties in respect of the matt ers in dispute. I will show that according to the
applicable legal instruments, the actions of Nicaragua of which Costa Rica complains took place in
Nicaraguan territory and were fully consistent w ith those instruments. My friend and colleague
Mr. Reichler will then show that there is no actual or threatened injury to Costa Rica as a result of
Nicaragua’s cleaning of the “caño” or the river proper.
Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the San Juan river
4. Mr.President, the wellspring of the parties’ rights and obligations in this case is, of
course, the 1858 Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua 2. As the Court noted in the
Navigational and Related Rights case, Article6 of that agreement provides in part that: “The
Republic of Nicaragua shall have the exclusiv e dominion and sovereignty [in Spanish:
exclusivamente el dominio y sumo imperio ] over the waters of the River San Juan from their issue
out of the lake to their discharge into the Atlantic Ocean.” (The Court referred to this authority as
Nicaragua’s “dominion and sove reign jurisdiction” in the Dispute regarding Navigational and
Related Rights (CostaRica v. Nicaragua) case, Judgment of 13July2009, para.19.) This case
involves the latter portion of that provision, in particular, the question of the location of the
boundary in the area where the river “discharge [s] into the Atlantic Ocean”, more commonly
referred to today as the Caribbean Sea.
1See, e.g., Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991,
I.C.J. Reports 1991, p.17, para.23; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France),
Provisional Measures, Order of 17 June 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p.107, para.Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 11, para. 32.
2Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, San José, 15 Apr. 1858, 48 BFSP 1049. - 20 -
The boundary at the mouth of the river
5. The 1858 Treaty of Limits describes the boundary between the Parties in the following
terms:
“II. The boundary line between the two Republics, setting out from the Northern
Ocean [the Caribbean], shall commence at the extremity of Punta de Castilla, in the
mouth of the River San Juan de Nicaragua , and shall continue, always following the
right bank of said river, up to a point distant from Castilla Viejo 3 English miles,
measured from the outer fortifications of the said Castilla to the said point.” 3
6. Mr.President, like most significant watercourses, the San Juan de Nicaragua river
discharges into the sea through a delta, its mouth undergoing changes over time due to such factors
as changes in flow and deposition of sediment. Between the conclusion of the Treaty in 1858 and
its interpretation by United States President Grove r Cleveland in 1888, the mouth of the river had
already changed significantly. Taking this ch aracteristic of the San Juan into account,
PresidentCleveland, in his Arbitral Award of 22March1888, decided as follows with respect to
the location of the boundary:
“1. The boundary line between the Re publics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, on
the Atlantic side, begins at the extremity of Punta de Castilla at the mouth of the San
Juan de Nicaragua River, as they both existed on the 15th day of April, 1858. The
ownership of any accretion to said Punta de Castilla is to be governed by the laws
applicable to that subject.” 4
7. In order to demarcate that boundary line, the parties in 1896 concluded the Convention on
Border Demarcation 5. This Convention provided for the appointment by the parties of
6
Commissions charged with “defining and marking out” the boundary and the appointment by the
President of the United States of an engineer tasked with resolving disputes between the
Commissions and demarcating the border line 7. The United States President appointed as
Engineer-Umpire General E.P.Alexander, who rendered a total of five awards concerning the
location of the boundary.
3
Treaty of Limits, op cit. supra, Art. II.
4
Award of the President of the United States in regard to the Validity of the Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica
and Nicaragua of 15 July 1858, Decisi on of 22 Mar.1888, United Nations, Reports of Internati onal Arbitral Awards
(RIAA), Vol. 28, p. 209 (“Cleveland Award”).
5
El Salvador, 27 Mar. 1896, 28 RIAA, p. 211.
6Ibid., Art. I.
7Ibid., Arts. II and IV. - 21 -
8. In his First Award, General Alexander concluded as follows concerning the point at which
both the 1858 Treaty and the Cleveland Award state that the boundary begins, Punta de Castilla:
“A careful study of all available ma ps and comparisons between those made
before the treaty and those of recent date... makes very clear one fact: The exact
spot which was the extremity of the headland of Punta de Castillo [Castilla]
April 15, 1858, has long been swept over by the Caribbean Sea, and there is too little
concurrence in the shore outline of the old maps to permit any certainty of statement
of distance or exact direction to it fro m the present headland... Under these
circumstances it best fulfills the demands of the treaty and of President Cleveland’s
award to adopt what is practically the headland of to-day, or the northwestern
extremity of what seems to be the solid land, on the east side of Harbor Head
8
Lagoon.”
GeneralAlexander accordingly declared the initial li ne of the boundary to run as follows, to wit,
and his words are shown on the screen:
“Its direction shall be due northeast and southwest, across the bank of sand,
from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of Ha rbor Head Lagoon. It shall pass, at its
nearest point, 300 feet on the northwest side from the small hut now standing in that
vicinity. On reaching the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon the boundary line shall turn
to the left, or southeastward, and shall follow the water’s edge around the harbor until
it reaches the river proper by the first channel met. Up this channel, and up the river
proper, the line shall continue to ascend as directed in the treaty.” 9
Mr.President, I will return to the latter portion of this description presently. But at this point I
would ask the Court to note the uncertainty as to the very beginning of the boundary ⎯ an
uncertainty that remains to the present day, as the Agent of Nicaragua has explained.
9. Earlier in his First Award, General Alexander stated that: “The natural terminus of [the
boundary] line is the right-hand headland of the harbor mouth.” 10 This may have made sense in the
nineteenth century, when a harbour existed at the outlet of the San Juan river, but it does not today,
since changes in the river’s mouth and delta have long since eliminated the harbour. This is clear
from the Second Report of GeorgeL.Rives, Unite d States Assistant Secret ary of State, who was
asked by President Cleveland to prepare a report on the matters before the arbitrator. Writing in
1888, 11years before General Alexander rendere d his First Award, Assistant Secretary Rives
observed as follows:
8
E.P. Alexander, First Award of the Engineer-Umpire, under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
of 8 April 1896 for the Demarcation of the Boundary be tween the Two Republics, Decision of 30 Sep.1897, 28 RIAA,
p. 220.
9
Ibid., p. 220; emphasis added.
1Ibid., p. 217. - 22 -
“In 1858 there was still a good entrance to the Harbor, and one side of this
entrance was formed by the extremity of the Punta de Castilla . . .
Since 1858 that state of things has entirely changed. There is now no such thing
as a fixed Harbor entrance or a fixed Harbor mouth. The waters of the river enter the
sea at any place where they can easily break through the sand heaped up by the sea;
and where there was a single tongue of land, there is now a chain or group of shifting
islands.”11
10. In addition, today, up to 90percent of the flow of the San Juan follows the Colorado
branch of the river through Costa Rican territory to the sea, the San Juan’s mouth having become
occluded by sediment. The contrast can be seen on the screen, which shows a map from 1851
above and a satellite image from 2010 below.
11. Mr. President, General Alexander recognized the likelihood of continued changes at the
mouth of the San Juan in his Second Award. In ruling on a dispute between the parties as to
whether to proceed with the demarcation of the boundary line, General Alexander stated as
follows ⎯ the quotation is now on the screen, and I apologize to the Court in advance for the
length of this quotation, but I believe I should read it out in full because it is vital to the Court’s
understanding of the case:
“It should be noted, for a clearer understa nding of the question at hand, that the
San Juan river runs through a flat and sandy delta in the lower portion of its course
and that it is obviously possible that its banks will not only gradually expand or
contract but that there will be wholesale ch anges in its channels. Such changes may
occur fairly rapidly and suddenly and may not always be the result of unusual factors
such as earthquakes or major storms. Exam ples abound of previous channels now
abandoned and banks that are now changing as a result of gradual expansions or
contractions.
Today’s boundary line must necessarily be affected in future by all these
gradual or sudden changes. But the impact in each case can only be determined by the
circumstances of the case itself, on a case-by-case basis in acco rdance with such
principles of international law as may be applicable.
The proposed measurement and demarca tion of the boundary line will not have
any effect on the application of those principles.
The fact that the line has been measured and demarcated will neither increase
nor decrease any legal standing that it might have had it not been measured or
demarcated.
The only effect obtained from measurement and demarcation is that the nature
and extent of future changes may be easier to determine.” 12
11
George L. Rives, Report to the Arbitrator, the Presid ent of the United States, Second, 2 Mar.1888, National
Archives of the United States, 1934, p. 206.
1Ibid. p. 224; emphasis added. - 23 -
12. General Alexander further elaborated on the effect of changes in the banks or channels of
the river in his Third Award, in which he stated that
“in the practical interpretation of the 1858Treaty, the San Juan river must be
considered a navigable river . . .
Fluctuations in the water level will not alter the position of the boundary line,
but changes in the banks or channels of the river will alter it, as may be d13ermined by
the rules of international law applicable on a case-by-case basis.”
13. Thus, as recognized clearly by General Alexander, the boundary line in the area of the
river’s delta of necessity changes over time. Therefore, contrary to what we heard this morning, an
indication on a particular map is only at best a reflection of conditions prevailing when the map
was made; it is not a definitive definition of the boundary.
14. Mr. President, indeed, the general principle that a boundary indicated on a map is subject
to a textual description of the boundary is well-est ablished and has been recognized by the Court
14
and other international tribunals . This principle, together with the rulings of General Alexander
15
just referred to, show that the great emphasis placed by Costa Rica on various maps is misplaced .
It is the text contained in the relevant instruments, as applied to the ever-changing physical
situation, that must control.
15. This is especially true in the present case, because despite GeneralAlexander’s sage
observations about its fluidity, the boundary in the region of the river’s mouth has not been
reviewed by the Parties in more than a hundred years, as noted by the Agent of Nicaragua a few
moments earlier. Reflecting this fact, the official maps of Nicaragua ⎯ the very maps to which
Costa Rica refers in support of her case ⎯ bear the caveat that the data on which they are based
“has not been verified in the field”.
16. In the area in dispute, where the rive r’s channels undergo constant change, such
verification would obviously be required to dete rmine the actual location of the boundary. The
13E.P.Alexander, Third Award of the Engineer-U mpire, under the Convention between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua of 8 April 1896 for the Demarcation of th e Boundary between the Two Republics, Decision of
30 September 1897, 28 RIAA, p. 230.
14See, e.g., case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republ ic of Mali), I.C.J. Reports 1986 ,
pp.582-583, paras.54-56; case concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malasia) ,
I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 667, para. 88; and the Island of Palmas Arbitration, 2 Int’l Arb. Awards p. 853 (1949), 22 AJIL,
p. 891 (1928).
15See Application of Costa Rica, para. 8. - 24 -
mouth of the river that General Alexander inspected in the late nineteenth century would be almost
unrecognizable to him today. What General Alexander described as a “flat and sandy delta” is now
a wetland, a swamp if you will, whose waters barely move at all for much of the year.
“The First Channel Met”
17. Mr.President, with this background, let us return to the decision of GeneralAlexander
regarding the determination of the boundary from the Caribbean Sea to the San Juan de Nicaragua
river. The Court will recall that after describ ing the course of the boundary beginning in the
Caribbean Sea and proceeding into the waters of the Harbor Head Lagoon, General Alexander
stated that “the boundary line... shall follow the water’s edge around the harbor until it reaches
the river proper by the first channel met . Up this channel, and up the river proper, the line shall
16
continue to ascend as directed in the treaty.” So a question of crucial importance in this
provisional measures phase of the case, and indeed in the case as a whole, is, where is the “first
channel met” today? The answer can be seen in the graphic on the screen. This natural channel, or
“caño”, which connects Harbor Head Lagoon with the San Juan de Nicaragua river, is
well-established and supports navigation, as can be seen in the slides now on the screen ⎯ which
are taken from the video deposited with the Court and shown as slides to save time. The slides
begin where the caño takes off from the San Juan river, and end up at Harbor Head Lagoon, which
you see in the picture now. The cleaning operatio n undertaken by Nicaraguan workers, using
shovels and pickaxes, is the “invasion” complained of by Costa Rica. It will be readily apparent to
the Court that these workers were in fact in Nicar aguan territory, not that of Costa Rica: pursuant
to General Alexander’s First Award, the boundary follows the right bank of Harbor Head Lagoon,
the channel, and thereafter, the river.
18. This boundary is not only in keeping with General Alexander’s award, read in light of
contemporary physical realities that have been pr oduced by the kinds of changes anticipated and
referred to by the General; it is also far more rational than a boundary that would follow Harbor
Head Lagoon all the way around to the sea, and th en follow the coast until it reaches the remnants
of the channel of the San Juan river, as the boundary claimed by Costa Rica would do and as is
16
E. P. Alexander, First Award, op cit. supra, p. 220; emphasis added. - 25 -
shown on the screen. Surely, General Alexander cannot have intended this ⎯ or, if he did, he
would have referred to the “mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River” or the like, not the “first
channel met”; and his description would surely not have stated “[u]p this channel, and up the river
proper, the line shall continue to ascend as directed in the treaty”. General Alexander drew a clear
distinction between the “first channel met” and the “river proper” ⎯ a distinction which is utterly
at odds with Costa Rica’s view of where the boundary is located.
19. Mr.President, the application of General Alexander’s rulings to the facts on the ground
shows clearly that far from it being Nicaragua that is encroaching upon Costa Rican territory, it is
in fact Costa Rica that is seeking to divest Nicaragua of her sovereign territory. That Costa Rica
would make the radical charges found in her Application, especially in respect of a piece of
territory in which she has hither to shown absolutely no interest, utterly failing to display any
incidents of sovereignty as will be shown presen tly, may appear paradoxical on the surface. But
when Costa Rica’s complaints are seen through the lens of her aversion to Nicaragua’s dredging of
the river, their raison d’être becomes clear: Costa Rica feels she must do whatever she can to
prevent Nicaragua from exercising her sovereign right, and indeed her responsibility, to dredge the
San Juan de Nicaragua river and thereby to restore the navigability of the river to the Caribbean
Sea. Fortunately for Nicaragua, law and reason are on her side.
Nicaragua’s right to dredge the river
20. Mr. President, the right of Nicaragua to dredge the San Juan river ⎯ a watercourse over
which she enjoys “exclusive dominion and sove reignty” and which carries a heavy sediment
load ⎯ was clearly recognized by President Grover Cleveland in his 1888 Award. In the Third
Article of his award, President Cleveland states as follows, as shown on the screen:
“4. The Republic of Costa Rica is not bound to concur with the Republic of
Nicaragua in the expenses necessary to pr event the Bay of San Juan del Norte from
being obstructed; to keep the navigation of the River or Port free and unembarrassed,
or to improve it for the common benefit.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. The Republic of Costa Rica cannot prevent the Republic of Nicaragua
from
executing at her own expense and within her own territory such works of
improvement, provided such works of improvement do not result in the occupation or
flooding or damage of Costa Rica territory, or in the destruction or serious impairment - 26 -
of the navigation of the said River or any of its branches at any point where Costa
Rica is entitled to navigate the same. Th e Republic of Costa Rica has the right to
demand indemnification for any places belonging to her on the right bank of the River
San Juan which may be occupied without he r consent, and for any lands on the same
bank which may be flooded or damaged in any other way in consequence of works of
improvement.” 17
21. The Court will note that not only does PresidentCleveland’s award recognize
Nicaragua’s right to execute works of improvement designed to “keep the navigation of the River
or Port free and unembarrassed”; but the award also declares that should such works result in
damage to Costa Rica of the kinds mentioned, Co sta Rica’s remedy is indemnification, not halting
Nicaragua’s works of improvement. This flatly contradicts Costa Rica’s fifth request for
provisional measures, which asks the Court to order “the suspension of Nicaragua’s ongoing
dredging programme, aimed at the occupation, fl ooding and damage of Costa Rican territory, as
18
well as at the serious damage to and impairment of the navigation of the Colorado River...” .
This ruling by PresidentCleveland demonstrates that, as my friend and colleague ProfessorPellet
will show, any harm sustained by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s dredging would not be
irreparable, thus precluding the need for provisional measures.
22. Furthermore, Nicaragua has not only a right to dredge the river but also an obligation to
do so. It has long been recognized that, as stated by the 1966 Helsinki Rules, “Each riparian State
is, to the extent of the means available or made available to it, required to maintain in good order
that portion of the navigable course of a river or lake within its jurisdiction.” 19 The San Juan river
is, by definition, within Nicaragua’s jurisdiction. Dredging is one of the means available to a State
to maintain in good order its navigability. Thus Costa Rica’s request that the Court order
Nicaragua to suspend her dredging programme is a request that you order Nicaragua not to do
something that she is obligated to do.
23. The Court will also note that Costa Rica, in her enthusiasm to trump up a parade of
horribles resulting from Nicaragua’s modest dred ging activities, not only invents non-existent
structures but also seemingly contradicts herself. Assistant Secretary Rives sheds light on the
meaning of “occupation” in his Second Report when he says of Costa Rica: “She has also the right
17
Cleveland Award, op cit. supra, pp. 209-210; emphasis added.
18
Request of Costa Rica, p. 7.
1Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of Internati onal Rivers, Art.XVIII, Inte rnational Law Association,
Report of the Fifty-Second Conference, Helsinki, 1966, p. 484; emphasis added. - 27 -
of demanding indemnity in case that a portion of her soil is occupied without her consent by
20
structures, such as dikes or dams, or is flooded by a rising of the level of the river.” It perhaps
belabours the obvious, Mr.President, to note that Nicaragua’s cleaning of the riverbed will most
certainly not entail any structures on Costa Rican soil. Costa Rica then contends both that
Nicaragua’s dredging will cause “f looding and damage of Costa Rican territory” and that it will
cause “serious damage to and impairment of the navigation of the Colorado River”. In reality,
neither of these imagined consequences will eventuate from Nicaragua’s works of improvement, as
my colleague Mr.Reichler will demonstrate. And most importantly for present purposes, as
ProfessorPellet will show, there is no conceivable threat of imminent harm to Costa Rican rights
involved in this case in the form of flooding or impairment of navigation in her territory as a result
of dredging by Nicaragua. Nor is there any threat to a Costa Rican presence in the area in question
because, simply put, Costa Rica is not present there, nor has she ever been.
Nicaragua’s consistent exercise of authority ov er the disputed area and Costa Rica’s failure
to exercise any elements of Government authority or to take the territory into its
possession
24. Mr. President, Costa Rica’s complete absence from the disputed area ⎯ which consists
of some 2.5sqkm of wetlands ⎯ and her failure to exercise no rmal elements of governmental
authority there, further support Nicaragua’s claim of sovereignty over it. The utter lack of such
effectivités on the part of Costa Rica, and their corresponding peaceable exercise by Nicaragua,
eliminate any possible doubt of Nicaragua’s sove reignty over the area. While fundamentally a
question for the merits phase, the stark facts of Co sta Rica’s complete failure to even attempt to
assert governmental authority in the area, let alone the absence of any vestige of possession thereof
by Costa Rica or her nationals, reinforce Nicara gua’s sovereignty over it and defeat Costa Rica’s
request for provisional measures to protect it.
25. Evidence of Nicaragua’s effectivités in the area is abundant. At this stage of the
proceedings Nicaragua will confine herself to no ting a few examples of evidence attesting to her
display of sovereign authority in the disputed area, and Costa Rica’s utter failure to do so. All of
20
Rives Second Report, op cit. supra. - 28 -
these facts are supported by affidavits filed with the Court and referred to in footnotes to this
speech.
(a) First, Nicaraguan Army and Police authorities have always patrolled the Harbour Head Lagoon
and in so doing have navigated through the caño and other small channels connecting the
SanJuan river with the Harbor Head Lagoon during the winter and sometimes during the
21
summer, as well when the water level permitted navigation ;
(b) second, at least as early as the 1970s, a detachment of the Army’s Borderline Guard Troops, or
TGF, was headquartered in what one affiant de scribes as a “rustic construction... in the
22
Harbor Head swamp” ;
(c) third, for decades the Nicaraguan Police has had a permanent presence in the Harbor Head zone
and has carried out regular patrol activities there 23;
(d) fourth, during the past 30years or more, Nicara guan Police, Army and Naval forces have
conducted joint operations in the disputed ar ea against counter-revolutionaries, narcotics
traffickers, fugitives, and wildlife traffickers, and the Police have conducted joint patrols with
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Enviro nment (MARENA) to prevent trafficking in
natural resources 24;
(e) fifth, when the President of Nicaragua visits the town of San Juan de Nicaragua, police have
been stationed in the disputed area, which has also been over-flown by helicopters 25;
(f) sixth , none of the Nicaraguan Police or Army officers interviewed had ever seen any
26
Costa Rican public forces or civil authorities in the Harbor Head zone ; and
(g) seventh, communications between the Nicaraguan National Police and the Costa Rican Public
Force have been regular and unproblematic, and Costa Rican Public Force officials have been
21
See, e.g., affidavits of Major Police Commissioner Gregorio de Jesús Aburto Ortiz (doc.No. 1); Major Police
Commissioner Douglas Rafael Pichardo Ramírez (doc.No.4) ; and Army officer Juan Francisco Gutiérrez Espinoza
(doc. No. 7).
22
Affidavit of Major Police Commissioner Gregorio de Jesús Aburto Ortiz (doc. No. 1).
23Ibid.
24Ibid.; and affidavit of Major Police Commissioner Luis Fernando Barrantes Jiménez (doc. No. 2).
25Affidavit of Major Police Commissioner Luis Fernando Barrantes Jiménez (doc. No. 2).
26
See, e.g., ibid.; and affidavits of Major Police Commissioner Gr egorio de Jesús Aburto Ortiz (doc.1); Major
Police Commissioner José Magdiel Pérez Solis (doc.No.3); and Major Police Commissioner Douglas Rafael Pichardo
Ramírez (doc. No. 4). - 29 -
informed of the presence of Nicaraguan Nati onal Police throughout the south-east zone of
Nicaragua, including the Harbor Head zone, without any protest from the Costa Rican
authorities27.
26. In sum, Mr. President, Costa Rica has not conducted herself as though the area in
question were part of her sovereign territory, at least until the commencement of Nicaragua’s
programme of improvement of the lower San Juan river. That is, Costa Rica has not exercised
jurisdiction in the disputed area, as contended this morning by Professor Kohen. Conversely,
Nicaragua has exercised elements of governmental authority in the area of the San Juan river delta,
in particular law-enforcement authority, one of the most basic governmental functions. This
conduct by Nicaragua is consistent with her sovereignty over the disputed area and entirely
inconsistent with that of Costa Rica, whic h has an unbroken record of absolutely no effectivités
there. Thus, Costa Rica should be entitled to none of the provisional measures listed in points1
through 4 of her Request (Part F, “The Measures Requested”). Granting such provisional measures
would be prejudicial to the outcome of the case and would thus prejudice the Court’s adjudication
of it.
Conclusions
27. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the foregoing analysis leads to the following
conclusions:
(a) first, Nicaragua enjoys full sovereignty over the San Juan river, which is part of her territory as
provided in the 1858Treaty of Limits and recognized both by President Cleveland in his
1888 Award and the Court in the Navigational and Related Rights case;
(b) second, in the exercise of her sovereignty and as the Cleveland Award specifically recognizes,
Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan river to “keep the navigation of the River or Port
free and unembarrassed”. She also has an intern ational legal obligation to do so. The lower
San Juan and the former port now being neither free nor unembarrassed, Nicaragua is only
doing what a responsible State should do, and what is well within her sovereign rights,
including those specifically mentioned by President Cleveland;
2Affidavit of Major Police Commissioner José Magdiel Pérez Solis, Chief of the Departmental Delegation of the
National Police in the Río San Juan Department (doc. No. 3). - 30 -
(c) third, of particular relevance to this phase of the proceedings, President Cleveland’s Award
declares that should such works of improvement of the river result in damage to Costa Rica in
the form of occupation or flooding, or damage to or impairment of navigation of the San Juan
28
river “or any of its branches at any point where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate the same” ,
Costa Rica’s remedy is indemnification, not halting Nicaragua’s works of improvement. The
amount of such indemnification would be a matter to be determined at the merits phase or
subsequent proceedings;
(d) fourth, the caño linking Harbor Head Lagoon with the Sa n Juan river is part of Nicaraguan
territory under the First Alexander Award, as the “first channel met” when following the
southern shore of Harbor Head Lagoon. The line of the boundary follows the right bank of the
caño until it joins the San Juan river “proper”, where it follows the right bank up the river “as
29
directed in the 1858 treaty” ;
(e) fifth and finally, contrary to what ProfessorsKohen and Crawford said this morning, Costa
Rica’s complete absence from the disputed area and her failure to exercise normal elements of
governmental authority there, remove any possible doubt concerning Nicaragua’s claim of
sovereignty over it. The utter lack of such effectivités on the part of Costa Rica, and their
corresponding peaceable exercise by Nicaragua, reaffirm Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the
area.
28. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, that concludes my presentation this
afternoon. Mr.Reichler will now show that no ne of the activities of Nicaragua will cause any
injury to Costa Rica, let alone irreparable injury
29. Mr. President, distinguished Members of th e Court, I thank you for your kind attention.
Mr. President, I would be grateful if you would now invite Mr. Reichler to the podium.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor StephenMcCaffrey for his presentation. I now call
upon Mr. Paul Reichler to make his presentation.
28
Cleveland Award, op cit. supra, Third article, para. 6.
29First Alexander Award, op cit. supra, 28 RIAA, p. 220 (all quotations in this paragraph are from that page). - 31 -
Mr. REICHLER:
T HE EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED HARM TO C OSTA R ICA
1. Good afternoon Mr. President, Members of the Court. As always, it is an honour for me
to appear before you. And it is a privilege to again represent the Republic of Nicaragua. My task
today is to review the evidence that the Parties have submitted to you on the question of harm.
2. In these preliminary proceedings, Costa Rica emphasizes two types of harm:
(1) diminution of the flow of the Colorado river, allegedly caused by Nicaragua’s dredging of the
lower portion of the San Juan river; and (2)cutting of trees and flooding on swampland near the
mouth of the San Juan river, allegedly caused by Nicaragua’s clearing of a channel that connects
the river proper to the Harbor Head Lagoon.
3. When the Court looks at the actual eviden ce, not the distorted characterization of it we
heard this morning, it will see that Costa Rica has fa iled to make its case on harm. It certainly has
not shown anything resembling irreversible or irreparable harm.
4. In regard to the alleged harm to the Co lorado river, the evidence shows that Nicaragua
conducted an extensive environmental review pr ocess over a three-year period, including a
comprehensive trans-boundary Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which concluded that the
30
impact on the Colorado river and its flow would be negligible . Costa Rica’s own technical study,
31
which the Court received last Friday, confirms this . In September 2010, relying on this study, the
Foreign Minister of Costa Rica declared to the Costa Rican legislature that Nicaragua’s dredging of
32
the SanJuan would have no adverse impact on the Colorado river . That was only two months
before this lawsuit was filed.
30
Doc. No. 13, affidavit of Hilda Espinoza Urbina (her eafter “document 13: Espinoza affidavit” and provided
in the judges’ folders behind slide PSR3), para(f); doc. No. 15, declaration of Virgilio Silva Mungía (hereafter
“document 15: Silva decl aration”), paras. 2-3; doc. No. 16, declaratio n of Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez (hereafter
“document 16: Quintero declaration” and provided in e judges’ folders behind slide PSR2), para.7, as well as
corresponding pages of Ann.3 thereto. These documents, like all other declaions, affidavits, certifications, and
additional non-public documents cited below, were submitted to the Court by the Agent of the Republic of Nicaragua on
5 Jan. 2011.
3Área de Ingeniería Hidráulica, C.S. Diseño, ICE, “Estudio de comportamiento de caudales en la bifurcación
Río San Juan – Río Colorado” (hereafter “Costa Rican Flow Report”), p.5. Spanish version submitted to the Court by
Costa Rica on 7 Jan. 2011; English translation provided in the judges’ folders behind slide PSR6.
3Doc. No. 19: statement by Mr. René Castro Salazar, Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs and [Worship],
to the Environmental Commission of Costa Rica’s Legisltive Assembly, on 8Sep. 2010 (hereafter “document 19:
Castro statement” and provided in the judges’ folders behind slides PSR5), paras. 17-20. - 32 -
5. Now they are telling us a different story. In their written Request for the indication of
provisional measures, they charge that “the intention of Nicaragua is to deviate some
1,700cubicmetres per second... of the water that is currently carried by the Colorado River” 33.
That is the entire volume of the Colorado river at its peak. Nicaragua’s exhaustive EIS concluded
34
that the dredging project would result in less th an a 5 per cent diminution in the Colorado’s flow .
Costa Rica’s own technical study, cited by the Fo reign Minister, puts the diminution at less than
4.5percent, not enough to even remotely affect navigation 35. In his speech to the Costa Rican
Parliament, the Foreign Minister said that even a deviation of as much as 12percent would not
adversely impact the Colorado river or Costa Rica 36.
6. In regard to the manual clearing of the ch annel between the San Juan river proper and the
Harbor Head Lagoon, Costa Rica today offered another example of hyperbole masquerading as
evidence. What the actual evidence shows is th at for 30 days Nicaragua n labourers using manual
equipment ⎯ picks, shovels, buc kets, and handsaws ⎯ cleared the channel of vegetation,
37
accumulated sediments and other debris to make it navigable by small boats . The project was
38
completed last month . There is no ongoing clearing activity.
7. This part of the project was also the subject of environmental reviews by Nicaragua before
39
it was authorized, including the potential trans-boundary impacts . Vegetation was cleared only
on the Nicaraguan side of the channel; and, in compliance with the environmental permit, felled
trees have been replaced at the rate of ten new trees planted for every one removed, so that there is
40
no lasting environmental impact .
3Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by Costa Rica on 18 Nov. 2010, para. 6.
3Doc. No. 15: Silva declaration, paras.2-3; doc. No.16: Quintero declaration, para.7, as well as
corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto; see also doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (f).
3Costa Rican Flow Report, p. 5.
3Doc. No. 19: Castro statement, para. 17.
37
Doc. No. 14: statements of Elsa María Vivas Soto (hereafter “document 14: Vivas statements”), paras. 7, 10
and 17-18; see also doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, paras. 22, 24 (a), 26, 29, 30 (b) and 31.
38
Doc. No. 12: Certification of Roberto Araquistain Cisneros (hereafter “document 12: Cisneros certification”),
para. 2; doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 31.
39
Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, paras. 23-29; see also doc. No. 14: Vivas statements, paras. 11-13.
40
Doc. No.14: Vivas statements, paras. 20-22; doc. No.13: Espinoza affidavit, paras. 30 (b) and 31; doc.
No. 12: Cisneros certification, para. 4. - 33 -
8. In an effort to make its case, Costa Rica completely changes the character of the channel
and the clearing project. This is not, as Costa Rica claims, “the construction of an artificial
41
canal” . This is the simple clearing of vegeta tion and sediments from a previously existing
channel that had become so filled up with de bris that navigation was no longer possible.
Furthermore, and this is the biggest flaw in Costa Rica’s argument, Costa Rica’s case for harm
from the clearing of the channel presumes the devia tion through the channel of all or most of the
42
lower San Juan river . Costa Rica’s argument about flooding of the channel, erosion of the banks,
and change in water levels and quality in the Ha rbor Head Lagoon, is based on this presumption:
that the water volume in the channel will be so excessively high that it will cause flooding because
all or most of the San Juan will be diverted through the channel.
9. The facts, however, show that this is en tirely false. The flow of the San Juan as it
43
approaches the channel has been measured at well over 100m3/s . The flow in the channel ⎯
after the clearing was completed in December ⎯ was measured at less than 3m3/s 44. In other
words, less than 3 per cent of the San Juan’s wa ters now pass through the cleared channel, not the
100 per cent, or majority of the water, postulated by Costa Rica. And this is at the end of the rainy
season, when the water is at its peak flow. The evidence shows that the resulting water volume
which actually flows through the channel is a mere 2.38 m3/s, and that this is nowhere near enough
to cause flooding or the other dire consequences Costa Rica has hypothesized.
10. Costa Rica relies heavily on a report by a Ramsar Advisory Mission published last week,
just in time for these hearings. Costa Rica’s relia nce on this report is misplaced. The report does
not address the consequences of dredging the San Juan river, its focus is on those of clearing the
channel. On this matter, the report itself states that it is based entirely on information provided by
41
Request for the indication of provisional measures, op cit. supra, para. 14.
42Ibid., para. 5, (indicating that Nicaragua intends “to devi ate the waters of the San Juan River from its natural
historic course into Laguna los Portillos (the Harbor Head Lagoon)”).
43See doc.No.16: Quintero Declaration, Ann.3: Excerpts from Project Design Final Revised Report,
pp. 16-17 and 22.
44Doc. No. 17: Certification of Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez (hereafter “Doc. 17: Quintero Certification”),
paras. 1-2. - 34 -
45
Costa Rica . There was no attempt at independent fact finding. The Ramsar Advisory Mission
did not visit the site of the activity, or even the region 46. It did not take its own measurements of
water flow, volume or quality. It did not collect or analyse its own samples of sediments. It spent
three days in late November ⎯ after the lawsuit was filed ⎯ in San Jose, being briefed by Costa
Rican Government officials and experts 47. That was, by its own admission, the only source of the
48
information on which its findings were based . It did not seek, or take into account, any
information from Nicaragua.
11. It did not have to be that way. Nicar agua invited the Ramsar Secretariat to send the
Advisory Mission to Nicaragua to meet with official s and experts there, and to visit the sites of the
dredging and channel clearing to make their own observations, collect their own data. It offered its
fullest co-operation in this regard. Inexplicably , Nicaragua’s invitation was refused. I will return
to some particular deficiencies in this report later in my speech, but it is already apparent that it is
not the kind of independent and impartial fact-findi ng exercise that the Court has found useful in
prior cases. This is the Costa Rican Government’s own argument printed on Ramsar letterhead.
12. With the Court’s permission, I will now review the most pertinent facts in greater detail,
starting with the object and scope of the San Juan river dredging and channel clearing project, and
the comprehensive environmental review process that led to its approval. Then I will return to
Costa Rica’s allegations regarding harm, and show more fully why they are not supported by the
evidence.
45
Informe Final, Misión Ramsar de As esoramiento No. 69: Humedal de Importancia International Caribe
Noreste, Costa Rica, 3 Jan. 2011, (hereafter “Ramsar Report”), pp. 4 and 35 of English translation; “According to the
analysis of the technical information received from the Government of Co sta Rica . . .; Ann. 2; “The photographs and
images used were provided by the Government of Costa Ric a”. Spanish original available on the Ramsar website, entry
No. 69, at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-rams/main/ramsar/1-31-112… (last visited
10 Jan. 2011); English translation available on the website of Costa Rica’s Ministry of Foreign Relations at
http://www.rree.go.cr/index.php?stp=04&id=221 (last visited 10 Jan. 2011).
46Ibid., p. 14 of English translation“The Mission intended to conduct an overflight in the Humedal Caribe
Noreste area but, due to weather conditions and safety reasons, it was not possible to do so.”
47Ibid., Ann. 1; i.e., pp. 38-39 of English translation for the Work Programme of the Ramsar Mission.
48E.g., ibid., pp. 4, 14 and 35 of English translation. - 35 -
A. The object and scope of the project
13. The object of this project is simple and stra ightforward: to restore the navigability of the
49
lower stretch of the San Juan river . In this portion of the rive r, sediments carried downstream
have settled in the channel, reduc ing the depth of the water, creating islands and sand bars, and
generally restricting navigation to very small boats 50. In the dry season, the water is so shallow
51
that even small boats cannot use the river . When the project was designed and submitted for
approval five years ago, it was given a name: the project for Improvement of Navigation on the
52
San Juan river . That is exactly what it is.
[1S4. 1] The area is depicted on the screen. The river flows from its source in Lake
Nicaragua to its mouth in the Caribbean Sea, generally in a west to east direction. As you can see,
the waters divide. Approximately 89percent of the flow turns to the southeast, and forms the
Colorado river in Costa Rica. The remaining 11percent constitutes the continuation of the San
Juan river. It is from this point on the river for the next 42km to its mouth that sediments have
53
built up to the point of impeding navigation .
15. There are two reasons why it is a priority for Nicaragua to make this portion of the river
navigable. First, to facilitate commerce betw een the town of San Juan de Nicaragua on the
Caribbean coast and the rest of Nicaragua; because of the accumulation of sediments in the river,
the town and its inhabitants are physically cut off from the rest of the country 54. Second, to
facilitate tourism to the area. There is a huge tourist potential here. The entire lower portion of the
river is part of the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge , and much of the left bank is in the Indio-Maíz
Biosphere Reserve. Nicaragua has diligently prot ected the pristine natural environments of these
areas. The Court will recall from the case concerning Navigational Rights on the San Juan River
that Nicaraguan authorities strictly enforce envir onmental laws and regulations pertaining to these
protected areas for what the Court then calle d “the legitimate purpose of protecting the
49Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 2.
50
Ibid.; see also doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, Ann. 1.
51
Ibid.
52Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, paras. 1-2.
53Ibid., Ann.1: Excerpt from Project Design Final Revised Report, p. 9 and Ann.3: Excerpt from Project
Design Final Revised Report, pp. 16-17 and 22.
54Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (b). - 36 -
environment” (Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (CostaRica v. Nicaragua) ,
Judgment of 13 July 2009, para. 89).
16. The Court will also recall from that case that Costa Rica has a flourishing ecotourist
industry based on scenic cruises down the San Juan river, and then down the Colorado river.
Nicaragua believes it has as much or more to offer ecotourists in terms of natural beauty because,
as Ambassador Argüello pointed out, it has been more successful than Costa Rica at protecting its
side of the river against human settlement and de velopment. This is only possible, however, if
tourist boats are able to navigate on the lower portion of the San Juan river.
17. Since ecotourism is one of the principal objectives of the dredging project, it follows that
the project must be carried out in a way that protects and preserves the natural environment that is
the source of tourist attraction. Nicaragua is well aware of this. That is why it only authorized the
project after an intensive study and analysis of the potential environmental impacts over a
three-year period, and subjected it to strict conditions ⎯ including ongoing monitoring of
environmental effects ⎯ to assure that there would be no significant or irreversible impacts.
Mr. President, at this point would it be convenient for the Court to take its customary
afternoon break or would you like me to continue?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr.Reichler, i ndeed I agree that this is an appropriate
moment for us to have a short break for coffee. Thank you.
The Court adjourned from 4.20 p.m. to 4.35 p.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Now, Mr. Reichler, you can resume your presentation.
B. The environmental review process
18. Thank you, Mr.President. The dredging project was first developed by the Empresa
Portuaria Nacional de Nicaragua (EPN), the Nicar aguan Government Agency responsible for river
transport, in 2004 55. In January2006, after more than a year of preparation, EPN submitted an
56
application to the Ministry of Environment for authorization to carry out the project . Under
55
Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 2.
5Ibid., para. 3; see also doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 12. - 37 -
Nicaraguan law, because of the potential environm ental impacts of the project, especially in a
protected area, EPN was required to submit a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study before
the Ministry’s authorization could be given 57. The Ministry can only grant a permit when, after
reviewing the EIS and conducting its own technical analyses, it determines that the project will not
58
cause any significant change to the environment .
19. After receiving EPN’s request, the Ministry convened an intra-governmental team of
59
technical experts to review it . In March 2006, after inspecting the site of the proposed dredging
project, the technical team sent EPN very detailed “Terms of Reference” spelling out the contents
of the required EIS, these consumed eight, single-spaced typewritten pages 60. The EIS was
61
required to “emphasize the following aspects, without limiting the analysis to them” .
⎯ First, impact on hydraulic dynamics of the San Juan river;
⎯ second, impacts on water quality caused by the re -suspension of sediments in the water
column;
⎯ third, ecosystem losses, the alteration of aquatic habitats, and harm to fishing;
⎯ fourth, impact on emblematic endangered and economically important species; and
⎯ fifth, impacts stemming from the deposition of dredged sediments.
20. Based on these Terms of Reference, EPN prepared an EIS for the dredging project and
submitted it to the Environment Ministry in July 2006. It was deemed insufficient by the
intra-governmental technical team. As explained by MsHildaEspinozaUrbina, the Head of the
Ministry’s Department of Environmental Quality:
“On 27 July 2006, I informed EPN that the documentation provided was
incomplete, as it did not present sufficient substantive technical information to support
the conclusions reached regarding the environmental impacts the project might
cause.” 62
57
See doc.No.13: Espinoza Affidavit, paras. 4-11 for an overview of the relevant Nicaraguan environmental
laws.
58
Ibid, para. 9 (c).
59
Ibid, para. 13.
60Ibid, para. 14; doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, Ann. 5.
61Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, Ann. 5, p. 6.
62
Ibid., para. 15. - 38 -
21. In September 2006, EPN submitted a revised EIS, together with voluminous technical
annexes supporting the conclusions reached. After reviewing the revised EIS and analysing the
technical data, and conducting what was then its four th site inspection visit, the intra-governmental
technical team requested still more information 63.
22. The final EIS, which consisted of 225 pages plus hundreds of pages of technical annexes,
reached the following conclusions in regard to environmental impacts [PSR2]:
⎯ in regard to hydraulic flow, that the proposed dredging of the San Juan river would have a
64
minimal impact on the flow of the Colorado river, of less than 5 per cent ;
⎯ in regard to water quality, that it would be unaffected by the dredging project because most of
the sediments from the bottom of the river rel eased into the water column would quickly
resettle, and the remainder would be of such character and composition as not to present any
65
risk of environmental harm ;
⎯ in fact, the study found, the increased flow of water downstream would actually be beneficial
66
to aquatic species by increasing oxygen levels in the water ; and
⎯ in regard to deposition of extracted sediments, that these would be placed exclusively on the
Nicaraguan side, in designated and secure locations at least 50 m from the river bank, in order
67
to assure against runoff back into the river .
23. There followed a lengthy and detailed technical review and analysis of all the data that
had been received. At its conclusion, in Nove mber2008, the intra-governmental team issued its
technical opinion which “concluded that the project would cause no significant, irreversible impact
68
on the environment and provided recommendations for mitigation measures” . On this basis, in
December2008, nearly three years after the init ial request from EPN, the Environment Ministry
69
issued the permit for the project to proceed . [PSR3] According to the Environment Ministry
63
Ibid., para. 17
64
Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 7 and corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto.
65
Ibid., para. 8 and corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto.
6Ibid.
6Ibid., para. 9 and corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto
6Ibid., para. 18; see also doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, Ann. 7 for technical opinion.
69
Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, Ann. 8. - 39 -
official who signed the formal resolution gr anting the permit, it had been satisfactorily
demonstrated that:
“the dredging project was not likely to have any significant adverse impact on the
environment, let alone any significant irreve rsible impact. This included any harmful
impacts on the people, property, or environment of Costa Rica, as EPN had adequately
established that the dredging itself would not significantly affect the San Juan River or
the flora, fauna or abiotic characteristics of its zone of influence ⎯ whether on the
Nicaraguan or Costa Rican side ⎯ and that none of the byproducts of the dredging
work were to be deposited on the Costa Rican side of the River.” 70
24. Specifically in regard to the impact of the dredging project on the flow of the Colorado
river, there was:
“convincing evidence in [the] Environmental Impact Study and supporting
documentation ⎯ including substantial bathymetrical data and flow calculations ⎯
that the dredging of the San Juan River would not significantly affect the flow of the
Colorado River in Costa Rica, which would be reduced by a few percentage points at
most, and even less in71he rainy season.. . [and] would not harm the navigability of
the Colorado River” .
C. Alleged impacts on the flow of the Colorado river
25. This is a key point. In its Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Costa Rica
3
alleges that “the intention of Nicaragua is to deviate some 1,700 m /sec of the water that currently
is carried by the Colorado River” which “demonstr ate[s] the likelihood of damage to Costa Rica’s
Colorado River, and to Costa Rica’s lagoons, rive rs, herbaceous swamps a nd woodlands,” as well
as “wildlife refuges”, downstream 72.
26. The evidence does not support these allegations. In the first place, the voluminous
technical data submitted as part of the EIS demonstrate that the impact on the Colorado river will
be minimal, affecting less than 5 per cent of its flow, not enough to be noticeable, let alone to affect
73
navigation or the Costa Rican wetlands and wildlife reserves fed by the Colorado river . This
conclusion was not only Nicaragua’s. When the same data were submitted for independent
analysis by Dutch experts on river dred ging and its environmental consequences ⎯ something the
Dutch know plenty about ⎯ they reached the same conclusion. I refer the Court to the Report on
70
Doc. No. 3: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (d).
71
Ibid., para. 20 (f).
7Request for the indication of provisional measures, op cit. supra, para. 6.
7Doc.No.16: Quintero declaration, para. 7 and corre sponding pages of Ann.3 thereto; doc.13: Espinoza
affidavit, para. 20 (f). - 40 -
Morphological Stability of the San Juan River Delta, authored by Professors van Rhee and
74
deVriend of the Delft University of T echnology, which is in your judges’ folder . Applying
established mathematical formulae for calculati ng river flow volume, they determined that
dredging the lower portion of the river to obtain a navigable depth of 2 m over a bottom width of
20 m, as planned, would increase the flow in the lower San Juan river by 20 m 3/sec, and decrease
the flow of the Colorado river by the same amount. [PSR4] Here is what they wrote:
“In the EIS, it was calculated that the proposed dredging project [would]
decrease the flow of the Colorado River by less than 5 per cent . . In this chapter, it is
explained that the EIS conclusion was corr ect and that, conservatively estimated, the
proposed dredging project is likely to decrease no more than 20cubic meters per
second of the flow in the Colorado River (which is of the order of
1400-1700 m3/s).” 75
Twenty cubic metres per second is, therefore, less than 2percent of the maximum flow in the
Colorado river.
27. Costa Rica reached the same conclu sion, as recently as September2010, only two
months before they filed this lawsuit. [PSR 5] This is what the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, the
HonourableRené Castro Salazar, reported to the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica on
8September 2010. It is in your judges’ folder. It is a significant admission against interest by a
senior Government official that merits the Court’s attention:
“[T]he Government [of Costa Rica] is vigilant of the situation and monitoring
the [Nicaraguan dredging] project. In relation to this surveillance work, I should also
note that the Foreign Ministry set up an inter-institutional working group in 2009 to
monitor the Colorado River . . . As part of the work of this inter-agency group, a trip
was made in November 2009 to take measurements in the Colorado River. Among
the work carried out, an appraisal was made to measure its flow and basic equipment
was installed to regularly measure the water level. An analysis of the sedimentation of
the river and the water quality was also made. Costa Rican experts even developed a
flow calculation model to project the impact on the flow of the Colorado River of the
different scaled projects and dredging works in the San Juan. Without going into
details, I can say that the results of these studi es are tranquilizing for the country in
general since all the models analyzed calculate flow reductions of less than 12%.
Moreover, in relation to the $7 milli on investment announced, the flow reduction
would be even less and therefore would not have the alarming environment
al and
economic impact suggested by some media... [The Foreign Minister continues]
During the meeting held with Foreign Minister Santos in Managua, [he] gave verbal
assurances that the current dredging project will not have an impact on the flow of the
74
Doc.No.18: Expert Report of Professors van Rhee and de Vriend of Delft University of Technology
(4 Jan. 2011) (hereafter “Document 18: Report of Dutch Experts” and provided in the judges’ folders behind slides PSR4
and PSR7).
7Ibid, p. 4. - 41 -
Colorado River because it is a rather modest work to clean the San Juan River that
seeks to improve navigation over the river from its mouth up to the delta of the
Colorado . . . This verbal assurance is sufficient for us to have peace of mind that no
damage will be caused to the national territory. Actually there are no reasons to doubt
the words of the Foreign Minister of Ni caragua or its President. In addition, our own
76
studies suggest something similar . . .”
About this statement, at least two important points are worth noting.
28. First, the Foreign Minister stated that Costa Rica made its own study which shows that
Nicaragua’s dredging project will have no material impact on the flow of the Colorado river. This
study was not included in the documents Costa Rica initially submitted to the Court last week. In a
letter dated 4 January, the Agent of Nicaragua, citing to the Costa Rican Foreign Minister’s recent
speech, requested the Court to exercise its author ity under Article 62 of the Rules by asking Costa
Rica to produce the study. In response, Costa Rica produ ced a report last Friday. [PSR6] It is in
your judges’ folder. And it confirms what the Foreign Minister ⎯ and Nicaragua ⎯ have said. It
concludes that dredging the San Juan river to a width of 120m ⎯ that is, 100m wider than
Nicaragua plans to do ⎯ would diminish the flow of the Colorado river by only 4.5percent 77.
The 12 per cent reduction, which the Costa Rican Foreign Minister said still would not materially
affect the flow of the Colorado, would only r esult from dredging the San Juan to a width of
180 m 78, that is, nine times wider than Nicaragua plans to do.
29. Second, Costa Rica’s Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures is impossible to
reconcile with the statement, two months earlier, by its Foreign Minister. An example is the
assertion at paragraph6 of the Request, that “the intention of Nicaragua is to deviate some
1,700 cubic meters per second” of water from the Colorado river. As indicated the flow rate of the
3 79
Colorado river is between 1,400 and 1,700 m /s . Costa Rica in effect asserts as the basis for its
Request for provisional measures, that Nicaragua’s dredging project will divert the entire flow of
the Colorado river ⎯ 100 per cent ⎯ and leave it completely dry. That is a far cry from the
Foreign Minister’s statement to the Costa Rican Parliament that, based on Costa Rica’s own study
76Doc. No. 19: Castro Statement, paras. 17-20; emphasis added.
77Costa Rican Flow Report, p. 5.
78
Ibid.; Castro statement, para. 17.
79
Doc. No.18: Report of Dutch Experts, Executive summary, p. 4, para. 1; see also 15: Silva declaration,
para. 2 (“the flow of the Colorado is 1,600-1,700 m³/second”); doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, Ann. 3, Excerpts from
Project Design Final Revised Report, p.22 (calculating that the San Juan takes only 178m³/s of the 1,665m³/s flow at
Delta, leaving some 1,487m³/s flowing to the Colorado); doc. No.19: Castro speech, para.12 (“the waters of the
Colorado River average 1,400-1,600 m³/s . . .”). - 42 -
of various dredging models, in the worst case the re duction in flow of the Colorado would be less
than 12 per cent, not enough to produce a harmful impact.
30. In the Request for provisional measures, Costa Rica cites media reports, published in
August 2010, that attribute to Virgilio Silva, the Executive President of EPN, and Edén Pastora the
3
statement that the dredging project would divert 1,700 m /s of water from the Colorado to the San
Juan 80. Mr. Silva has submitted a sworn declaration de nying that he ever made such an absurd
81
statement . Costa Rica’s Foreign Minister has himself dismissed these patently erroneous media
reports: “The statements made by Messrs. Silv a and Pastora do not constitute sufficient proof in
82
and of themselves that this damage will occur . . .” Nonetheless, Costa Rica has chosen to revive
them for purposes of its Request for provisional measures . Even my good friend
ProfessorCrawford, to my astonishment, spoke about Nicaragua’s supposed intention to deprive
the Colorado river of 100 per cent of its waters.
31. The major deviation here is not in the wate rs of the Colorado river, but in the flow of
Costa Rica’s argument. In September, the impact of the dredging project was negligible. Since
November, the impact of the same project is catast rophic, requiring urgent measures. It is not the
dredging that caused Costa Rica to drastically change its position. It is the political decision to file
this lawsuit.
32. As the evidence shows, Costa Rica simply has no case in regard to the likelihood of
harm, let alone irreparable harm, to the Colorado river, or to the wetlands and other downstream
features that are dependent on its water supply.
33. I will now turn to the evidence regarding the clearing of the channel which connects the
San Juan proper to the Harbor Head Lagoon.
D. The clearing of the channel
34. In August 2009, nine months after EPN received the permit from the Environment
Ministry to carry out the dredging project, it submitted an application to expand the permit to allow
80
Request for the indication of provisional measures, op cit. supra, para. 6.
81
Doc. No. 15: Silva declaration, paras. 1-2.
8Doc. No. 19: Castro statement, para. 15. - 43 -
for the manual clearing of one of the many small channels that characterize the San Juan river
delta, close to the mouth 83.
35. EPN’s application for expansion of its permit explained that it was necessary to clear
“the caño that connects the San Juan River to the Harbor Head Lagoon” in order to assure the
year-round navigability of the entire river, and that this would provide a “more direct navigation
route, thereby reducing the time required to trav el between different sites along the River”, which
84
would “reduce not only the cost of transportation, but also the consumption of fuel” . Providing a
more direct navigation route to Harbor Head La goon also serves the purpose of facilitating police
surveillance of the area, which has become a clandestine depot for drug traffickers, as explained by
Ambassador Argüello.
36. EPN’s application was supported by an Environmental Management Plan, which not
only described the proposed work, but also “ide ntified and evaluated its potential environmental
impacts, established how such impacts would be prevented, mitigated, and reversed, if necessary,
and outlined the supervision that would be provided to ensure proper environmental
85
management” . As part of its environmental review, the Ministry dispatched a technical team to
the site to make an inspection and prepare a report 86. After inspecting the site, the technical team
concluded that the manual clearing of the caño of vegetation, accumulated sediments and other
debris would be “environmentally viable” for these reasons:
⎯ first, the volume of water that would flow through the caño after clearing would be
“insignificant compared to the volume of wate r that flows through the San Juan River” and
“does not represent any risk, either to the river or to the lagoon” 87;
⎯ second, the impacts on water quality would be low-intensity; and they would only temporarily
88
affect parameters such as transparency, colour, and turbidity ;
83Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 22.
84
Ibid., para. 24 (a).
85
Doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 24(b).
86Ibid. paras. 25-26; see also Doc. 13: Espinoza Affidavit, Ann. 9 for Technical Report.
87Doc. 14: Vivas Statements, para. 12.
88Ibid., para. 11. - 44 -
⎯ third, the sediments extracted from the caño would be deposited exclusively on the Nicaraguan
side, and would not harm the natural species beca use the sediment is silty, the plant material is
organic, and its deposit would aid in the natural regeneration of plant species 89; and
⎯ fourth, the plentiful rain year-round and type of ecosystem would allow for the natural
regeneration of the plant life on the banks of the caño 90.
37. The inspection team recognized that the pr imary environmental impact of the clearing
project would be the felling of trees. Accordingly, to mitigate and reverse this impact, the team
included this recommendation in its report: “If it is not possible to avoid cutting vegetation, the
affected vegetation must be replaced and offset th rough the planting of ten trees for every one that
is cut, with species that are na tive to the area. This will promote the natural regeneration of
species.” 91
38. This recommendation was then made a c ondition of the permit for the clearing of the
caño, which was issued by the Environment Ministry in October 2009 92.
39. The actual work of clearing the caño commenced a year later, in November 2010. It was
93
fully completed in December 2010 . There has been no caño clearing activity since then, and no
further activity is planned. In late November, shortly before the clearing activities were completed,
the Environment Ministry sent a monitoring mission to the site to investigate whether the project
was being carried out in conformity with the conditions of the permit, and whether there were any
unexpected environmental impacts. To these questions, the mission answered Yes and No. Yes,
all of the conditions of the permit were bei ng satisfied. And No, there were no unexpected
environmental impacts 94.
40. On 22 and 23 December 2010, EPN conducted measurements to monitor the flow rate of
the water in the newly-cleared caño. The average depth of the caño was one metre. The average
velocity was extremely slow, less than ½ a metre per second. In terms more familiar to me, and
89Doc. 14: Vivas Statements, para. 11.
90
Ibid.
91
Doc. 13: Espinoza Affidavit, Ann. 9, last page.
92Ibid., Ann. 10, permit requirement no. 35.
93Doc. 12: Cisneros Certification, para. 2; Doc. 13: Espinoza Affidavit, para. 31.
94Doc. 13: Espinoza Affidavit, para. 30. - 45 -
3 95
perhaps the Court, that is less than 2km /hr. The flow volume was a miniscule 2.38m /s .
According to ProfessorsvanRhee and deVriend, the Dutch dredging experts, whose report is in
your judges’ folder,
“there would seem to be little reason to be lieve that any permanent environmental
impact would result from the caño clearing work . . . [T]he manual clearing of debris
and vegetation with shovels is unlikely in this circumstance to produce the type of
dramatic increase in the flow in the ca ño that might cause a permanent impact.
Indeed, after the caño clearing work was completed, the flow in the caño was
measured at only 2.38 m /s, which means the water is barely moving at all.” 96
E. Costa Rica’s allegations regarding the clearing of the caño
41. Costa Rica alleges in its Request for provisional measures that
“Nicaragua is currently destroying an area of primary rainforests and fragile
wetlands on Costa Rican territory . . . for the purpose of facilitating the construction of
a canal through Costa Rican territory, intended to deviate the waters of the San Juan
River from its natural historical course into Laguna los Portillos (the Harbor Head
Lagoon).” 97
42. As the Court will appreciate from this a llegation, Costa Rica’s complaints about the
clearing of the caño are premised on the proposition that Nicaragua has performed acts on
CostaRican territory. This is disputed by Nicaragua , and this dispute is at the heart of this case.
Which State has sovereignty over this remote a nd uninhabited swamp is a fundamental issue that
can only be resolved at the merits stage. Prof essorPellet will have more to say about this a little
later.
43. What is important here is that the alle gedly wrongful conduct cited in the Request for
Provisional Measures ⎯ the felling of trees, the removal of vegetation and the deposit of extracted
sediments ⎯ has occurred on the left bank of the caño, the side that Nicaragua considers its own.
No trees were felled on the right bank, which bot h Nicaragua and Costa Rica agree belongs to
Costa Rica.
44. In any event, Costa Rica cannot show that Nicaragua’s actions in connection with the
clearing of the caño will produce significant or irreversible environmental impacts on either side.
The environmental reviews conducted by Nicaragua show that they will not. To be sure, trees were
95
Doc. 17: Quintero Certification, paras. 1 and 2.
96
Doc. 18: Report of Dutch Experts, p. 9.
9Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, op cit. supra, para. 5. - 46 -
98 99
felled. Nicaragua itself reported the felling of 180trees . Costa Rica puts the number at 197 .
But the felling is over with, and the replanting of ten times as many new trees to replace them has
begun 100. The long-term impact on the ecology of the area will be positive, not negative.
45. Costa Rica attempts to support its case by reference to the Ramsar Advisory Mission
report dated 3 January 2010. This is the same report I mentioned earlier in my speech. As the
report itself states in two places, it is based entirely ⎯ 100 per cent ⎯ on “the technical
101
information received from the Government of Costa Rica” . According to the report itself, the
102
Ramsar representatives spent all of their time in Costa Rica in Government offices in San José .
They made no attempt to collect their own data, or even to verify independently the information
that was spoon-fed to them in San José. Although a fly-over of the area was planned, it was
cancelled due to bad weather 103. So there was no visit of any kind to the site, and no collection of
any evidence there. The report was submitted to Costa Rica in draft form in mid-December, and
104
published only after receiving Costa Rica’s approval . It is nothing more than an uncritical
acceptance of Costa Rica’s own positions, based on th e assumption that everything Costa Rica and
its experts told the mission was correct. By its own admission, the report contains no
independently-obtained data or analyses of any kind.
46. It is a mystery why the Ramsar mission conducted itself in such an unorthodox manner.
On 30 November, after Nicaragua learned that Costa Rica invited a Ramsar mission to San Jose to
assess the impacts of the caño clearing project, it wrote to the Ramsar Secretariat in Geneva, and
invited the mission to come to Nicaragua as well , so that Nicaragua could provide complete
98Doc. 12: Cisneros Certification, para. 3.
99
E.g., Miguel Araya Montero, “Estimación de edad máxima aproximada de los árboles cortados en áreas de
bosque primario en el sector de Punta Ca stilla, Colorado, Pococí, Limón, Costa Ri ca a raíz de la ocupación de ejercito
nicaragüense para el aparente restablecimiento de un canal existente” (December 2010), p.1, English translation
submitted to the Court by Costa Rica on 5 Jan. 2011.
100Doc. 12: Cisneros Certification, para. 4; Doc. 13: Espinoza Affidavit, para. 31.
101
Ramsar Report, pp. 4 and 35 of English translation (“A ccording to the analysis of the technical information
received from the Government of Costa Rica…”).
102
Ibid, Ann. 1 (i.e., pp. 38-39 of English translation) for the Work Programme of the Mission.
103
Ibid., p.14 of English transl ation (“The Mission intended to conduct an overflight in the Humedal Caribe
Noreste area but, due to weather conditions and safety reasons, it was not possible to do so”).
104
See 17 Dec. 2010 Letter from Ramsar Secretary General, Anada Tiega to Costa Rican Foreign Minister René
Castro Salazar, attached as the first page of the English translation of the Ramsar report available on the website of Costa
Rica’s Ministry of Foreign Relations at http://www.rree.go.cr/index.php?stp=04&id=221 (last visited 10 Jan. 2011). - 47 -
information on the project, answer all questions, and take the Ramsar representatives to explore for
themselves the area in question. The invitation w as delivered while the advisory mission was still
in Costa Rica, less than one hour by plane fro m Managua. The invitation was issued again on
2 December, when Nicaragua requested that no re port be issued until Nicaragua’s views had been
received. The response from the Ramsar Secretariat was disappointing. It wrote back stating: “the
Secretariat will be pleased to send a Ramsar Advisory Mission to Nicaragua as soon as possible
when the members and consultants of the present mission are available to carry out this expertise”.
Apparently, they were not “available” to go to Ni caragua before they published their report or at
any time since; because, despite the fact that Nicaragua’s invitation remains open, it has heard
nothing further from Ramsar.
47. So what we have here is a report that re fused to consider anything from Nicaragua. This
is reflected on every page. It is revealed in the way the report repeatedly refers to the caño clearing
project as the “construction of an artificial canal”, which is word-for-word Costa Rica’s
characterization of it, as distinguished from the manual cleaning of a pre-existing channel, which is
Nicaragua’s. The report even refers to the Harbor Head Lagoon, which is in Nicaragua, as “Laguna
Los Portillos”, which is Costa Rica’s name for it. This is not, it cannot be, the kind of unbiased
report of expert, independent fact-finders that the Co urt has found worthy of weight in prior cases.
Not when the reporters took information at face value only from one side, and turned down the
invitation to receive it from the other. It is as if the Court would have closed these hearings at
1.00 p.m. today, after Costa Rica had spoken, wit hout allowing Nicaragua to speak, and then went
off to decide the matter.
48. Just a few examples from the report will suffice to show the folly of the drafters in
relying solely on the self-interested account of one of the Parties to this dispute.
49. First, after a general call for co-operation and collaboration between the two States, the
principal recommendation of the report is this: “It is important to carry out rigorous environmental
impact assessments for any project or activity that could have an effect on the hydrology and
hydrodynamics of the Northeast Caribbean Ramsar Site and the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge - 48 -
105
Ramsar Site.” In this statement, the authors of the report recognize that no reliable
determination of the environmental impacts of the project could be made in the absence of what
they called “rigorous environmental impact studies” ⎯ which they did not perform ⎯ and at the
same time they reveal that they are complete ly unaware of the comprehensive environmental
impact studies already carried out by Nicaragua. They issued their report without even knowing
about ⎯ let alone reviewing ⎯ Nicaragua’s EIS, because they refused to go to Nicaragua.
50. Second, the same recommendation recognizes that there are two Ramsar wetlands that
are supplied with water by the San Juan river and its various caños. By far the largest of these is
the one in Nicaragua, the San Juan River Wildlif e Refuge. This protected area comprises more
106
than 430sqkm . Its principal source of water ⎯ its lifeline ⎯ is the San Juan river itself,
especially the lower portion. By contrast, the en tire area contested by Nicaragua and Costa Rica,
107
and supposedly affected by the caño clearing project comprises a mere 2.25 sq km . The Ramsar
report, which assumes that this is Costa Rican territory ⎯ since that is what Costa Rica told
them ⎯ acknowledges that this is only 0.3percent of Costa Rica’s North east Caribbean Ramsar
108
Site . In fact, by dredging the lower portion of the San Juan river and increasing the water
supply, Nicaragua will assure that both of these Ra msar wetlands continue to receive enough water
to sustain them. If Nicaragua were to stop dr edging, and wait for the San Juan river to dry up
entirely, which is inevitable given the yearly accu mulation of sediments that now make navigation
all but impossible, the survival of these wetlands would be threatened.
51. Third, the Ramsar report finds that the main environmental impacts of the caño clearing
project will be in the Harbor Head Lagoon, which is not in Costa Rica, but entirely within
Nicaragua. The report itself acknowledges this when it says that “the Laguna los Portillos, located
in the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Rio San Juan Ramsar Wetland in Nicaragua, would be the most
10Ramsar report, pp. 5 and 36 of English translation.
10See the Annotated Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance: Nicaragua, available on the Ramsar
website at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs -annolist-annotated-ramsar-16106/main/ramsar/1-30-
168%5E16106_4000_0__ (last visited 10 Jan.2011) (indicating that the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan is
comprised of 43,000 ha, which is equivalent to 430 sq km).
10Ramsar report, p. 5 of English transl ation (“According to the analysis of the technical information received
from the Government of Costa Rica, there are changes in the ecological characteristics of the Humedal Caribe Noreste in
the area of direct influence involving around 225 ha (2.25 kmor 0.3% of the total wetland area (75,310 hectares, or
753 km²)” (emphasis in original)).
10Ibid. - 49 -
109
affected” by the clearing of the caño . Professor Crawford read a lengthy excerpt from the report
this morning, but its focus was precisely on poten tial harms to the Harbor Head Lagoon. As my
friend confirmed, the most significant environmental impact cited in the report, even if it were
accurate quod non, is in Nicaragua not Costa Rica. This is not the type of harm for which Costa
Rica can seek relief in this Court.
52. Fourth, not only the alleged impact on Harbor Head Lagoon, but all of the alleged
environmental impacts mentioned in the Ramsar report ⎯ all of them ⎯ are premised on the
assumption, stated in the report in two separate places, that Nicaragua is “prioritizing the water
flow of the San Juan River, which currently discharges into the Cari bbean Sea, towards the
artificial canal” 110. As Professor Crawford quoted from the report this morning, the diversion of all
or most of the San Juan river through the caño could lead to “flooding of the wetland” and “water
111
stress caused by excess water” . Significantly, there are no measurements or calculations ⎯ or
even approximations ⎯ of what the water volume in the caño is or will be in this report. There are
no measurements or numbers of any kind in this regard. Professor Crawford cited none. The
report simply assumes that the water volume will be too high, and will cause flooding, based on the
diversion of all or most of the San Juan river’s water through the caño to the lagoon. Where does
this assumption in the report come from?
53. From Costa Rica. It is in the Request for provisional measures, at paragraph 5. And it
comes from a report on the Costa Rican Foreign Ministry website accusing Nicaragua of planning
to divert all or most of the water from the lower San Juan through the caño to the Harbor Head
Lagoon 112. The author of this report is the same Co sta Rican expert who spent three days briefing
113
the Ramsar mission in San Jose, and fed this information to them . But the evidence ⎯ the actual
109Ibid., pp. 5 and 36 of English translation.
110
Ibid., pp. 34-35 of English translation.
111
Ibid., pp. 29-30 of English translation.
112Dr. Allan Astorga Gättgens, “Grave riesgo de daños ambientales irr eversibles por el trasvase del Río San
Juan en la Isla Calero, Caribe Norte, Costa Rica: Modelo Sedimentológico Predictivo de la Construcción del Canal”
(i.e., “Serious risk of irreversible environmental damage due to the diversion of the San Juan River into Isla Calero, North
Caribbean, Costa Rica: Predictive Sedi mentological Model of the Canal Cons truction”), 18 Nov.2010, attached as
Ann. 4 to “Incursión, Ocupación, Uso Y Daño del Territorio Costarricense Por Parte de Nicaragua” , a document
published on the website of Costa Rica’s Mi nistry of Foreign Affairs, available at
http://www.rree.go.cr/index.php?stp=04&id=191 (last visited 10 Jan. 2011).
113
Ramsar report, Ann.1 (i.e., p. 38 of English translation) (indicating that “Dr. Allan Astorga” was a
participant in the Ramsar briefings on Sunday, 28 Nov. 2010). - 50 -
measurements of water flow and volume ⎯ show that the San Juan has not been diverted in whole
or in significant part to pass through the caño, as Costa Rica and the Ramsar report presume, but
that less than 3 per cent of the river’s waters are now passing through the caño, not enough to cause
flooding or any other environmental impacts. We heard a lot this morning about flooding. We
heard a lot, but we saw no evidence of it. There is no evidence that this is likely. The actual
measurements show that the water flow in the caño is too low for flooding to occur.
54. Fifth, and finally, the only actual, as opposed to hypothetical, harm mentioned in the
Ramsar report is the felling of what Costa Rica has calculated as 197 trees 114. Unsurprisingly, the
report takes Costa Rica’s number as gospel. Nicar agua acknowledges that 180 trees were felled in
carrying out the project. This is indeed an impact. But it is over and done with. Costa Rica’s talk
of ongoing devastation of a forest is pure hyperb ole. In fact, as indicated, Nicaragua is in the
process of mitigating or reversing this impact by planting 1,800 new trees, all native species, to
replace the ones that were felled.
55. In sum, Costa Rica can only make out a case for harm in regard to the caño clearing
project by turning it into something it is not. This is not an artificial canal constructed for the
purpose of redirecting all or most of the San Juan river, as Costa Rica presumes. It is a very
small-scale work, done manually with picks and shov els, that produced a minimal flow of water
through the channel that causes no significant or i rreversible environmental impacts. The actual
measurements confirm this. As regards this, the actual project, Costa Rica has produced no
evidence of harm, let alone irreparable harm.
56. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation today. I thank you
for your courtesy and kind attention, and ask that you give the floor to Professor Pellet.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.Paul Reichler for his presentation. Now I invite Professor
Alain Pellet to give his presentation.
114
Ibid., p. 26 of English translation. - 51 -
M. PELLET : Thank you very much, Mr. President.
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messi eurs de la Cour, le Nicaragua est un «bon
client» de la Cour qu’il a souvent saisie. Mais, en l’occurrence, s’il se présente à nouveau devant
vous, c’est en tant que défendeur puisque, pour la seconde fois, le Co sta Rica a dirigé une requête
contre lui au sujet du statut juridique du fleuve Sa nJuan. Cette instance est superflue: elle porte
sur des faits qui ont été forgés de toute pièce pa r l’Etat requérant, ou qu’il interprète de façon
fantaisiste, et elle soulève des problèmes juridiques artificiels et, en grande partie, déjà tranchés par
la Cour.
2. Mes collègues Stephen McCaffrey et Paul Reichler ont établi le cadre juridique et factuel
dans lequel s’inscrit la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires dont le CostaRica a cru
devoir accompagner sa requête. Il m’appartient de montrer plus précisément que cette demande ne
remplit pas les conditions lui permettant de prospérer, conditions qu’ont précisées le Statut et le
Règlement de la Cour et votre jurisprudence :
⎯ les demandes formulées par l’Etat requérant sont dépourvues de tout lien avec des droits
plausibles lui appartenant (I) ;
⎯ le comportement dont se plaint le Costa Rica ne lui a causé aucun préjudice et certainement pas
le moindre préjudice irréparable (II) ;
⎯ dès lors et a fortiori, les mesures qu’il vous demande d’i ndiquer ne revêtent aucun caractère
d’urgence (III) ; et,
⎯ au demeurant, si vous les prononciez, vous préjugeriez le fond même de l’affaire dont il vous a
saisie (IV).
I.D ES DEMANDES SANS LIEN AVEC DES DROITS PLAUSIBLES
3. Monsieur le président, interprétant l’artic le41 de son Statut, la Cour considère, le
professeur Kohen l’a rappelé ce matin, que lorsqu’e lle ordonne des mesures conservatoires, elle
«doit se préoccuper de sauvegarder…les droits que l’arrêt qu’elle aura ultérieurement à rendre
pourrait éventuellement reconnaître, soit au dema ndeur, soit au défendeur…; [et] qu’un lien doit
donc être établi entre les [droits allégués que les mesures conservatoires sollicitées visent à protéger
et] l’objet de l’instance pendante devant la Cour sur le fond de l’affaire» ( Questions concernant - 52 -
l’obligation de poursuivre ou d'extrader (Bel gique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires ,
115
ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, par. 56) .
4. Ces précisions figurent, tout comme je l’ai dit, dans la dernière ordonnance en indication
de mesures conservatoires que vous avez rendue, celle du 28mai2009, dans l’affaire Hissène
Habré; mais elles ne font que reprendre des formules que vous aviez fréquemment utilisées
auparavant. Précisant ces énoncés traditionnels, vous avez, dans cette même ordonnance, considéré
en outre «que le pouvoir de la Cour d’indiquer d es mesures conservatoires ne devrait être exercé
que si les droits allégués par une partie apparaissent au moins plausibles» ( Obligation d’extrader
ou de poursuivre (Belgique c.Sénégal), mesure s conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J.Recueil2009 ,
par. 57) 116. Ce faisant vous avez consacré une condition qui figurait en pointillés dans votre
117
jurisprudence antérieure, mais que vous n’aviez jamais formulée aussi clairement auparavant .
115Voir aussi: Statut juridique du territoire du sud-est du Groënland, ordonnances des 2 et 3août1932,
C.P.J.I. sérieA/B n o48, p.285; Réforme agraire polonaise et minorité allemande, ordonnance du 29juillet1933,
C.P.J.I. sérieA/B n o58, p. 177 ; Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (Royaume-Uni c.Ir an), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
5 juillet 1951, C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 93 ; Interhandel (Suisse c.Etats-Unis d’ Amérique), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 24 octobre 1957, C.I.J. Recueil 1957, p. 111 ; Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Royaume-Uni
c. Islande), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17 août 1972, C.I.J. Recueil 1972, p. 15, par. 12 ; Plateau continental
de la mer Egée (Grèce c.Turquie), mesures conserva toires, ordonnance du 11septembr e 1976, C.I.J. Recueil 1976,
p. 11, par. 34 ; Personnel diplomatique et consulaire des Etats-Unis à Téhéran (Etats-U nis d’Amérique c. Iran), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 15dé cembre 1979, C.I.J. Recueil 1979, p. 19, par. 36 ; Sentence arbitrale du
31juillet1989 (Guinée-Bissau c.Sénégal), mesures cons ervatoires, ordonnance du 2mars1990, C.I.J.Recueil1990 ,
p. 69, par. 24 ; Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande c.Dane mark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 16, par. 16 ; Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du
crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c.Yougoslavie), mesures conservatoir es, ordonnance du 8avril1993,
C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 19, par. 34-35 ; Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de
génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine cY .ougoslavie), mesu res conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 septembr1e993,
C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p.342, par.35-36; Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun
c. Nigéria), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I) , p. 21-22, par. 35 ; Convention
de Vienne sur les relations consulaires (Paraguay c.Etats-Unis d’Amér ique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
9 avril 1998, C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 257, par. 35-36 ; LaGrand (Allemagne c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 3ma rs 1999, C.I.J. Recueil 1999 (I), p.14-15, par.22-23; Activités armées sur le
territoire du Congo (République démocratique du Congo c.Ouganda), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
1erjuillet 2000, C.I.J. Recueil 2000, p.127, par.39-40; Mandat d’arrêt du 11avril2000 (République démocratique du
Congo c.Belgique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8décembre2000, C.I.J.Recueil2000 , p. 201, par. 69 ;
Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (nouvelle requête:2002) (Répub lique démocratique du Congo c.Rwanda),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10 juillet 2002, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p.241, par.58; Certaines procédures
pénales engagées en France (République du Congo c.Fr ance), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17juin2003,
C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 107-108, par. 22-29 ; Avena et autres ressortissants m exicains (Mexique cE. tats-Unis
d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 5 février 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 89, par. 49 ; Usines de pâte à
papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 13juillet2006 ,
C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 129, par. 61.
116Voir aussi les paragraphes 60-61.
117Voir notamment, Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006, opinion individuelle du juge Abraham, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 139, par. 6 ;
voir aussi: opinion individuelle du jugeBennouna, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p.145, par.11 et CR2006/47, p.32, par.2 et
p.37-38, par.14 (Condorelli); voir également Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finl ande c.Danemark), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, opinion individuelle du juge Shahabuddeen, C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 28. - 53 -
5. En d’autres termes, il est maintenant clai r que cette première condition, se subdivise en
deux branches. Pour que vous puissiez faire dr oit à une demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires, il faut
⎯ d’une part, que les mesures sollicitées présentent un lien ⎯«un lien suffisant» avez-vous dit
dans votre ordonnance du 15oc tobre2008 dans l’affaire Géorgie c. Russie ⎯ avec les droits
invoqués par l’Etat demandeur ; et
⎯ d’autre part, que ces droits aient un caractère plausible 118.
a) Le fumus boni juris
119
6. Commençons par la plausibilité des droits en cause ⎯ le fumus boni juris, si l’on veut .
7. Selon la demande en indication de mesu res conservatoires du 18novembre2010, que je
cite en anglais «CostaRica’s rights which are su bject of the dispute and of this request for
provisional measures are its right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity and to non-interference with
its rights over the SanJuan River, its lands, its environmentally protected areas, as well as the
120
integrity and flow of the Colorado River.»
8. Le premier groupe de droits invoqués par le CostaRica (ses droits prétendus «à la
souveraineté, à l’intégrité territoriale et à la non-in gérence dans les droits qui sont les siens sur le
SanJuan») constitue un amalgame destiné à entretenir la confusion: il n’est pas contesté que
l’articleVI du traité de limites du 15avril1858, cité tout à l’heure par mon collègue et ami le
professeur McCaffrey, confère au Nicaragua, «la pleine et exclusive souveraineté («exclusivamente
el dominio y sumo imperio») sur la totalité du Sa nJuan, depuis sa source dans le lac jusqu’à son
121
embouchure dans la mer» . On ne voit dès lors pas très bien comment des activités menées par le
Nicaragua sur un fleuve sur lequel il a «pleine et exclusive souveraineté» pourraient porter atteinte
à la souveraineté ou à l’intégrité territoriale du Costa Rica.
118
Application de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes le s formes de discrimination raciale
(Géorgie c. Fédération de Russie), ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 392, par. 126.
119Voir l’opinion individuelle du juge Abraham et la plaidoirie de M. Condorelli, préc. note n 3.
120Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, 18 novembre 2010, p. 3, par. 10.
121 Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (CostaRi ca c.Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, par. 37 ; voir aussi, par exemple, le paragraphe 31. - 54 -
9. De plus, l’opération de police qui, en apparen ce, aurait suscité la requête et la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires costa-ricienne s, relève de la pure routine comme l’a montré
122
Steve McCaffrey : dans cette zone marécageuse et i nhabitée (sauf lorsqu’un «fermier» s’y
installe fort opportunément…un fermier dans une réserve naturelle protégée, bizarre d’ailleurs),
donc dans une zone propice à la contrebande, les e ffectivités territoriales sont forcément réduites.
123
Il n’empêche que le Nicaragua peut lui invoquer des effectivités nombreuses ⎯ et fort
significatives ⎯ alors que les revendications costa-riciennes relèvent de l’abstraction, fermiers mis
à part, et sont fondées (et non fondées serait plus exact...) sur un château de cartes, des cartes
trompeuses toutes copiées sur un schéma unique ne correspondant pas au texte de la sentence
Alexander. La présence et la connaissance costa-ri ciennes de la région sont d’ailleurs tellement
limitées que le Costa Rica en est réduit à fonder ses accusations d’ intervention sur les témoignages
de narcotrafiquants 124qui ont échappé à la police nicaraguayenne, et pour l’arrestation desquels le
125
Nicaragua a requis la coopération du Costa Rica .
10. Le conte du canal (que le Nicaragua serait d’ailleurs parfaitement en droit de creuser) n’a
pas davantage de vraisemblance que la fable de l’occ upation. Il est tout à fait exact qu’une équipe
126
nicaraguayenne a procédé, manuellement , pendant quelques semaines, au débroussaillage et au
nettoyage du caño qui relie le fleuve SanJuan avec HarborHead. Comme l’a montré mon autre
collègue et ami PaulReichler, il ne s’est agi que de rétablir la navigab ilité (d’ailleurs limitée) de
cette branche du fleuve ⎯ dont la rive droite correspond à la frontière entre les deux Parties, telle
127
que l’a précisée le général Alexander dans la sentence du 30 septembre 1897 .
122Voir note supra, S.McCaffrey, par.25 d) et affidavits soumis à la Cour, Aburto Ortiz, Gregorio de Jesús
(doc. 1), p. 2 et Roa Traña, Farle Isidro (doc. 5), p. 4-6.
123 Voir note supra, S.McCaffrey, par.24-25 A.M. A.V. et affidavits soum is à la Cour, AburtoOrtiz,
Gregorio de Jesús (doc. 1) ; Barrantes Jiménez, Luis Fernando (doc. 2) ; Pérez Solís, José Magdiel (doc. 3) ;
Gutiérrez Espinoza, Juan Francisco (doc. 7) ; Membreño Rivas, Denis (doc. 9).
124La Nación. El País, 21 octobre 2010, «Familia denuncia invasión de jerarca nica».
125
Affidavit soumis à la Cour, Roa Traña, Farle Isidro (doc. 5), p. 9-10.
126
Déclaration soumise à la Cour, Vivas Soto, ElsaMaria (doc1 .4), par.8; affidavit,
EspinozaUrbina, Hilda, par.30 b) et son annexe11 (doc.13); certification, AraquistainCisneros, Roberto
(doc. 12).
127 Voir traité de limites (Cañas-Jerez), 15avr il1858, art.II (annexe1 à la requête introductive
d’instance, 18 octobre 2010) et première sentence rendue par l’arbitre E. P. Alexander à SanJuan delNorte
le 30septembre1897 sur la question de la frontière entre le CostaRica et le Nicaragua, H. La Fontaine,
Pasicrisie Internationale 1794-1900 : Histoire documentaire des arbitrages internationaux (1902, réimprimé
en 1997, M. Nijhoff, La Haye), p. 529 (annexe 3 à la requête introductive d’instance, 18 octobre 2010). - 55 -
11. Monsieur le président, le lien entre les faits qu’invoque le CostaRica et les droits qu’il
revendique sont tout sauf plausibles. Mais, si ce n’est pas plausible, cela s’explique sans doute.
Comme l’a montré tout à l’heure le professeurMcCaffrey, la fable de l’invasion et de
l’«occupation» d’un territoire costa-ricien par les troupes nicaraguayennes et le conte du
creusement d’un nouveau canal ont été forgés de toutes pièces par le CostaRica pour tenter de
donner une apparence de fondement à son opposition à l’opération (modeste au demeurant) de
dragage du fleuve entreprise par le Nicaragua. Car tel semble être le véritable objet tant de la
requête que de la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires.
12. Il n’y a pas de soldat nicaraguayen en territoire costa-ricien; il n’y a pas de «zone
occupée» par le Nicaragua au CostaRica; il n’existe pas de projet de canal artificiel entre le
SanJuan et la mer; il n’y a pas de remise en cause du traité de limites par le Nicaragua ⎯ si ce
n’est dans l’imagination des dirigeants costa-rici ens. Ou, peut-être, dans leur rêve, qui est
d’empêcher le Nicaragua de procéder aux opéra tions de dragage du fleuve conformément à ses
droits ⎯un dragage qui pourrait à terme permettre le rétablissement de la situation telle qu’elle
existait en1858. Et, pour cela, ils ont inventé de toutes pièces les accusations qu’ils portent
maintenant contre la Partie nicaraguayenne.
13. Car si tout le scénario militaro-pharaoni que présenté par le CostaRica est totalement
fictif, en revanche, le dragage qu’il reproche au Nicaragua est, pour sa part, tout ce qu’il y a de plus
réel. Il est parfaitement exact, comme l’a expliqué tout à l’heure l’agent du Nicaragua, que ce pays
a entrepris une opération de dragage des derniers 42 kilomètres de la rivière San Juan, sur la base
128
d’un projet envisagé dès2006 et rendu public dès cette époque . Ce projet est conduit
exclusivement sur la rivière San Juan de Nicaragua 129et son ampleur est limitée : il est, à ce jour, le
130
fait d’une seule drague d’une capacité fort modeste ; et son impact sur le volume de la rivière
Colorado est très peu significatif 131. De l’avis des experts costa-riciens eux-mêmes, le projet de
128Affidavit, Espinoza Urbina, Hilda, p. 6, par. 16 (doc. 13).
129Affidavit, Espinoza Urbina, Hilda, p. 5, par. 12 (doc. 13).
130Déclaration, Quintero Gómez, Lester Antonio (doc. 16, annexe 4).
131
Déclaration Silva Munguía, Virgilio (doc.15); voir aussi documents soumis par le Nicaragua,
Statement by Mr.Rene Castro Salazar, Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs and Culture, to the
Environmental Commission of Costa Rica’s Legislative Assembly, 8 septembre 2010 (doc. 19). - 56 -
dragage, qui représenterait pour le Nicaragua une entreprise «titanesque» ⎯ je reprends leur propre
qualificatif132; cela rejoint mon pharaon ⎯, ne pourrait entraîner, selon leurs estimations les plus
133
pessimistes, qu’une diminution de 12% au grand maximum du volume du Colorado . Au
demeurant, 5 % est une évaluation plus réaliste 134 ⎯ et, qui plus est, dans une perspective de toute
manière très lointaine.
14. Alors que les atteintes au premier droit ⎯ou ensemble de droits ⎯ invoqué par le
Costa Rica sont dépourvues de tout début de réalité, dans le cas du dragage, c’est le droit lui-même
qui manque. Selon l’Etat demandeur: il s’agirait du «Costa Rica’s right corresponding to
Nicaragua’s obligation not to dredge the San Juan if this affects or damages Costa Rica’s lands, its
135
environmentally protected areas and the integrity and flow of the Colorado River.» Ce n’est plus
ici, un problème de plausibilité, mais d’existen ce: dans les termes limpides du point6.3 de la
sentence Cleveland, qu’a citée aussi Steve McCaffrey tout à l’heure, «[t]he Republic of Costa Rica
cannot prevent the Republic of Nicaragua from executing at her own expense and within her own
136
territory such works of improvement» . «La République du Costa Rica ne peut pas empêcher» de
tels travaux, Monsieur le préside nt; elle ne le peut pas! Elle n’a pas un droit; elle a une
obligation de ne pas empêcher. Votre arrêt de2009 a pleinement confirmé cela 137. Nos
contradicteurs ont, ce matin, beaucoup cité la sentenceCleveland ⎯pas ce point; et on les
comprend ! Et pourtant «empêcher», c’est très ex actement ce que le Costa Rica vous demande de
faire en essayant de vous convaincre d’ordonner la suspension provisoire de ces travaux qui sont, je
le répète, bien modestes et ne lui causent, de toute façon, pas le moindre dommage. De plus ⎯ je
vais y revenir mais je souhaite le rappeler d’ores et déjà: quand bien même il y aurait préjudice
132
Document soumis à la Cour par le CostaRica le 7janvier2011, Estudio de comportamiento de
caudales en la bifurcación del río San Juan-Rio Colorado, p. 1.
133
Ibid., p. 5.
134
Document soumis à la Cour par le Nicaragua , Expert Report of Professors Dr. ir. C. van Rhee and
Dr. H.J. de Vriend of Delft University of Technology (doc. 18), p. 2-3.
135
Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, 18 novembre 2010, par. 13.
136
Sentence Cleveland rendue le 22 mars 1888 à Washington au sujet de la validité du traité de limites
conclu en 1858 entre le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua, RIAA, vol. XXVIII, p. 210, point 6 (annexe 2 à la requête
introductive d’instance, 18 octobre 2010).
137
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, par. 155. - 57 -
(quod non), le Costa Rica ne pourrait pas empêcher le dr agage ; tout au plus pourrait-il prétendre à
une indemnisation, conformément aux termes tout aussi exprès et tout aussi ignorés par les avocats
du Costa Rica du même point 3.6 de la sentence Cleveland.
15. Ainsi, Monsieur le président, outre que le CostaRica n’a pas apporté le moindre
commencement de preuve à l’appui de ses accusations rocambolesques d’invasion, d’occupation ou
de creusement d’un nouveau canal, il vous demande de lui reconnaître un droit qu’il n’a pas et qui
lui a été expressément dénié par une senten ce dont pourtant il fait grand cas. Le fumus n’est plus
boni, mais il est mali juris !
b) Le «lien suffisant»
16. Du même coup, Monsieur le président, il me semble que j’ai établi que la condition du
«lien suffisant» entre les droits prétendus qu e les mesures conservatoires sollicitées par le
CostaRica visent à protéger et l’objet de l’instance dont il a saisi la Cour sur le fond n’est pas
remplie.
17. Au paragraphe18 de sa demande en indi cation de mesures conservatoires, la Partie
costa-ricienne invoque l’ordonnan ce de la Cour dans l’avis du Passage par le Grand-Belt
(Finlande c. Danemark) ⎯ une décision par laquelle, du reste, la Cour a refusé de faire droit à une
telle demande. Mais, dans cette affaire, e lle avait observé «qu’il n’est pas contesté qu’il existe,
pour la Finlande, un droit de passage par le Gra nd-Belt, le différend qui oppose les Parties ayant
138
trait à la nature et à l’étendue de ce droit...» ( Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande
c.Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonn ance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J.Recueil1991 , p.17,
par. 22 ; les italiques sont de nous).
18. C’est le contraire qui est vrai ici: il n’est pas douteux qu’il n’existe pas, pour le
CostaRica, de droit d’empêcher le dragage du SanJuan. Le professeurCrawford a raison: les
deux affaires, sur ce point en tout cas, ne sont pas comparables.
19. Le problème se pose différemment en ce qui concerne les autres droits dont l’Etat
requérant se prévaut. Mais le résultat est le même: non seulement accorder les mesures
138Voir aussi Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006 , opinion individuelle du juge Bennouna, C.I.J. Recueil 2006,
p. 143, par. 3. - 58 -
conservatoires demandées reviendrait à tenir pour acquis que le Nicaragua a violé ces droits ⎯ je
reviendrai à ceci dans quelques instants ; non seulement ces demandes repo sent sur des allégations
entièrement invraisemblables ; mais elles sont au ssi sans fondement en ce sens qu’elles ne sont pas
de nature à protéger les droits prétendus dont le Costa Rica se prévaut. Reprenons-les rapidement,
Monsieur le président, si vous le voulez bien :
1) «the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops from the unlawfully
invaded and occupied Costa Rican territories» ; il n’y a pas d’occupation; mais, quand bien
même occupation il y aurait, les droits du Costa Rica à la souveraineté, à l’intégrité territoriale
et à la non-occupation seraient évidemment rétab lis par l’arrêt au fond si, par impossible, la
Cour en venait à décider que le Nicaragua y porte atteinte de quelque manière que ce soit ;
2) «the immediate cessation of the construction of a canal across Costa Rican territory» ; il n’y a
pas de percement; comme le professeur Crawford l’a dit ce matin: «The canal is an artifice
newly created» ⎯yes indeed, newly invented by Cost aRica for the purpose of their case...;
mais, quand bien même percement il y aurait, on serait, au pire, dans le cas de figure du
139
Grand-Belt ou de la première ordonnan ce rendue dans l’affaire des Usines de pâte à
papier 140: il reviendrait au Nicaragua, qui est inform é de la position du Costa Rica, de prendre
le risque de persister dans le projet que lui prête (à tort) le demandeur et d’assumer
«nécessairement l’ensemble des risques liés à toute décision au fond que la Cour pourrait rendre
141
à un stade ultérieur» ;
3) «the immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal of vegetation and soil from
Costa Rican territory, including its wetlands and forests» ; and
4) «the immediate cessation of the dumping of sediment in Costa Rican territory»; il n’y a pas
d’abattage d’arbres, d’enlèvement de végétati on, de travaux d’excavation ou de déversements
de sédiments en territoire costa-ricien ; mais quand bien même ce serait une réalité (quod non),
139Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande c. Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991,p. 19-20, par. 31-34.
140Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Urugua y (Argentine c. Uruguay) , mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 133, par. 78.
141Ibid. - 59 -
on retrouve ici la situation que j’ai déjà évoquée concernant le dragage: si ces faits étaient
avérés, conformément aux termes exprès du point 3.6 de la sentence Cleveland :
«The Republic of Costa Rica [would have ⎯ and would only have] the right to
demand indemnification for any places belonging to her on the right bank of the River
San Juan which may be occupied without he r consent, and for any lands on the same
bank which may be flooded or damaged in any other way in consequence of works of
142
improvement.»
Voilà la réponse.
20. Pour me résumer sur ce point, les droits invoqués par le CostaRica sont, pour certains
clairement inexistants; et, dans tous les cas, les atteintes qui y seraient portées par le Nicaragua
sont totalement chimériques et les mesures demandées ne sont pas de nature à les sauvegarder.
Ceci suffit amplement, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, à exclure que vous puissiez les
indiquer. En tout état de cause, le comportement du Nicaragua n’a pu entraîner aucun dommage
pour le Costa Rica ⎯ encore moins un préjudice irréparable.
II. L’ABSENCE DE PRÉJUDICE
21. Monsieur le président, une autre des c onditions les plus fermement établies par la
jurisprudence de la Cour pour que celle-ci pui sse faire droit à une demande en indication de
mesures conservatoires tient au caractère irréparable du préjudice qui pourrait résulter de l’absence
de l’indication des mesures demandées: ce «pouvoir de la Cour d’indiquer des mesures
conservatoires ne peut être exercé que s’il y a nécessité urgente d’empêcher que soit causé un
préjudice irréparable à de tels droits, avant que la Cour n’ait eu l’occasion de rendre sa décision
définitive» ( Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures
143
conservatoires, ordonnance du 23 janvier 2007, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 11, par. 32) .
142
Sentence Cleveland rendue le 22 mars 1888 à Washington au sujet de la validité du traité de limites
conclu en 1858 entre le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua, RIAA, vol. XXVIII, p. 210, point 6 (annexe 2 à la requête
introductive d’instance, 18 octobre 2010).
143
Voir aussi les affaires citées: Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande c.Danemark), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p.17, par.23; Certaines procédures
pénales engagées en France (République du Con go c.France), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
17 juin 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 107, par. 22 ; voir aussi : Convention de Vienne sur les relations
consulaires (Paraguay c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 9avril1998,
C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 257, par. 37; Demande en interprétation de l’arrêt du 31 mars 2004 en l’affaire
Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains (Mexique c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique) (Mexique c. Etats-Unis
d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordon nance du 16 juillet 2008, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 330, par. 72 ;
Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 131, par. 70. - 60 -
22. Or, en la présente espèce, le CostaRica ne peut invoquer aucun préjudice irréparable;
davantage même : il ne peut se plaindre d’aucun préjudice «tout court».
23. Je ne pense pas qu’il soit nécessaire que je m’y attarde longuement : je ne pourrais que
répéter ce que Paul Reichler a excellemment démontré. Je rappelle donc seulement que :
⎯ aussi bien pour le dragage que pour le nettoyage du canal, le Nicaragua a pris les plus grandes
précautions en vue d’assurer la préservation de l’environnement, à laquelle il a au moins autant
intérêt que le CostaRica: une étude d’impact soigneuse a été effectuée avant que le dragage
soit entrepris et une étude environnementale approfondie a précédé le nettoyage du caño ; les
arbres abattus à cette occasion (moins de 200 selon les estimations concordantes des Parties 14)
sont en voie d’être remplacés dans la proportion d’au moins dix arbres replantés pour un abattu
(en réalité, nettement plus); soit dit en passan t, j’ai été surpris ce matin d’entendre le
professeur Crawford vous comparer à des arbres centenaires ⎯ je ne pense pas en tout cas que
si la Cour venait à disparaître ⎯ horresco referens !, vous pourriez être remplacés même à
raison de dix pour un !
⎯ le dragage n’a (et n’aura, dans un avenir prévisible de nombreuses années,) qu’un effet très
limité sur le débit du Colorado (ainsi d’ailleurs que sur celui du caño et du SanJuan
145
lui-même) , et ces modifications insignifiantes ne pe uvent avoir aucun impact préjudiciable
ni sur l’environnement de la région ni sur la navigabilité du Colorado ;
⎯ l’étude technique commandée par le Costa Rica à ses propres experts et tardivement soumise à
la Cour à la demande du Nicaragua établit que l’impact du dragage serait peu significatif 14, ce
qui contredit crûment les prévisions apocalyptiques alléguées en plaidoirie par le demandeur ;
quant à l’analyse Ramsar, elle se fonde exclusivement sur des données costa-riciennes et n’a,
en tout état de cause, pas la portée que lui prêtent nos contradicteurs; au surplus, les
144CostaRica, Ministry of Environment, Ener gy and Telecommunications , Informe de Inspección
Preliminar, 2octobre2010 (document soumis à la Cour, p1 .1;)voir aussi l’affidavit de
Roberto Araquistain Cisneros (doc. 12).
145Document soumis à la Cour par le Nicaragua, Expert Report of Professors Dr. ir. C. van Rhee and
Dr. H.J. de Vriend of Delft University of Technology (doc. 18), p. 1.
146Document soumis à la Cour par le CostaRica le 7janvier2011, Estudio de comportamiento de
caudales en la bifurcación del río San Juan- Rio Colorado, p. 5. - 61 -
affirmations alarmistes de ceux-ci sont démenties par le rapport technique établi par des experts
neutres et particulièrement compétents, de l’Université de Delft 147 ;
⎯ du reste, par la voix de son ministre des affaires étrangères, le CostaRica a expressément
admis que les travaux entrepris par le Nicara gua «would not have the alarming environmental
148
and economic impact suggested by some media» . Dans ce discours, déjà cité, prononcé le
8 septembre 2010, M. Castro Salazar a indiqué qu’il se fondait sur des études costa-riciennes.
Il s’agit sans doute de l’«Etude du comportement des écoulements à la bifurcation des rivières
149
San Juan et Colorado», que le Costa Rica a produite in extremis . Si c’est le cas, et bien que
cette étude repose sur des données erronées, il n’y a, en effet, pas de quoi s’alarmer 150.
24. Puisqu’il n’y a aucun préjudice, il ne fait pas grand sens de se demander si ce dommage
qui n’existe pas est ou non irréparable... Qu’il me soit seulement permis de rappeler que, même si
le CostaRica pouvait établir, lors de l’examen de l’affaire au fond, que les travaux d’entretien et
d’amélioration contestés sont illicites et lui auraient causé un dommage quelconque ⎯ce qui est
hautement improbable ⎯ la seule forme de réparation à laque lle il pourrait prétendre, aux termes
du point3.6 de la sentence Cleveland, serait une indemnisation. Dès1927, dans son ordonnance
dans l’affaire de la Dénonciation du traité sino-belge, la Cour permanente a considéré qu’un
préjudice est irréparable s’il «ne saurait être réparé moyennant le versement d’une simple
indemnité ou par une autr e prestation matérielle» 151. Or, en l’espèce, le préjudice qu’invoque le
demandeur ne peut être réparé que, seulement, moyennant le versem ent d’une indemnité. Et il va
de soi, Monsieur le président, que le Costa Rica ne saurait obtenir par le biais de mesures
conservatoires ce que, de toute façon, il ne peut espérer de votre arrêt sur le fond.
147Document soumis à la Cour par le Nicaragua, Expert Report of Professors Dr. ir. C. van Rhee and
Dr. H.J. de Vriend of Delft University of Technology (doc. 18), p. 1-2 et 9-10.
148Document soumis à la Cour par le Nicaragua, Statement by Mr. René Castro Salazar, Costa Rican
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Culture, to the Environmental Commission of Costa Rica’s Legislative
Assembly, on 8 September 2010(doc. 19).
149
Document soumis à la Cour par le CostaRica le 7janvier2011, Estudio de comportamiento de
caudales en la bifurcación del río San Juan- Rio Colorado.
150
Ibid., voir notamment p. 1 et 5.
151
Dénonciation du traitéosino-belge du 2novembre1865, ordonnances des 8janvier, 15 février et
18 juin 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n 8, p.7; Usine de Chorzów, ordonnance du 21 novembre 1927, C.P.J.I.
série A no 12, p. 6. - 62 -
III. L’ABSENCE D ’URGENCE
25. Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, toujours selon votre jurisprudence bien établie, «le
pouvoir de la Cour d’indiquer des mesures conser vatoires ne sera exercé que s’il y a urgence,
c’est-à-dire s’il existe un réel risque qu’une acti on préjudiciable aux droits de l’une ou de l’autre
Partie ne soit commise avant que la Cour n’ait rendu sa décision définitive» (ordonnance,
15 octobre 2008, (Application de la convention internationale sur l'élimination de toutes les formes
de discrimination raciale (Géorgie c. Féd ération de Russie), mesures conservatoires,
152
C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 392, par. 129) . Vous aimez décidément beaucoup les doubles négations.
26. Pour qu’il en aille ainsi, il faut que le CostaRica démontre que, «quand bien même il
existerait un tel risque de préjudice aux droits [qu’il allègue], celui-ci serait imminent» ( Usines de
pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance,
C.I.J. Recueil 2007, p. 13, par. 42). Or il n’a rien fait de tel et il ne peut rien faire de tel :
⎯ on voit mal quel fait nouveau explique le revireme nt du CostaRica qui, après s’être dit, en
septembre, tout à fait rassuré sur l’absence de risque, non seulement imminent, mais même de
risque tout court réel, dramatise les dangers environnementaux ou autres, liés à une situation
qui n’a pas changé en ce qui concerne le dragage, et qui est terminée pour ce qui est du
nettoyage du caño ;
⎯ les arbres abattus à cette occasion sont plus que remplacés ⎯dans une région où, comme le
proclame le Costa Rica, la capacité de régénération de la forêt est très dynamique 153; et
⎯ les travaux de dragage pour leur part procèdent, faute de moyens, avec beaucoup de lenteur et
ne peuvent avoir, à ce rythme, aucun impact significatif sur le fleuve Colorado (ni
malheureusement d’ailleurs sur le San Juan) avant de nombreuses années.
27. Pas de préjudice; a fortiori, pas de préjudice indemnisable; et, du même coup, pas
d’urgence.
152Voir aussi Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Camer oun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c.Nigéria), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 15mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p.22, par.35; LaGrand (Allemagne c.Etats-Unis
d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, or donnance du 3 mars 1999, C.I.J. Recueil 1999 (I), p. 15, par. 22 ; Mandat
d’arrêt du 11avril2000 (République démocratique du Congo c.Belgique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
8 décembre 2000, C.I.J. Recueil 2000, p. 201, par. 69.
153CostaRica, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Informe de Inspecion Preliminar,
22octobre2010 (document soumis à la Cour, p.12-13). Vo ir aussi documents soumis àla Cour par le Nicaragua,
Vivas Soto, Elsa Maria, par. 11 (doc. 14). - 63 -
os
28. Cela fait justice, Monsieur le président, des demandes n 2 à5 du CostaRica. Il reste
tout de même, j’en suis conscient, la première et la dernière.
29. En formulant la première («the imme diate and unconditional withdrawal of all
Nicaraguan troops from the unlawfully invaded a nd occupied Costa Rican territories»), le
Costa Rica tente, à l’évidence, d’obtenir au stad e des mesures conservatoires cela même qu’il veut
obtenir de la Cour au fond. Cela ne se peut et je vais y revenir en terminant.
30. Quant à la sixième (et dernière) demande costa-ricienne, elle est formulée ainsi: «that
Nicaragua shall refrain from any other action which might prejudice the rights of CostaRica, or
which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court». La position que vous avez prise dans
votre ordonnance de 2007 concernant les Usines de pâte à papier s’y applique pleinement. Certes,
comme vous l’avez rappelé dans cette décision: «la Cour a indiqué à plusieurs reprises des
mesures conservatoires ordonnant aux parties de s’abstenir de tous actes de nature à aggraver ou
étendre le différend ou à en rendre la solution plus difficile» ( Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve
Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 23janvier2007,
154
C.I.J. Recueil 2007, p.16, par.49) ; mais, comme vous l’avez également noté: «dans ces
affaires, des mesures conservatoires autres que celle s ordonnant aux parties de s’abstenir de tous
actes de nature à aggraver ou étendre le différe nd ou à en rendre la solution plus difficile ont
également été indiquées» (ibid.). Etant donné que ce n’était pas le cas dans l’affaire des Usines,
vous avez estimé ne pouvoir indiquer une mesure de non-aggravation, fût-elle adressée aux deux
Parties 155; James Crawford l’a d’ailleurs rappelé ce matin. Et si je puis me permettre de porter un
jugement (même s’il est audacieux de «juger la Cour» !), je pense que vous avez eu raison : décider
autrement serait encourager les Etats à utiliser davantage encore la procédure des mesures
conservatoires ⎯dont ils ont déjà tendance à faire un u sage que l’on peut trouver abusif: la
présente affaire en porte un nouveau témoignage.
154
Voir par exemple Personnel diplomatique et consulaire des Et ats-Unis à Téhéran (Etats-Unis d’Amérique
c.Iran), mesures conservatoires, ordonnan ce du 15 décembre 1979, C.I.J. Recueil 1979, p.21, par.47, pointB;
Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine
c.Yougoslavie), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8avril1993, C.I.J.Recueil1993 , p.24, par.52, pointB;
Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c.Nigéria), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 24, par. 49, point 1) ; Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo
(République démocratique du Congo cO . uganda), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 1 ejuillet 2000,
C.I.J. Recueil 2000, p. 129, par. 47, point 1).
155Voir ibid., par. 50-51. - 64 -
31. Vous n’avez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, aucune raison d’indiquer les mesures
plus précises que le CostaRica vous demande de prendre et, faute d’autonomie de ce que l’on
pourrait appeler les «mesures de non-aggravation», vous ne sauriez non plus ordonner celle qui fait
l’objet de sa sixième et dernière demande. Du reste, vous n’avez pas non plus de raison de
suspecter le Nicaragua de vouloir «aggraver le di fférend», ce n’est pas son intention et on ne voit
pas quel intérêt il aurait à le faire.
IV. L’ IMPOSSIBILITÉ DE PRÉJUGER LE FOND DE L ’AFFAIRE
32. Il y a, au demeurant, Monsieur le président, une dernière raison ⎯tout aussi décisive,
pour laquelle, la Cour ne saurait faire droit aux demandes du Costa Rica. Il est en effet également
de jurisprudence qu’un Etat ne peut utiliser la procédure incidente des mesures conservatoires pour
obtenir en quelque sorte un «pré-jugement» en faveur de ses conclusions sur le fond de l’affaire.
Comme l’a dit la Cour permanente dans son ordonnance du 21novembre1927 dans l’affaire de
l’Usine de Chorzów , une ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires n’est pas un
«jugement provisionnel» par leque l le demandeur pourrait se voir adjuger tout ou partie des
conclusions de sa requête 156. Or c’est très évidemment l’obj ectif que poursuit le CostaRica dans
notre affaire.
157
33. Le problème ne tient pas telleme nt à l’identité des mesures demandées avec les
remèdes faisant l’objet de la requête 158 ⎯encore que cette identité soit très frappante ⎯ mais je
reconnais qu’il peut y avoir des cas dans lesquels des mesures c onservatoires «suspensives» sont
admissibles (je pense aux affaires dans lesquelles la licéité de condamnations à la peine de mort
159
était en jeu ). Mais ce n’est pas du tout la situation da ns l’affaire qui nous occupe : en dépit de la
curieuse dramatisation à laquelle se livre le CostaRica, la question centrale est de savoir de qui
relève le territoire (inhabité) où ont pris place les actions qu’il reproche au Nicaragua (ou sur lequel
156Usine de Chorzów, ordonnance du 21 novembre 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n 12, p. 10.
157Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, par. 19.
158
Requête introductive d’instance, par. 41.
159
Voir Convention de Vienne sur les rela tions consulaires (Paraguay c.Et ats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 9avril1998 , C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p.248; Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains
(Mexique c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesure s conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J.Recueil2003 , p. 77 ; Demande en
interprétation de l’arrêt du 31mars2004 en l’affaireAvena et autres ressortissants mexicains (Mexique c.Etats-Unis
d’Amérique) (Mexique c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 311. - 65 -
il prétend que ces actions auraient un effet préjudiciable). Ceci ne peut être ni décidé, ni présumé à
l’occasion de la présente procédure ⎯or toutes, je dis bien toutes, les six mesures demandées
(enfin les cinq premières) supposent que ce le soit.
34. Du reste comme la Chambre l’a noté dans son ordonnance de1986 dans Burkina/Mali,
lorsque la souveraineté sur un territoire est contestée ⎯ et elle l’est ; n’en déplaise au Costa Rica,
c’est l’objet de l’affaire qui est soumis à la C our ; lorsque c’est le cas, vous ne vous reconnaissez
pas le pouvoir, au stade des mesures conservatoires de «modifier la situation antérieure aux actions
armées qui ont conduit au dépôt des demandes des Parties ; et ... il convient en tout état de cause de
ne pas préjuger à cet égard l’existence d’une ligne quelconque» (Différend frontalier (Burkina
Faso/République du Mali), mesures conserva toires, ordonnance du 10janvier1986, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 11, par. 29). En l’espèce, ce serait d’autant plus mal venu, que, depuis plus
d’un siècle, les Parties n’ont pu parvenir à un accord sur la démarcation précise de la frontière
résultant du traité de 1858 et des sentences Cleveland et Alexander.
35. En fait, s’agissant des pseudo-droits que le CostaRica prétend vouloir faire respecter,
nous sommes, mutatis mutandis, en dépit de ce qu’affirment nos contradicteurs, dans la même
situation que celle dans laquelle se trouvait la Cour dans l’affaire Cameroun c.Nigéria . Le
Cameroun vous avait demandé de constater que le défendeur avait engagé sa responsabilité du fait
de l’occupation de la péninsule de Bakassi et d’autres territoires camerounais. Dans sa sagesse (et
là aussi, je me permets d’approuver la solution ⎯ bien que j’eusse perdu !), la Cour a décidé que
chacune des Parties devait évacuer les portions de territoires reconnues comme appartenant à
l’autre et que, si préjudice il y avait, celui-ci était suffisamment pris en compte par votre décision
160
concernant le tracé de la frontière . Bien entendu, de telles constatations ne peuvent être
effectuées que dans un arrêt au fond; en vous demandant de les faire dans une ordonnance en
indication de mesures conservatoires, le demandeur met la charrue avant les bŒufs; vous ne
sauriez, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, vous accommoder d’un tel attelage ! ⎯ encore moins
depuis que vous avez proclamé que les mesures conservatoires que vous indiquez sont obligatoires.
160Frontière terrestre et maritime entr e le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Camer oun c.Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale
(intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil2002 , p. 452, par. 319 ; voir aussi Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay
(Argentine c. Uruguay), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010, par. 156. - 66 -
36. Monsieur le président, l’ensemble des conditions que j’ai mentionnées au long de ma
plaidoirie sont cumulatives. Il suffit qu’une seule ne soit pas satisfaite pour qu’il ne vous soit pas
possible d’indiquer les mesures conservatoires demandées. En l’espèce, aucune ne l’est :
⎯ les droits que le CostaRica vous demande de pr otéger soit n’existent pas, soit ne sont, à
l’évidence, pas menacés de façon plausible ;
⎯ il n’existe pas de lien suffisant et raisonnable entre les mesures demandées et les droits lui
appartenant ;
⎯ les actions du Nicaragua dont il se plaint ne lui ont causé aucun préjudice et donc, a fortiori,
aucun préjudice irréparable ; et aucun ne se profile ;
⎯ dès lors aussi, l’idée même d’urgence est saugrenue ; et,
⎯ de toute manière, vous ne sauriez préjuger le fond à l’occasion de la présente procédure or
c’est, très exactement, ce que le Costa Rica vous demande de faire
.
37. Il me semble d’ailleurs que c’est bien toute la stratégie de l’Etat demandeur : tenter de se
donner un avantage sur le fond en recourant à la procédure incidente des mesures conservatoires.
Nous sommes convaincus, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, que vous ne serez pas dupes.
Je vous remercie d’avoir écouté ma présentation avec attention malgré l’heure tardive. Elle
clôt le premier tour des plaidoiries du Nicaragua et une journée chargée. Merci, Monsieur le
président.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor AlainPellet fo r his presentation. Now that is the first
round of oral observations of the Republic of Nicaragua. The Court will meet again tomorrow
at 4.30 p.m. to hear the second round of oral observations of Costa Rica. The sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 6.00 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)