Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2015/14
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2015
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 28 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Abraham presiding,
in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2015
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 28 avril 2015, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,
dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) ; Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c.Costa Rica)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________ - 2 -
Present: President Abraham
Vice-President Yusuf
Judges Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard
Registrar Couvreur
- 3 -
Présents : M. Abraham, président
M. Yusuf, vice-président
MM. Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
MM. Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier
- 4 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Manuel A. González Sanz, Minister f or Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of
Costa Rica;
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador on Special Mission,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Member of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva, member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court
Chambers,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, member of
the Costa Rican Bar,
Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,
Ms Katherine Del Mar, member of the English Bar, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Simon Olleson, member of the English Bar, 13 Old Square Chambers,
as Counsel;
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
Ms Shara Duncan, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
Mr. Rafael Saenz, Minister Counsellor at the Cos ta Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Ana Patricia Villalobos, Official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Elisa Rivero, Administrative Assistant at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
as Assistant. - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Manuel A. González Sanz, ministre des affaires étrangères et des cultes de la
République du Costa Rica ;
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur en mission spéciale,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Sergio Ugalde, ambassadeur du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des Pays -Bas, membre
de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
M. MarceloKohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes étude s internationales
et du développement de Genève, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
M. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court
Chambers,
M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie), Angleterre et pays de Galles),
Mme Katherine Del Mar, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Simon Olleson, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 13 Old Square Chambers,
comme conseil ;
M. RicardoOtarola, conseiller auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
Mme Shara Duncan, conseillère auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller et consul général du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Rafael Saenz, ministre-conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Ana Patricia Villalobos, fonctionnaire du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
comme conseils adjoints ;
Mme Elisa Rivero, assistante administrative au ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
comme assistante. - 6 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former Member and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, former Member
and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney -at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the United States
Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
Mr. Andrew B. Loewenstein, Attorney- at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. César Vega Masís, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Director of Juridical Affairs,
Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel;
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Ni caragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Ms Cicely O. Parseghian, Attorney -at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of th e
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Mr. Benjamin K. Guthrie, Attorney- at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Mr. Ofilio J. Mayorga, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the Republic of
Nicaragua and New York,
as Assistant Counsel; - 7 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez , ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre et ancien président de la Commission
du droit international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
M. Andrew B. Loewenstein, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. César Vega Masís, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères, directeur des affaires juridiques, de
la souveraineté et du territoire au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils ;
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mme Cicely O. Parseghian, avocate au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
M. Benjamin K. Guthrie, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
M. Ofilio J. Mayorga, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la République
du Nicaragua et de New York,
comme conseils adjoints; - 8 -
Mr. Danny K. Hagans, Principal Earth Scientist at Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc.,
Mr. Robin Cleverly, Geographical and Technical Consultant,
Ms Blanca P. Ríos Touma, Ph.D., Assistant Professor at Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica in
Quito, Ecuador,
Mr. Scott P. Walls, Master of Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning, Sole Proprietor
and Fluvial Geomorphologist at Scott Walls Consulting, Ecohydrologist at cbec ecoengineering,
Inc., and Chief Financial Officer and Project Manager at International Watershed Partners,
Ms Victoria Leader, Geographical and Technical Consultant,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts. - 9 -
M. Danny K. Hagans, spécialiste principal des sciences de la terre de Pacific Watershed
Associates, Inc.,
M. Robin Cleverly, consultant dans les domaines géographique et technique,
Mme Blanca P. Ríos Touma, Ph.D., professeur adjoint à l’Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica
de Quito (Equateur),
M. Scott P. Walls, titulaire d’une maîtrise en architecture paysagère et en planification de
l’environnement, propriétaire unique et géomorphologue fluvial de Scott Walls Con sulting,
spécialiste en écohydrologie de cbec ecoengineering, Inc., directeur financier et chef de projet
pour International Watershed Partners,
Mme Victoria Leader, consultante dans les domaines géographique et technique,
comme conseillers scientifiques et experts. - 10 -
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. L’audience est ouverte. La Cour se réunit
aujourd’hui pour entendre le second tour de plaidoiries du Costa Rica en l’affaire relative à
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua).
Je rappelle que, conformément au paragraphe 1 de l’artic60 du Règlement, les exposés
oraux devront être aussi succincts que possible et en particulier que le second tour de plaidoiries a
pour objet de permettre à chacu ne des parties de répondre aux arguments avancés oralement par
l’autre partie ou aux questions posées par les membres de la Cour lors du premier tour. Le second
tour ne doit donc pas constituer une répétition des présentations déjà faites par les parties,
lesquelles au demeurant ne sont pas tenues d’utiliser l’intégralité du temps de parole qui leur est
alloué.
Je donne maintenant la parole à M. Wordsworth.
Mr. WORDSWORTH:
THE LEGAL BASIS OF C OSTA RICA S SOVEREIGNTY OVER ISLA PORTILLOS
AND N ICARAGUA ’S BREACHES
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this morning I will be dealing with two issues:
(a) first, Nicaragua’s case on sovereignty over Isla Portillos so far as concerns its interpretation of
the 1858 Treaty of Limits, the Cleveland Award and the three Alexander Awards; and
(b) secondly, Nicaragua’s defence to the claims of breach resulting from the military incursion into
Isla Portillos, and the construction of the three caños.
2. Professor Kohen will then be responding to the cartography and other imagery that
Nicaragua has relied on in its sovereignty case, while at the same time depicting and explaining our
case on the precise course of the boundary in response to the questions of JudgesYusuf and
Donoghue. He will also dea l with the issues on remedies before my col leagues Dr. Parlett,
Ambassador Ugalde and Dr. Del Mar complete Costa Rica’s reply, dealing in turn with residual
issues on applicable law, dredging, and navigation. The Honourable Agent will then be closing
Costa Rica’s case. - 11 -
B. Nicaragua’s case on the 1858 Treaty, Cleveland Award
and Alexander Awards
3. I pick up, then, from my friend Professor Pellet’s concluding salvo on interpretation,
which was to take a 2011 image from Professor Thorne’s report, and to add a red line to mark the
boundary that was said to be in conformity with the 1858 Treaty, the Cleveland Award, and the
1
Alexander Awards . While there might be thought to be more than a touch of the Harry Potter
here, this unlikely endpoint was reached via four principal contentions:
(a) first, as to the 1858 Treaty, it was said that the delimitatio n of the boundary under Article II is
distinct from the régime of navigation established under ArticleVI 2;
(b) secondly, as to the First Alexander Award, the determining factor is said, by Nicaragua, to be
the reference to the “first channel met” 3, with a particular emphasis to be placed on the
distinction supposedly made by General Alexander between the “first channel met” and the
“river proper” 4;
(c) thirdly, and also from the First Alexander Award, it is emphasized by Nicaragua that it is
Nicaragua that has ownership of all the islands in the Río SanJuan 5; and
(d) finally, it is said that General Alexander did not purport to determine the course of a fixe d
boundary and, moreover, referred in his Third Award to the possibility of “changes in the banks
6 7
or channels [plural] of the river” , resulting in the modification of the boundary .
4. I will deal with each of these contentions in turn, but they all suff er from precisely the
same defect. Each limb to Nicaragua’s argument is dependent on looking at a term or a phrase in
isolation, in a way that is inconsistent with the basic tenets of treaty interpretation and also the
approach of Ge neral Alexander. Thus , while it pu rports to rely on the Alexander Awards,
Nicaragua rejects in the most determined way what General Alexander called the “meaning of the
1CR 2015/5, p. 29, para. 19 (Pellet); AP1-10c, p. 3 of tab 16, Nicaragua’s judges’ folders, 16 April 2015.
2
CR 2015/5, p. 20, para. 5 (1) (Pellet).
3First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question betwe en Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MCR Ann. 9, p. 217.
4CR 2015/5, p. 23, para. 8 (Pellet).
5
CR 2015/5, p. 28, para. 18 (5) (Pellet).
6
Third Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question betwe en Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
22 Mar. 1898; MCR, Ann. 11, p. 230.
7CR 2015/5, p. 25, para. 10 (Pellet). - 12 -
men who framed the treaty” which, as the Court will recall from our opening round, he described
as what “we are to seek, rather than some possible meaning which can be forced upon isolated
words or sentences” . 8
(1)The 1858 Treaty
5. Starting with the 1858 Treaty, Nicaragua is unable to explain away Article II, which says
in terms that
“The dividing line betw een the two Republics, starting from the Northern Sea,
shall begin at the end of Punta de Castilla, at the mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua
River, and shall run along the right bank of the said river up to a point of three English
9
miles distant from Castillo Viejo. . .”
6. Now, even by the time of the First Alexander Award, the original Punta de Castilla had
disappeared and its precise location was uncertain 1. In these circumstances, the correct approach
must be to fix on the other words of Article II that set out the intention of the Treaty parties,
namely that the boundary was to begin “at the mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River” and that,
from there, it was to “run along the right bank of the said river”.
7. The Court may recall that a not d issimilar situation arose in Cameroon v. Nigeria. In
defining the course of a sector of the land boundary as following the river Kohom, paragraph 19 of
the Thomson/Marchand Declaration made reference to various specific villages and districts as
11
falling on one side or the other of the boundary . The Court found that, in determining the course
of the Kohom river and therefore of the boundary, those words “ha [d] not provided a decisive
answer”, as none of relevant villages and localities were indicated on any of the maps submitted to
the Court 12. It accordingly disc arded those words, and had recourse to other means of
interpretation. To similar effect here, we say, the Court should not be focusing on the reference in
Article II to “the end of Punta de Casti lla” which, as it was understood by the Treaty parties, has
8First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question betwe en Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MCR, Ann. 9, p. 216.
9Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits, 15 April 1858; MCR, Ann. 1, Art. II.
10First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question bet ween Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MCR, Ann. 9, p. 220.
11
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea
intervening), I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 365-366, para. 97.
12Ibid., p. 366, para. 101. - 13 -
disappeared under the sea, but it should be focusing on the elements of description that still do
13
exist, namely the reference to the boundary beginning at the mouth of the river .
8. As to the 1858 Treaty parties’ repeated references to the “mouth of the river”,
Professor Pellet respondedonly in the context of Article VI, saying that use of the expression there
did not necessarily imply that the boundary must follow the main channel 14. But this would be the
expected result as a matter of the ordinary meaning of the words of Articles II and VI when read in
conjunction, and this is confirmed by the reference in Article II to the boundary running along “the
15
right bank of the river” . It is self -evident that the drafters of the Treaty considered that the
boundary followed the main channel, i.e., the right bank of the river, all the way to the river mouth.
9. As to Article VI of the Treaty , the Court will recall how this accords to Costa Rica the
right of navigation to the mouth of the river. Professor Pellet contends that the issue of the
16
boundary line under Article II is distinct from the issue of navigation under Article VI . But, at
best, that is an example of striving not to take account of th e overall scheme of the Treaty, and it is
not in any event c orrect. The wording of Article VI does cover both navigation and allocation of
territory, as one sees from the express declaration in this provision that the bank of the San Juan
17
belongs to Costa Rica .
10. Likewise, Professor Pellet’s reliance on the reference in the Cleveland Award to
Punta de Castilla being at the mouth of the river does not assist 18. The suggestion appea red to be
that Costa Rica’s right of navigation all the way to the river mouth could in fact be a right of
navigation along some other channel to the Caribbean Sea, in the vicinity of the mouth of the river.
But that is not credible, and anyway assumes that there is some other channel that was or is
navigable for purposes of commerce. There was not then and there is notnow.
11. And all the more to the point, General Alexander correctly identified the whole scheme
of the 1858 Treaty as allocating to Costa Rica the right bank of the channel used for navigation,
13Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea
intervening), I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 366, para. 101.
14
CR 2015/5, p. 21, para. 5 (2) (Pellet).
15Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits, 15 Apr. 1858; MCR, Ann. 1, Art. II.
16CR 2015/5, p. 20, para. 5 (1) (Pellet).
17
Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits, 15 Apr. 1858; MCR, Ann. 1, Art. VI.
18CR 2015/5, p. 21, para. 5 (2) (Pellet). - 14 -
19
i.e., the river as an outlet for commerce . You can see that on the screen, in the second full
paragraph: “Costa Rica was to have as a boundary line the right or southeast bank of the river,
20
considered as an outlet for commerce, from a point 3 miles below Castillo to the sea.” The Court
will recall that this is one reason why General Alexander rejected Nicaragua’s argument that the
boundary followed the Taura or Colorado branches, and described the Treaty’s scheme in relevant
part as, “Costa Rica was to have as a bou ndary line the right or southeast bank of the river,
considered as an outlet for commerce”.
12. For good measure, I should also draw t he Court’s attention to Article IV of the Treaty 2,
which establishes that the Bay of San Juan del Norte was to be a commo n bay. This confirms once
more that the intention was that Costa Rica should have sovereignty over the right bank of the
Río San Juan all the way to the sea. It would have been very odd indeed to accord to it partial
sovereignty over the Bay of San Juan del Norte, but at the same time to have its territorial
sovereignty over the right bank cease some way upstream from the common bay.
(2) The “first channel met” argument; the “Nicaraguan islands” argument
13. I move on to the First Alexander Award and t he mainstay of Nicaragua’s case on
sovereignty, which is its “first channel met” argument.
14. The short point is that this argument is based on latching onto a few words of description
in the First Alexander Award, and giving them an effect that they were never intended to have.
15. I have already taken you to the detail of the First Alexander Award in opening and, to
avoid repetition, we simply direct you to the importance of reading the Award as a whole it is at
tab 4 of your judges’ folders to read it as a whole, and not just to focus on the few words that
Nicaragua puts before you. Professor Pellet had no response to Costa Rica’s contentions on
General Alexander’s description of the general scheme of the 1858 Treaty, or on the decisive
weight that Alexander placed on Costa Rica having as a boundary the right bank as an outlet for
commerce to the sea. Likewise, he had no response to our point that the understanding of both
19
First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MCR, Ann. 9, p. 217; cf. CR 2015/5, p. 21, para. 5 (3) (Pellet).
20First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MCR, Ann. 9, p. 217.
21
Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits, 15 Apr. 1858; MCR, Ann. 1, Art. IV. - 15 -
Nicaragua and General Alexander, as reflected in his further Awards, was that the border line “is
22
and always shall be the right bank of the river as it may stand at any point in time” . That is a
quote from the Third Award, but the Court will recall that Nicaragua’s submissions were to the
same effect as recorded in the Second Award it said that “the left bank of the Harbour and of the
river formed the boundary” 2. It follows that , despite what is now being asserted by Nicaragua,
neither Nicaragua then nor General Alexander considered that an important distinction was being
drawn between the “first channel met” and the “river proper” 24.
16. The impact of the erosion of a good part of the former coastline is that the “first channel
met” to which General Alexander referred no longer exists. But this does not impact either on th e
scheme of the 1858 Treaty, or the way that the scheme was understood by General Alexander. The
critical point of the Award, as reflected in General Alexander’s correct interpretation of the Treaty,
is that Costa Rica was to have as a boundary the right bank of the San Juan “considered as an outlet
for commerce”, not that there somehow had to be a “first channel met”.
17. If Nicaragua’s argument is that the words “first channel met” are in the dispositif, and
that the Court should not look beyond this, then that is inconsistent with the Court’s long -standing
jurisprudence, which requires that General Alexander’s reasoning be regarded as a valuable aid to
25
the true understanding of the operative part of his Award . Further, Nicaragua wishes the Court to
focus only on the dispositif in the First Award, and to ignore the dispositif in the Third Award,
where General Alexander ruled “that the exact dividing line between the jurisdiction of the two
countries is the right bank of the river, with the water at ord inary stage and navigable by ships and
26
general-purpose boats” . Self-evidently, the boundary was not to follow any non- navigable, and
ephemeral at best, caño.
22Third Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
22 Mar. 1898; MCR, Ann. 11, p. 228.
23
Second Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary que stion between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
20 Dec. 1897, p. 224.
24
Cf. CR 2015/5, p. 23, para. 8 (Pellet).
25See e.g. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of
Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment , I.C.J. Reports 2013 , p. 306, para. 68. See also R. Kolb, The
International Court of Justice (2013), pp. 767-768; C. Brown, “Article 59”, in A. Zimmermann et al . eds., The Statute of
the International Court of Justice. A Commentary (2nd ed., 2012), p. 1431, referring to C. De Visscher, “La chose jugée
devant la Cour international de La Haye”, RBDI 1 (1965), pp. 5, 6–7.
26Third Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question betwe en Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
22 Mar. 1898; MCR, Ann. 11, p. 230. - 16 -
18. And, now that the Court has heard the evidence, it can safely find that Nicaragua’s
alleged “first channel met”, the 2010 caño , was indeed constructed afresh by Nicaragua in 2010.
Professor Kohen will return briefly to the map evidence that Professor Pellet relied on, such as it is,
and also to Dr. Kondolf’s wholly unconvincing attempt to base the prior existence of the 2010 caño
on the aerial imagery of 1961 27. That attempt can only be rejected by the Court.
19. And while Nicaragua now wishes to tempt the Court into devising a new game of “hunt
the caño” as if this followed as a necessary result of a plain reading of the First Alexander Award,
the simple point is that General Alexander was using the phrase “first channel met” as the means of
describing how, by reference to the picture before him, the boundary would follow the river as “an
outlet for commerce”. For him, the essential feature of the boundary was solely that it follow the
river “as an outlet for commerce”, as to which he concluded that the boundary “must follow the
28
remaining branch, called the Lower San Juan, through its harbour and into the sea” ; see the First
Award at page 217.
20. Professor Pellet also ran the argument that there are caños to the north- west of
Nicaragua’s 2010 construction which mean that the territor y is correctly to be characterized as
“islands in the river” as referred to by General Alexander in his F irst Award, and hence they are to
29
be regarded as Nicaraguan territory .
21. Two points. First, if there were indeed another candidate for Nicaragua’s “first channel
met” theory, that is another caño linking the Lower San Juan with Harbor Head Lagoon, we can be
sure that Nicaragua would not be making its implausible and time-wasting request for appointment
of an independent expert, but it would have taken multiple photos of the hypothetical caño ’s exit
point from the Lower San Juan. Nicaragua is after all sovereign over the river. Likewise, it would
not be relying on extracts from the 2014 Ramsar Report that do not say what either Nicaragua or its
27
CR 2015/6, pp. 39-42 (Kondolf).
28First Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
30 Sep. 1897; MRC, Ann. 9, p. 217, Judge’s folder, tab 4.
29
Cf. CR 2015/5, p. 28, para. 18 (5) (Pellet). - 17 -
expert, Dr. Kondolf, contends for; Ramsar does not identify any caño linking the Lower San Juan
30
with Harbor Head Lagoon , despite what Nicaragua and Dr. Kondolf have said.
22. And, secondly, even if the caño this is the “Y” shaped caño marked in red on
31
Nicaragua’s slides if this caño did indeed link into the Lower San Juan, it would neither be the
“outlet for commerce” that the boundary must follow, and nor would it somehow magically turn
the area into a region of Nicaraguan islands; the suggestion is fanciful.
(3) Nicaragua’s arguments on the Second and Third Alexander Awards
23. I turn, then, to Nicaragua’s case that General Alexander did not purport in his Second
Award to determine the course of a fixed boundary, and it s reliance on the reference in the Third
32
Award to the possibility of “changes in the banks or channels [plural] of the river” . And these
two Awards are at tabs7 and 8 of the judges’ folder.
24. General Alexander decided to demarcate the boundary line as it stood in 1897-1898. It is
indeed the case that, as he explained in his Second Award, General Alexander considered that there
33
might be wholesale changes in the channel s of the R ío San Juan . But this does not assist
Nicaragua. At best, it would mean that his careful measurement and demarcation of the boundary
as it stood in 1897- 1898 would have limited value due to actual shifts in the course of the river.
But there have been no material changes since 1897. It is the sea that has eroded the coastline, not
the river that has shifted materially in its course. Professor Pellet’s reference to the changes in the
area that were described in the Second Rives Report of 2 March 1888 does not impact on this 34.
What matters is not what changes were recorded by Rives in 1888 or indeed what changes had
occurred prior to 1897- 1898 when General Al exander demarcated the boundary ; what matters is
what has happened since.
30CR 2015/5, p. 28, para. 18 (4) (Pellet);G. Mathias Kondolf, Certain Activities case, Written Summary,
16 Mar. 2015, paras. 25-26; cf. Ramsar Advisory Mission Report No. 72, 18 Apr. 2011; extract, English translation,
p. 47, annexed to l etter from Costa Rica to the I CJ, ref. ECPRB-062-2015, 17 Apr . 2015; and CR 2015/6, pp. 45-46
(Kondolf).
31Judge’s folder, tab 10.
32CR 2015/5, p. 25, para. 10 (Pellet);Third Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, 22 Mar. 1898; MCR, Ann. 11, p. 230.
33
Second Award of the Umpire E . P. Alexander in the boundary question betwe en Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
20 Dec. 1897; MCR, Ann. 10, p. 224.
34CR 2015/5, pp. 26-27, paras. 14-16 (Pellet). - 18 -
25. As to this, Professor Pellet had no response to the figure in Costa Rica’s Memorial that
superimposes the data from Proceedings X of the Alexander Minutes onto a map of the rel evant
35
area in 1899, and then onto available aerial photographs from 1961, 1997 and 2010 . This was
shown to you by Mr. Brenes in opening 36(judges’ folder, tab 31 ), and I show it again because it
demonstrates that Professor Pellet is wrong to say that si nce 1897, the fluctuations in the course of
the San Juan and the channels of its mouth have been considerable 37. The course of the San Juan
has changed remarkably little, and the changes to the location of the seashore do not impact on the
boundary of the right bank of the river, as demarcated by GeneralAlexander.
26. As to the reference to the channels, plural, by General Alexander, this makes no
difference at all. There might indeed be more than one channel of the Río San Juan at a given point
in time, as General Alexander recognized; but the intention of Alexander was undoubtedly that the
boundary follow the channel navigable as an outlet for commerce, whichever that was. The
reference to channels in the plural does not somehow mean that the Second and Third Alexander
Awards foresaw, or still less established, the situation where the boundary would follow a caño that
was ephemeral at very best, and in fact has never existed.
27. Indeed, that would have been quite clear had Professor Pellet referred you to the ruling
immediately above the words that he highlighted in the Third Award ; you see there, the ruling:
“I therefore rule that the exact dividing line between the jurisdiction of the two
countries is the right bank of the river, with the wat er at ordinary stage and navigable
by ships and general -purpose boats. At that stage, every portion of the waters of the
river is under Nicaraguan jurisdiction. Every portion of the land on the right bank is
38
under Costa Rican jurisdiction.”
28. Alexander thus made quite clear that Costa Rica was sovereign over all of the right bank
of the river, not just the right bank of the river until it meets a non-existent non-navigable channel.
35
MCR, p. 59, fig. 2.7.
36CR 2015/2, pp. 34-35, paras. 30-35 (Brenes)
37CR 2015/5, p. 26, para. 14 (Pellet).
38
Third Award of the Umpire E. P. Alexander in the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
22 Mar. 1898; MCR, Ann. 11, p. 230. - 19 -
C. Nicaragua’s breaches of Costa Rican sovereignty
and territorial integrity
29. I turn to the breaches resulting from Nicaragua’s military incursion into Costa Rican
territory in 2010, including the construction of the first caño, and also the breaches resulting from
its subsequent construction of the second and third c años in September 2013. Dr. Parlett will
address the events in 2013 from the perspective of breach of the 2011 Order on Provisional
Measures later this morning.
(1) 2010 breaches
30. As to the 2010 breaches, i n opening, Costa Rica emphasi zed how this case is unlike the
39
normal boundary dispute, including because the key facts are not in issue . The presence of the
Nicaraguan military in Isla Portillos is accepted. Matters of characteri zation and points of detail
40
are in dispute , but remarkably little was said by Nicaragua in its opening round by way of a
substantive defence to Costa Rica’s claims of breach.
31. In particular, on the central issue of breach, Nicaragua has no defence other than its claim
to be sovereign over Isla Portillos. Unsurprisingl y, it appears to accept that if the Court finds that
the disputed territory is part of Costa Rica, then in 2010 Nicaragua violated Costa Rica’s territorial
sovereignty.
32. Likewise, Nicaragua did not engage with Costa Rica’s claims relating to the prohi bition
on the use of force contained in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, and under the
Organization of American States ( OAS) Charter. My friend, Professor Pellet limited himself to
41
expressing his amazement that the actions of Nicaragua should be described as an occupation .
But that professed amazement does not address the basic point, as to which Nicaragua has no
answer, which is that Nicaragua sent its troops without notice into territory that it had not
previously claimed, and established a military presence there that excluded Costa Rica from its
own territory, including on one occasion through directing weapons at a Costa Rican civil aircraft.
39
CR 2015/3, pp. 16-17, paras. 4, 7 -8 (Ulgade Álvarez), p. 19, para. 3 (Ulgade); CR 2015/3, p. 10, paras. 2-3
(Wordsworth).
40CR 2015/3, p. 10, para. 3 (Wordsworth).
41
CR 2015/7, p. 49, para. 23 (Pellet). - 20 -
33. The violations of international law resulting from Nicaragua’s actions in sending its
troops into Costa Rican territory not once but twice are serious, and cannot be batted away
by expressions of incredulity. Nicaragua cannot be expected to be treated as if it had simply been
giving concrete effect to a long -standing claim to Costa Rican te rritory. It was not. This was a
case of occupy first, and claim later, as Professor Kohen and I explained in opening , including by
reference to the answers given by Nicaragua in January 2011 to the questions of Judges Greenwood
and Simma 42. Nicaragua has no response to this, just as it has no response to the fact that it gave an
incorrect answer to the important question by Judge Bennouna as to whether it had withdrawn its
troops 43.
34. And Nicaragua has given no reasoned answer why its conduct is not a breach of its
fundamental obligations under the United Nations Charter, or likewise its obligations under the
OAS Charter, including Article 21 which provides that the territory of another OAS State “may not
be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by
another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever”. As to this, the Court already has
our submissions, from our opening round, and our answer to the question of Judge Greenwood
44
relating to occupation . Nicaragua has said nothing. Perhaps Nicaragua will have more to say on
Wednesday, when we will no longer have any opportunity to respond.
35. As to the damage caused by Nicaragua, Mr. Loewenstein expended great effort in trying
to convince you tha t Nicaragua had engaged in a minor endeavour, with insignificant and
time-limited impacts. He suggested that the Court needed to put Nicaragua’s clearing of the first
caño “all in perspective” and that it “inevitably” followed that it “could not have been
significant” 45.
36. Well, this is not serious. The Court has fully on board the point that the threshold
relevant to transboundary harm has no application where State A comes on to the territory of
State B and starts chopping down trees and the like. At best, practically the entirety of
42
CR 2015/3, pp. 14-15, paras. 17-21 (Wordsworth).
43CR 2015/3, pp. 12-13, paras. 12-15 (Wordsworth).
44See CR 2015/3, pp. 16-17, paras. 23-29 (Wordsworth); and CR 2015/4, pp. 44-45 (Wordsworth).
45
CR 2015/7, p. 22, para. 37 (Loewenstein). - 21 -
Mr. Loewenstein’s presentation can be taken as directed to the compensation phase of this
proceeding. His suggestions that the first caño was narrow and shallow 46, and that it quickly
47
closed , are beside the point. The same applies to the emphasis he gave to the fact that the area
adjacent to where Nicaragua cut down hundred s of trees had previously been cleared to make way
48
for pasture , or that the area of the first caño was but a small part of the total area of Costa Ri ca’s
protected wetland 49. And likewise, his emphasis on the question of whether 180 or 292 trees were
50 51
felled by Nicaragua , his submissions as to their diameter, and their age , and whether the
undergrowth cleared was rapidly revegetated 52.
37. Costa Rica’s claim of breach of its sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be
approached as if this were a case being heard by a domestic small claims court. The precise
minutiae of damage inflicted on Costa Rican territory by Nicaragua are irrelevant to the q uestion
now before you, which is the question of breach. It will be relevant to your assessment of
compensation for that breach, and Costa Rica has requested that the Court award compensation, to
be assessed at a subsequent phase. Nicaragua could have felled five trees, or 5,000. The trees
could have been one year old or 300 years old. Either way, the breach is established if the territory
in dispute is Costa Rican territory.
38. To similar effect, it will have taken the Court about five seconds to see through the
inappropriate comparisons drawn by Nicaragua between the size of the forest area that it cleared on
Costa Rica’s territory to construct the first caño, and the size of the forest cleared by Costa Rica in
53
constructing the Road . It is self-evidently one thing for a State to clear trees on its own territory,
as part of a project that it has decided upon in exercise of its own prerogatives of sovereignty. It is
quite another thing for State A to send its military across a border and cut down tre es and the like
that are on the territory of State B.
4Ibid., pp. 12-13, paras. 8-10; and pp. 14-15, para. 15 (Loewenstein).
47
Ibid., p. 15, para. 16 (Loewenstein).
48
Ibid., pp. 17-18, paras. 24-27; p. 19, para. 29 (Loewenstein).
4CR 2015/7, p. 19, para. 28 (Loewenstein).
5Ibid., pp. 19-20, paras. 30-31 (Loewenstein).
51
Ibid., pp. 20-21, paras. 32-34 (Loewenstein).
52
Ibid., p. 21, para. 35 (Loewenstein). See also CR 2015/6, pp. 21-22, paras. 43-44 (Reichler).
5Ibid., p. 19, para. 28 and p. 22, para. 37 (Loewenstein). - 22 -
(2)2013 Breaches
39. I move very briefly to the 2013 breaches. In opening, Nicaragua took a similar approach
to the question of its responsibility for breaches relating to the construction of the se cond and third
54
caños in 2013. Mr. Loewenstein said that the area regenerates quickly , and that, since Nicaragua
had closed the trench on the beach and ceased dredging the eastern caño, there was a “low to
medium” risk that it would be connected to the se a, and that any such risk had been addressed by
55
Costa Rica’s installation of a dyke . That is likewise irrelevant to the question of breach. For
present purposes I need only note that in the few minutes it spent on the 2013 caños in its first
round, Nicaragua did not disclaim responsibility for these works, and nor did it present any defence
to its breach of Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty.
D. Conclusions
40. Mr. President, Members of the Court, to pick up again on Professor Pellet’s image, the
1858 Treaty and the Alexander Awards can only leave the current boundary running along the right
bank of the Lower San Juan to the River mouth, which is the navigable course of the San Juan
largely as it was in 1897 -1898. These awards and the 1858 Treaty do not leave the boundary up a
56
non-existent caño as Professor Pellet contends for .
41. As to the breaches that follow from the military incursions into Costa Rican territory, and
the construction of the caños in 2010 and 2013, Nicaragua has had notably littl e to say. That is as
would be expected, given that the basic facts are not in dispute, and the breaches follow largely as a
matter of course from the fact of Costa Rica’s long -standing and uncontested sovereignty over
Isla Portillos regardless of which Nicaraguan troops took over the area to enable construction by
Nicaragua of the first caño with a view to shifting the course of the Río San Juan and,
astonishingly, it then had another go in 2013.
42. Mr. President, I thank you for your kind attention a nd I ask you to call Professor Kohen
to the podium to continue Costa Rica’s submissions.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, je donne la parole au professeur Kohen.
54
Ibid., p. 22, para. 38 (Loewenstein).
55CR 2015/7, p. 22, para. 39 (Loewenstein).
56
AP1-10c, page 3 of tab 16, Nicaragua’s judges’ folders, 16 Apr. 2015, Judge’s folder, tab 13. - 23 -
M. KOHEN :
Le Nicaragua est incapable d’articuler une revendication sérieuse
de souveraineté et se prépare déjà pour la phase suivante
de l’affaire
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, durant le premier tour des
plaidoiries, le Nicaragua a confirmé aggravé même dirais- je, l’impression qu’il a donnée
depuis le début même de cett e affaire : sa revendication est aussi artificielle que le caño qu’il a
construit en 2010. Pour cette raison, ma première partie consacrée à la revendication
nicaraguayenne de souveraineté sera brève. Ensuite, je répondrai aux questions posées par le
vice-président Yusuf et la juge Donoghue. En troisième lieu, brièvement également, j’aborderai la
curieuse revendication nicaraguayenne à un droit de causer des dommages et d’occuper le territoire
costa-ricien et enfin, quatrièmement, je répondrai au Nicarag ua par rapport à la question des
remèdes que l’agent du Costa Rica vous lira à la fin de cette audience.
A. L’artificialité de la revendication nicaraguayenne mise à nu au premier tour
2. Je commence donc par la revendication artificielle nicaraguayenne. Je n’aurai pas
57
grand-chose à ajouter à ce que j’ai déjà dit dans mon exposé du 14 avril . Mon collègue
e
M Wordsworth a déjà disposé de l’interprétation alambiquée faite par le Nicaragua des sentences
arbitrales Alexander. Tout ce que l’autre P artie a ajouté au premier tour a été la répétition de son
analyse imaginaire de la cartographie et du dossier photographique. Cependant, si la musique
demeure, la partition a une fois de plus ! changé. Le Nicaragua semble partir maintenant «à
la recherche du caño perdu». Son caño n’est plus. Plus une goutte d’eau n’y circule, ni n’y
circulera. Du moment où la justification du caño construit en 2010 comme étant la frontière
devient manifestement indéfendable, le Nicaragua semble vous dire : si notre caño n’est pas le
«first channel met», ce n’est pas grave Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, faites le travail à notre
place et allez-y vous-mêmes, ou envoyez des experts pour savoir s’il y en a un autre et l’endroit où
58
il se trouve !
57CR 2015/2, p. 46-72, par. 1-76 (Kohen).
58CR 2015/5, p. 14, par. 23 (Argüello), p. 34, par. 24 et p. 41, par. 42 (Pellet) ; CR 2015/7, p. 11, par. 4
(Loewenstein). - 24 -
a) Plus la procédure avance, plus le Nicaragua se contredit
59
3. Le professeur Pellet vous disait que la parole devant la Cour est libre . Sans doute. Je
me demande si le Nicaragua n’abuse tout de même pas de votre patience et de votre temps. Et
puisque j’ai évoqué l’ opus magnum de Marcel Proust, je dirais que nous ne pouvons pas dire la
même chose que Françoise à Mme Octave : notre temps, contrairement au sien, est cher. En effet ,
Monsieur le président, est -il soutenable d’affirmer en même temps les quatre propositions que le
Nicaragua a mises en avant au premier tour, à savoir :
a) que la frontière est mobile et que, du fait que les chenaux sont instables, le premier « caño» est
variable et c’est celui que l’on rencontrera chaque fois que l’on examinera la situation sur le
60
terrain ;
b) que le caño prétendument «nettoyé» en 2010 s’est asséché, la végétation l’a recouvert, et par
61 62
conséquent, il n’y a pas de dommage causé , ou à tout le moins de dommage «sérieux» ou
«significatif» 63 ;
c) que, je lis l’agent du Nicaragua : «Nicaragua’s position is that the present first caño connecting
the river proper with Harbor Head Lagoon is the caño that was cleaned up in the year 2010 64» ;
and lastly, I am quoting now M. Loewenstein :
d) que «it cannot be determined with certainty whether channels do, in fact, connect the San Juan
to Harbor Head from cartographic materials and/or remote sensing images alone. Inspection in
the field is necessary» 65 ? Il s’agit ici de la «deuxième leçon» que le Nicaragua vous a dit tirer
des exposés des experts des deux Parties.
4. Donc, je résume la position nicaraguayenne : «le caño de 2010 est le «premier chenal
rencontré» lorsqu’il s’agit d’établir la frontière, mais il n’est plus le «premier chenal rencontré»
parce qu’il s’est asséché, lorsqu’il s’agit d’argumente r pour éviter la réparation des dommages
causés. En fait, on ne sait plus où il y a un caño. Allez donc en chercher peut -être un autre».
59 CR 2015/7, p. 49, par. 23 (Pellet).
60
CR 2015/5, p. 13, par. 18 (Argüello).
61
CR 2015/7, p. 15, par. 16, et p. 21-22, par. 36 (Loewenstein).
62 CR 2015/5, p. 39, par. 35 (Pellet).
63 CR 2015/7, p. 17, par. 24 (Loewenstein) ; p. 42, par. 5 (Pellet).
64
CR 2015/5, p. 13, par. 18 (Argüello).
65 CR 2015/7, p. 11, par. 4 (Loewenstein). - 25 -
J’avoue ressentir une certaine lassitude face aux contradictions nicaraguayennes et au caractère
manifestement infon dé de sa revendication. Après n’avoir juré depuis cinq ans que par le
«nettoyage d’un caño» qui constituait la frontière, après avoir dit la veille qu’au moins une dizaine
66
de cartes et des photos montraient ce caño , il vous dit le lendemain qu’au fond, c e n’est pas sûr
mais qu’il y en a d’autres qui pourraient aussi être candidats au statut, et finit par inviter votre Cour
à organiser une descente sur les lieux. Monsieur le président, cela doit être la première fois qu’un
Etat vient à votre prétoire pour avancer une revendication territoriale tout en disant qu’au fond, il
n’est pas sûr de celle- ci et que c’est à vous de la déterminer. Votre tâche n’est pas celle d’une
commission d’enquête, et vous n’êtes pas non plus d’aimables compositeurs. Le respect dû à votre
fonction exige que le Nicaragua vous dise avec toute la précision nécessaire ce qu’il revendique.
b) La cartographie officielle employée par les commissions mixtes écarte tout doute
5. Pour ce qui est de la cartographie, le silence du Nicaragu a continue de résonner dans son
contre-mémoire et depuis le premier tour de ses plaidoiries quant à sa carte officielle du
67
département du San Juan del Norte «vérifiée sur le terrain» par l’INETER , et à toutes celles qu’il
vous a lui-même présentées dans l ’affaire sur les Droits de navigation et droits connexes , parmi
tant d’autres.
6. Pour le reste, je n’ai pas besoin de m’appesantir sur chacune d es cartes et photographies
déployées avec une imagination débordant e par mon collègue et ami Alain Pellet le 1 7 avril. Le
contre-interrogatoire de M. Kondolf a suffi pour les balayer d’un seul coup. D’une part, l’expert
nommé par le Nicaragua n’a pas été capable une seule fois d’identifier avec certitude le prétendu
caño frontière 68. Dans son rapport toutefois, il avait commencé par affirmer catégoriquement que
69
les photographies aériennes de 1961 montraient le caño , pour finir par balbutier devant vous que
«[w]e see some kind of pattern, some kind of lineation that is suggestive» 7. Mais franchement,
66
CR 2015/5, p. 31-32, par. 21-22 (Pellet).
67MCR, vol. V, annexe 193.
68CR 2015/6, p. 39-46.
69
Certaines activités, CMN, vol. I, par. 6.73.
70CR 2015/6, p. 44. - 26 -
Monsieur le président, ces photographies ne suggèrent rien du tout. D’autre part, il a confirmé que
71
ce sont les cartes et images à grande échelle qui l’emportent sur les cartes à petite échelle .
7. Quant à la carte provisionnelle de 1949 de l’ensemble du Costa Rica dont la Partie adverse
fait grand cas, M. Kondolf a fini par accepter qu’elle est en c ontradiction avec les cartes de 1988
quant à la manière de présenter les caños dans la région 72. Il s’agi t d’une carte à l’échelle
73
1/400 000 . De toute façon, est -ce que cela change quelque chose à la situation ? La carte décrit
la région d’Isla Portillos comme étant costa-ricienne, qu’il y ait des caños ou pas.
8. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je me contenterai ici tout simplement de remarquer que,
s’il est vrai que tous ces caños reliant la lagune Los Portillos au San Juan ont existé à l’époque où
toutes les cartes et photographies montrées par le Nicaragua ont été élaborées ou prises, alors ces
caños étaient à toutes ces époques le «first channel met», peu impor te que le véritable «first
channel met» existant à l’époque d’Alexander ait ou non disparu.
9. Faisons l’exercice auquel nous invite le Nicaragu a : prenons la carte de 1988 de
74
l’American Defense Mapping Agency qu’il a abondamment utilisée . C’est la cart e de
l’annexe 185 du mémoire costa-ricien. Ce sont en effet, avec les cartes de l’IGN costa- ricien et de
75
l’INETER nicaraguayen, toutes les deux de 1988, les cartes à l’échelle convenable : 1/50 000 . Si
l’on suit le Nicaragua , le «first channel met» serait celui que M. Kondolf a appelé le caño «Y» (de
par sa forme) 7. La Partie nicaraguayenne, ayant perdu son caño de 2010, cherche son salut dans
d’autres caños. La question simple et incontournable qui se pose alors est la suivante : pourquoi, si
toutes ces cartes montraient l’existence d’autres «first channel met» que celui d’Alexander, le
Nicaragua n’a rien dit jusqu’en 2010 ? Je me permets d’avancer une réponse très simple : parce
que le Nicaragua ne contestait pas la frontière à toutes les époques co nsidérées et n’interprétait pas
la sentence Alexander co mme il a commencé à le faire en 2010 pour justifier son occupation
d’IslaPortillos.
71Ibid., p. 41, p. 42-43, p. 47.
72
Ibid., p. 47-48.
73Certaines activités, MCR, vol. V, annexe 176.
74Ibid., annexe 185.
75
Ibid., annexes 186 et 188.
76CR 2015/6, p. 40 (Kondolf). - 27 -
10. Par ailleurs, et c’est un «par ailleurs» très important , Monsieur le président, si la thèse
actuelle du Nicar agua était vraie, ou bien l’arbitre Alexander s’est trompé et a désigné un «first
channel met» qui n’en était pas un, ou bien il n’existait à l’époque où Alexander a rendu sa
sentence aucun caño entre la lagune Los Portillos et le fleuve San Juan. Vous co nviendrez,
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, qu’aucune de ces deux hypothèses n’est défendable . La
77
première, parce que, comme le professeur Pellet le rappelait , l’arbitre, l’ayant parcourue,
connaissait très bien la zone. La deuxième hypothèse est toute aussi invraisemblable compte tenu
de la configuration marécageuse de la zone. Surtout si l’on tient compte de la réponse que
M. Kondolf a donnée à la question du juge Robinson : la pente qui existe depuis le fleuve vers la
lagune existe depuis cent cinquante ans 7, et était donc aussi présente au moment où Alexander a
rendu sa sentence. Difficile de croire qu’aucun « caño» ne reliait le fleuve à la lagune à ce
moment-là. L’imagination a quand même des limites.
11. Cette carte de 1988 est aussi utile à d’autres titres . Elle sert à démonter une fois pour
toutes l’interprétation nicaraguayenne visant à transformer l’expression «first channel met» en
«first caño met». Regardons dans le glossaire bilingue qui apparaît dans la carte la traduction v ers
l’anglais du terme «caño». Non, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, un « caño» ce n’est pas un
«channel», c’est un «creek, [or] stream», c’est -à-dire, un «ruisseau» en français . Alexander
n’aurait jamais envisagé de faire passer la frontière par un ruisseau, sans ar river à l’embouchure du
fleuve. Le chenal était véritablement situé à l’embouchure du fleuve. L’arbitre a été soucieux,
comme il l’a lui-même affirmé, de respecter ce que les auteurs du traité du 15 avril 1858 avaient eu
à l’esprit. Le «first channel met», Monsieur le président, n’est pas et ne peut pas être le «first creek
met».
12. Ce n’est pas tout, Monsieur le président. On lit en anglais et en espagnol sur cette carte :
«Users should refer corrections, additions, and comments for improving this pr oduct to : Director,
Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic/Topogragraphic Center» et suit l’adresse de cette agence.
Cette carte a été à la disposition des instituts géographiques des deux pays. Elle a été totalement
employée et suivie lorsqu’ils ont produit, respectivement la même année, et en étroite
77CR 2015/5, p. 8, par. 23 (Pellet).
78CR 2015/6, p. 52 (Kondolf). - 28 -
collaboration, leurs cartes de San Juan del Norte et de Punta Castilla que l’on connaît, à l’échelle
79
1/50 000 . Et bien, Monsieur le président, certains des «usagers» de cette carte sont loin d’être
anodins pour notre affaire : ce sont les membres des deux instituts géographiques nationaux et de la
80
sous-commission des limites et de la cartographie, comme nous l’avons expliqué au premier tour .
13. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, pendant des décennies, le N icaragua a eu, pour
reprendre la terminologie employée par votre Cour dans les affaires du Temple de Préah Vihéar, du
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord, de Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru, et tant d’autres,
81
jusqu’à la fin 2010, je cite vos expressions, une «attitude uniforme et constante» , un
comportement «absolument net et constant» 82 duquel découle «une acceptation claire et
83
constante» de la situation terri toriale établie par la sentence Alexander telle que nous
84
l’interprétons, ou, si l’on veut aussi, une renonciation «de manière claire et non équivoque» à
revendiquer une interprétation autre que celle y établie.
14. J’ajouterai à cela trois brefs points : primo, le Nicaragua a lui -même invoqué d’autres
effectivités costa-riciennes; secundo, la position nicaraguayenne est contraire à sa revendication de
la baie de San Juan del Norte ; tertio, mais non moins important, lors du premier tour de
plaidoiries, le Nicaragua a accentué son rejet de ce que vous avez appelé en 1994 le «principe
85
fondamental de la stabilité des frontières» .
c) Le Nicaragua reconnaît que c’est le Costa Rica qui exerçait le contrôle sur le «territoire
contesté»
15. Monsieur le p résident, cohérent avec la démarcation opérée par les c ommissions
présidées par Alexander, ce fu t naturellement le Costa Rica qui a exercé des actes d’autorité
publique sur le territoire qui relève de sa souveraineté . Je ne reviendrai pas sur ce que nous avons
79 Certaines activités, MCR, vol. V, annexes 186 et 188.
80
CR 2015/ 2, p. 51-52, par. 18 (Kohen).
81 Temple de Préah Vihéar (Cambodge c. Thaïlande), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 30.
82 Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (République f édérale d’Allemagne/Danemark) (République fédérale
d’Allemagne/Pays-Bas), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 25, par. 28.
83
Ibid., p 26, par. 30.
84
Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (Nauru c. Australie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p. 247, par. 13.
85 Différend territorial (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Tchad), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p. 37, par. 72. - 29 -
écrit et dit . Je relève simplement que, lors du premier tour, le Nicaragua, essayant de démontrer
qu’il n’a pas causé de dommage au territoire litigieux, critiquait l’attitude costa- ricienne
d’extension de l’activité d’élevage et de pâturage «au site Ramsar du Costa Rica o ù le caño
87
litigieux est situé» et même son utilisation à des fins de to urisme . A ce stade, je ne discuterai pas
de ce que le Costa Rica a fait ou autorisé sur son site de Ramsar . Je constate que le Nicaragua a
ainsi reconnu le contrôle costa-ricien du territoire aujourd’hui litigieux.
d) La revendication nicaraguayenne est en contradiction avec sa revendication de la baie de
San Juan del Norte
16. Monsieur le président, le Nicaragua a voulu introduire par voie de demande
reconventionnelle sa prétention de souveraineté exclusive sur la baie de San Juan del Norte, alors
que les Parties ont clairement stipulé à l’a rticle IV du t raité de 1858 que cette baie et celle de
Salinas «seront communes aux deux Républiques» . Je ne vais bien entendu pas examiner la
88
question ici. A juste titre, vous avez déclaré cette demande irrecevabl e . Permettez- moi tout
simplement d’ajouter brièvement une contradiction à la longue liste des contradictions
nicaraguayennes. Dans notre affaire, le défendeur insiste inlassablement sur le fait que, du fait de
la disparition du «first channel met» d’Ale xander, il faut alors en chercher un autre . Pour justifier
sa revendication de souveraineté exclusive de ce qui reste de la baie de San Juan del Norte, le
contre-mémoire affirme ceci : «l’ancienne baie de San Juan del Norte située à l’ouest de la frontière
entre les deux Parties a disparu, et les prétentions du Costa Rica sur cette zone n’ont donc plus lieu
89
d’être» . Je laisse de côté le fait que la baie de San Juan del Norte n’a pas disparu, mais je relève
que, pour le Nicaragua, les conséquences des for mations aquatiques qui disparaissent varient selon
que cela serve ou non ses intérêts.
86MCR, par. 4.43-4.54 ; CR 2015/2, p. 57, par. 30 (Kohen).
87 CR 2015/7, p. 33, par. 30 (McCaffrey) et onglet n19 du dossier des juges du Nicaragua du 17 avril 2015,
après-midi ; CR 2015/7, p. 17-18, par. 24 et 27 (Loewenstein).
88
Certaines activités, ordonnance du 18 avril 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 215, par. 38 et 41 B).
89
Certaines activités, CMN, par. 9.34. - 30 -
e) Le mépris du principe de stabilité des frontières sous couleur de l’existence d’une «frontière
mobile»
17. Lors du premier tour, le Nicaragua a beaucoup insisté sur le prétendu caractère «mobile»
90
de la frontière . Une précision s’impose. Il serait plus approprié de parler de «frontières mobiles»
lorsqu’il s’agit des frontières qui suivent le chenal principal de navigation d’un fleuve ou se situent
dans des glaciers. Par exemple, votre Cour a déclaré que la frontière entre la Namibie et le
91
Botswana «suit la ligne des sondages les plus profond s dans le chenal nord du fleuve Chobe» . Il
s’agit là d’une frontière qui variera selon la ligne des sondages les plus profon ds à chaque moment
considéré. Tout autre est la situation ici . Il est vrai que la frontière a été fixée aux rives, car ici il
s’agit de cela, une frontière fixée à la rive du San Juan et de la lagune Los Portillos . Les contours
des rives peuvent varier, et ainsi le contour des territoires considérés. Mais là s’arrête la prétendue
«mobilité». Il s’agit, de la part du Nicaragua, d’une confusion volontaire entre la question du
changement géophysique de la frontière (la rive change), et de la mobilité juri dique de la frontière
(le descriptif juridiquement entériné de la frontière change).
18. Du reste, l’essence du principe de stabilité des frontières est qu’une frontière qui a été
acceptée par les parties ne peut être remise en question. Comme vous l’avez fort bien résumé :
«D’une manière générale, lorsque deux pays définissent entre eux une frontière,
un de leurs principaux objectifs est d’arrêter une solution stable et définitive. Cela est
impossible si le tracé ainsi établi peut être remis en questi on à tout moment, sur la
base d’une procédure constamment ouverte, et si la rectification peut en être demandée
chaque fois que l’on découvre une inexactitude par rapport à une disposition du traité
de base. Pareille procédure pourrait se poursuivre indéfi niment et l’on n’ atteindrait
jamais une solution définitive aussi longtemps qu’il resterait possible de découvrir des
erreurs. La frontière, loin d’être stable, serait tout à fait précaire.» 92
19. Dans le cas d’espèce, il n’y a même pas d’erreur . Tout le contraire, Monsieur le
président. Il y a des cartes qui font partie de la sentence arbitrale et des travaux de la commission
mixte présidée par Alexander . Il y a des décennies d’acceptation constante de cette décision,
d’exercice de la souveraineté costa-ricienne et de respect nicaraguayen. A présent, le Nicaragua ne
vous demande ni plus ni moins que de laisser la frontière ouverte en permanence, les P arties devant
90
CR 2015/5, p. 24-25, par. 9-11 (Pellet).
91Ile de Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Namibie), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 1999, p. 1108, par. 104 1).
92
Affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar (Cambodge c. Thaïlande), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 34. - 31 -
la modifier chaque fois qu’un ruisseau différent deviendrait le premier à relier le fleuve à la lagune,
si tant est qu’il y en aurait un . Au lieu du principe de stabilité des frontières, ce serait une sorte de
«principe de précarité des frontières en permanence conflictuelles» que le Nicaragua voudrait
appliquer.
B. Réponse à la question posée par le vice-président Yusuf
20. Dans ce contexte, il m’appartient maintenant de répondre à la question posée par le
vice-président Yusuf, et qui se lit comme suit :
«Counsel for Costa Rica suggested that part of the strip of sand constitu ting the
Northern bank of what Costa Rica regards as the ‘first channel met’ might have
disappeared. In that case, could Costa Rica clarify, for the Court, whether what it
regards as ‘the first channel met’ sill joins the San Juan River today?
In any event, what is, according to Costa Rica, the exact course of the boundary
line in the disputed area including the beach on the Caribbean Sea, west of Harbor
Head Lagoon and until the mouth of the San Juan River?» 93
21. En effet, la bande de sable que constituait la rive n ord du chenal à l’embouchure du
fleuve que reliait la lagune Los Portillos au fleuve San Juan proprement dit a disparu du fait de
l’action de l’érosion marine . Le chenal lui -même a aussi disparu . De ce fait, la lagune
Los Portillos n’est plus reliée au f leuve San Juan. L’image satellite du 14 septembre 2013, que
o 94
vous avez à l’onglet n 18 de vos dossiers et qui apparaît à l’écran , permet de constater, d’une
part, la disparition de cette bande de sable sous la mer sur toute la façade d’Isla Portillos et, d’autre
part, l’absence de lien entre le fleuve et la lagune : il suffit de comp arer la couleur brunâtre du
San Juan en sa qualité de fleuve qui transporte une forte charge sédimentaire et la couleur verdâtre
de la lagune Los Portillos.
22. Cette disparition de la bande de sable constituant la rive septentrionale du chenal reliant
les deux formations aquatiques est également attestée par la carte officielle produite par le
Nicaragua en 2011 à des fins de propagande de sa nouvelle position sur la frontière (la carte du
93CR 2015/7, p. 64, par. 52 (le vice-président).
94
Image satellite du 14septembre 2013, Certaines Activités, demande en indication de nouvelles mesures
conservatoires du Costa Rica, 23 septembre 2013, annexe PM-28, zone détaillée. - 32 -
«Caño del Puerto») 95, que vous voyez aussi à l’écran et qui se trouve à l’onglet n 20 de vos
dossiers.
23. Comme le Costa Rica l’a expliqué dans son mémoire 96 et M Wordsworth vient de vous
le rappeler, l’article 2 du traité de limites de 18 58 prévoyait que, à partir de la mer des Caraïbes, la
frontière partirait de l’extrémité de Punta Castilla, qui se situait alors à l’embouchure du fleuve
San Juan, suivant la rive droite de ce fleuve. Le Nicaragua reconnaît maintenant que la
démarcation faite par la sentence Alexander suivait le chenal oriental à l’embouchure du fleuve et
97
que ce chenal n’existe plus .
24. Comme nous l’avons expliqué 98, la disparition du chenal reliant la lagune au fleuve n’a
pas d’incidence sur la masse terrestre démarquée par la sentence Alexander, comme les Parties
l’ont d’ailleurs reconnu et mise en Œuvre sans contradiction jusqu’au coup de force nicaraguayen
de 2010.
25. Pour répondre à la deuxième partie de la question, il convient de rappeler la façon dont
votre Cour a décrit le «territoire litigieux» : «la zone humide d’environ trois kilomètres carrés
comprise entre la rive droite du caño litigieux, la rive droite du fleuve San Juan lui-même jusqu’à
99
son embouchure dans la mer des Caraïbes et la lagune de Harbor Head» . La frontière entre le
Costa Rica et le Nicaragua suit la rive droite du fleuve San Juan depuis son embouchure jusqu’au
point situé à trois milles anglais en aval de Castillo Viejo. Le caño construit en 2010 par le
Nicaragua ne constitue pas du tout une frontière, tout territoire se situant au nord et au sud du c año,
y compris celui-ci, est costa-ricien. La frontière dans le «territoire litigieux» suit donc la rive droite
du fleuve San Juan dès son embouchure vers le sud. Vers l’est, depuis l’embouchure du fleuve
jusqu’à la lagune Los Portillos, le territoire est par conséquent costa -ricien. La frontière suit
ensuite le rivage autour de la lagune Los Portillos.
95
MCR, vol. V, annexe 196.
96MCR, par. 2.17.
97CR 2015/5, p. 29, par. 20 (Pellet).
98
MCR, par. 2.49.
99 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Ra c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 19, par. 55. - 33 -
26. La plage d’Isla Portillos est une partie intégrante de la masse terrestre d’Isla Portillos et,
comme il a été expliqué lors des audiences à l’occasion de la deuxième demande en indication de
mesures conservatoires en 2013 et au premier tour des plaidoiries sur le fond 100, il y a quelques
jours, cette plage constitue donc du territoire costa-ricien.
27. Le Nicaragua a revendiqué cette plage lors des audiences relatives à l’indication des
deuxièmes mesures conservatoires pour essayer de justifier sa présence militaire, prétendant qu’elle
ne faisait pas partie du «territoire litigieux» 101. Votre Cour a rejeté cette position 10. L’argument
utilisé par le Nicaragua a consisté à affirmer que la plage d’Isla Portillos serait la bande de sable
qui se trouvait au nord de la côte, séparée par le chenal. Déjà lors des audiences en 2013, le
Costa Rica a démontré que tel n’était pas le cas. Vous voyez à l’écran, et vous pouvez consulter les
onglets n o21 à 25 de vos dossiers, la carte de la région et les photographies satellite décrivant les
coordonnées exactes de l’emplacement du campement militaire nicaraguayen sur la plage, d’une
part, et celles de la bande de sable submergée dans la mer, d’autre part.
28. Etant donné que le Nicaragua est resté silencieux sur sa position à cet égard lors du
premier tour des plaidoiries, le Costa Rica se réserve le dr oit de commenter la réponse que le
Nicaragua formulera à la présente question.
C. Réponse à la question posée par Mme la juge Donoghue
29. Judge Donoghue posed the following related question to both Parties:
«Some photographs, such as the one that appe ars at tab 10 of today’s judges’
folder, depict a sandy feature lying between the Caribbean Sea and the body of water
known as Harbor Head Lagoon or Laguna Los Portillos. I request that each Party
describe its understanding of the current shape and configuration of this feature.
If this feature exists today, does it comprise land territory that can appertain to a
State? If so, to which State does it appertain and why?» 103
100 Certaines activités menée par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua, mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 22 novembre 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013 , p. 365, par. 46 ; CR 2015/2, p. 36, par. 38
(Brenes) ; p. 64-65, par. 51-52 (Kohen) ; CR 2015/4, p. 25, par. 9 (Parlett).
101 Certaines activités menée par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua, mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 22 novembre 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 363-364, par. 42.
102
Ibid., p. 365, par. 46.
103CR 2015/7, p. 65, par. 52 (Donoghue). - 34 -
30. The answer is the following. The strip north of Laguna Los Portillos or Harbor H ead
Lagoon is a bank of sand. It is a feature that is subject to marine erosion and as such undergoes
regular changes. The satellite photograph taken on 14 September 2013 shows this sandy strip as
running from the north-easternmost corner of the lagoon to its north-western tip.
31. The sandbar to the seaward side of Harbor Head Lagoon was not considered to be “solid
land” in the first Alexander Award 10. It can only be considered as land capable of appertaining to
a State in so far as it remains permanen tly above water at high tide and, if it does, it appertains to
Nicaragua. This is because the feature to the seaward side of the lagoon is Nicaraguan as follows
from the Alexander Award. This of course applies only so far as concerns the feature immediat ely
in front of the lagoon, and does not concern the beach of Isla Portillos, which is Costa Rican
territory as explained in the answer to Vice- President Yusuf. In any event, neither the lagoon nor
the feature above it is the object of the present proceedings.
32. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, pour certains, la configuration
territoriale qui résulte du régime frontalier établi par le traité de 1858 et la sentence Alexander de
1897 pourrait paraître bizarre. En effet, une partie essentiellement aquatique du Nicaragua
demeure enclavée en territoire costa- ricien. Il s’agit de la situation qui émerge dans la région
conformément au droit international. La tentative brutale du Nicaragua de la modifier, tant
physiquement qu’au niveau de la souveraineté territoriale ne peut et ne doit pas prospérer.
33. Du reste, cette situation d’enclavement n’est pas inconnue dans la pratique internationale
et interne. C’est votre Cour qui a par exemple déclaré l’existence d’enclaves belges en ter ritoire
105
néerlandais dans l’affaire sur la Souveraineté sur certaines parcelles frontalières . On trouve des
enclaves de Brunéi Darussalam dans le territoire malaisien de Bornéo, ou une enclave de
Timor-Leste en territoire indonésien dans l’île de Timor. Et pour parler d’une enclave qui m’est
proche, et que de nombreux membres de votre Cour, Monsieur le président, tout comme mes
collègues de l’autre côté de la barre, connaissent bien, je mentionnerai l’enclave genevoise de
104MCR, annexe 9, première sentence de l’arbitre E.P. Alexander sur la question de la frontière entre le
Costa Rica et le Nicaragua, rendue le 30 septembre 1897 à SanJuan del Norte et réimprimée dans UNRIAA, vol. XXVIII
(2007), p. 220.
105
Souveraineté sur certaines parcelles frontalières (Belgique/Pays -Bas), arrêt du 20 juin 1959 ,
C.I.J. Recueil 1959, p. 212-213. - 35 -
Celigny dans le territoire du can ton de Vaud en Suisse. La différence notable entre toutes ces
enclaves et notre cas est qu’il s’agit ici d’un territoire inhabité et inhabitable, alors que dans les
quatre cas que je viens de mentionner, il s’agit de territoires habités.
D. Le prétendu droit nicaraguayen de causer des dommages au Costa Rica
et d’occuper «temporairement» son territoire
34. Monsieur le président, j’aborde maintenant ce qu’on pourrait appeler «la revendication
d’un droit nicaraguayen à causer des dommages au Costa Rica». C ela doit être la première fois
dans l’histoire qu’un Etat vient vous demander que vous constatiez son prétendu droit à causer un
dommage à un autre et même à occuper son territoire temporairement. La première fois que cette
revendication a été avancée, pl us d’un siècle après la sentence Cleveland, c’était en 2011 devant
106
votre Cour .
35. C ’est une interprétation qui défie les relations normales entre Etats, lesquelles sont
fondées sur le respect mutuel . En fait, il s ’agit d’une prétention qui défie les notions de base de
tout système juridique, et si je puis dire, de toutes les conceptions que l ’on trouve chez tous les
peuples et selon lesquelles on ne saurait porter atteinte aux droits d ’autrui. L’argument avancé est
une interprétation de la sentence Cle veland qui constituerait la lex specialis, dérogeant ainsi aux
règles générales en matière de dommage et de responsabilité. Mme Parlett réfutera cette vision
particulière de la lex specialis plus tard.
36. Je me contenterai simplement ici de rappeler qu e lorsque l ’on interprète un texte,
conventionnel ou juridictionnel (j’ajouterai, à plus forte raison s’il s’agit d’une décision arbitrale ou
judiciaire), il faut l ’interpréter dans le sens de la conformité et non pas de la non -conformité au
droit international. En effet, vous avez affirmé que « [c]’est une règle d’interprétation qu’un texte
émanant d’un Gouvernement doit, en principe, être interprété comme produisant et étant destiné à
107
produire des effets conformes et non pas contraires au droit existant» . Ce qui s ’applique aux
actes d’un gouvernement s’applique à plus forte raison à une sentence arbitrale.
106CR 2011/2, p. 26, par. 21 (McCaffrey), p. 56-57, par. 14, et p. 61, par. 24 (Pellet).
107 Affaire du Droit de passage sur territoire indien (Portugal c.Inde), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1957, p. 142. - 36 -
37. Même par rapport à la dérogation conventionnelle, pourtant fréquente, à la règle de
l’épuisement des voies de recours internes, vous avez recommandé , Mesdames et Messieurs les
juges, la plus grande prudence . Je vous cite : «la Chambre ne saurait accepter qu ’on considère
qu’un principe important du droit international coutumier a été tacitement écarté sans que
l’intention de l’écarter soit verbalement précisée» 108.
38. Monsieur le président, rien dans la sentence Cleveland ne permet d’affirmer qu’il était de
son intention d’écarter la règle élémentaire de tout système juridique selon laquelle il existe une
obligation de ne pas causer de dommage à aut rui. L ’interprétation, simple et correcte, de cette
sentence est la suivante : à la différence des travaux dans les baies communes, le Costa Rica ne
peut empêcher le Nicaragua d ’accomplir sur son territoire des travaux d ’amélioration du fleuve, à
la condi tion cependant que le territoire costa -ricien ne soit pas occupé, inondé ou autrement
endommagé. Si cela toutefois se produisait, le Nicaragua devrait alors indemniser le Costa Rica.
E. Les efforts du Nicaragua pour réduire la compensation due et échapper
aux autres formes de réparation et satisfaction
39. Je passe, Monsieur le président, à la question des «remèdes» . On a l’impression que le
Nicaragua estime être déjà à la prochaine phase de cette affaire . Le Nicaragua semble se
préoccuper davantage de minimiser le montant des dommages causés que de défendre sa position
e
juridique. L’ensemble de l ’exposé de M Loewenstein et une bonne partie des exposés de mes
109
collègues McCaffrey et Pellet avaient un tel but . Mme Parlett vous parlera de la curieuse
manière que le Nicaragua a d ’interpréter la satisfaction par voie d ’ordonnance de mesures
e
conservatoires. M Del Mar vous démontrera la recevabilité de notre demande d ’abrogation des
o
dispositions du décret n 079/2009 contraires à votre arrêt de 2009.
40. Dans sa quête effrénée à minimiser les coûts, le conseil du Nicaragua nous parlait de la
nature prétendument «symbolique, voire fictive» des préjudices subis . Mais la reforestation a un
coût, Monsieur le président. L ’organisation des inspections sur le lieu par le personnel
environnemental, parfois avec du personnel du Secrétariat de Ramsar, conformément à vos
108Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (Etats-Unis d’Amérique c. Italie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1989, p. 42, par. 50.
109
CR 2015/7, p. 11-23, par. 6-40 (Loewenstein), p. 30, 36, par. 24, 37 (McCaffrey), p. 54, 57- 60, par. 32, 39, 40
(Pellet). - 37 -
ordonnances, le travail de comblement du caño oriental de 2013, tout ceci, entre autres, a aussi un
coût, Monsieur le président. L’annulation des contrats de transports fluviaux du fait de la
prohibition de la navigation, cela a également un coût, Monsieur le président. En temps opportun,
c’est-à-dire dans une autre phase de l ’affaire, le Costa Rica vous fournira le montant détaillé des
réparations dues.
41. Quant aux efforts mis en Œuvre par mon collègue Alain Pellet afin d ’éviter les
différentes formes de satisfaction et les garanties de non -répétition que nous avons formulées, je
dirai que la propre défense nicaraguayenne de sa revendication de souveraineté formulée lors du
premier tour ne l’aidera pas à convaincre votre Cour de la bonne foi alléguée. Je ne reviendrai pas
sur ce que nous avons mentionné il y a une dizaine de jours . Toutes nos demandes demeurent
valables.
42. Les efforts pour faire tomber toute la responsabilité des agissements nicaraguayens sur la
personne d’ Eden Pastora et de sa troupe ne trompent personne 11. Non seulement parce que
M. Pastora est un fonctionnaire du G ouvernement nicaraguayen, mais aussi et surtout parce que le
Nicaragua a reconnu, que ses forces armées étaient présentes sur le territoire d ’Isla Portillos au
moment où les agissements de 2010-2011 et 2013 se sont produits . Il a même publicité en grande
pompe ses activités militaires en Isla Portillos dans son fameux «Livre blanc» en 2010.
43. A vrai dire, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, cette tentative infructueuse de blanchir le
Gouvernement de Managua conforte plutôt le besoin du Costa Rica de demander des garanties de
non-répétition. Monsieur le président, un gouvernement qui, de son propre aveu, est incapable de
faire que ses agents respectent non seulement la souveraineté et l ’intégrité de l ’Etat voisin, mais
aussi une ordonnance de votre Cour ayant force obligatoire alors que l’affaire se trouve en instance,
un tel gouvernement se doit de donner des garanties de non-répétition.
44. Toujours de l’aveu du Nicaragua, son gouvernement n’est pas en mesure d ’être tenu au
courant de la manière dont ses agents agissent à l ’égard du Costa Rica. Ni votre Cour ni le
Costa Rica n’ont été informés d’une quelconque sanction imposée aux personnes responsables des
agissements en cause. Une forme de garantie de non-répétition pourrait consister en une demande
110Ibid., p. 54, 57, 61, par. 33, 38, 43 (Pellet). - 38 -
visant à ce que le Gouvernement nicaraguayen instruise se s forces armées, le personnel de
l’autorité nationale portuaire et M. Pastora et son équipe de dragage, par le moyen de son choix, à
respecter la future décision de la Cour en ce qui concerne les droits du Costa Rica. Une autre
forme de garantie de non-répétition, toujours par les moyens de son choix et conformément au droit
national, serait d’imposer des sanctions au personnel responsable de tels agissements.
45. Quant à notre demande partielle relative aux frais de procédure, contrairement à ce
qu’affirme notre contradicteur, certes, sans trop de conviction, ce stade de la procédure est le
moment opportun pour s’y référer. C’est ce que nous faisons maintenant.
Conclusion
46. Ma conclusion sera brève, Monsieur le président. Plus le temps passe et moin s le
Nicaragua sait comment justifier sa revendication . Au point que le défendeur ne sait plus quelle
frontière il revendique et vous demande alors d’ aller ou d’envoyer quelqu’un à la recherche d ’un
chimérique «first creek met». On pourra trouver tous les ruisseaux que l’on voudra entre le fleuve
et la lagune. Des ruisseaux asséchés et des ruisseaux encore existants. Des ruisseaux pérennes et
des ruisseaux non pérennes. Des ruisseaux à peine navigables (ce dont je doute, mais peu importe)
ou des ruisseaux non navigables du tout. Tout cela ne changera rien ! Aucun de ces ruisseaux n ’a
jamais constitué, ne constitue ni ne constituera le «first channel met» de la sentence Alexander .
Isla Portillos a été déclarée costa -ricienne par la sentence arbitrale du 30 septembre 1897. Effet
obligatoire et final. Res iudicata. Fin de l’histoire. On ne peut pas rouvrir ce qui a été clos et est
resté ainsi durant plus d’un siècle.
47. Il n’ y a pas deux affaires semblables. Mais celle-ci se distingue de toutes le s autres à
plusieurs égards. L’occupation par des forces armées d’un territoire auparavant jamais revendiqué,
la revendication territoriale qui suit dans le but de créer un différend frontalier, lequel, plus le
temps passe, plus il change de forme ou de contenu, le non-respect grave et flagrant de vos mesures
conservatoires, un différend de cette nature appelle l ’emploi de tous les outils que le droit
international et votre Statut mettent à votre disposition.
48. Je vous remercie de votre attention, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, et vous prie,
Monsieur le président, peut-être après la pause, de bien vouloir donner la parole à Mme Parlett. - 39 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Le moment est venu pour la Cour de se
retirer pour une pause de 15 minutes. L’audience est suspendue.
L’audience est suspendue de 11 h 25 à 11 h 40.
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. Je donne la parole à Mme Parlett.
Ms PARLETT:
I.N ICARAGUA ’SF AILURE TO C OMPLY WITH P ROVISIONAL M EASURES ORDERS
OF THE C OURT
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I will be addressing two matters this morning. I will
first address Nicaragua’s failure to comply with your provisional measures Orders; then I will shift
gear to discuss the issues relating to the applicable environmental law régime, in so far as the
Parties remain divided.
A. Nicaragua’s breaches of the provisional measures Orders
2. In the first round, I explained that Nicaragua breached your 2011 Order 11; and I also
112
explained that, by doing so, Nicaragua aggravated the dispute between the Parties .
3. Since then, Nicaragua’s Honourable Agent told you that “Nicaragua deeply regrets the
actions following the 2011 Order . . . that led [you] to determine . . . that a new Order was
required”113. He told you “Nicaragua received and understood [your] message” .114
4. Professor Pellet asked you to leave the past in the past . He said that “if” there had been a
violation of your 2011 Order, and “if” there had been prejudice to Costa Rica, material, moral, or
115
legal, then your 2013 Order was already adequate satisfaction . He regretted that Costa Rica
insisted on “reopening a debate that your second Order . . . should have closed”16. This is not the
time for reparation, he told you.
11CR 2015/4, pp. 23-31, paras. 1-22 (Parlett).
112
Ibid., pp. 31-32, para. 23 (Parlett).
11CR 2015/5, p. 18, para. 42 (Argüello).
11Ibid., p. 18, para. 42 (Argüello).
115
CR 2015/7, pp. 41-41, para. 5 (Pellet).
11Ibid., p. 45, para. 14 (Pellet). - 40 -
5. When I heard Professor Pellet tell you that the time was not now, I wondered if I had been
transported back in time, because when he defended Nicaragua in 2013 against your second Order,
he told you that the time was not then either . Discussion of responsibility for any breach, he said,
was “premature: these are [issues] going to the merits, which it is not for the Court to decide at this
117
stage” . He told you that you would have to determine that there were no circumstances
precluding wrongfulness; and that the acts were attributable to Nicaragu a, and you could not do
118
that in 2013 .
6. So he said, in 2013, it was too early to address the question of breach of your 2011 Order .
Now in 2015, he tells you it is too late.
7. Indeed, in your 2013 Order, you noted that your O rders on provisional meas ures are
binding, and that “the question of compliance with provisional measures indicated in a case may be
considered by the Court in the principal proceedings” 119. You further noted that your Order was
120
without prejudice to your decision on the merits .
8. In your 2013 Order you did not award reparation to Costa Rica for Nicaragua’s breaches
of your 2011 Order. You made no declaration of breach in satisfaction; you ordered no restitution;
121
you awarded no compensation. Now is the appropriate time to do s o just as, with respect to the
LaGrand case 122, where you addressed the issue of breach of the applicable provisional measures
and accorded a remedy in your Judgment on the merits. Accordingly:
(a) Costa Rica requests that you award appropriate satisfactio n, including by declaring that
Nicaragua breached your 2011 Order by:
11CR 2 013/27, p. 34, para. 19 (Pellet) . See also CR 2013/27, p. 35, para. 22 (Pellet) (“discussion of
responsibility [for breach of your 2011 Order] is premature”.
11CR 2013/27, p. 34, para. 19 (Pellet).
119
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013 , p. 368, para. 57; references omitted.
120
Ibid., p. 369, para. 58.
12See A. Zimmerman et al., The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, 2nd ed., 2012,
Commentary to Article 41, p. 1068, para. 95.
12LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 516, para. 128 (5) (The
Court:
“Finds that, by failing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand was not
executed pending the final decision of the International Court of Justice in the case, the United States of
America breached the obligation incumbent upon it under the Order indicating provisional measures
issued by the Court on 3 March 1999”.) - 41 -
(i) constructing two new artificial caños in the disputed territory;
(ii) by maintaining military camps on the disputed territory; and
(iii) by sending and maintaining its nationals there, who caused damage thereon 123.
The carefully chosen words of Nicaragua’s Agent in his opening stops short even of an apology
for Nicaragua’s breach of the 2011 Order, and Costa Rica does not consider them to be
appropriate satisfaction. And anyway, it is apparent that Nicaragua does not accept that there
has been any breach, as was evident from the repeated refrain of “s’il y avait”, uttered at the
124
Bar in Nicaragua’s first round . Nicaragua may have expressed “regret” for anything and
everything that may have happened, but it has not given a full and frank account of what
happened, seeking to portray Mr. Pastora as if he somehow operated outside the organs of
Nicaraguan governance; and it has not admitted that there was a breach.
(b) Costa Rica also requests that you award compensation for the damage caused by Nicaragua to
the disputed territory 125. I note here that counsel for Nicaragua told you that there was no
126
“significant” damage to the environment , either arising from the two new caños or from
damage caused by the Sandinista Youth . As Mr. Wordsworth has just noted, there is no
threshold of “significant” when it comes to damage caused on another States’ territory . This is
not incidental transboundary harm; it is direct and brazen damage caused when Nicaragua’s
military and its personnel came onto Costa Rica’s territory and dug it up. And just because
Costa Rica has been able to avoid irreparable prejudice by installing a dyke in the eastern caño,
in spite, I might add, of the obstacles put in its way by Nicaragua, this does not mean that the
127
damage has been undone .
(c) As Professor Kohen has just mentioned, Cos ta Rica also requests that you o rder appropriate
128
measures by way of a guarantee of non-repetition , and that Nicaragua pay Costa Rica’s costs
of obtaining the 2013 Order.
123CR 2015/4, pp. 23-31, paras. 1-22 (Parlett); and CR 2015/4, pp. 38-39, paras 11-13 (Kohen).
124
CR 2015/7, pp. 41-41, para. 5 (Pellet).
125CR 2015/4, pp. 36-37, para. 7 (Kohen).
126CR 2015/7, pp. 41-42, para. 5 (Pellet).
127
Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 22, para. 39 (Loewenstein).
128CR 2015/4, pp. 39-40, paras. 17-20 (Kohen). - 42 -
9. Costa Rica’s entitlement to reparation for thes e breaches of your binding 2011 Order
129
cannot be swept away by the fact that Nicaragua has not dredged any more caños since 2013 ; by
the fact that it filled in the tren ch on the beach with 100 truckloads of sand 130 and took some
131
photographs of it ; or by the fact that it finally stopped sending and maintaining large groups of
Nicaraguan nationals on the disputed territory to carry out works there under Nicaragua’s
132
instruction . Nicaragua’s alleged compliance with your second Order does not undo the harm it
did by breach of your first Order.
10. I note finally that Nicaragua’s posture in its first round with respect to your 2013 Order is
to be contrasted with its posture before you when it fought vigorously against the imposition of that
Order. As Professor Kohen explained in Costa Rica’s first round, Nicaragua said that the measures
were unnecessary because it was already complying with them, and yet it rejected Costa R ica’s
133
very reasonable proposal of a consent order being made to that effect . At the same time, it was
content to leave you with an out-of-date picture of the real situation, of precisely how far its works
134
had progressed since Costa Rica had been able to obtain images depicting them . These facts are,
of course, particularly relevant to Costa Rica’s request for a costs order in this case.
B. Costa Rica’s compliance with the provisional measures Orders
11. In Nicaragua’s first round of oral argument it p ursued its counter -claim alleging that
Costa Rica breached your provisional measures Orders. As I discussed these issues in Costa Rica’s
first round, I can be brief. There are four issues.
12. One: Nicaragua said that Costa Rica had abused the Court’s Orders permitting it to send
civilian personnel to the disputed territory to prevent irreparable prejudice being caused to the
environment there. This is not correct . There is no evidence that anyone other than Costa Rican
129Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 44, para. 11 (Pellet).
130See Nicaraguan National Port Authority Technical Management, Technical Execution Report, “Closure of the
Trench to the North of the Eastern Channe l, San Juan de Nicaragua”, Ann. 1 “description of the works”; Ann. 1 to letter
from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-252, 9 Dec. 2013.
131Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 43, paras. 7-8 (Pellet).
132
Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 44, paras. 9-10 (Pellet).
133CR 2015/4, pp. 41 -42, para. 22 (Kohen). See also l etter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-193,
10 Oct. 2013; letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-073-13, 11 Oct. 2013; and letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-197, 11 Oct. 2013, p. 3.
134See CR 2013/26, p. 21, para. 44 (Crawford). - 43 -
environmental personnel and per sonnel from Ramsar was sent to the disputed territory .
Nicaragua’s assertions as to the presence of police and evidence- gathering missions are
unsupported conjecture.
13. Two: Nicaragua complained that Costa Rica did not give sufficient notice to Nica ragua,
and did not try hard enough to reach common solutions with Nicaragua, before it dispatched
civilian personnel to the disputed territory 135. As I explained in opening, Costa Rica was diligent in
giving advance notice of its visits to the disputed terr itory to Nicaragua, to the Court, and to
136
Ramsar . Costa Rica also attempted to reach common solutions with Nicaragua, proposing
co-ordination in respect of security of the disputed territory, resulting in a bilateral agreement on
137
the subject . Pursuant to that agreement, Costa Rica kept Nicaragua informed of issues arising in
respect of its obligation to secure the disputed territory, from its own undisputed territory 13. You
will also recall that Costa Rica attempt ed to co- ordinate in its implementation o f Ramsar’s
recommendations with respect to the 2013 caños, including by carrying out joint measurements on
13CR 2015/7, p. 48, para 21 (Pellet).
13See, for example, letter from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, r ef. DM-DVM-217-2011, 30 Mar . 2011; MCR, Ann. 75; letter from the Acting
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
ref. DM-AM-046-12, 27 Jan . 2012; CMN, Ann. 75; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref . DM-AM-105-13, 28 Feb . 2013; att. 1 to letter from
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref . DM-AM-109-13, 28 Feb. 2013; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-678-13, 6 Dec. 2013; att. CR-3 to letter from
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-0-12, 21 Feb. 2014; letter from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship
of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, r ef. DM- AM-108-14, 7 Mar. 2014; att. CR-2 to letter
from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref . ECRPB-070, 21 May 2014; letter from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref . DM- AM-348-14, 17 July 2014; att. 1 to
letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref . ECRPB-090-2014, 22 Aug. 2014; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0707-14, 7 Nov. 2014; Road case,
RCR, Ann. 47; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, ref . DM-AM-0774-11-14, 2 Dec . 2014; a tt. CR-1 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECRPB-020-2015, 20 Feb. 2015; and letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0818-14, 12 Dec. 2014; Road case, RCR, Ann. 55.
13See Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua, ref. DM-172-11, 18 Mar. 2011; MCR, Ann. 72; Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Cost a Rica, ref. MRE-DM-AJST-327-03-11, 24 Mar. 2011; MCR,
Ann. 73; Note from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, ref . DM-214-11, 29 Mar . 2011; MCR, Ann. 74; Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, r ef. MRE-DM-350-04-11, 1 Apr. 2011; MCR,
Ann. 77; Note from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, ref . DM-226-11, 4 Apr . 2011; MCR, Ann. 79; Peñas Blancas Declaration (Costa Rica and
Nicaragua), 12 Apr . 2011; MCR, Ann. 85; and Mechanism of Coordinated Police and Security Actions between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Guatemala, 6 May 2011; MCR, Ann. 89.
13Note from the Deputy Minister of Security of Costa Rica to the Chief of the Police of Nicaragua,
ref. 612-2011-DV-WN, 30 May 2011; MCR, Ann. 91. - 44 -
139
the San Juan. You will recall Nicaragua’s refusal . In all these circumstances, Costa Rica fully
complied with its obligation to co- ordinate with N icaragua with re spect to implementation of
your 2011 and 2013 Orders.
14. Three: Nicaragua said Costa Rica repeatedly and systematically conducted overflights of
140
the disputed territory . This is not correct . The only evidence to which Nicaragua referred are
diplomatic Notes written by Nicaragua. The most recent one of those appears to be Nicaragua’s
141
protest of February 2012 , which complained about flights over Nicaraguan territory giving
co-ordinates for those alleged incursions and about a statem ent allegedly made by one
individual about overflights of the disputed territory . As Costa Rica explained to Nicaragua in
March 2012, that statement was wrong. Costa Rica has not conducted routine overflights of the
disputed territory 142. As to the alleged incursions into Nicaraguan airspace, the co -ordinates given
by Nicaragua, indicated on the image now on your screens, are well south of the San Juan River, in
undisputed Costa Rican territory, and far from the disputed territory 14. There are obvious reasons
to reject the allegations contained in Nicaragua’s protest Note.
15. Four: Nicaragua also said that Costa Rica breached your 2011 Order by constructing the
Road. I will not trouble you with submissions on that p oint, save to affirm that Costa Rica
144
maintains that this in no way aggravated the dispute underlying the Certain Activities case .
13See Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0639-10-14, 21 Oct. 2014; Road case, RCR, Ann. 40; Note from the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, ref . MRE/DM/AJ/439/1014,
27 Oct. 2014; Road case, RCR, Ann. 41; Note from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0672-14, 28 Oct. 2014; Road case, RCR, Ann. 42; Note
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
ref. MRE/DM-AJ/448/11/14, 3 Nov. 2014; Road, RCR, Ann. 43; Note from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0697-14, 5 Nov. 2014; Road case,
RCR, Ann. 45; see also Road case, RCR, paras. 2.31-2.32.
140
CR 2015/7, p. 47, para. 19 (Pellet).
14Note from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
ref. MRE/DM-AJ/116/02/12, 13 Feb. 2012; CMN, Ann. 76, cited in CMN, para. 9.48, and referred to in CR 2015/7,
p. 47, fn 170 (Pellet).
14Note from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
ref. DM-AM-146-12, 15 Mar. 2012; Ann. CR-1 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-034-12, 29 Aug. 2012.
14See also , Note from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-146-12, 15 Mar. 2012; Ann. CR-1 to l etter from Cost a Rica to the ICJ, r ef. ECRPB-034-12,
29 Aug. 2012, where this was explained by reference to an annexed map.
14See CR 2015/4, p. 33, para. 26 (Parlett). - 45 -
II. R EMAINING ISSUES AS TO THE APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW RÉGIME
16. I turn to discuss the remaining issues that divide the Parties as to the applicable
environmental law régime. Costa Rica accepts that Nicaragua is able to dredge the San Juan River,
and Nicaragua has made clear that it intends to continue to do so. There will no doubt be other
projects on either side of the border which might give rise to que stions of transboundary harm,
significant harm, and for which assessment, notification, and consultation may be required. A
statement from the Court as to how those issues are to be managed in the particular geographical
and legal context of the boundary between these two States will provide an essential blueprint for
their relationship going forward.
17. In so far as the San Juan River is concerned, it appears that there are only two issues of
principle that continue to divide the Parties. They are:
(a) first: whether the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award override the application of environmental
obligations under general principles of law and under international treaties; and
(b) second: whether Nicaragua has a right to cause damage to Costa Rica and t o occupy its
territory.
18. On the second of these two issues, you have just heard from Professor Kohen, and I will
not repeat his submissions.
19. On the first of these two issues, the question of lex specialis, Costa Rica regrets that
145
Nicaragua elected not to engage in its first round Friday before last , with the explanation given
by Costa Rica in its opening, on Tuesday two weeks ago 146. In the light of this, there are two
fundamental points that I am compelled to repeat:
(a) first, to rely on lex sp ecialis, Nicaragua must show that the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award
have excluded the application of other rules, or that the obligations arising under international
environmental law are inconsistent with Nicaragua’s rights and obligations under the
147
1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award ; and
145
See CR 2015/7, paras. 19-24; pp. 31-32, paras. 28-29; pp. 38-39, paras. 44-46 (McCaffrey).
14CR 2015/3, pp. 50-54, paras. 17-26 (Parlett).
147
Ibid., p. 51, para. 18 (Parlett). - 46 -
(b) second, all of Nicaragua’s rights and obligations under the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award
must be interpreted in the light of principles for the protection of the environmental in force
today .148
20. As to the first o f these two issues, Nicaragua cannot poi nt to any provision of the
1858 Treaty or the 1888 Award that excludes the application of rules relating to protection of the
environment. In addition, Nicaragua effectively conceded last week that environmental law
obligations do not “conflict in any way ” with the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award 149, while at the
same time maintaining that the San Juan River was somehow immune, on the basis of lex specialis,
from the application of all of these non-conflicting obligations 150. While we look forward to an
explanation of quite how the se two positions can be reconciled, as it is currently pleaded, we
understand Nicaragua’s position to be the following.
21. First, Nicaragua insists on its sovereignty its dominion and imperi um over the
waters of the San Juan 151. It seizes upon Article 2, paragraph 3, of the 1971 Ramsar Convention,
which provides that “[t]he inclusion of a wetland in the List [of Wetlands of International
Importance] does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the Contracting Party in whose
152
territory the wetland is situated” . If the intended implication is that because Nica ragua is
sovereign over the San Juan, its activities on it are immune from obligations arising from
environmental law, then that is indeed a wholesale displacement of environmental law, which
would not apply to any territory over which a State is sovereign. It is patently wrong.
22. Second, Nicaragua suggests t hat paragraph 3 (6) of the 1888 Award is inconsistent with
an obligati on under general international law, or under treaty, not to cause significant
transboundary harm. You have seen this paragraph numerous times in the last two weeks, and I
148Ibid., p. 53, para. 24 (Parlett), referring to the case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997 , pp. 77 -78, para. 140; Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine
(“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands , Award, 24 May 2005,
PCA Award Series (2007), para. 59; and Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Islamic Republic of Pakistan v.
Republic of India) , Partial Award, 18 Feb . 2013, available at http://www.pca -cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392,
para. 452.
149CR 2015/10, p. 33, para. 4 (McCaffrey).
150Ibid., p. 32, para. 3 (McCaffrey).
151
See, e.g., CR 2015/7, p. 24, para. 4 (McCaffrey).
152Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar (Iran),
2 Feb. 1971, as amended by the Paris Protocol of 3 Dec. 1982 and the Regina Amendments of 28 May 1987; MCR,
Ann. 14, Art.2 (3). - 47 -
will not read it out again, but I would emphasize that Nicaragua’s right to carry out works of
improvement is explicitly conditioned on there being no resulting “damage” to Costa Rican
territory. So, in fact, this provision imposes a more stringent obligation on Nicaragua than general
international law, because it prohibits any “damage” and not merely “significant harm”. As
Professor Kohen has already explained, this is not a “harm now, pay later” provision. It is not
inconsistent with an obligation not to cause significant transboundary harm; to the contrary, it
imposes an obligation not to cause any transboundary harm.
23. Third, Nicaragua says, Article VIII of the 1858 Treaty, together with paragraph 3 (11) of
the 1888 Award, are inconsistent with an obligation to notify and consult in respect of any works
on the San Juan other than canal construction works.
24. Article VIII of the 1858 Treaty, which you now see on your screens, imposes specific
obligations on Nicaragua if it proposes to construct a canal 15. Indeed, as Cleveland confirmed, and
this is clear from paragraph 3 (11) o f his Award, if the proposed c anal will cause injury to
Costa Rica’s rights, Costa Rica’s “consent is necessary” for the project to proceed 15.
25. Quite how this requirement to notify, consult, and obtain Costa Rica’s consent in respect
of canal projects i s inconsistent with an obligation to notify and consult in respect of any other
works on the San Juan including dredging is difficult to see. In Costa Rica’s submission, it is
entirely consistent with it, and the suggestion that the tw o States in 1858, and President Cleveland
in 1888, were implicitly excluding any future developments in inte rnational environmental law is
not credible, to say the least . Professor McCaffrey told you that the 1888 Award “has virtually
155
occupied the field in this connection, leaving little, if any, room f or . . . additional obligations” .
Costa Rica does not agree.
26. This brings me to the well -established point that even treaties and awards of the
nineteenth century must be interpreted in the light of principles relating to the protection of the
153
Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits (Cañas-Jerez), San José, 15 April 1858; MCR, Ann. 1, Article VIII.
15Award of the Arbitrator, the President of the United States, upon the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica (Cleveland Award), 22 Mar. 1888; MCR, Ann. 7, para. (3) 11.
155
CR 2015/7, p. 30, para. 23 (McCaffrey). - 48 -
environment that are in force today 15. That fundamental point of interpretation, reflected in
Article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is completely ignored by
Nicaragua 157, and that is unsurprising because it completely undermines Nicaragua’s assertions as
to the consequences of the lex specialis of the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award.
27. Finally, I should just mention that Professor McCaffrey disavowed the binding characte r
of obligations under the 1971 Ramsar Convention, in particular Article 5 (1), in his pleadings in the
first round in the Certain Activities case 158, and then he said in the Road case that Costa Rica had
159
“blatantly violat[ed]” its obligation to consult in respect of the Road , under the same provision of
the same Convention. He said in the Certain Activities case that the 1992 Biodiversity Convention
160
uses language of aspiration “to encourage the parties” in respect of sharing of information ; and
then he said in the Road case that Costa Rica “blatantly violat[ed]” its obligation to share
161
information under the 1992 Biodiversity Convention . Both cannot be right.
28. In conclusion, Nicaragua has breached its obligations arising under your provisional
measures orders. Costa Rica is enti tled to reparation for those breaches, and it is now the
appropriate time to award that reparation.
29. As to the applicable legal r égime going forward, which is of great importance to
Costa Rica and no doubt to Nicaragua also, Nicaragua’s activities on the San Juan are limited by its
obligations relating to protection of the environment as are applicable under general international
law and under treaties. Any lex specialis of the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award does not render
the San Juan immune from environmental regulation.
30. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention, and
Mr. President, I ask that you invite Ambassador Sergio Ugalde to the podium.
156See CR 2015/3, p. 53, para. 24 (Parlett), referring to case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997 , pp. 77 -78, para. 140; Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine
(“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands , Award, 24 May 2005,
PCA Award Series (2007), para. 59; and Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Islamic Republic of Pakistan v.
Republic of India) , Partial Award, 18 Feb. 2013, available at http://www.pca -cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392,
para. 452.
157
Cf. CR 2015/7, pp. 28-30, paras. 19-24; pp. 31-32, paras. 28-29; pp. 38-39, paras. 44-46 (McCaffrey).
158CR 2015/7, p. 32, para. 29 (McCaffrey).
159CR 2015/10, p. 43, para. 40 (McCaffrey).
160
CR 2015/7, p. 35, para. 35 (McCaffrey).
161CR 2015/10, p. 43, para. 40 (McCaffrey). - 49 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Madame. Je donne la parole à Monsieur l’ambassad eur
Sergio Ugalde.
Mr. UGALDE:
N ICARAGUA ’S DREDGING PROGRAMME AND THE WAY FORWARD
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I will address, once more, Nicaragua’s dredging
programme.
A. Sedimentation in the Lower San Juan River and Nicaragua’s
dredging programme
2. There is no dispute that the Lower San Juan is subject to aggradation of sediment. The
evidence is that the process of accumulation of sediment became an issue from around the
162
mid-19th century . In more recent times, but still before construction of the Road, the Nicaraguan
authorities had noted the effect of these problems on navigation, for example in 2006 163. There are
various natural processes that contribute to this condition, as Professor Thorne pointed out in his
evidence 16. But in any case, what is clear is that the process of sedimentation and the problems for
165
navigation it causes commenced long before the events giving rise to the cases before you .
3. There is also no dispute that, given the problem, Nicaragua designed a dredging
166
programme in 2006 to attempt to deal with it . That programme initially foresaw dredging along
some 42 km of the Lower R ío San Juan, from around the bifurcation with the Colorado River all
167
the way to its mouth, with the aim of facilitating navigation . However, that programme was not
the one implemented. Almost immediately after inception of the programme in 2010, the scope of
16See e.g., Despatch of 26 February 1959 from the United States Consul in San Juan del Norte ; CMN, Ann. 2.
163
Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan River (excerpts), S2006; CMN,
Ann. 7, p. 7; Certain Activities, Written Statement of Pr ofessor Cornelis Van Rhee, 15 Mar. 2015, para. 6; CR 2015/6,
p. 35 (van Rhee).
164
CR 2015/12, p. 30 (Professor Thorne).
165
See e.g. CR 2015/6, p. 35 (van Rhee and Reichler).
16Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan Rive, excerpts, Sep. 2006; CMN,
Ann. 7; Project Design Study, excerpts, Sep. 2006; CMN, Ann. 8.
16Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Phys-Financial Progress
Report Corresponding to 2014, EPN 2014 Annual Report, 2015 ; Ann. 1 to l etter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, p. 10. - 50 -
168 169
the programme was modified , and it has focused on large -scale dredging in the delta area .
This occurred without any of the requisite consideration of environmental and other impacts which
were necessary 170.
4. It results clearly from Nicaragua’s evidence that the dredging programme has not been
working, in particular due to what appears to be the constant redeposition of sediment in the
dredged channel 171. As explained by Professor van Rhee, this has required constant redredging 172.
It would appear that this so-called “maintenance dredging” 173, has involved Nicaragua redredging
174
up to three times in a single year, the volume of sediment which was originally estimated would
be done in the initial sector of the project as “initial” or “capital dredging” 175.
5. There is no dispute between the experts as to why this constant maintenance redredging is
176
necessary . Professor Thorne in his Writ ten Statement explained how the effect of dredging is to
reduce the slope of the river, thereby reducing flow speed, which reduces transport capacity,
168
CMN, para. 2.58; and paras. 5.174-5.176; Declaration of the Technical Manager of the National Port
Authority (EPN), Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez , 16 Dec . 2010; MCR, Ann. 164, paras. 10 -11; Dredging Project
Technical Evaluation Analysis: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River (EPN 2011 Annual
Report), 23 Jan. 2012; CMN, Ann. 17. pp. 5 -6; Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de
Nicaragua River: Physical-Financial Progress Report Corresponding to 2014, EPN 2014 Annual Report, 2015; Ann. 1 to
letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 11-12.
16Dredging Project Technical Evaluation Analysis: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua
River, EPN 2011 Annual Report, 23 Jan. 2012; CMN, Ann. 17, p. 14; Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the
San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress Report Corresponding to 2014, EPN 2014 Annua l Report,
2015; Ann. 1 to l etter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref . HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 20 and 36 -41; Certain
Activities, Written Statement of Professor Cornelis Van Rhee, 15 Mar.2015, para. 9; CR 2015/6, p. 26 (van Rhee).
170
CR 2015/6, p. 26 (van Rhee).
17CR 2015/12, pp. 41-42 (Thorne and Reichler); see also ibid., p. 45 (Thorne and Reichler).
17Certain Activities, Written Statement of Professor Cornelis Van Rhee, 15 Mar . 2015, para. 9; CR 2015/6,
pp. 30-31 and 33 (van Rhee).
17CR 2015/6, p. 25 (van Rhee and Wordsworth) and p. 33 (van Rhee and Reichler).
17Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress
Report Corresponding to 2014, EPN 2014 Annual Report, 2015 ; Ann. 1 to l etter from Nicaragu a to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 12 and 20; Certain Activities, Written Statement of Professor Cornelis Van Rhee,
15 Mar. 2015, para. 9; CR 2015/6, p. 26 (van Rhee); see also CR 2015/12, p. 45 (Thorne and Reichler).
17CR 2015/6, p. 25 (van Rhee and Wordsworth) and p. 33 (van Rhee and Reichler).
17See Certain Activities , Written Statement of Professor Colin Thorne, Mar . 2015, paras. 4.11- 4.16;
ProfessorColin Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since October 2010 on the
geomorphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental impacts on Costa Rican
territory, 2011; MCR, App. 1, p. II-41; and Professor Cornelis van Rhee and Professor Huib de Vriend, The Influence of
Dredging on the Discharge and Environment of the San Juan River , 2012; CMN, App. 2, p. 6. - 51 -
177
meaning that sediment deposit s . In his oral evidence, Professor Thorne explained in far more
direct terms that “if you dredge a deep hole in the channel, it will refill very quickly” 178.
6. Precisely this consequence of the dredging programme was entirely foreseeable, as was
179
predicted in the 2011 [Ramsar] report , to which I will come in a minute, and by
Professor Thorne in his 2011 report in this case 180. The point is that Nicaragua’s current dredging
programme was misconceived from its inception.
7. Professor van Rhee, Nicaragua’s dredging expert, recognized that the dredging
programme is not working 181. Professor Thorne agreed; his view was that so-called maintenance
182
dredging would be required “forever” .
B. The dredging programme risks causing significant harm
and no proper transboundary EIA was carried out
8. Nicaragua’s position on dredging now appear s to be, on the one hand, to emphasi ze the
necessity of dredging 18, and on the other to assert, against the evidence, that it has not been proved
that any significant harm has been caused, or is likely to be caused 184.
9. But this does not meet Costa Rica’s case. First, whether or not there is a need for
dredging in order to maintain navigability or to ensure a supply of fresh water to the wetlands 185, is
nothing to the point. It cannot justify the taking of measures without assessment of whether they
would cause transboundary impacts.
17Certain Activities, Written Statement of Professor Colin Thorne, Mar . 2015, paras. 4.11-4.16.
178
CR 2015/12, p. 45 (Thorne and Reichler); see also ibid ., pp. 41-42 (Thorne and Reichler), and p. 51 (Thorne
and Wordsworth).
179
Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre
del Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011, extract, English translation, annexed to letter fro m Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 36, pp. 42-43, Sect. 5.2.1 and 46, Sect. 6, para.5.
180
Professor Colin Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since
October 2010 on the geom orphology, hydrology and sediment dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental
impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011; MCR, App. 1, pp. II-28 and II-41.
181
CR 2015/6, p. 35 (van Rhee and Reichler).
182
CR 2015/12, p. 46 (Thorne and Reichler); see also ibid., p. 45 (Thorne and Reichler).
18CR 2015/6, p. 1, para.1, and pp. 10-13, paras. 3 -13 (Reichler); and see CR 2015/7, p. 37, para. 40
(McCaffrey).
18CR 2015/6, p. 1, para. 1 and pp. 13-23, paras. 14-45 (Reichler).
18CR 2015/10, p. 12, para. 10 (Reichler). - 52 -
10. Second, there is evidence of a risk of significant harm as a result of Nicaragua’s
dredging , and evidence that Nicaragua failed properly to assess that risk. As a result, it has not
complied with its obligations under int ernational environmental law to conduct a transboundary
EIA, and a fresh EIA is required in advance of any further dredging.
187 188 189
11. As I discussed in the first round , the 2006 EIS and associated documents contain
no analysis of flow rates, or of the pote ntial impact of dredging on the division of flows between
190
the Lower Río San Juan and the Colorado River . Notably, this is a point to which Mr. Reichler
did not respond.
12. But even leaving that point aside, a matter to which I will return, it is eviden t from the
April 2011 Ramsar report 191 that the 2006 EIS could not be regarded as adequate even with respect
to the programme originally envisaged.
13. Nicaragua was aware of the r eport and that it was highly relevant to this case, even if it
disagreed with its findings. Yet it was only produced during the first week of these hearings, at
Costa Rica’s request. Given its contents, it is not difficult to surmise why Nicaragua did not
include it in the record earlier.
14. The r eport confirms, first, that the re was a risk of significant harm; second that the
2006 EIS did not contain any analysis of flows or any assessment of the risks of harm resulting
from changes in the flow and fluvial dynamics of the Lower R ío San Juan; and third, that such an
assessment should have been undertaken by way of environmental impact assessment, prior to
implementation of the dredging programme.
15. Relevant passages are highlighted in the translation of extracts from the r eport included
192
at tab 36 of your folders . For present purposes it suffices to turn to the “Conclusions” section.
186Professor Colin Thorne, Assessment of the physical impact of works carried out by Nicaragua since
October 2010 on the geomorphology, hydrology and sedimen t dynamics of the San Juan River and the environmental
impacts on Costa Rican territory, 2011; MCR , App. 1, pp. II-35-41 and II-42-51.
187CR 2015/3, p. 68, paras. 63-65; p. 69-70, paras. 71-79 (Ugalde).
188
Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan River , excerpts, Sep. 2006; CMN,
Ann. 7.
189
See e.g., Project Design Study, excerpts, Sep. 2006; CMN, Ann. 8.
190CR 2015/3, pp. 68-70, paras. 62-71 (Ugalde).
191Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre
del Río San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011, extract, English translation, ann exed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 36. - 53 -
16. Paragraph 5 of the Conclusions, on page 46, makes clear the conclusion of the Ramsar
team that there was a risk of significant harm:
“Any changes to the pattern of the fluvial dynamics of the San Juan River due to
anthropogenic processes (channelling, dredging, diversion of waters, damming), will
alter its flow as well as the dynamics of the associated wetlands and the distribution
and abundance of the species living there; therefore, it is important to perform studies
of the relevant environmental impacts prior to its implementation .” 193
17. Although the Ramsar advisory mission formally related only to the Nicaraguan wetland
bordering the Lower Río San Juan, its conclusions as to the potential impacts of changes in fluvial
dynamics are not so limited. Self -evidently, they apply equally to any protected wetlands in the
vicinity of the river, including the one within Costa Rica.
18. Matters are even clearer if one looks at paragraph 2 near the bottom on page 46, where
the Ramsar report states in terms that: “The EIA did not incorporate the analysis of aspects related
194
to the hydrological, hydrogeological and hydrodynamic characteristics of the area of influence.”
19. Of course, the conclusion of the Ramsar experts that there had been no analysis of the
potential impact on hydrodynamics also necessarily entails that there had been no analysis of the
potential impacts on the flows of the Colorado River.
20. Nicaragua has suggested that this is a “draft” report, and that a final version was never
issued by Ramsar 19. On Friday last week, together with the full versions of the two INETER
196
reports requested by the Court , Nicaragua also produced its “Considerations and Changes”, and
197
the response from Ramsar .
19Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre
del Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011, extract, English translation, annexed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 36, pp. 42-43, Sect. 5.2.1, and 46 and 47, Sect. 6.
193
Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importanc e Refugio de Vida Silvestre
del Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011, extract, English translation, annexed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 36, p. 46, Sect. 6, para. 5; emphasis added.
194
Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre
del Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011, extract, English translation, annexed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 36, p. 46, Sect. 6.
195
See letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the ICJ, refHOL-EMB-076-2015, 16 Apr. 2015,
and CR 2015/7, p. 37, para. 40 (McCaffrey).
196
Letter from the Registrar of the ICJ to the Agent of Nicaragua, ref.145486, 21 Apr. 2015.
19Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-078-2015, 24 Apr. 2015. - 54 -
21. Although unsolicited, Costa Rica raises no objection to these documents forming part of
198
the record; we have translated both, and they are at tabs 37 and 38 of your judges’ folders .
22. As you can see, in its “ Considerations and Change s” document sent to Ramsar on
30 November 2011, which is at tab 37, Nicaragua requested a large number of modifications to
various sections of the report. For present purposes, and to provide a flavour of the changes
Nicaragua requested, I will take you to two of them.
23. As regards the conclusion to which I have just referred, at page 29, Nicaragua requested
its modification so that it read : “The EIA included the analysis of aspects related to the
hydrological, hydrogeological and hydrodynamic characteristics of the area of influence.” 199
24. Nicaragua was accordingly requesting a complete reversal of the conclusions reached by
the Ramsar experts, who had reached the obvious conclusion that a single set of measurements,
taken in 2006, without any accom panying analysis, is insufficient and does not constitute an
analysis of aspects related to hydrological, hydrogeological and hydrodynamic characteristics.
25. The first conclusion to which I referred, relating to the need for study of environmental
impacts resulting from changes in the fluvial dynamics due to dredging, prior to implementation of
the programme, was also one with which Nicaragua was unhappy. As you can see at the bottom of
page 26, it requested deletion of the entire paragraph, on the basi s that it made reference to “other
activities not contemplated in the Project, such as canalization, water diversion and damming” 20.
In addition, over the page on page 27, Nicaragua asserted that “ [a] new EIA cannot be
198Considerations and Changes of the Government of Nicaragua to the draft of Ramsar Mission Report No. 72;
Wetland of International Importance Wildlife Refuge of the Rio San Juan, Nicaragua , annexed to letter from
Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environm ent and Natural Resources to Mrs Anada Tiega, Secretary General of
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, ref. DM.JAS.1359.11.11, 30 Nov. 2011, Ann. 3 to letter from the Agent of
Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL -EMB-078, 24 Apr. 2015 (English translation: Ann. 3 to letter from the Agent of
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB- 070-2015, 28 Apr. 2015), judges’ folder , tab 37; letter from Mrs Anada Tiega,
Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands to Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environment and
Natural Resources, 19 Dec. 2011, Ann. 4 to letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL -EMB-078,
24 Apr. 2015 (English translation: Ann. 1 to letter from the Agent of Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref.ECRPB-070-2015,
28 Apr. 2015); judges’ folder, tab 38.
199Considerations and Changes of the Government of Nicaragua to the draft of Ramsar Mission Report No. 72;
Wetland of International Importance Wildlife Refuge of the Rio San Juan, Nicaragua , annexed to letter from
Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environm ent and Natural Resources to Mrs Anada Tiega, Secretary General of
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, ref. DM.JAS.1359.11.11, 30 Nov. 2011, Ann. 3 to letter from the Agent of
Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-078, 24 Apr. 2015 (English translation: Ann. 3 to letter from the Agent of
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-070-2015, 28 Apr. 2015), judges’ folder, tab 37, pp. 28-29.
200Ibid., pp. 26-27. - 55 -
recommended for a project that was al ready evaluated, and besides our legislation do es not
establish this procedure” . 201
26. The response from the Ramsar Secretariat dated 19 December 2011, which is at tab 38,
was short and stated that the suggestions put forward by Nicaragua would be consider ed 202. We
have not been provided with any further correspondence between Nicaragua and the Ramsar
Secretariat. Certainly there is no evidence that Ramsar agreed with Nicaragua’s proposed
amendments.
27. The Ramsar Advisory Mission took place in March 2011, and the report was based on an
assessment of the 2006 EIA relating to what I referred to in the first round as the paper project. Its
conclusions make clear the view of the Ramsar team that no appropriate transboundary
environmental impact assessment had been carried out even as regards the original paper project.
As such, the Ramsar report provides strong support for Costa Rica’s claim that the 2006 EIS did
not and does not meet its obligation to carry out a proper transboundary EIA.
28. But that is n ot all. First, I have noted earlier, the dredging in the stretch immediately
below the delta has led to extensive so-called maintenance dredging 20. That is not something
204
which was contemplated anywhere in Nicaragua’s 2006 EIS , or the 2008 MARENA
resolution 205. This has involved the removal from the reach immediately downstream of the
206
bifurcation of a total amount of sediment which is many times over what was foreseen under the
2006 EIS, but without any consideration of the potential impacts upon the fluvi al dynamics of the
river and the surrounding wetlands.
201Ibid., p. 27.
202
Letter from Mrs Anada Tiega, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands to
Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, 19 Dec. 2011, Ann.4 to letter from the
Agent of Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-078, 24 Apr. 2015 (English translation: Ann. 1 to letter from the Agent of
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-070-2015, 28 Apr. 2015), judges’ folder, tab 38.
203
CR 2015/6, p. 25 (van Rhee and Wordsworth) and p. 33 (van Rhee and Reichler).
204Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan River (excerpts), Sep. 2006; CMN,
Ann. 7.
205Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua (MARENA), DGCA Administrative Resolution
ref. No. 038-2008; MCR, Ann. 160.
206Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress
Report Corresponding to 2014 (EPN 2014 Annual Report), 2015, Ann. 1 to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 10, 12 and 20. - 56 -
29. The 2006 EIS 207 does not envisage dredging or redredging such vast amounts from that
single stretch; it only assessed some aspects of the impact of dredging a far smaller amount.
Indeed, the poss ibility that there would be additional “maintenance” dredging is nowhere
mentioned in the 2006 EIS. It follows that the 2006 EIS did not assess any potential impacts of this
vastly expanded project.
30. Professor van Rhee stated that he was not aware of any subsequent EIS which assessed
the potential impacts of the additional dredging that has in fact been carried out 208. Nicaragua has
not suggested that any such assessment has been performed.
31. Professor van Rhee also made clear that even the actual d redging programme, including
the extensive so-called maintenance dredging of the initial stretch, is insufficie nt to keep up with
209
the rapid re-sedimentation of the river . His frank view, as an expert on dredging, when asked
about the prospects of the dre dging programme successfully addressing the problem of reductions
in flows in the Rio San Juan, was that “in order to reverse the situation, you really need a totally
210
other dredging programme, of a different magnitude” .
32. If Professor van Rhee is right, and the dredging programme is to be still further modified,
for instance as a result of the addition of further dredgers I note that there is evidence that
211
Nicaragua intends to add ten new ones, bringing the total to 14 or 15 that would make the
need for a new EIA all the more pressing. Perhaps Nicaragua can explain tomorrow how bringing
ten new dredgers fit with its modest dredging operation defence.
33. Finally, in this regard, there is evidence independent of the Ramsar report of the risk of
significant harm from Nicaragua’s dredging programme. Professor van Rhee’s evidence was that
dredging so as to increase flows was important to ensure the supply of sediment to the coast and
212
prevent “the loss of coastal land which deprives species of their na tural habitats” . But you also
207
Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan River (excerpts), Sep. 2006; CM N,
Ann. 7.
208CR 2015/6, p. 26 (van Rhee).
209CR 2015/6, p. 35 (van Rhee).
210
Ibid., p. 35 (van Rhee).
211Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress
Report Corresponding to 2014 (EPN 2 014 Annual Report), 2015, Ann. 1 to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 15 and 88.
212Certain Activities, Written Statement of Professor Cornelis Van Rhee, 15 Mar.2015, para. 12. - 57 -
heard last week the evidence of Professor Thorne, in response to a question from Judge Tomka, as
to the potential devastating effects of removing large quantities of sediment from the river, and the
risk of significant harm that exists as a result. He said that “dredging 730,000 cubic metres of sand
from this river would starve the delta” 213. He explained the risks of this as follows: “The dredging
programme, if it cuts off the sediment supply, will starve the delta, the Car ibbean Sea will take it
214
away, we will lose hundreds of hectares of wetland due to coastal erosion.”
C. The way forward
34. So, going forward, what is the solution? Evidently, if Nicaragua is to fulfil its goals,
what is required is a different programme. For the reasons I have explained, any such programme
can only be undertaken following notification to Costa Rica and conduct of a new and
transboundary EIA which adequately assesses the potential impacts of dredging of the scope which
will be undertaken on fluvial dynamics, and on Costa Rican wetlands.
35. Provided that Nicaragua complies with its relevant obligations under the Cleveland
Award and international environmental law, whether or not to undertake such a new programme is
a matter entirely for it, as are its precise scope and modalities.
36. However, compliance by Nicaragua with its relevant international obligations requires:
(a) first, that the project is undertaken only following the carrying out of a new transboundary EIA
which properly assesses its potential impacts on the fluvial dynamics of the San Juan River
including any impacts upon the Colorado and upon the protected wetlands;
(b) second, that Nicaragua should notify Costa Rica of its project, provide a copy of the new
transboundary EIA, and consult in good faith with Costa Rica in that regard; and
215
(c) third, that, in compliance with the Cleveland Award , the programme should not involve the
occupation of or damage to Costa Rican territory, and should not significantly affect the flow of
the Colorado River.
21CR 2015/12, p. 52 (Thorne, in response to Judge Tomka).
21Ibid., p. 52 (Thorne, in response to Judge Tomka).
215
Award of the Arbitrator, the President of the United States, upon the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, 22 Mar. 1888 (Cleveland Award); MCR, Ann. 7. - 58 -
37. As recommended by Ramsar in 2011, it is “essential” that any such new EIA should
involve analysis of a number of matters missing from Nicaragua’s 2006 EIS, and there must
necessarily be ongoing monitoring and measur ements, including of flow rates and of sediment
loads.
38. As regards hydrology, Ramsar recommended in 2011, having reviewed the 2006 EIS,
that it was essential to
“analyse the historic and current hydrological characteristics, considering the
behaviour of the volumes of flow and the bed load in the area of influence, specifically
regarding the variations in the hydrometric level of the San Juan River in
216
representative segments along the main course” .
39. Second, as to hydrodynamics, the Ramsar Report said it was essential to “analyse the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the San Juan River, as regards to expected changes in the
217
circulation of the water due to increase of the bathymetric section” .
40. In that regard, the Ramsar team suggested that such moni toring should include, among
other things, monthly measurements of flow rates and suspended solid loads. It stated:
“a. Monthly monitoring of the hydrometric levels between the delta and the mouth of
the San Juan River, in representative sect218s along its main course, at least during
the construction phase of the project” ; and
“b. Monthly monitoring of the concentration of suspended solids in water column in
219
representative sections along the main course of the San Juan River.”
41. Costa Rica fully agrees with the conclusions of the Ramsar Report, and notes that these
mirror to a significant extent the position that Costa Rica has taken in these proceedings.
D. Costa Rica’s concerns as to the real scope of Nicaragua’s
dredging programme
42. Mr. President, Costa Rica remains gravely concerned as to the underlying aims of
Nicaragua’s dredging programme.
216Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre del
Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011 (extract, English translation), annexed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015, judge’s folder tab 36, p. 47 (Section 7).
217Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestr e del
Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, 18 Apr . 2011 (extract, English translation), annexed to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015, judge’s folder tab 36, p. 47 (Section 7).
218Ibid..
219
Ibid.. - 59 -
43. Costa Rica fully maintains its position that Nicaragua’s dredging programme is intended
to refashion geography, and result in the diversion of flow from the Colorado. In that regard, there
are three short points in relation to what has been said by Nicaragua.
44. First, Mr. Reichler complained that, although I asserted that the aim of Nicaragua’s
dredging programme was the “refashioning of the l ower San Juan” on a number of occasions, he
could not find citations underpinning my statements as to Nicaragua’s “explicit stated intention” to
220 221
do so . It appears that Mr. Reichler missed the relevant part of my presentation that day . I will
not repeat again what was then said. The documents to which I referred evidencing Nicaragua’s
explicit stated intentions for its dred ging programme are included at tabs 39 to 43 of your
folders 222. And while on this point, I note that Nicaragua did not retreat from the statements from
its officials that the true purpose of the dredging is to deviate the maximum flow of the Colorado.
Likewise, we heard nothing to justify or explain the purpose of Nicaragua’s claim for declarations
that it is entitled to execute works , including with a view to re -establishing the situation as it
existed in 1858, “as it deems suitable”.
45. Second, Mr. Reichler’s refrain has been to stress the allegedly modest nature of the
223
dredging programme . He said there is no plan to widen the ri ver, or disturb the Costa Rican
bank in any way 224. Yet, that is precisely what Nicaragua has being doing. Photographic evidence
submitted to the Court in a number of reports, which are now on your screens, show that Nicaragua
has indeed come to the Costa Rican bank, even after the second Order on provisionalmeasures was
225
issued . To what end, then, has Nicaragua been cutting trees on the Costa Rican bank?
220
CR 2015/3, p. 56, para. 5; p. 57, para. 11; p. 60, para. 21; and p. 64, para. 41 (Ugalde).
221
Ibid., p. 14, paras. 16-19 (Ugalde).
222Government of Nicaragua The San Juan de Nicaragua River. The Truths that Costa Rica Hides (White Book),
29 Nov. 2010; CMN, Ann. 26, pp. 44-45, judges’ folder, tab 39; La Prensa (Nicaragua), “They are going for the flow of
the San Juan River”, 25 Aug. 2009; MCR, Ann. 101, j udges’ folder, tab 40; La Nación (Nicaragua), “Nicaragua will
dredge the S an Juan to recover earlier flow”, available atwww.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/25/pais2069754.html;
Costa Rica’s j udges’ folder for p rovisional measures hearing, 11 Jan. 2011, tab 78, j udges’ folder, tab 41;
Confidencial.com (Nicaragua), “Pastora: I interpreted the Alexander Award”, 30 Nov . 2010; MCR, Ann. 117, judges’
folder, tab 42; Tico Times (Costa Rica) “ Nicaragua Denies Repor ts of Intrusion into Costa Rica” Tico Times ,
2 Nov. 2010; MCR, Ann. 111, judges’ folder, tab 43.
223
See, e.g., CR 2015/6, p. 12, paras. 9-10 (Reichler).
224CR 2015/6, p. 12, para. 10 (Reichler).
225“Nicaragua’s Actions on the Costa Rican Bank ”, Attachment CR -9 to Costa Rica’s Fourth Report on
Provisional Measures, ref. 116-2014, 21 Nov. 2014; judges’ folder, tab 44. - 60 -
46. Third, despite Mr. Reichler’s protestations to the contrary, the clear aim of its caño
building activities was precisely an attempt to refashion the L ower San J uan. In that regard,
Professor Pellet, whilst showing a slide depicting the course of the first caño, made an apparently
ex tempore remark in which he wondered why Mr. Pastora and his worke rs had constructed the
caño where they did, rather than taking the shorter, more direct route to the river 226. The answer, of
course, is obvious the dog’s leg course of the caño, with its entrance aligned with the meander
cut made around the same time jus t upstream, has nothing to do with the clearing of what
Nicaragua believed to be a historic “first channel met”; it has everything to do with an attempt to
divert the course of the Lower Río San Juan through the Harbor Head Lagoon 227.
228
47. Finally, I should also answer Mr. Reichler’s suggestion that a photo I showed you in
the first round, depicting a massive sediment deposit site located close to the bank in Delta, was
229
intended to mislead you and that I was suggesting it was on Costa Rican territory . Obviously, I
did no such thing. You can see the transcripts of what I said 230at tab 47 of the judges’ folder. This
shows that I was referring not to the location shown in this photo, but to Nicaraguan activities in an
entirely different location, near the mouth of the river.
E. Conclusion
48. Mr. President, in light of the foregoing, I turn to respond to Judge Cançado Trindade’s
231
question . We understand the question to relate to the navigation channel dredged by Nicaragua
in the Lower San Juan, and not to t he first caño built by Nicaragua and which has long since dried
up.
49. As regards the first part of the question, concerning the natural sedimentation process
and the morphological changes on the river, it is not disputed that there is a need for at leas t some
localized dredging in order to maintain navigability on the main channel of the Lower San Juan.
226
CR 2015/5, p. 32, para. 21 (Pellet).
227
River morphology change, Nicaragua’s judges’ folder, 16 Apr. 2015, tab 24 (AP1-10c) (Pellet); judges’ folder,
tab 45.
228Sediment Deposit Near Delta, The Road, RCR, Ann. 80, Photograph dated 14 Jan. 2015; j udges’ folder,
tab 46.
229CR 2015/6, p. 21, paras. 41-42 (Reichler).
230
CR 2015/3, pp. 59-60, paras 19-20 (Ugalde); extracts in judges’ folder, tab 47.
231CR 2015/7, p. 64 (Judge Cançado Trindade). - 61 -
As regards the second question, namely how dredging can be technically conduct ed to the
satisfaction of both P arties, I refer once again to the Ram sar R eport which, in its first
recommendation, emphasized that
“it is necessary and recommended to have a strong cooperation between both countries
for a more integrated management of activities that may potentially affect the river, as
well as its comprehensi ve management and of its related wetlands of international
importance. The most important cooperation would be regarding the exchange of
information, agreeing on binational measures to restore the water quality of the
232
San Juan River and protection measures, among others.”
50. Costa Rica could not agree more, and sees co -operation as the only way by which the
Parties may arrive at a solution which allows reasonable dredging of the R ío San Juan to the extent
required to ensure navigability, whilst taking account of Costa Rica’s legitimate legal and
environmental concerns.
51. As Costa Rica has previously stated, it stands ready to co -operate with Nicaragua as
regards a programme of joint measurements of fl ows and sediment loads on the Rí o San Juan as a
whole. Further, it is ready to share information relating to measurements of flow and sediment
concentrations on the Colorado River so as to facilitate Nicaragua’s carrying out of an EIA which
will ensure the minimization of the environmental impacts of any dredging within the protected
wetlands of both States.
52. Mr. President, M embers of the Court, I thank you for your patient attention.
Mr. President, I would ask that you give the floor to Dr. Katherine Del Mar.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je vais demand er à Mme Del Mar de prendre place à la barre.
Mme Del Mar, je vous donne la parole.
Ms DEL MAR:
23Report of Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72; Wetland of International Importance Refugio de Vida Silvestre del
Rio San Juan, Nicaragua , 18 Apr. 2011 (extract, English translation ), annexed to letter Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECPRB-067-2015, 24 Apr. 2015; judge’s folder, tab 36, pp. 46-47 (Section 7). - 62 -
B REACHES OF C OSTA R ICA ’S NAVIGATIONAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSE TO JUDGE BENNOUNA ’S QUESTIONS
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I am again addressing breaches by Nicaragua of
Costa Rica’s rights of navigation. I will first answer Judge Bennouna’s questions, before
responding to points made by counsel for Nicaragua. I will respond to Judge Bennouna’s questions
in French.
B. Réponses aux questions posées par le juge Bennouna
2. Lors de l’audience du mercredi 15 avril 2015, le juge Bennouna a posé deux questions au
Costa Rica. Primo , «est -ce que le Costa Rica attend de la Cour qu’elle se prononce sur la
compatibilité avec l’arrêt de la Cour de 2009 sur le droit de navigation de réglementations édictées
par le Nicaragua pour la mise en Œuvre de cet arrêt ?» 233
3. La réponse à cette question est «oui». Dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités, le
Costa Rica demande à la Cour de juger que l e Nicaragua a violé les droits costa- riciens de libre
navigation. Il n’y a rien de nouveau dans cette demande. Il a fait l’objet de la requête introductive
d’instance 234et du mémoire du Costa Rica . L’un des moyens de restitution s pécifiquement visé
o
par le Costa Rica est l’abrogation par le Nicaragua des dispositions du décret n 79-2009 ainsi que
des régulations y annexées qui sont incompatibles avec le jugement de la Cour de 2009 236.
4. La seconde question du juge Bennouna est la suivante : «Et si c’était le cas, le Costa Rica
peut-il préciser le lien de cette question avec l’objet du différend ?»37
5. Dans l’affaire relative à Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (Nauru c. Australie) , la
Cour déclara que «Le paragraphe 1 de l’article 40 du Statut de la Cour stipule que l’«objet du
différend» doit être indiqué dans la requête, et le paragraphe 2 de l’article 38 du Règlement de la
Cour requiert que la «nature précise de la demande» soit indiquée dans la requête.» 238
233
Certaines activités, CR 2015/4, p. 45 (Bennouna).
23Certaines activités, requête introductive d’instance, 18 novembre 2010, p. 26, par. 41 f).
23Certaines activités, MCR, p. 85, par. 3.40 ; p. 290-295, par. 6.54-6.61 ; p. 303, conclusions, par. 1 d).
236
Voir CR 2015/4, p. 37, par. 8 (Kohen).
237
Certaines activités, CR 2015/4, p. 45 (Bennouna).
238Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (NauruAustralie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil
1992, p. 266-267, par. 69 . - 63 -
6. Les violations des droits de navigation costa -riciens, y compris par l’adoption du décret
n 79-2009, ont toujours expressément fait partie des réclamations du Costa Rica à l’encontre du
Nicaragua, leur s mention et examen paraissant dès la procédure écrite. Dans sa requête
introductive d’instance en date du 18 novembre 2010, le Costa Rica a demandé à la Cour de dire et
juger que, en raison de sa conduite, le Nicaragua avait violé son obligation de ne pas interdire la
navigation de ressortissants costa- riciens sur le San Juan 23. A la page 25 de la requête du
Costa Rica, le paragraphe 39 d) et sa note de bas de page 36 indiquent que :
«39. Tout en se réservant le droit d’exposer plus en détail les diverses violations
de ses droits, le Costa Rica soutient que le Nicaragua a commis les violations du droit
international suivants : ... d) Le Nicaragua a interdit la navigation du San Juan à des
ressortissants costa- riciens, en violation directe du traité de limites de 1858 et de
l’arrêt rendu par la Cour le 13 juillet 2009 ... Outre la promulgation par le Nicaragua
du décret n 79, en violation directe de l’arrêt de la Cour du 13 juillet 2009.» 240
7. De même, dans son mémoire, le Costa Rica établit la liste des violations par le Nicaragua
des droits de navigation costa- riciens , et demande à la Cour de dire et juger que le Nicaragua a
242
violé ces droits . Il demande également à la Cour de dire et juger que le Nicaragua mette fin à ces
violations et fournisse réparation 24. Le mémoire vise expressément le décret n 79-2009. Il
présente une note de protestation formelle envoyée par le Costa Rica au Nicaragua dans les termes
suivants :
«3.40 ... Le Costa Rica rappelait au Nicaragua «que [celui-ci] ne se conform[ait]
pas pleinement aux termes de l’arrêt rendu par la Cour internationale de Justice le
o
13 juillet 2009. ... Le décret n 79-2009 du Nicaragua est clairement contraire aux
termes de cette décision. Des éléments indiquent par ailleurs que le dro it de libre
navigation du Costa Rica sur le San Juan, dont la portée a été définie dans cet arrêt,
244
n’est pas respecté.»»
8. Pour toutes ces raisons, les violations des droits costa- riciens de libre navigation, et en
o
particulier la demande d’abrogation du décret n 79-2009, ne constituent pas des griefs accessoires
ou qui auraient été tardivement ajoutés au x réclamations portées par le Costa Rica, comme l’a
239
Certaines activités, requête introductive d’instance, 18 novembre 2010, p. 26, par. 41 f).
240Certaines activités, requête introductive d’instance, p. 24, par. 39 d).
241Certaines activités, MCR, p. 290-295, par. 6.54-6.61.
242
Certaines activités, MCR, p. 303, par. 1 d) des conclusions.
243
Certaines activités, MCR, par. 7.8, et par. 1 h) des conclusions.
244Certaines activités, MCR, p. 85, par. 3.40. Voir aussi Certaines Activités, MCR, annexe 62. - 64 -
prétendu le conseil du Nicaragua 245. Ils constituent des demandes qui relèvent de cette affaire.
Même si ce n’était pas le cas (quod non), la demande du Costa Rica visant à l’abrogation du décret
no 79-2009 serait pour reprendre les termes utilisés par la Cour dans l’affaire Nauru «soit
implicitement contenue dans la requête ( Temple de Préah Vihéar, fond, C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 36)
ou découlerait «directement de la question qui fait l’objet de cette r equête» ( Compétence en
matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d’Allemagne c . Islande), fond, C.I.J. Recueil 1974,
246
p. 203, par. 72)» . Ceci est la conséquence du fait que la demande du Costa Rica découle
directement de la violation de ses droits de libre navigation, lesquels ont toujours fait expressément
partie de ses réclamations contre le Nicaragua. Toutefois, la compétence de la Cour pour connaître
de la question est clairement établie dès la requête et elle n’a pas besoin de s’appesantir sur cette
voie.
C. Response to points made by counsel for Nicaragua during the first round
9. I turn now to the points raised by counsel for Nicaragua during the first round.
10. With respect to Decree N o. 79-2009, counsel for Nicaragua stated that he had
instructions from the Agent for Nicaragua that in so far as the Decree and the Regulatory Norms
apply to tourism boats, they apply to all tourism boats, whether Costa Rican, Nicaraguan or
247
belonging to third States . That is certainly not apparent from the Decree itself, which contains a
specific prohibition on the navigation of Costa Rican vessels transporti ng tourists without the
248 249
authorization of Nicaragua , which is on your screens. Further, as stated during the first round ,
the requirement for individuals or corporations engaged in tourism in Costa Rica, and simply
transiting along the San Juan, to register with the Nicaraguan National Registry of Tourism, or to
245
CR 2015/7, p. 52-53, par. 29-30 (Pellet).
246Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (Nauru c. Australie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil
1992, p. 266, par. 67 (références omises).
247CR 2015/7, p. 52, para. 28 (Pellet).
248
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.Costa Rica), CMCR, Ann. 26,
Decree No. 79-2009, p. 86, Art. 4 g).
249
CR 2015/4, pp. 14-15, para. 14 (Del Mar). - 65 -
250
sign agreements with Nicaraguan tourism companies , is contrary to Article VI of the Treaty of
Limits, and the Court’s 2009 Judgment 251, whether it is applied in a discriminatory fashion or not.
11. Counsel for Nicaragua also stated that the Decree and Regulatory Norms do not apply to
Costa Rican riparians navigating the San Juan for the purpose of meeti ng their basic requirements
of everyday life 252. But the Decree says otherwise. Article 3 (b) of the Decree is now on your
screens. It refers expressly to navigation by these individuals being regulated by the Nicaraguan
253
Army . During the first round, I addressed the ways by which the Nicaraguan Army “regulates”
the navigation of the San Juan by Costa Rican riparians, by harassing them 254. Costa Rica agrees
255 256
with Professor Pellet that this is “scandalous” . These are not mere “blunders” , even if that
were somehow a circumstance precluding wrongfulness. They are contemporaneous to the claim
made by Nicaragua in its Memorial in the Road case, that Costa Rica has “lost” its right of free
257
navigation .
12. I pause here to say something about the evidence Cost a Rica has submitted concerning
the harassment of Costa Rican citizens navigating either for the purpose of commerce, or to meet
the basic requirements of everyday life. The Nicaraguan Agent, Ambassador Argüello, stated
during the first round of hearings that if Costa Rican citizens were being prevented from exercising
their navigational rights, “it would have been easy for Costa Rica . . . to have obtained
affidavits . . . from these people registering their complaints” 258. Indeed, Costa Rica has.
259
Affidavits were annexed to Costa Rica’s Memorial . Others were annexed to Costa Rica’s
250Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), CMCR, Ann. 26,
p. 99, Regulatory Norms, Art. 67.
251Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2009, p. 269, para. 156 (c).
252CR 2015/7, p. 52, para. 28.
253
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), CMCR, Ann. 26,
Decree No. 79-2009, p. 86, Art. 3 (b).
254
CR 2015/4, p. 17, paras. 24 and 25.
255
CR 2015/7, p. 50, para. 26 (Pellet) (French original: “scandaleux”).
256CR 2015/7, pp. 50-51, para. 26 (Pellet) (French original: “bavures”).
257Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), MN, p. 127,
para. 4.9.
25CR 2015/5, pp. 17-18, para. 40 (Argüello).
259
Certain Activities, MCR, Ann s. 27 and 28, Affidavits of Franklin Gutierrez Mayorga and Jeffrey Prendas
Arias. - 66 -
written pleadings in the joined case concerning the Road for the simple reason that these affidavits
concern events that took place after the filing of Costa Rica’s Memorial i n this case 26. They
evidence Nicaragua’s ongoing and serious breaches of Costa Rica’s rights of navigation.
13. Nicaragua has continued to put forward a wrong interpretation of Costa Rica’s right of
261
navigation for the purposes of commerce during these hearings . That right was explained clearly
by the Court in paragraph 71 of the 2009 Judgment 262. Navigation is for commercial purposes if
the Costa Rican passenger has paid a price (other than a token price) to the boat operator to
navigate on the San Juan. The activity to be performed by the paying passenger at his or her final
263
destination is not relevant in this regard .
14. It is simply not the case that Nicaragua has strictly complied with all the provisional
264
measures indicated by the Court , since it received what counsel for Nicaragua terms the
Court’s “warning” in the form of your second Order on provisional measures of November 2013 265.
By preventing Costa Rican personnel from navigating the San Juan in the ways I catalogued during
the first roun d of hearings, Nicaragua breached the Court’s Orders on provisional measures of
8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013 by aggravating the dispute, in addition to breaching
Costa Rica’s rights of navigation.
D. Conclusion
15. Mr. President, Members of the Cour t, that concludes my remarks. I thank you for your
kind attention. Mr. President, I ask that you give the floor to Costa Rica’s Agent,
Ambassador Edgar Ugalde, to conclude Costa Rica’s pleadings in this case, and to read
Costa Rica’s Submissions.
260
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) , RCR, Anns. 62, 63,
64, 65, 66, and 67, Affidavits of Victor Julio Vargas Hernandez, William Vargas Jimenez, Mayela Vargas Arce, Gabriela
Vanessa Lopez Gomez, Claudio Arce Rojas, Ruben Francisco Valerio Arroyo. Cf.CR 2015/7, p. 51, para. 26 (Pellet).
261
CR 2015/7, p. 52, para. 26 (Pellet).
26Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 51, para. 26 (Pellet).
26Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (CostaRica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 244, para. 71.
263
Cf CR 2015/7, p. 52, para. 26 (Pellet).
264
CR 2015/7, p. 45, para. 14 (Pellet).
26CR 2015/7, p. 42, para. 6 (Pellet). - 67 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Madame. Je donne à présent la parole à l’agent du Costa Rica,
M. l’ambassadeur Ugalde.
Mr. UGALDE-ÁLVAREZ:
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, as Costa Rica comes to the end of the second round
of hearings, and more generally to t he conclusion of these protracted proceedings, my country
trusts that this case has established, beyond any doubt, that Costa Rica has been subject to the
unlawful military occupation of part of its territory by Nicaragua and other serious breaches by
Nicaragua of its obligations under international law . Indeed, the core facts at issue in these
proceedings are not in dispute.
2. As the Court will appreciate, relations between our neighbouring countries have entered a
phase of heightened tensions after Nic aragua, without warning, called into question the
well-established régime between the two countries in place since 1858, the very purpose of which
was to provide a framework for long -lasting peace and prosperity . Nicaragua’ s rejection of the
border régime by invading and occupying Costa Rican territory and by threatening Costa Rica’s
territorial integrity, together with its persistent breach of Costa Rica ’s rights of free navigation on
the San Juan, and its implementation of a programme of dredg ing works on the San Juan River,
regardless of the damage to Costa Rican territory that such works may entail, has destabilized
peace and security in the region . By repeatedly breaching the Court ’s 2009 Judgment and several
of the Court’s Orders in the present proceedings, Nicaragua has directly challenged the authority of
the Court.
3. Mr. President, Costa Rica is confident that your Judgment will serve to strongly dissuade
Nicaragua from making further threats and carrying out further actions that violate Costa Ri ca’s
sovereignty, territorial integrity and other rights . It is important in this regard that Nicaragua ’s new
claims over territory to the south-east of the outlet of the San Juan River into the Cari bbean Sea be
firmly rejected. Costa Rica trusts that th e Court’s Judgment will serve as a powerful reminder to
Nicaragua of the important treaty and customary obligations that, as a member of the international
community of States, it must uphold and respect. - 68 -
4. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I will now proceed to read Costa Rica’s submissions
in the present case.
SUBMISSIONS
For the reasons set out in the written and oral pleadings, the Republic of Costa Rica requests
the Court to:
(1) reject all Nicaraguan claims;
(2) adjudge and declare that:
(a) Sovereignty over the “disputed territory”, as defined by the Court in its Orders of
8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013, belongs to the Republic of Costa Rica;
(b) By occupying and claiming Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua has breached:
(i) the obligatio n to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of
Costa Rica, within the boundaries delimited by the 1858 Treaty of Limits and further
defined by the Demarcation Commission established by the Pacheco -Matus Convention,
in particular by the first and second Alexander Awards;
(ii) the prohibition of the threat or use of force under Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the
United Nations and Article 22 of the Charter of the Organization of American States;
(iii) the prohibition to make the territory of other States the object, even temporarily, of
military occupation, contrary to Article 21 of the Charter of the Organization of American
States; and
(iv) the obligation of Nicaragua under Article IX of the 1858 Treaty of Limits not to use the
San Juan River to carry out hostile acts.
(c) By its further conduct, Nicaragua has breached:
(i) The obligation to respect Costa Rica’s territory and environment , including its wetland
of international importance under the Ramsar Convention “ Humedal Caribe Noreste”, on
Costa Rican territory;
(ii) Costa Rica’s perpetual rights of free navigation on the San Juan in accordance with the
1858 Treaty of Limits, the 1888 Cleveland Award and the Court’s Judgment of
13 July 2009; - 69 -
(iii) the obligation to inform and consult with Costa Rica about any dredging, diversion or
alteration of the course of the San Juan River, or any other works on the San Juan River
that may cause damage to Costa Rican territory (including the Colorado R iver), its
environment, or Costa Rican rights, in accordance with the 1888 Cleveland Award and
relevant treaty and customary law;
(iv) the obligation to carry out an appropriate transboundary environmental impact assessment,
which takes account of all potential significant adverse impacts on Costa Rican territory;
(v) the obligation not to dredge, divert or alter the course of the San Juan River, or conduct
any other works on the San Juan River, if this causes damage to Costa Rican territory
(including th e Colorado River), its environment, or to Costa Rican rights under the
1888 Cleveland Award;
(vi) the obligations arising from the Orders of the Court indic ating provisional measures of
8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013;
(vii) the obligation to consult with Costa Rica on the implementation of obligations arising
from the Ramsar Convention, in particular the obligation to co-ordinate future policies and
regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and thei r flora and fauna under
Article 5 (1) of the Ramsar Convention; and
(viii) the agreement between the Parties, established in the exchange of Notes dated 19 and
22 September 2014, concerning navigation on the San Juan River by Costa Rica, close to
the eastern caño constructed by Nicaragua in 2013.
(d) Nicaragua may not engage in any dredging operations or other works if and to the extent
that these may cause damage to Costa Rican territory (including the Colorado River) and
its environment, or which may impair Costa Rica’s rights under the 1888 Cleveland
Award, including its right not to have its territory occupied without its express consent.
(3) to order, in consequence, that Nicaragua must:
(a) repeal, by means of its own choosing, those provisions of the Decree 079-2009 and the
Regulatory Norms annexed thereto of 1 October 2009 which are contrary to Costa Rica’s
right of free navigation under Article VI of the 1858 Treaty of Limits, the 1888 Cleveland
Award, and the Court’s Judgment of 13 July 2009; - 70 -
(b) cease all dredging activities on th e San Juan River in the vicinity of Delta Costa Rica and
in the lower San Juan River, pending:
(i) an appropriate transboundary environmental impact assessment, which takes account of
all potential significant adverse impacts on Costa Rican territory, carried out by Nicaragua
and provided to Costa Rica;
(ii) formal written notification to Costa Rica of further dredging plans in the vicinity of Delta
Costa Rica and in the lower San Juan River, not less than three months prior to the
implementation of any such plans; and
(iii) due consideration of any comments made by Costa Rica upon receipt of said notification.
(c) make reparation in the form of compensation for the material damage caused to Costa Rica,
including but not limited to:
(i) damage arising from the construction of artificial caños and destruction of trees and
vegetation on the “disputed territory”;
(ii) the cost of the remediation measures carried out by Costa Rica in relation to those
damages, including but not limited to those taken to close the eastern caño constructed by
Nicaragua in 2013, pursuant to paragraph 59 (2) (E) of the Court’s Orde r on Provisional
Measures of 22 November 2013;
the amount of such compensation to be determined in a separate phase of these
proceedings;
(d) provide satisfaction so to achieve full reparation of the injuries caused to Costa Rica in a
manner to be determined by the Court;
(e) provide appropriate assurances and guarantees of non- repetition of Nicaragua’s unlawful
conduct, in such a form as the Court may order; and
(f) pay all the costs and expenses incurred by Costa Rica in requesting and obtaining the Order
on Provisional Measures of 22 November 2013, including, but not limited to, the fees and
expenses of Costa Rica’s counsel and experts, with interest, on a full indemnity basis.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your kind attention. That concludes
Costa Rica’s submissions. - 71 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. La Cour prend acte des conclusions
finales dont vous venez de donner lecture au nom de la République du Costa Rica.
La Cour se réunira de nouveau demain, à 15 heures, pour entendre le second tour de
plaidoiries du Nicaragua. L’audience est levée.
L’audience est levée à 12 h 55.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 28 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)