Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2015/10
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2015
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 21 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Abraham presiding,
in the cases concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua
in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2015
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 21 avril 2015, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,
dans les affaires relatives à Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan
(Nicaragua c. Costa Rica) ; Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua
dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)
________________
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 Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambass ador 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 Nicaragua 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 the
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; - 5 -
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 Schoo l 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 Commissio n 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; - 6 -
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.
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Manuel A. González Sanz, Minister for 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; - 7 -
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 Consu lting,
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.
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 ; - 8 -
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 Costa 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. - 9 -
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. - 10 -
Le PRESIDENT: Veuillez vous asseoir. L’audience est ouverte. La Cour se réunit ce matin
pour entendre la fin du premier tour de plaidoiries du Nicaragua. Je donne la parole à M. Reichler.
Mr. REICHLER:
T HE EVIDENCE : P ART TWO
T HE HARM TO N ICARAGUA
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I wish you another good morning. My role today is
to present the evidence that Costa Rica’s construction of the road has caused significant harm to
Nicaragua.
2. I will focus on the harm c aused to Nicaragua by virtue of the accumulation of sediment
from the road in the Lower San Juan River. That is where the sediment build-up, in the form of
shoals, sandbars and levees, already impedes navigation and diminishes the flow of fresh water to
the wetlands downstream, especially during the dry season. In the Lower San Juan, the
road-derived sediment materially and measurably exacerbates these problems. After I conclude,
Mr. Loewenstein will discuss harm to the ecological balance and aquatic spe cies of the
San Juan River, upper and lower branches, caused by the delivery of sediment from the road into
the river. Because Costa Rica did not conduct an e nvironmental impact assessment prior to
commencing work on this major construction project, as it was internationally obligated to do,
these and other significant harms, and foreseeable risks of harm, were never properly evaluated,
and still have not been evaluated, including the potential harms to the river from the agricultural,
commercial and human development of the area, that, as Professor Sheate explained yesterday ,
will inevitably follow completion and operation of the road. The harms and risks for Nicaragua,
resulting from Costa Rica’s breach of its international obligations in regard to EIA, will be
addressed by Professor McCaffrey.
3. I now turn to the significant harm that Nicaragua has suffered, and is continuing to suffer,
from the accumulation of road-derived sediment in the Lower San Juan.
1CR 2015/9, pp. 45-46 (Sheate). - 11 -
4. Nicaragua’s case in regard to sediment de posit in the Lower San Juan River is based on
eight propositions, all of which are either agreed by the P arties or supported by evidence that is
now beyond dispute.
5. Proposition 1. The construction of the road has caused massive amounts of sediment to be
delivered to the San Juan River, upstream from the bifurcation between t he Colorado River and the
2
Lower San Juan. Costa Rica calculates that the road deposits 75,000 tons of sediment annually ;
Nicaragua, as explained yesterday by Professor Kondolf, and as supported in the summary report of
3
Professor Weaver, puts the figure between 190,000 and 250,000 tons . Nicaragua stands by the
conclusions of its experts, as explained by Professor Kondolf yesterday.
6. Proposition 2. The sediment from the road is transported downstream by the current to the
bifurcation, where Dr. Kondolf, Dr. Andrews and ICE, Costa Rica’s agency, agree that 10 per cent
4
of the river’s water, and a larger proportion of its sediment, enter the Lower San Juan . This is
based on the most recent calculations undertaken and provided by ICE and accepted by
Nicaragua’s experts.
7. Proposition 3. Of the sediment entering the Lower San Juan, approximately 20 per cent is
coarse and 80 per cent is fine. The breakdown is also based on the m ost recent information
5
provided by Costa Rica and accepted by Nicaragua . According to Dr. Andrews, all of the coarse
sediment and 60 per cent of the fine sediment accumulate in the Lower San Juan 6.
8. Proposition 4. Most of that sediment accumulates at , and enlarges, the shoals and
sandbars in the Lower San Juan, which already inhibit navigation, especially in the dry season
2
Rejoinder of Costa Rica (RCR), para. 2.61.
3CR 2015/9, pp. 13-14 (Kondolf); Weaver Summary Report, 15 Mar. 2015, para. 52.
4CR 2015/9, pp. 19-20 (Kondolf) and p. 27 (Andrews); Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), “Secon d
Report on Hydrology and Sediments for the Costa Rican River Basins draining to the San Juan River,” Dec . 2014, RCR,
Vol. III, Ann. 5 (hereinafter “ICE 2014 Report”), pp. 30-31, figs. 6.6-6.7.
5
CR 2015/9, pp. 26-27 (Andrews); ICE 2014 Report, p. 53.
6CR 2015/9, pp. 26, 30 (Andrews); Andrews Summary Report, 15 Mar. 2015, paras. 26, 33. - 12 -
when they render the river unnavigable , according to Professor Thorne. This is also agreed by
7
Professors van Rhee and Andrews .
9. Proposition 5. The accumulation of se diment at these shoals and sand bars lowers the
river’s depth, and its capacity to transport sediments downstream which, in turn, results in even
higher amounts of sediment reaching the Lower San Juan and accumulatin g at these locations. As
Professor van Rhee explained, and Costa Rica’s expert accepts, the process is a perpetual one, with
the rate of accumulation constantly in creasing as the shoals and sand bars increase in size and the
transport capacity of the river, as a consequence, diminishes steadily 8.
10. Proposition 6. The accumulation of sediment at the shoals and sandbars in the
Lower San Juan makes dredging an absolute necessity in order to maintain navigability, even by
small boats with drafts of a mere 1 m, and dredging is equally necessary to maintain a sufficient
supply of fresh water to the wetlands downstream. Professors van Rhee and Thorne agree on this,
as well 9.
11. Proposition 7. For these reasons, Nicaragua has been dredging this section of the river
since 2011. Despite this, sediment has continued to accumulate faster than Nicaragua has been
able to dredge it out. The best Nicaragua has been able to do, despite its maximum effort with the
limited resources available, is to slow the rate of a ccumulation. As a result, what it has
accomplished by its dredging is not to increase the flow of the Lower San Juan, but to reduce the
10
rate by which the flow is decreasing. Again, this is agreed by the experts of both Parties .
12. Proposition 8. Sinc e Nicaragua is alrea dy required to dredge the Lower San Juan, it
follows that any addition of sediment to the river, such as that supplied by Costa Rica’s road, adds
to the amount of sediment that accumulates , especially at shoals and sand bars, and consequently
adds to the amount of sediment that Nicaragua must dredge out of those places. But, since
sediment is already accumulating at these locations faster than Nicaragua is able to dredge it, this is
7Van Rhee Summary Report, 15 Mar . 2015, paras. 4-6; CR 2015/3, p. 25 (Thorne); Thorne, “Report:
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 i mpacts on Costa Rican territory ”,
Oct. 2011; Memorial of Costa Rica (M CR) in Certain Activities case, App. 1 (hereinafter “Thorne (2011)”), p. II-27;
CR 2015/9, pp. 31-32 (Andrews).
8Van Rhee Summary Report, 15 Mar. 2015, para. 4; Thorne (2011), pp. II-27-28.
9Ibid., paras. 6-11; Thorne (2011), p. II-28.
10
CR 2015/6, pp. 33-36 (Van Rhee); CR 2015/3, p. 43 (Thorne). - 13 -
not only a case of Nicaragua’s dredging burden being increased, but, to the extent Nicaragua lacks
capacity to dredge more than it is currently dredging, the result is that the additional sediment
derived from the road is not dredged from the river but steadily accumulates at, and enlarges, the
existing obstacles to navigation, and reduces the flow of fresh water beyond them to the wetlands
downstream.
13. In Nicaragua’s view, the harm caused by enlargement of these obstacles to navigation
and to the downstream flow which, as mentioned, continually expands geometrically because every
enlargement of a sandbar or shoal increases the future accumulation of sediment at these sites, and
thus their further enlargement and obstructiveness, is necessarily significant. Anything that
exacerbates the existing obstacles to navigation, or that causes even more of a reduction in flow, is
self-evidently significant.
14. Mr. President, for Costa Rica, this is a numbers game. So let’s look at the numbers. Let
us assume, for this purpose, that the sediment delivered to the San Juan River by Costa Rica’s road
is at the low end of the Kondolf/Weaver calculation: 190,000 tons annually. It is accepted by both
Parties that 20 per cent of the coarse sediment and 16 per cent of the fine sediment is transported
11
past the bifurcation to the Lower San Juan . Of that sediment load, all of the coarse sediment, and
60 per cent of the fine sediment accumulates there 12. That is 7,600 tons of coarse sediment 13, and
14
14,592 tons of fine sediment , per year, or a total of 22,192 tons that accumulate in the Lower San
Juan annually.
15. In 2014, the evidence shows that Nicaragua dredged from the Lower San Juan
approximately 260,000 tons of sediment 15. The contribution from the road represents therefore
approximately 8.5 per cent of the amount of sediment Nicaragua has been required, and able, to
11CR 2015/9, pp. 19-20 (Kondolf) & p. 27 (Andrews); ICE 2014 Report, pp. 30-31, figs 6.6 (b) & 6.7 (b).
12
CR 2015/9, pp. 26, 30 (Andrews); Andrews Summary Report, 15 March 2015, paras. 26, 33.
1320 per cent of 190,000 tons = 38,000 tons of coarse sediment reaching the River from the road annually;
20 per cent of that, 7,600 tons, would be the amount that continues to the Lower San Juan and accumulates each year.
1480 per cent of 190,000 tons = 152,000 tons of fine sediment reaching the River from the road annually;
16 per cent of that , 24,320 tons, would be the amount that continues to the Lower San Juan, 60 per cent of which
(14,592 tons) accumulates each year.
15EPN 2014 Annual Report, p. 20, Ann. 1 to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL -EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015
(reporting 158,109.78 m of sediment dredged in 2014, which converts to some 264,043 tons). - 14 -
dredge in the past year. As Dr. Andrews testified yesterday, this is a “large amount of material” 16.
And it means an additional 8.5 per cent increase, not just once, but every year building on itself,
like compound interest.
16. Is the road’s contribution of 22,192 tons , and higher, annually to the Lower San Juan,
already plagued by major obstacles to navigation, “significant”? That is the question for the Court
to decide. How should the Court decide this question? What is significant, in this context?
17. The last three words, Mr. President, are key, in Nicaragua’s view: “in this context”. As
Dr. Kondolf explained yesterday, and as should be obvious even without the authority of an expert,
17
what is significant depends on the context . This, of course, is well recognized in international
environmental law and practice, as Professor McCaffrey will elaborate later this morning. In
particular, the significance of an impact frequently does not equate with the magnitude of the
stimulus. It depends as well, and sometimes mainly, on the sensitivity of the receiving
environment. This is the point Dr. Kondolf made in one of his responses to Mr. Wordsworth: “It is
important . . . not to confuse magnit ude with significance.” 18 As applied to this case, Dr. Kondolf
testified as follows in response to Mr. Wordsworth’s question “[W]hat are the significant harms?”
“Dr. Kondolf: . . . Nicaragua has a dredging programme which both Professors Thorne and
van Rhee have indicated is barely keeping up with the excess sedimentation . . . So, any further
sediment delivered to the river and deposited in the Lower Rio San Juan adds to that dredging
burden.” 19
18. And t his is how Professor Kondolf put it in response to a question from
Judge Greenwood: “I think the principle is simply that there is so much sediment coming into that
part of the river that, to the extent you add to that sediment, you are adding to the impact and the
burden to dredge.” 20 I think it may be us eful for me to recall for the Court that Professor Kondolf
is experienced in assessing environmental impacts on fluvial geomorphology and human -river
16
CR 2015/9, 20 April 2015, p. 31 (Andrews).
17
CR 2015/8, pp. 42-43 (Kondolf).
18Ibid., p. 42 (Kondolf).
19
Ibid., p. 43.
20
CR 2015/9, p. 18 (Kondolf). - 15 -
interactions, and he served on the Environmental Advisory Board to the US Army Corps of
21
Engineers .
19. Judge Greenwood asked another very interesting, and I would say, important question.
Referring to Nicaragua’s dredging programme, he asked: “If taking 200,000 cubic metres of
sediment out of the Lower San Juan has an insignificant environmental impact, why does putting
200,000 cubic metres of sediment in to the Upper Rio San Juan have a serious environmental
22
impact?” The answer, Nicaragua, suggests, is context. It is not simply a comparison of how
much is being taken out, and how much is being put in. The fact that the numbers may
approximate one another only addresses magnitude, not necessarily impact. As Nicaragua showed
last week, the dredging of the Lower San Juan causes no adverse environmental impacts; it does
not materially affect the flow of C osta Rica’s Colorado River, as Costa Rica has alleged; and it
does not harm the wetlands downstream. To the contrary, both Professor van Rhee and Professor
Thorne have stated that the dredging is helpful to those wetlands, and that more dredging by
23
Nicaragua would be even more helpful to them . In his answer to Judge Owada’s question last
week, Professor Thorne said about Nicaragua’s dredging programme that: “if you are going to do
any good to the river environmentally, you need to do much more than that . . .” 24.
20. By contrast, putting sediment into the river does have an adverse impact. Not primarily
in the Upper San Juan River, as Judge Greenwood asked, but in the Lower San Juan, where a
significant amount of the sediment deposited in the Upper San Juan is transported. When it gets to
the Lower San Juan, as Nicaragua’s experts and Professor Thorne have stated, it accumulates,
enlarges the existing shoals and sandbars that obstruct navigation, and causes the already -low flow
of the river to diminish further, both adding to Nicaragua’s dredging burden and hastening the
drying up of the river. Professor Kondolf answered Judge Greenwood’s question thusly:
“[B]ecause there is already too much sediment, there is already a problem, so you are simply
adding to that.” 25 In regard to the environmental impact of Nicaragua’s dredging , he answered:
2Kondolf Summary Report for Certain Activities case, 16 March 2015, para. 1.
22
CR 2015/9, p. 19 (Greenwood).
2Van Rhee Summary Report, 15 March 2015, paras. 10- 11.
2CR 2015/3, p. 43 (Thorne).
25
CR 2015/9, p. 19 (Kondolf). - 16 -
“The dredging seems not to be creating a permanent change now because it keeps filling in so it is
26
not changing significantly the character of the river there.”
21. Mr. President, Nicaragua views the cross- examination of Dr. Andrews as especially
instructive on this point. Dr. Andrews, you will recall, served as a hydrologist for the United States
Geological Survey for 34 years. He held overall responsibility for the agency’s water resources,
geomorphology and sediment transport program mes 27. His cross -examination yesterday
established at least two things in particular. First, that Costa Rica’s entire approach now is to
equate significance of impact with the percentage contributed by the road to the overall sediment
load in the river. Second, that Costa Rica’s approach is wrong. “Mr. Wordsworth: But we are still
talking, relatively speaking, about a very small percentage, aren’t we, compared to the total
percentage? Mr. Andrews: It is still a large amount of material . . . Mr. Wordsworth: Yes, I don’t
28
think we should be debating the question of actual material.” Why not, Mr. President? It is the
“actual material” that accumulates in the Lower San Juan River and enlarges the obstructions to
navigation, not a mere statistic.
22. “Mr. Wordsworth: The question is whether it leads to significant impact. The question
that I am putting to you is: given that, on your evidence, only between 0.5 per cent to 2 per cent of
the amount that is actually being dredged by Nicaragua comes from the road, can that be regarded
as significant?” 29 Before getting to Dr. Andrews’ s answer, it is worth noting that
Mr. Wordsworth’s question is based on an incorrect assumption. As previously shown, in 2014,
the amount of sediment that came from the road was approximately 8.5 per cent of the amount
dredged by Nicaragua. Now for Dr. Andrews’s answer:
“[T]he assumption in your question that it is spread evenly, and it is not spread
evenly, it is disproportionately deposited in the channel around bars, river bars,
sandbars, that are relatively shallow and have low flow. It cannot be transported
anymore, it gets deposited there, and that is exactly where the navigational
obstructions occur.” 30
26CR 2015/9, p. 19 (Kondolf).
27
Andrews Summary Report, 15 March 2015, pa ras. 1-2.
28CR 2015/9, p. 31.
29CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Wordsworth).
30
CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Andrews). - 17 -
23. Then Mr. Wordsworth asked Dr. Andrews if he could point to any evidence that the
sediment that , quoting Mr. Wordsworth, “comes from the road . . . is spread out along the
sandbars” . Mr. President, I am sure my good friend Mr. Wordsworth knows where to find this
evidence without Dr. Andrews’ s assistance. I t was provided by Costa Rica’s own expert,
Professor Thorne. In his report of October 2011, annexed to Costa Rica’s Counter -Memorial,
Professor Thorne stated that when the sediment from upstream reaches the Lower San Juan it is
“deposited in and along the (mainly meandering) channel in the form of shoals, islands, point bars
32
and natural levees” . And that is Professor Thorne’s testimony.
24. In his testimony yesterday, Dr. Andrews addressed the significance of this critical
evidence:
“In talking about, or considering, obstructions to navigation, it does not mean
that through a reach of a few k ilometres and such that every metre would be, you
would be unable to navigate your boat. All you need is an obstruction every few
hundred yards, or so, and it makes it, or you would only need one, in the entire 2 or
3 km reach.33f you cannot get your boat through that one stretch, you cannot get it
through.”
25. And that . Mr. President, is why Nicaragua is right about significant harm. It is
undisputed, at least between the P arties’ experts, that the sediment carried to the Lower San Juan,
including the sediment from the road, is “deposited in and along the . . . channel in the form of
34
shoals, sandbars, point bars and natural levees” , which obstruct navigation. In 2014, as I said, the
road contributed 22,192 tons of sediment mainly to the enlargement of these obstructions. Counsel
35
to Costa Rica advise you not to debate “the question of actual material” , and we say the reason
they don’t want to debate this is because they have no answer to it. It is, as Dr. Andrews described
36
it, “a large amount of material” , and its impact is significant for the reasons explained by
31CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Andrews).
32
Thorne (2011), p. II-27.
33CR 2015/9, pp. 32-33 (Andrews).
34Thorne (2011), p. II-27.
35
CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Wordsworth).
36CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Andrews). - 18 -
Drs. Andrews 37and Kondolf , and which should be self -evident. It adds more than 22,000 tons
annually mainly to the obstructions to navigation. And it has to be dredged out by Nicaragua.
26. Mr. President, Costa Rica avoids the “actual material” those 22,000 tons contributed
by the road to the shoals and sandbars in the Lower San Juan annually in favour of a false
paradigm, or, more accurately, two false paradigms. At the hearings on provisional measures, in
November 2013, Costa Rica told you that the sediment from the ro ad spread out evenly across the
entire river bottom, hence its impact on the depth of the river was no more than the width of a few
grains of sand 39. We know now, especially from their own expert, Professor Thorne, that this is not
the case. Still less wo uld it be appropriate to assume that the sediment contributed by the road
disperses evenly across the bed of the much longer Upper San Juan River, alongside that 108 km of
the road that are close to the bank, especially since Nicaragua’s claim of significant harm, in terms
of obstruction to navigation and reduction of flow, applies principally to the Lower San Juan,
which is less than a third as long.
27. So Costa Rica has come up with a second paradigm, equally false. Given that the overall
sediment load of the river is very high, they emphasize that the percentage the percentage
40
contributed by the road is very small . Again, they prefer not to discuss the “actual material”,
because, as Dr. Andrews said, it is “a large amount” 41. We say, it is the am ount of sediment that
determines its impact, in the context of an environment that, because of its already high sediment
load, is especially sensitive to additional quantities of sediment. Significance is not strictly a
numbers, or a percentages, game, as Costa Rica would have it. Magnitude alone is relevant, but it
is not determinative of significance. A very large stimulus can have a negligible impact in an
environment that is capable of accommodating the stimulus. We have an example here: the much
larger and more powerful Colorado River is not obstructed by sediment accumulation, and
therefore is unaffected by the sediment it receives from the road. Dr. Andrews says that the
37
CR 2015/9, pp. 30-33 (Andrews).
38CR 2015/8, pp. 42-43 (Kondolf).
39CR 2013/29, p. 10, para. 10 (Ugalde) and p. 28, para. 14 (Wordsworth); CR 2013/31, p. 18, para. 6
(Wordsworth) and p. 22, para. 22 (c) (Wordsworth).
40
E.g., RCR, paras. 1.4, 2.10, 2.80, 2.117 (b).
41
CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Andrews). - 19 -
stimulus received by the Lower San Juan is a “large amount of material” 42. But even a small
stimulus can be significant in an environment that is incapable of accommodating it. In this regard,
it is worth recalling Professor Thorne’s statement that the Lower San Juan River is “unable to
43
accommodate” the sediment load it receives from upstream . In this environment, the “large
amount of [actual] material” contributed by the road to the Lower San Juan must therefore be
significant.
28. This is not an unusual situation. To the contrary, it is how environmental regulatory
agencies around the world assess significance of impact. Many States and international bodies
regulate rivers with high levels of pollution, including sediments. They are not in the practice of
allowing more sediments to be contributed because the river is already in such a bad way that it
can’t do any significant harm to make it worse. To the contrary, riverine environmental r égimes
commonly set maximum allowable limits on the pollutants, including sediments, that the
watercourse may permissibly contain at any given time. Once those limits are reached, any
additions above them, even in small amounts, are considered significant and are prohibited.
29. In the United States, for example, under our Clean Water Act, state-level environmental
authorities identify r ivers threatened by cumulative water pollution, calculate a maximum daily
load of pollutants that the river can sustain, and then prohibit discharges above the maximum load
44
amount . The United States EPA has specifically identified sediment pollution as an appropriate
subject of a total maximum daily load 45.
30. In the E uropean Union, the Water Framework Directive takes a similar approach, as
member States are obligated to review river basins within their territory for adequate progress
46
toward “good water status” . Follow -up directives have identified 45 different pollutants and
established for each an “environmental quality standard” , which is the level of concentration of a
given pollutant that must not be exceeded. Member States calibrate their permitting and other
42
CR 2015/9, p. 31 (Andrews).
43Thorne (2011), p. II-27.
4433 USC para. 1313 (d) (1).
45
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs”,
Oct. 1999, p. 2-1, available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/sediment/pdf/sediment.pdft accessed 21 April 2015).
46
Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC. - 20 -
requirements around these standards, prohibiting the addition of any pollutants above a certain
47
level even in very polluted bodies of water .
31. Mr. President, since I spend much of my life advocating on behalf of small States, some
of whic h are located in what used to be called the Third World, I am very pleased to hear
Judge Bhandari’s interest in whether any Latin American States have similar environmental
policies. The answer is that they do. Because of time-limits, I will cite just on e example, but it is
an important one, and one that the Court may recall. In the Pulp Mills case, Argentina and
Uruguay had formed a bi-national commission to control pollution in their shared watercourse, the
Uruguay River, which constituted the boundary between the two States. CARU, as the commission
was known by its Spanish acronym, regulated a long list of pollutants. How? By setting maximum
allowable concentration levels. Once the level was reached for a given pollutant, neither State was
permitted to discharge, or license the discharge, of any additional quantity of that pollutant into the
48
river .
32. Of particular interest, especially in the context of this case, is the treatment of
phosphorous. CARU did not regulate it because the p arties could not agree on an allowable limit.
49
But Uruguayan law imposed a maximum allowable limit on phosphorous discharge . If the limit
was reached, Uruguay forbade new discharges, in any amount, unless it was offset by reducing the
50
level of phosphorous in the river in the same or a greater amount than was being added .
33. The evidence in that case showed that more than 19,000 tons of phosphorous were
emitted into the river each year from all sources. The annual emission of phosphorous by the pulp
mill licensed by Uruguay was a mere 15 tons, that is, less than 0.1 per cent of the total annual
51
phosphorous load . Nevertheless, the emission was still prohibited under Uruguayan law. As a
consequence, Uruguay licensed the mill on the strict condition that it take a ction elsewhere along
47
Directive 2013/39/EU; Directive 2008/105/EC.
48
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 94, para. 242.
49Ibid., p. 95, para. 245.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid., p. 94, para. 240. - 21 -
the river to reduce other discharges of phosphorous by an amount equal to or greater than the
15 tons it would be contributing . And that is what the mill operators did.
34. The Court upheld Uruguay’s licensing of the mill in these circumstances, citing what it
called Uruguay’s “compensation” for the mill’s discharge of phosphorous into the river. Even
though “the amount of total phosphorus discharge into the river that may be attributed to the . . .
mill is insignificant in propor tionate terms as compared to the overall total phosphorus in the river
53
from other sources”, by itself it still would have v iolated the applicable water quality standard .
But there was no violation of Uruguay’s international obligations, according to the Court, “taking
into account the action being taken by Uruguay by way of compensation” 5. And that is an
interesting point for present purposes. Uruguay avoided liability by compensating for the
additional phosphorous it allowed to be deposited in the rive r by removing an equal or greater
amount of the substance and thereby preventing any net addition even one as low as
0.1 per cent to the total phosphorous load.
35. In this case, Mr. President, there is no compensation, no offset, provided by Costa Rica
for its discharge of sediment into Nicaragua’s river.
36. That river, especially in its lower reaches, after the bifurcation, is like the Uruguay River
except that: (1) it is not a shared river but belongs exclusively to Nicaragua; and (2) it is
overloaded with sediment rather than phosphorous. Costa Rica acknowledges that the river’s
sediment load already exceeds its maximum conveyance capacity, a nd that it is drying up.
Costa Rica’s expert agrees that the river requires constant dredging by Nicar agua, even to allow
small boats to pass. Costa Rica nevertheless argues that the harm caused by the road is
insignificant. Insignificant to whom? Not to Nicaragua, which has to dredge out the large amount
of material Costa Rica puts in.
37. As explained by Professor Andrews: “[W]hether or not sediment from the Road is a
large or small percentage of the overall total load does not alter the fact that, because the existing
52
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 96, para. 246.
53Ibid., para. 247.
54
Ibid., para. 247. - 22 -
load is high, any additional sediment contributed by the Road will lead to deposi tion and require
55
additional dredging.”
38. In its Order of 13 December 2013 denying Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures,
the Court considered that
“Nicaragua has not established in the current proceedings that the ongoing
construction works led to a substantial increase in the sediment load in the r iver. It
notes that Nicaragua did not contest the statement of Costa Rica’s expert,
Professor Thorne, that , even according to . . . Professor Kondolf, the construction
activities are only contributin g 1 to 2 per cent of the total sediment load . . . and 2 to
3 per cent in the lower San Juan River.”
The Court at that time considered this “too small a proportion to have a significant impact on the
river in the immediate future” . It thus concluded that: “Nicaragua has not shown that there is any
57
real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights it invokes” .
39. This of course was not a finding on the merits. Indeed, as is always the case on
provisional measures, it was without prejudgment of the merits. The Court had already
determined, in an earlier paragraph in its Order, that construction of the road had been suspended
by Costa Rica, and that Costa Rica had given assurances that it w ould not be resumed before
late 2014 or early 2015, so it found that there was no urgency to Nicaragua’s request for a cessation
of construction activities 58. It was in this context that the Court also found that, absent ongoing
construction activity and given the small proportion of sediment contributed by the road to the
overall amount that is already in the river, there would be no significant impact on Nicaragua’s
rights “in the immediate future”.
40. Mr. President, if you will kindly forgive the cliché, a lot of water has passed under the
bridge since December 2013. The hearings on provisional measures were held less than a month
before Costa Rica filed its Counter -Memorial. It therefore had a mass of evidence at its disposal,
including expert reports, which Nicaragua had not yet seen, and had literal ly overnight to respond
to. It was not until August 2014, when Nicaragua filed its Reply, that it was fully able to answer
55
Andrews Summary Report, 15 Mar. 2015, para. 4.
56Construction of a Road along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Order of 13 December 2013,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 407, para. 34; emphasis added.
57Ibid., para. 35.
58
Ibid., para. 33. - 23 -
Costa Rica, and demonstrated with evidence of its own, including Dr. Andrews’ s first report, that
the impact of road-related sediment on the Lower San Juan was significant.
41. In his first report, Dr. Andrews, to be conservative in his estimates of sediment
accumulation in the Lower San Juan, relied on measuremen ts taken by ICE, the Costa Rican
Government agency, in 2013. In 2014, ICE produced new measurements, which indicated a
substantially higher accumulation of road- derived sediment in the Lower San Juan. Dr. Andrews
recalculated his estimates of impact based on ICE’s updated calculations 59. Interestingly,
Mr. Wordsworth, during cross-examination, insisted on questioning Dr. Andrews about the lower
60
estimates in his earlier report, based on ICE’s earlier and lower measurements , which, as
Dr. Andrews explained, were superseded by his estimates based on ICE’s more recent
61
2014 report . Why not question Dr. Andrews about his more recent evidence, based on ICE’s
updated calculations? Here again, Costa Rica is playing with the numbers, or in this case, the
percentages.
42. In sum, Mr. President, it is a false paradigm to measure t he impact of the road by means
of the proportion of sediment it contributes to an already overly- sedimented river. It is the context
that determines the significance of the impact. Magnitude is indeed important, and the magnitude,
we say, is “large” here, according to Nicaragua’s experts, including Dr. Andrews, if one looks at
the “actual material” which Costa Rica asks you not to do. But magnitude must also be
considered in the context of the sensitivity of the receiving environment. In this case, th at
environment is the Lower San Juan River, and it is already, in Professor Thorne’s words, “unable
to accommodate” its sediment load. How then, can the addition of the “large” amount of “actual
material” not be significant? In Nicaragua’s view, when the river cannot even accommodate its
existing sediment load, any measurable addition is necessarily significant , as is the harm it causes,
in the context of an environment that Costa Rica itself accepts as especially sensitive.
43. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation. I thank you again
for your patient attention, and I ask that you call my colleague, Mr. Loewenstein, to the podium.
59
CR 2015/9, p. 27 (Andrews).
6Ibid., p. 29 (Wordsworth).
61
Ibid., pp. 27, 29 (Andrews). - 24 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Reichler. Je donne maintenant la parole à
Monsieur Lowenstein.
Mr. LOEWENSTEIN:
E COLOGICAL IMPACTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning. I will continue Nicaragua’s
presentation on the harmful impacts of Route 1856. I will first show that Costa Rica has placed the
ecology of the San Juan River a Nicaraguan Ramsar site at risk. I will then show that
Costa Rica has chosen no t to assess the risks that the r oad poses to this wetland of international
importance, and address the consequences for Nicaragua of that decision.
Ecological harm to the San Juan River
2. I begin with ecological impacts. The harmful effects of sediment are not limited to the
formation of shoals, sandbars and other types of accumulations. Sediment can also adversely
impact a watercourse’s aquatic organisms. Costa Rica’s expert, ProfessorThorne, lists many such
harms. A few of them are:
“loss of aquatic vegetation;
reduced primary productivity;
loss of periphyton [with] consequent impact on the food chain;
loss or reduction of macroinvertebrate populations;
clogging and damaging thegills of fish; and
62
alteration of the balance of fish species.”
3. Costa Rica’s own e nvironmental diagnostic assessment, or EDA, of November 2013 and
its January 2015 follow -up, demonstrate that the San Juan’s ecological health has been place d at
risk by sediment from the r oad. These studies were prepa red at the request of the Costa Rican
63
Ministry of Foreign Affairs for use in this proceeding and authored by scientists affiliated with
6Thorne Summary Report for Certain Activities case, Mar. 2015, p. 15, para. 5.8.
63
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Pro-EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; Rejoinder of Costa Rica (RCR), Ann. 14, p. 10. (“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of
the Government of Costa Rica commissioned the services of the Tropical Science Center (‘TSC’carry out the
EDA . . .”) - 25 -
64
Costa Rica’s Tropical Science Center . They agree that “high levels of sedimentation in aquatic
bodies” is one of the “main problems that lead[s] to the loss of aquatic diversity” 65. To determine
whether the r oad is causing these effects, the study sampled ten Costa Rican tributaries of th e
San Juan at locations very close to where the y flow into the river. The EDA explains that in each
tributary “two sampling points were located, one upstream” of where Route 1856 crosses the
tributary, where there was “no direct influence” from the r oad, and “another one downstream” of
66
that tributary, where the road did have “direct influence” .
4. The Tropical Science Center collected macroinvertebrates at the upstream and
downstream sampling sites. These were chosen because they are “bio -indicators” of water
quality 67. This is standard; the European Water Framework Directive, for instance, requires that
68
macroinvertebrates be used for that purpose . In addition, macroinvertebrates are important in
their own right as a critical link in the food chain 69. Th e macroinvertebrates were analysed to
determine their abundance, that is, the number of individual organisms collected at each location,
70
and their richness, that is, the number of taxa present at each location .
5. The results were reported in the 2013 EDA. The road’s impact on aquatic life is clear
from the data it presents. Five of the ten sites had both fewer organisms, and fewer species,
downstream of the road than upstream 71.
6. The EDA interpreted these data to evaluate the r oad’s impact on water quality. It used a
Costa Rican index that defines six categories of water quality, ranging from “ex cellent” to
“extremely polluted”. Based on the collected data, the Tropical Science Center categorized water
quality both upstream and downstream of the road. Five of the ten sites had lower water quality
downstream of the r oad than upstream. The EDA reports: “At sites 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9, the quality
6Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; RCR, Ann. 14, p. 2.
65
Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica (CMCR), Ann. 10, EDA, p. 111.
66
CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 89.
6Ibid., p. 87.
6Reply of Nicaragua (RN), Ann. 4, Ríos Report, sections 1 (b) and 4 (c), citing D.O.C.E., 2000.
69
CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 109.
70
Ibid., p. 17.
7Ibid., p. 242. - 26 -
went down in the downstream sites (with influence of the route) with a moderate to bad
72
classification and from bad to very bad in comparison to control sites found upstream . . .”
7. In regard to the sites in the stretch between the Río Infiernito and the mouth of the
San Carlos, which it “classified as impacted” from the road due to active sedimentation pr ocesses,
the EDA observed that, “the quality of water was influenced by the works conducted in the Route,
73
as were the richness and abundance of the communities” . The study accepted that this
demonstrated that the road poses a risk. It concluded that the “deterioration of the quality of the
habitat” and the “decrease in richness of taxa” could be attributable to what it called “activities and
processes conducted during and after the construction of the Route, such as the movement of earth,
74
tree cutting, erosion and sedimentation” .
8. The 2013 EDA set out 27 recommendations that, it said, should be included in a
programme for “prevention, mitigation and improvement of environmental conditions in the area of
the path of Route 1856” 75. These included recommendations to:
“[C]lean up all accumulated sediments to allow the free path of water t hrough natural drainage
systems;
Improve the drainage structures and landfills to avoid alterations to wetlands;
Continue with civil works for the protection of slope surf aces through the application of
geo-textiles and the improvement of slope angles and drainage systems; and
Consolidate civil works to stabilize slopes as soon as possible, especially those considered
unstable, to avoid sedimentation of aquatic environments.”
76
9. One year later, the Tropical Science Center carried out a follow -up study . Among its
stated objectives was to evaluate the “effectiveness” of the EDA’s “environmental
72
CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 99.
73CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 100.
74CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 100.
75
CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 161.
76Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; RCR, Ann. 14. - 27 -
77
recommendations” . The results are reported in the EDA Follow -up, which was annexed to the
Rejoinder.
10. Were the recommendations effective? As the Court heard yesterday from Mr. Reichler,
Costa Rica did not meaningfully remediate the Road. So it will come as no surprise that the answer
is: N o. In fact, the ecological impacts became more widespread. While in 2013, five of the
10 tributaries had lower macrointervebrate abundance and richness downstream of the Road than
78 79
upstream , by 2014, the number of tributaries showing these adverse impacts had risen to seven .
In some locations, the decline in richness between the upstream and downstream sampling sites
was dramatic. As may be seen in tab 7 of the judge’s folder, at Site 6, the number of taxa declined
from 20 to 9. The decline at Site 2 was from 18 taxa to 9. At Site 10, the number fell from 7 to 3.
At site 9, it went from 12 to just 2. The EDA Follow -up accepted that this documented risk. The
study concluded that Route 1856 “might be causing a decrease at the downstream points” 80.
11. The same negative trend is eviden t in how the Tropical Science Center interpreted these
data in regard to water quality. This can be seen at t ab 8. Whereas in 2013 there had been a
decline in water quality between upstream and downstream of the Road at five sampling sites 8,
82
in 2014, the number rose to nine of the 10 . Site 6, for instance, which had only “moderate
pollution” upstream of the Road, became “very polluted” downstream. The water quality at Site 9
went from “polluted” upstream to “extremely polluted” downstream. The authors of the EDA
Follow-up considered Road-derived sediment to present a risk; they concluded that the “localized
83
decrease[s] in the quality of water” were “especially due to sedimentation processes” .
12. These Road-induced impacts demonstrate why sediment conveyed to the San Juan by its
Costa Rican tributaries is a serious concern. The EDA Follow -up characterizes every sampled
77
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; RCR, Ann. 14, p. 12.
78CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 242.
79Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; RCR, Ann. 14, p. 49.
80Ibid., p. 80.
81
CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, pp. 99-100.
82Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; RCR, Ann. 14, pp. 98-99.
83Ibid., p. 80. - 28 -
tributary entering the San Juan, save one, as having water quality that is “polluted”, “very
polluted”, or “extremely polluted”. Of these, only one is “polluted”, five are “very polluted”, and
three are “extremely polluted”. In nearly all of them, the water quality is worse downstream of the
Road than upstream. The tributary with the best water quality with “best” being very much a
relative term had “moderate pollution,” and even then, its water quality was barely above the
threshold for being “polluted”.
13. In any event, the central point is that, even according to the Costa Rican studies that were
prepared for this proceeding, the data demonstrate that aquatic life and water quality in the
tributaries leading into the San Juan are being adversely impacted by sediment from the Road, and
that the impacts are getting worse. If nothing else, this demonstrates that there is a risk of harm to
the San Juan, a conclusion that is reinforced by the sampling in the San Juan itself, where
macroinvertebrates and periphyton were found to be more abundant and diverse on the
non-impacted north side of the river than on the impacted, south bank 84.
14. To be sure, the EDA asserts that the water quality impacts it detects are not transposable
to the San Juan. But the risk to the San Juan cannot be assumed away. These tributaries flow
directly into the San Juan, and the marked decrease in water quality is measured just before they
debouche into the River. The seriousness of the risk is underscored by the potential for cumulative
impacts of sediment pollution entering the San Juan via its many Road -impacted tributaries.
Although Costa Rica sampled only 10 tributaries, the scientists who authored the EDA accept there
85
are 30 more tributaries that were not sampled . Even this understates the risk of cumulative
impacts because Dr. Mende, Costa Rica’s expert on stream -crossings, reports there are no fewer
86
than 127 tributaries, each capable of conveying Road-derived sediment directly into the San Juan .
The Need for EIA
15. Mr. President, I turn now to Costa Rica’s failure to carry out a prior environmental
impact assessment and the consequences for Nicaragua of that choice.
84
Blanca Ríos Touma, “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”, July 2014,
p. 16; NR, Vol.II, Ann. 4.
85CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 69.
86
Andreas Mende, “Inventory of Slopes and Water Courses related to the Border Road N1856 between Mojón
II and Delta Costa Rica”: Second Report, Dec. 2014, p. 29; RCR, Vol. II, Ann. 3. - 29 -
16. I can be brief because the relevant facts are largely undisputed. Costa Rica accepts that it
did not perform an EIA prior to commencing construction of Route 1856. Although Costa Rica has
at times suggested an EIA might not have been required, that argument has been overtaken by the
report of its EIA expert, Professor Neil Craik, which Costa Rica annexed to the Rejoinder.
Professor Craik states that “under Costa Rican law, in the absence of an emergency, a road of this
kind would have been subject to an EIA” 87.
17. Professor McCaffery will address the inapplicability of the emergency exception . F or
now, the point is that Costa Rica’s expert on EIA accepts that the construction of Route 1856
would ordinarily have required a prior risk assessment. In other words, it presented by definition a
risk of significant harm. It follows that there is also a risk of significant harm to Nicaragua, which
is just metres away from the construction site and hydrologically connected to it . These risks
required assessment. The fact that the immediately adjacent part of Nicaragua is a Ramsar site
confirms EIA was needed . Professor Sheate explain ed in his summary report: “It seems
inconceivable that an EIA would not normally be required, ta king into consideration the various
factors that need to be considered in deciding whether significant environmental effects are
likely.”88
18. Mr. President, among the consequences of Costa Rica’s failure to carry out an EIA prior
to constructing Route 1856 is that Costa Rica cannot now tell whether the Road is harming the
River. Professor Thorne is candid about this. He states: “it is currently impossible for any
scientific study to demonstrate the possibility of there being adverse ecological impacts on the
89
Rio San Juan due to construction of the Road” . Professor Thorne explains why. He says:
“This is because to do so would require the establishment of threshold levels for
tolerance, morbidity and mortality of key species in the River with regard to sediment
and sedimentation, a process that has not been undertaken to date and which would
take several years to complete.” 90
87
Professor Neil Craik, “The Requirement to Perform a Prior Environmental Impact Assessment”, Jan . 2015,
para 4.7; RCR, Vol. II, Ann.1.
88Sheate, Summary Report, 15 March 2015, para. 11.
89
Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border road in Costa Rica on the San Juan
River”, Dec. 2013, CMCR, App. A, p. 108, para. 10.20.
90
Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border road in Costa Rica on the San Juan
River”, December 2013, CMCR, App. A, p. 108, para. 10.20. - 30 -
19. Nicaragua agrees. Professor Thorne has identified the precise problem. Prior to
construction of the road, Costa Rica made no attempt, as Professor Thorne puts it, to establish the
“threshold levels for tolerance, morbidity and mortality of key species in the River with regar d to
sediment and sedimentation” 9. The consequence is that Costa Rica cannot determine whether, as
Professor Thorne also puts it, there are “adverse ecological impacts on the R ío San Juan due to
92
construction of the Road” . Nicaragua would also add that because no ex ante assessment was
undertaken, Costa Rica foreclosed the possibility of designing the pr oject so as to avoid or
minimize the risk of crossing these thresholds, or of developing mitigation strategies that would
achieve the same result after the road had been built.
20. The same point applies with respect to detecting adverse impacts to the S an Juan’s fish
populations. Costa Rica’s expert on fish Professor Ian Cowx accepts there are families of
fish found in the San Juan, species of which are vulnerable to elevated levels of sediments. He also
accepts that there are no data on whether the particular species in the San Juan are vulnerable. This
caused Professor Thorne to acknowledge that “no data are available for the R ío San Juan in the
93
reach adjacent to the Road” , and to summarize Professor Cowx’s opinion as being that “it would
require intense research using specialist equipment over a protracted period to identify the
species-specific adaptations of the fish living in the River” 94. In other words, Costa Rica cannot
determine whether the r oad is adversely impacting fish in the San Juan because it is not known
whether the fish in the relevant part of the river are sensitive to sediment, and if so, at what levels.
Put simply, EIA is needed.
21. Costa Rica’s EDA, which was prepared three years after the start of construction , does
not remedy the failure to carry out a prior EIA. Dr. Sheate explains:
“As a post -construction exercise, [the EDA] can only seek to identify and
recommend ways to mitigate and remediate impacts after the event. An EIA, by
contrast, seeks to identify possible impacts before they have occurred. An EIA would
also have led to carefully considered answers to questions such as: What design
91
Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border road in Costa Rica on the San Juan
River”, Dec. 2013, CMCR, App. A,p. 108, para. 10.20.
92Ibid.
93Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica on the San Juan River:
Reply report”, Feb. 2015, RCR, App. A, p. 112, para. 6.17.
94
Ibid., para. 6.10. - 31 -
standard is the Road to be built to? Where is the spoil and debris as a result of the
construction to be disposed of and how can the environmental effects of these
activities be avoided or minimized through the design or location of the Road. These
and similar issues are not addressed in the EDA, which is therefore not a substitute for
EIA, nor in any way equivalent.” 95
22. One of the reasons why Costa Rica’s EDA is not an EIA is expressed by the authors of
the EDA itself. Here is what they say in the study’s conclusions concerning aquatic biology:
“In order to be able to evaluate with greater certainty if the construction . . . of
the Route [1856] created a level of sedimentation that could generate an effect on the
aquatic fauna of the San Juan River, and the tributary streams of the study area, it is
first necessary to determine and validate the thresholds of sedimentation that could
affect the species found in these rivers, due to the fact that there exists no information
96
for the aquatic organisms in the study area.”
23. The EDA’s authors then state:
“It would also be necessary to determine and validate the thresholds of mortality
and morbidity for the species found in those rivers, as well as the . . . tolerance to
sedimentation, to better evaluate if the construction of Route 1856 has an effect on the
aquatic fauna of the San Juan River. This is due to the fact that there is no information
97
on the aquatic organisms of the study area.”
24. In other words, according to the EDA’s own authors, the EDA could not determine
whether sediment from the road is harming aquatic organisms in the San Juan because, as they put
98
it, “there is no information on the aqua tic organisms of the study area ” . The information they
found wanting is what would have been obtained during an EIA, had one been carried out.
25. In short, the consequence for Nicaragua, of Costa Rica’s failure to carry out an EIA, is
that Costa Rica cannot determine whether Route 1856 is having impact to Nicaragua, including its
Ramsar site; cannot design the road’s much -needed mitigation in a way that gives assurance that
such impacts will be minimized or avoided; and cannot plan the road’s completion so that it is
built, and used, in a manner that does not cause further harm to Nicaragua.
26. Mr. President, this concludes my presentation. Thank you for your kind attention. I ask
that you call Nicaragua’s next speaker, Professor McCaffrey, to the podium.
95
Sheate Summary Report, March 2015, para. 43.
96CMCR, Ann. 10, EDA, p. 158.
97Ibid., p. 158.
98
Ibid., p. 11. - 32 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Loewenstein. Je vais demander au
professeur McCaffrey de venir à la barre et de commencer sa plaidoirie que je serai sans doute
obligé d’interrompre un peu plus tard, à un moment opportun, pour faire une pause. Mais,
Monsieur le professeur McCaffrey, veuillez commencer maintenant votre plaidoirie, s’il vous plaît.
Mr. McCAFFREY : Merci, Monsieur le président.
C OSTA R ICA’S BREACHES OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, my task this morning is to establish
that Costa Rica’s conduct in constructing Route 1856, which I will oft en refer to simply as the
“road”, breaches environmental obligations owed to Nicaragua.
2. My presentati on will address the following points: first, Costa Rica’s invocation of an
emergency under its national law does not excuse its violations of international law; second,
Costa Rica breached its obligation to prepare, in advance, an environmental impact assessment
concerning its road project; third, Costa Rica breached its obligation to notify Nicaragua prior to
beginning construction of the road project; fourth, the way in which Costa Rica constructed the
road resulted in breaches of Costa Rica’s obligat ion not to cause significant transboundary harm to
Nicaragua; and fifth, Costa Rica breached treaties to which both States are parties due to the
manner in which the road was, and is still being, constructed.
3. Mr. President, as a preliminary matter, th e Court heard me explain last week that , in the
view of Nicaragua, many of the environmental obligations invoked by Costa Rica in the Certain
Activities case did not apply there because of the lex specialigoverning the Parties’ relations in
respect of the San Juan River. How can I then, it might be wondered, turn around and invoke many
of those same obligations against Costa Rica in this case?
4. Mr. President, the answer is simple and straightforward. This case, unlike Certain
Activities, does not involve claims by Costa Rica concerning Nicaragua’s dredging of the San Juan
River, cleaning caños, or anything of the sort, all of which were dealt with by President Cleveland
in his 1888 Award. Instead, it involves, as you have heard yesterday and this mor ning, the
breathtakingly careless construction of a road, much of which is perched above the San Juan River,
resulting in massive quantities of sediment and debris being washed into the river, and hence into - 33 -
Nicaraguan sovereign territory. Certainly the 1 858 Treaty is relevant, precisely because it
establishes that the river is Nicaragua’s sovereign territory. But neither the treaty nor the arbitral
awards conflict in any way with the environmental obligations applicable to Costa Rica in respect
of its road project.
5. Mr. President, reading between the lines of Costa Rica’s written pleadings, Nicaragua’s
neighbour seems to view the problem of sediment and debris delivery into the river dismissively as
a mere “invasion by dirt ”, in sharp contrast to a mil itary invasion or the like. But however much
Costa Rica may belittle the situation and it is easy for it to do so because it is not on the
receiving end of the mess that it has created it poses real problems for, and thus causes real and
significant h arm to, Nicaragua, as my colleagues have shown most recently this morning. It
therefore falls outside the coverage of the lex specialis and squarely within the applicable principles
of international environmental law.
1. Costa Rica’s invocation of an emergency under its national law
does not excuse its violations of international law
6. Mr. President, first to Costa Rica’s invocation of an emergency and its lack of effect in
excusing Costa Rica’s breaches.
7. On 21 February 2011, the Costa Rican Governm ent issued an Executive Decree entitled
“To Declare that the Situation brought about by the Violation of Costa Rican Sovereignty by
Nicaragua constitutes a State of Emergency” 9. This declaration provided the legal basis under
Costa Rican domestic law for the construction of the r oad without complying with the normal
requirements of its own domestic law. The Costa Rican government also attempted to use the
declaration to excuse Costa Rica’s violations of international law resulting from the construction of
the road. I will discuss later the obvious question the title of this decree raises, namely, how was
Nicaragua’s cleaning of the caño with hand tools related to the construction of a road that ended far
from the caño and the disputed territory.
8. At the outset, Mr. President, let me assure the Court that Nicaragua of course recognizes
that international law must make allowances for situations in which genuin e emergencies actually
9Memorial of Nicaragua (MN), Ann. 11. - 34 -
prevent S tates from complying with their international obligations. These situations do arise
occasionally of course and international law must effect a balance between recognizing that the
affected S tate is overwhelmed and should be excused temporarily from complying with its
otherwise applicable obligations between that consideration and the injury suffered by the State
or States to which the obligation is owed. International law has generally dealt with such situations
through the law of State Responsibility and, in particular, circumstances precluding wrongfulness.
9. The ILC emphasizes in the commentaries to its Articles on State Responsibility that , as
you noted in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case 100, circumstances precluding wrongfulness
“do not annul or terminate the obligation; rather they provide a justification or excuse for
non-performance while the circumstance in question subsists” 10. Thus, in the present case, even if
Costa Rica could successfully make out a defen ce based on a circumstance precluding
wrongfulness which it has not attempted to do, and in Nic aragua’s view, it could not do
Costa Rica’s obligations would only be suspended for so long as the circumstance subsisted.
10. In this case, the “circumstance”, and I put that word in quotation marks, is the purported
emergency. The question for Costa Rica would be , is there any circumstance precluding
wrongfulness for emergencies declared by a government? Do such emergencies suspend the
international obligations of the State declaring them?
11. The answer , Mr. President, to the first question is “no” . There is no circumstance
precluding wrongfulness entitled “emergency”. But perhaps a State’s declaration of an emergency
could fit into one of the circumstances that are recognized. So, Mr. President, let me briefly review
the most likely candidates.
102
12. First, self-defence . This is a circumstance that p recludes the wrongfulness of a State’s
use of force where the strict requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter are met. This
circumstance is thus not applicable to Costa Rica’s attem pt to exempt itself from the EIA
requirement and its other obligations owed to Nicaragua.
100
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 39, para. 48.
10Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentarYearbook of the
International Law Commission, 2001 , V ol. II, Part Two,p. 71, para. 2 (commentary on Chap. V, Circumstances
Precluding Wrongfulness); annexed to General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 Dec . 2001 (hereinafter “State
Responsibility articles”).
102
State Responsibility articles, Art. 21. - 35 -
13. Second, countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act 10. It may be
tempting at first blush to find this circumstance applicable in light of Costa Rica’s statements that
the pell-mell construction of the r oad was a response to Nicaragua’s purported “invasion” of its
territory in the disputed area. The ILC’s commentary explains that “the commission by one State
of an internationally wrongful act may justify another State injured by that act in taking
non-forcible countermeasures in order to procure its cessation and to achieve reparation for the
104
injury” . As the chapter of the ILC’s Articles on countermeasures makes clear, two import ant
prerequisites for lawful countermeasure are thus, first, “the existence of an internationally wrongful
act which injured the State taking the countermeasure” 10, and second, that “the countermeasure [s]
be taken . . . in order to induce [the responsible] State to comply with its obligations of cessation
and reparation” 106.
14. Neither of these prerequisites is met in the present case. First, it will not be settled
whether Nicaragua has committed an internationally wrongful act by cleaning the caño until the
Court renders its Judgment in the joined cases. And second, Costa Rica’s construction of the road
has absolutely nothing to do with an effort by that S tate to induce Nicaragua to comply with its
obligations of cessation and reparation to say nothing of the fact that it will only be clear if
Nicaragua has such obligations when, again, the Court renders its Judgment in the joined cases. So
much, then, for precluding the wrongfulness of Costa Rica’s breaches on the ground that its
conduct constituted a countermeasure.
15. A third possible circumstance precluding wrongfulness that may be applicable in this
case is necessity, état de nécessité in French. In view of the significant pos sibility of abuse of this
defence, the Commission and the State practice that its draft reflects are quite cautious about its
availability, concluding that: “On balance, State practice and judicial decisions support the view
that necessity may constitute a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under certain very limited
conditions . . .” 107 Indeed, the Commission’s commentary states that “necessity will only rarely be
103State Responsibility articles, Art. 22.
104
Ibid., p. 75.
105Ibid., p. 130.
106Ibid.
107
Ibid., p. 83, para. 14. - 36 -
available to excuse non -performance of an obligation and . . . it is subject to strict limitations to
108
safeguard against possible abuse” .
16. But there being no circumstance prec luding wrongfulness for an “emergency” per se,
necessity would seem to be the circumstance that is closest to what Costa Rica is claiming as a
ground for exempting itself from its international obligations. Cost a Rica, however, vehemently
insists that it “has not invoked [necessity] and it is not incumbent upon it to do so” 109. Costa Rica
has perhaps avoided invoking necessity because it was well aware of the exacting requirements for
doing so, requirements it knew it could not hope to meet.
17. The Commi ssion’s commentary does observe that necessity has been invoked to
“preserv[e] the very existence of the State and its people in time of public emergency . . .” “But”,
the commentary states, “stringent conditions are imposed before any such plea is allowe d” 110. As
111
Nicaragua has noted , the ILC indicates that to successfully invoke necessity to preclude the
wrongfulness of its conduct in constructing the r oad, Costa Rica would have to establish that
invoking an “emergency” “is the only way for a State to saf eguard an essential interest against a
grave and imminent peril . . .” 112. This Costa Rica has not even attempted to do and, in fact, could
not do.
18. Mr. President, as I have already noted, there is no separate circumstance precluding
wrongfulness for em ergencies, presumably because this would simply be too broad a category.
Nicaragua does not believe that any of the circumstances recognized by the ILC is applicable in
this case. Instead, as indicated in its written pleadings, Nicaragua believes the rushed, unplanned
and environmentally disastrous construction of the road along the San Juan River was a misguided
reaction, perhaps for domestic political purposes, to Nicaragua’s modest dredging and
caño-cleaning projects, which took place far from the term inus of the 140- km-long road at the
Colorado River. I will return to the genuineness of the purported “emergency” in a moment.
108State Responsibility articles, p. 80, para. 2.
109
Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica (CMCR), p. 113, para. 5.15.
110State Responsibility articles, p. 83, para. 14.
111Reply of Nicaragua (RN), p. 183, para. 6.10.
112
State Responsibility articles, Art. 25, para. 1 (a). - 37 -
19. Rather than invoking a state of necessity, Costa Rica says that its “domestic legislation
does not require the conduct of a n environmental impact assessment in an emergency situation,
113
while international law comprises a renvoi to domestic law” . Three comments on this statement,
Mr. President: First, apparently, once Costa Rica has declared an emergency, its domestic
legislation though not, interestingly, its law on environmental impact assessment waives not
only the environmental impact assessment process, but virtually everything else, as well. Second,
whatever Costa Rica’s, or any S tate’s, domestic law says cannot override its obligations under
international law a point to which I will return in a moment. And third, related to this, what
does Costa Rica mean when it says “international law comprises a renvoi to domestic law”? I will
deal with this latter question when I address Costa Rica’s failure to conduct an EIA in relation to its
road project.
20. Significantly, Mr. President, Costa Rica has not so much as attempted to fit its
emergency declaration within one of the circumstances precluding wrongfulness recogn ized by
international law. Instead, it takes the position that it is solely within its discretion to declare an
emergency under its domestic law. This is, of course, not problema tic, in itself. But then
Costa Rica goes further, and says this discretionary declaration of emergency under its domestic
law also relieves it from its relevant obligations under international law. This is what is a problem
for Nicaragua.
21. Perhaps most strikingly, [ slide 1 on] on 13 December 2011 then-President Chinchilla of
Costa Rica declared, in response to Nicaragua’s repeated requ ests for information about the r oad
project, that Costa Rica and this is on your screens now had “issued an emergency decree
due to national necessity and it is on that basis that we have de veloped the projects. We ar e not
114
taking even one step back.” She stated that therefore, Costa Rica has “no reason to offer
explanations to the Government of Nicaragua” 115.
22. It is this position of Costa Rica, not the emergency decree itself, that Nicar agua believes
is clearly unjustifiable under international law, Mr. President. [Slide 1 off] It flies in the face of
113
CMCR, p. 113, para. 5.15.
11El País, Costa Rica “Chinchilla defends highway criticized by Nicaragua, rejects dialogue14 Dec. 2011,
MN, Vol. II, Ann. 24.
115
Ibid. - 38 -
the principle reflected, inter alia, in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
[Slide 2 on] Article 27 provides:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its
failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” 116
Article 46 deals with “Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties”, which
is not at issue here. [Slide 2 off: slide 3 on] The same principle is refl ected more generally in
Article 32 of the State Responsibility Articles, entitled “Irrelevance of internal law” 117. It reads as
follows, and is now on the screen:
“The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as
justification for failure to comply with its obligations under this Part.” 118 [Slide 3 off]
23. Mr. President, these two Articles, when combined with Costa Rica’s wil fully not having
invoked necessity or any other circumstance precluding wrongfulness, leave precious little room
for Costa Rica to escape from its obligations toward Nicaragua that arise from the shoddy
construction of the road and its consequences. The Costa Rican Government may have succeeded
in insulating itself from responsibility under Costa Rican internal law, but it has failed to do so
under international law.
24. Mr. President, it remains for me to deal very briefly, in the interest of time, with other
matters arising from Costa Rica’s emergency declaration, if you wish me to continue? Thank you.
25. First, Costa Rica has failed to provide any evidence that anything about the situation,
except for President Chinchilla’s declaration itself, indicated there was an emer gency requiring
Costa Rica to construct the border road.
26. If there had been a bona fide emergency requiring a transit route along the river, one
would have expected Costa Rica to have constructed at least a rudimentary, but drivable, route to
and from the caño and the disputed territory. The actual road, (a) is not, even now, drivable, some
four and a half years after construction on it began, and (b) stops well short of the disputed area, at
or before the delta, where the Río Colorado branches off from the San Juan proper. Even if it were
drivable it would not allow personnel to travel to the area in dispute. In addition, there have been
116
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS), 331,
Art. 27.
11State Responsibility Articles, Art. 32, p. 94.
118
Ibid. - 39 -
long periods in which virtually no construction activity on the road was taking place, apparently for
budgetary re asons, indicating that it was not a governmental priority. This is not the way
governments normally deal with emergencies.
27. In addition, the relationship between the r oad project and the emergency declaration is
objectively doubtful based on the evide nce. Construction of the r oad began before the emergency
declaration was issued. Construction began in December 2010; the President did not issue her
emergency decree until 21 Februa ry 2011. Justification of the r oad project on grounds of an
emergency thus seems to have been an afterthought.
28. Finally, Costa Rica, taking it at its own word, initiated construction of the r oad in
December 2010, in response to Nicaragua’s caño -cleaning activities in October of t hat year. This
was after Costa Rica had r equested provisional measures from this Court when it filed the
Certain Activities case in November of the same year. Thus, Costa Rica took matters into its own
hands by initiating construction of the road after it had requested that the Court grant it pr ovisional
measures concerning the same situation invoked by it to justify construction of the road.
President Chinchilla issued her emergency decree after hearings had been held on Costa Rica’s
provisional measures request and, as Nicaragua’s Agent noted, one day before the Court issued its
preliminary measures O rder. This Court disapproved of such unilateral self -help measures being
taken after a dispute has been submitted to it in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in
Tehran case 11. Yet this seems to have been Costa Rica’s modus operandi.
29. But, Mr. President, even if there had been a bona fide emergency, and even if Costa’s
response of constructing the road was appropriate, quad non, Costa Rica remained under
obligations of prior notific ation, environmental impact assessment, and prevention of significant
harm to Nicaragua since, as I have discussed, its compliance with these obligations would not have
been excused. It is to these obligations that I would like to turn next, perhaps after a break,
Mr. President? Thank you.
Le PRESIDENT : Oui, merci, Monsieur le profess eur. En effet, c’est le moment approprié
de faire une pause de 15 minutes. La Cour va donc à présent se retirer. L’audience est suspendue.
11United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), I.C.J. Reports 1980,
p. 3. - 40 -
L’audience est suspendue de 11 h 35 à 11 h 55
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. Monsieur le professeur, je vous rends la parole
pour la suite de votre plaidoirie.
Mr. McCAFFREY : Merci, Monsieur le président.
2. Costa Rica breached its obligation to prepare, in advance, an Environmental
Impact Assessment concerning its Road project
30. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I will turn next to environmental impact
assessment. B oth Parties accept that there is an obligation under general international law to
prepare a transboundary environmental impact assessment, or EIA, as this Court found in the Pulp
Mills case 12. But Costa Rica makes three claims in support of its contention that it was under no
obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment of its Road project. Fir st, it says an
emergency under domestic law is an exception to the international obligation to prepare an EIA.
Second, it observes that “the 1858 Treaty does not regulate road infrastructure works on
Costa Rican territory” 121. And third, it points out that the construction work was “conducted
122
exclusively within Costa Rica’s territory” . I will deal with these contentions in turn.
31. First, Costa Rica argues that its emergency declaration under domestic law exempts it
123
from the obligation to conduct a transboundary EIA . (Parenthetically, Mr. President, Costa Rica
says the emergency declaration exempts it from EIA requirements under its domestic law, as well,
124
but as we heard from Professor Sheate yesterday , there is no exemption under the Costa Rican
EIA law for emergencies.) Costa Rica arrives at its remarkable conclusion about the effect of its
domestic emergency regulation on its international obligations essentially by arguing that this
Court in your Pulp Mills Judgment didn’t say a domestic emergency declaration wasn’t an
exception, therefore it must be an exception 12. Specifically, Costa Rica says in its Rejoinder, “No
12Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 204.
121
Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica (CMCR), para. 4.4.
12Ibid.
12Rejoinder of Costa Rica (RCR), pp. 95-101.
124
CR 2015/9, p. 38 (Sheate).
12Ibid., p. 95. - 41 -
inference against the determination of an emergency situation under domestic law as an exception
to the obligation to conduct an EIA can be made from paragraph 205 of the Court’s Judgment in
the Pulp Mills case.” 126 That is the paragraph in which you stated the transboundary EIA
requirement. It supposedly follows from this that an emergency declared under domestic law is an
exception to the transboundary EIA requirement under general international law found by the
Court. Well, Mr. President, one can only admire Costa Rica’s breathtaking logical gymnastics.
32. Costa Rica proceeds to cite a number of sources, from Antarctica to Espoo, f rom Kyiv to
Canada, recognizing emergency exemptions. And this is all well and good. The problem for
Costa Rica, a problem that it doesn’t confront, is that as shown by Professor Sheate, all of these
exemptions are part of carefully crafted EIA r égimes, whether on the domestic or on the
international plane, that are designed to ensure that projects likely to have significant
environmental effects are assessed before the authorization is given to proceed with them. The
assessment is then to be taken into account in the decision-making process relating to the proposed
project 12. Even given these safeguards, according to Professor Sheate, emergency exemptions
“are rarely used, and for good reason, since otherwise it would be too easy to circumvent the
128
purpose of EIA. . .” . Quite so, in the present case.
33. Professor Kohen made much of Professor Sheate’s recognition that many, if not most,
prominent EIA régimes contain some sort of carefully regulated emergency exemption. But that
does not help Costa Ric a. First, Costa Rican law does not contain such an exemption. Second,
these r égimes cautiously limit the exemption to the immediate situation, provide d that the
exemption is lifted as soon as the situation permits, and often provide for some substitute
assessment process, often running concurrently with the project. Not so with Costa Rica’s
emergency decree or Costa Rica’s conduct following its declaration of an emergency. And third,
Costa Rica does not establish that the domestic law r égimes it cites exempt the S tate in question
from its EIA obligations under international law. Yet this is precisely what Costa Rica needs to
establish.
126
CR 2015/9, p. 38 (Sheate), para. 3.32.
12William R. Sheate, Summary Report, 15 March 2015, p. 11, para. 31.
128
Ibid. - 42 -
34. Professor Sheate’s Summary Report cites an example of a real emergency, one that was
absolutely devastating to the natural and human environment. It is a particularly interesting
illustration, because despite the massive scale of the event and its effects, an EIA was prepared at
the same time as remedial work was being undertaken. This was the eruption of the Mt. St. Helens
volcano in the US s tate of Washington, now depicted on the screen and at tab 12 of your folders.
[Slide 4 on] As Professor Sheate explains, the eruption, which killed 57 people:
“caused major flooding, river sedimentation, and adverse effects on fish and wildlife
as well as on human settlements. The US Army Corps of Engineers the lead
federal agency to respond invoked the ‘special arrangements’ provision of
[National Environmental Policy Act] regulations, under which they were allowed to
proceed immediately with certain river dredging and other emergency work while at
the same time conducting an accelerated EIA process.” 129
35. Professor Sheate observes that this example illustrates the fact that:
“There are inevitably occasions when it is simply impossible to undertake EIA
because of the need to put in place action or infrastructure to save lives or prevent the
immediate destruction of the environment. But in recognition of the value of EIA,
such an exemption is limited to dealing with the immediate urgency, and as soon as
possible, an alternative assessment process should be undertaken.” 130 [Slide 4 off]
36. If an EIA can be prepared while dealing with a disaster of these proportions,
Mr. President, surely Costa Rica could have prepared one for its Road project.
37. Mr. President, I turn now to the second and third justifications offered by Costa Rica for
not preparing a transboundary EIA. The Court will recall that these were that “the 1858 Treaty
does not regulate road infrastructure works on Costa Rican territory” 131, and that the construction
132
work was “conducted exclusively within Costa Rica’s territory” . These are truisms, but advance
the ball not an inch toward justifying Costa Rica’s failure to prepare a transboundary EIA.
38. The silent but obvious implication of these propositions, Mr. President, is that Costa Rica
believes it can do whatever it wants within its territory, without any regard whatsoever for
transboundary consequences. One would have thought that this idea went out with the resounding
133
rejection of the Harmon Doctrine of absolute territorial sovereignty of 1895 .
12William R. Sheate, Summary Report, 15 March 2015, p. 11, para. 32; emphasis added.
130
Ibid., pp. 11-12.
13CMCR, para. 4.4.
13Ibid.
133
21 Op. Att’y Gen. 274 (1895). See RN, pp. 155-157. - 43 -
39. In fact, the proposition for w hich Costa Rica contends has long since ceased to hold
water, and Nicaragua has placed before the Court 13, if there was any need to do so, decisions from
135 136
1928 to 2013 confirming this, from the Island of Palmas award and the Corfu Channel case to
the Trail Smelter 137and Kishenganga 138 awards.
40. But of course even if we look only at Costa Rica’s conduct with respect to its o wn
territory, we see blatant violations of multilateral treaty obligations it has undertaken, that are
139
expressed in such agreements as the Biological Diversity and Ramsar Conventions . As to the
latter, an agreement much prized by Costa Rica in the Certain Activities case and to which I will
return briefly later, several listed Ramsar wetlands of international importance in Costa Rica lie in
the vicinity of the Road project and have undoubtedly been affected by it, as discussed in
Professor Sheate’s report 140.
41. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, Costa Rica contends that it is under no obliga tion
to prepare an EIA for its r oad projects because its “domestic legislation does not require the
conduct of an environmental impact assessment in an emergency situation” Costa Rica has
evidently not read its own EIA law “while international law comprises a renvoi to domestic
law” 14. Nicaragua has shown this argument to be confused and entirely without merit. I will
reprise this explanation briefly.
42. First, as a matter of general principle, one must question whether Costa Rica has thought
this remarkable proposition through. If it were indeed the case that international law leaves entirely
to domestic law the question whether or not to prepare an environm ental impact assessment, how
should this Court’s finding in the Pulp Mills case concerning the obligation under general
134See, e.g., RN, pp. 152-153.
135Arbitral Award, 4 April 1928, Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. United States of America), United Nations ,
Reports of International Arbitration Awards ( UNRIAA), Vol. II, p. 839.
136Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1949, p. 22.
137
Arbitral Award, 11 March 1941, Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States of America v. Canada), UNRIAA,
Vol. III, p. 1965.
138
Partial Award, 18 February 2013, Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India), available at
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392.
139
See William R. Sheate, “Comments on the Lack of EIA for the San Juan Border Road in Costa Rica”,
July 2014, Section 5; RN, Vol. II, Annex 5.
140Ibid.
141CMCR, p. 113, para. 5.15. - 44 -
international law to prepare an EIA be understood? [Slide 5 on] I have now on the screen and at
142
tab 13 is your passage from the Pulp M ills case that is by now very well-known and, in the
interest of time, I will not read it out. You do find a requirement under general international law to
prepare a transboundary environmental impact assessment.
43. Try as I might, Mr. President, I cannot find anything in that statement by your Court that
says anything about a “ renvoi to domestic law”. [Slide 5 off] What you did say in that case was
the following: [slide 6 on] “it is the view of the Court [this is at tab 14] that it is for each State to
determine in its domestic legislation or in the authorization process for the project, the specific
content of the environmental impact assessment required in each case” 143. I will stop there again
for reasons of time, but the full quote is in your judges’ folder.
44. Thus, Mr. President, it is the content of an EIA that is determined by the domestic law of
the State in which the project is undertaken, not the question whether an EIA should be undertaken
at all. The latter question is governed by inte rnational law, as you made crystal clear in the first
passage from your Pulp Mills Judgment that I showed on your screens a moment ago.
45. In addition, you made clear that “an environmental impact assessment must be conducted
prior to the implementation of a project”, and that even after “operations have started and, where
necessary, throughout the life of the project, continuous monitoring of its effects on the
environment shall be undertaken”. Thus you required that an EIA must be undertaken ex ante and
that the project must be monitored throughout its life. Costa Rica does not dispute that it failed to
meet the former requirement; it has provided little evidence to indicate that it is diligently
complying with the latter. [Slide 6 off]
46. Yet Cos ta Rica tries, Houdini -like, to escape the obligation to prepare an EIA on yet
another ground, which it deploys in respect of other obligations as well. Unfortunately for
Costa Rica, it is no Houdini; this attempt, too, is unavailing.
47. Costa Rica’s a rgument is in essence that while it accepts the obligations under the
Biodiversity Convention and what it characterizes as “three central obligations: . . . to conduct an
environmental impact assessment . . .; [to provide] notification; and . . . to [avoid] caus[ing] . . .
14Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 204.
14Ibid., pp. 83-84, para. 205; emphasis added. - 45 -
144
transboundary harm” , they do not apply in this case. Why? Because, according to Costa Rica,
the “threshold” for their application is not met. That threshold is stated by Costa Rica to be a “risk
145
of significant adverse impact” . Cos ta Rica says the quantities of sediment and debris washed
into the San Juan from the road project are not “significant” in comparison with the river’s already
heavy sediment load, and therefore the threshold for these obligations to be triggered is not met .
But that threshold, Mr. President, is in fact met by virtue of the road meeti ng the requirements
under Costa Rica’s own EIA law for a full environmental impact study, a category A road with
“high potential environmental impact”. By definition, even acc ording to Costa Rican law, this
project poses a risk of environmental harm and therefore a risk of transboundary harm given that
Nicaragua is only metres away.
48. Mr. President, in light of the testimony we heard yesterday from Professors Kondolf and
Andrews, and the presentations of my colleagues Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Reichler, this
contention can be dealt with in short order. In a word, Costa Rica confuses magnitude with
significance, and fails to consider the context of the challenges facing Nicar agua in respect of the
Lower San Juan.
49. By the calculations of Professor Thorne, Costa Rica’s own expert, the road is responsible
for adding 75,000 tons of sediment to the San Juan River, Nicaragua’s territory, each year 146.
75,000 tons . Dr. Andrews told us that would form a column of sediment filling the Great Hall and
projecting upward the length of a football field. And Nicaragua’s calculations indicate that the
quantity is much larger. But even taking Costa Rica’s figures, and bearing in mind tha t
Nicaragua’s dredging programme is unable to keep up with the transported sediment in the Lower
San Juan 147, this means that Nicaragua will have to work harder, will have to devote more human,
capital and financial resources, to a dredging programme that is already struggling. This is why the
Court should find that Costa Rica should at least have been aware of the possibility that there was
what you called a “risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse im pact
144
CMCR, p. 109, para. 5.6.
14Ibid., p. 195, para. 6.30.
14Written Statement of Colin Thorne, March2015, p. 6, para. 3.2.
147
See generally Cornelis van Rhee, Written Statement, 15 March 2015. - 46 -
in a transboundary context”. And why the Court should also find that this risk continues today, and
will continue until the problem is corrected, if that is in fact possible. This underscores the
importance of Costa Rica’s undertaking what this Court called “continuous monitoring of [the
project’s] effects on the environment”.
50. Mr. President, one additional point before turning to Costa Rica’s breach of the
obligation to notify. As Nicaragua has stated in its pleadings and as Professor Sheate makes clear,
if the Court finds that the preparation of even a summary transboundary EIA was not possible due
to a bona fide emergency situation, S tate practice indicates that Costa Rica should at least have
assessed the environmental impact of the r oad while construction was und erway and provided all
relevant information to Nicaragua. For the reasons given by my colleague Mr. Loewenstein,
Costa Rica’s “Environmental Diagnostic Assessment” (EDA) does not satisfy this requirement and
Professor Sheate testified yesterday that Costa Rica’s EDA is in no way equivalent to an EIA.
3. Costa Rica breached its obligation to notify Nicaragua prior to beginning
construction of the Road project
51. Mr. President, turning to the obligation to notify, I have already noted that there is no
disagreement between the P arties as to the existence of the obligation and Costa Rica does not
dispute the existence of it . It says rather, as already indicated, that the obligation has not been
triggered for it because the threshold of “significance” has n ot been met. On this , Mr. President, I
can be brief.
52. Once again, Costa Rica confuses magnitude with significance, as explained by my
colleague Mr. Reichler. Nicaragua has demonstrated significant harm and a risk of significant
harm to itself, in terms of burdens on human, material and financial resources, and to the river and
its aquatic environment. Costa Rica therefore had an obligation to notify Nicaragua of its road
project, which it failed to do.
4. Costa Rica breached its obligation not to cause significant
transboundary harm to Nicaragua
53. I turn next, Mr. President, to Costa Rica’s breach of its obligation not to cause significant
transboundary harm to Nicaragua. As before, Costa Rica accepts this obligation, contesting only
its violation of it. Now that we know that the risk posed by the road project has materialized,in the - 47 -
form of at least 75,000 tons of sediment annually, which amounts to 325,000 tons over the more
than four years since construction began and I would remind the Court that this is Costa Rica’s
estimate, which Nicaragua believes to be quite conservative Nicaragua is of the view that this is
significant, causes Nicaragua significant harm, and poses what you called “a risk that the proposed
industrial activity” in this case, an actual one “may have a significant adverse impact in a
transboundary context” in the future, as well. My colleague Mr. Reichler has amply demonstrated
that Costa Rica’s road project cause s significant harm to the Lower San Juan, by adding t o the
sediment deposits already obstructing navigation and diminishing the flow of fresh water to the
wetlands downstream that depend on it for their ecological balance. And I would recall that this is
especially true in view of the inability of Nicaragua ’s dredges to keep up with the rate of sediment
deposition in the first place, as noted by my colleague Paul Reichler earlier.
54. As with the obligations of environmental impact assessmen t and prior notification,
Costa Rica admits that the r oad is respon sible for contributing what Nicaragua considers to be
massive quantities of sediment to the river. It simply says, once again, that these quantities pale
into insignificance when compared with the river’s already very heavy sediment load. Nicaragua
would have two responses to these contentions.
55. First, they are wide of the mark, since the issue is not magnitude, but significance in
context. My colleague Mr. Reichler has shown that the additional quantities of sediment and debris
that Costa Rica’s road project contributes to the river are, in fact, significant in context, when
measured not against the river’s total sediment load, but against the additional impediments to
navigation and harm to aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands, they cause, and aga inst the
additional resources Nicaragua must expend in order to try to deal with these additional sediment
loads.
56. Second, as demonstrated in Nicaragua’s Reply 148, Costa Rica, which admits to being
responsible for the vast majority of the sediment load c arried by the San Juan, much of which is
149
due to poor land- use practices countenanced by the Costa Rican G overnment , should not be
heard to contend that it should not be responsible for the additional 75,000 tons a year it says the
14RN, e.g., pp. 69-70.
14Ibid. - 48 -
road project is responsible for because it is such a small percentage of sediment in comparison to
that which it already contributes. Nicaragua trusts that the Court will see the inequities of this
argument of Costa Rica and not allow it to diminish the significance of the quant ities of sediment
contributed to the river by theroad project in this way.
57. For these reasons, Mr. President, Nicaragua submits that by contributing by its own
measure 75,000 tons of sediment annually to the San Juan River, Nicarag ua’s sovereign
territory, Costa Rica has breached its obligation not to cause significant harm to Nicaragua.
5. Costa Rica breached treaties to which both States are parties due to the manner
in which the Road was, and is being, constructed.
58. Mr. President, I turn now, and finally and also briefly to Costa Rica’s breaches of
treaties to which both States are parties due to the m anner in which the r oad was, and is being,
constructed.
59. The treaties in question are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ra msar
Convention, the Central American Convention for the Protection of the Environment and other
Regional Instruments, and the bilateral Agreement on Border Protected Areas, known as the
“SI-A-PAZ” agreement. Costa Rica is dismissive of these agreements w hen they are asserted
against it, having embraced them warmly in asserting them against Nicaragua in Certain Activities.
Once again, rather than defending its compliance with the letter and spirit of the agreements,
Costa Rica seeks refuge in the “signifi cant harm” requirement, even as to multilateral agreements
that my colleague Professor Pellet has shown to apply to breaches wholly within Costa Rica’s
territory, namely, the Biodiversity and Ramsar Conventions. Nicaragua continues to maintain that
the manner in which Costa Rica has constructed, and continues to construct and manage the r oad,
violate these agreements. The contentions of Costa Rica that it has not breached the agreements
stand in striking contrast to the conclusion of the University of Cos ta Rica’s Environmental Law
experts regarding construction of the road, referred to by col league Paul Reichler yesterday, that
“Practically there is not a single one of our environmental laws that wasn’t violated.” 150
15CR 2015/8, p. 21 (Reichler). - 49 -
60. Mr. President, Members of the Court , that concludes my presentation. Thank you for
your kind and patient attention. I would be grateful, Mr. President, if you would now call my
colleague Professor Pellet to the podium.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne la parole au professeurPellet.
M. PELLET : Merci, Monsieur le président. Comme l’a dit récemment dans une affaire
récente un de mes anciens et éminents collègues, mon équipe m’a donné beaucoup à faire mais m’a
laissé peu de temps pour le faire. Alors plutôt que de bâcler ma présentation et essayer de couper
un peu au hasard, je m’arrêterai quand l’heure fatidique sera venue et, si nécessaire, je reprendrai
les arguments que je n’aurai pu avancer aujourd’hui durant le second tour.
R EMÈDES
1. Monsieur le président, M esdames et Messieurs les juges, le Costa Rica a construit (fort
mal) une route le long du San Juan. Celle-ci s’étire sur quelque 160 kilomètres, dont 108 au plus
près du fleuve.
2. Le Costa Rica se donne beaucoup de mal pour établir qu’il a le droit de c onstruire les
routes qu’il veut sur son territoire et il martèle que : «Costa Rica’s sovereign right to develop its
151
own territory and to construct roads anywhere in its territory must be fully respected .» Nous ne
le contestons pas. Du moment que la rout e n’empiète pas sur le territoire d’un Etat voisin et ne lui
cause pas de préjudice (je laisse la question du qualificatif pour plus tard), dans ces conditions il
peut construire les routes les plus invraisemblables, dangereuses et inutiles qu’il désire c’est en
principe une affaire entre l’Etat et sa population ou les usagers de ces voies. Mais le droit
international apporte une limite juridique à l’exercice de cette indiscutable compétence celle-là
même dont nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre se so nt prévalus avec emphase dans le cadre de
152
l’autre affaire, relative à Certaines activités ; l’utilisation de son territoire par l’Etat doit être non
dommageable : «l’Etat est tenu de mettre en Œuvre tous les moyens à sa disposition pour éviter que
les activités qui se déroulent sur son territoire, ou sur tout espace relevant de sa juridiction, ne
151DCR, p. 140, par. 8 c) ; voir aussi : CMCR, p. 107, par. 5.3. ; p. 1, par. 1.2, p. 6, par. 1.11, p. 9, par. 1.16,
p. 18, par. 1.34, p. 96, par. 4.4, p. 96, par. 4.9 et DCR, p. 5, par. 1.12, p. 71, par. 2.108 et p. 140, par.8 c).
152Voir notamment MCR, p. 115-123, par. 5.1-5.32, ou CR 2015/3, p.45-48, par. 3-11 (Parlett). - 50 -
causent un préjudice sensible à l’environnement d’un autre Etat» 153. Comme nous l’avons dit la
154
semaine dernière , et comme le professeur McCaffrey l’a répété tout à l’heure, nous sommes en
plein accord tant avec le principe qu’avec les conséquences qui en sont tirées dans le droit
international contemporain ; je pourrais reprendre à mon compte presque mot pour mot la
présentation que Mme Parlett en a faite mardi der nier 155 : tout Etat a l’obligation de notifier à
l’avance à l’Etat ou aux autres Etats possiblement affectés les activités menées sur son territoire
comportant un risque significatif de dommage transfrontière. Dans ce cas, il doit mener une étude
d’impact environnemental (EIE).
3. Monsieur le président,
le projet d’une route longeant sur 108 kilomètres un «territoire liquide» étranger comportait- il
un risque significatif de dommage transfrontière ? Réponse : évidemment oui ;
le Costa Rica a-t-il notifié son projet au Nicaragua ? Réponse : non ;
le Costa Rica a-t-il effectué une EIE ? Réponse : non.
4. Mes collègues ont excellemment établi le bien -fondé des trois réponses laconiques que je
viens de donner et je ne pourrais rien y ajouter d’utile. Cela montre à suffisance que la
responsabilité du Costa Rica est engagée : la construction de la route 1856 est sans aucun doute
attribuable au Costa Rica (qui ne prétend pas le contraire) et elle viole plusieurs des obligations
internationales de cet Etat 156. En outre, comme le professeur McCaffrey de nouveau lui l’a
montré, le Costa Rica ne peut se prévaloir de circonstances excluant l’illicéité, ce qui confirme que
la responsabilité du Costa Rica est engagée. Dès lors, on doit s’interroger sur les conséquen ces de
157
son ou de ses faits internationalement illicites .
5. Je ne vous apprendrai rien, Monsieur le président, en rappelant que, dans la conception
moderne, «post-Ago», dominante aujourd’hui, le dommage ne joue pas de rôle dans l’engagement
153 Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (I), p. 55-56,
par. 101.
154Voir CR 2015/6, p. 36-40, par. 30-36 (Pellet) et CR 2015/8, p. 30, par. 25 et p. 34-35, par. 34 (McCaffrey).
155
CR 2015/3, p. 45-48, par. 3-11 (Parlett).
156Cf. les articles 1 et 2 des Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fait internationalement illicite
annexés à la résolution56/83 de l’Assemblée générale des NationsUnies en date du 12 décembre 2001.
157 Cf. l’article 28 des Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fait internationalement illicite
(Conséquences juridiques d’un fait internationalement illicite). - 51 -
de la responsabilité 158. En revanche, il tient le rôle principal lorsqu’on en vient au «Contenu de la
responsabilité», codifié par la deuxième partie des Articles de la Commission du droit international
de 2001 sur la responsabilité internationale de l’Etat pour fait in ternationalement illicite. D’où
l’importance des longues présentations que nous avons consacrées à établir l’existence et l’étendue
des dommages causés au fleuve San Juan par la construction de la route, ses malfaçons et sa
détérioration, à quoi s’ajoute l’absence de consultation et de production d’une EIE . Ce sont les
conséquences à tirer de la responsabilité du Costa Rica ainsi établie que je vais présenter pour
terminer notre premier tour de plaidoiries. Encore une fois, peut -être seulement certaines d e ces
conséquences.
6. Monsieur le président, il y a toujours un certain artifice, dans les affaires de responsabilité,
à plaider la réparation ou, plus largement les «remèdes». Comme il se doit, l’Etat requérant essaie
de vous convaincre que la Partie défenderesse doit se plier à l’ensemble des obligations découlant
de l’engagement de sa responsabilité, telles que les codifient les articles 28 à 39 des Articles de la
CDI ; et le défendeur expliquera que, puisqu’il n’a commis aucun manquement, la question ne se
pose pas...
7. A cet égard, notre affaire ou plutôt nos affaires puisque vous les avez jointes pour,
ensuite, quasiment les disjoindre sont singulières. Dans la première, celle que vous avez
intitulée Certaines activités menées par le Nicarag ua dans la région frontalière , le Nicaragua est
défendeur ; il est requérant dans la seconde, relative à la Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le
long du fleuve San Juan. Je me suis donc employé à montrer, vendredi dernier, que les activités
qui sont reprochées au Nicaragua dans la première n’appellent aucun «remède» puisqu’elles ne
sont pas internationalement illicites et n’entraînent donc pas sa responsabilité alors qu’au
contraire il m’appartient de vous convaincre aujourd’hui qu’il est en droit d e vous demander
d’ordonner les remèdes d’usage du fait de la responsabilité du Costa Rica dans la seconde.
8. A ce stade, Monsieur le président, cette responsabilité du Costa Rica est bien établie : il a
sans aucun doute commis un ou plusieurs faits inte rnationalement illicites il a violé nombre
158Cf. les articles 1 et 2 des Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité de l’Etat. - 52 -
d’obligations lui appartenant en droit international, et il est évident aussi que ce ou ces faits ont
causé un grave préjudice au Nicaragua.
9. Il appartient à la Cour d’en tirer les conséquences et à moi d’expliquer qu’elles pourraient
être ces conséquences en détaillant les conclusions du Nicaragua. Ces conclusions sont
relativement complexes car la situation créée par la construction illicite de la route 1856 est
elle-même difficile et appelle des réponses adaptées. J’essaierai de justifier chacune de ces
conclusions séparément pas forcément dans l’ordre dans lequel elles se présentent dans notre
réplique mais de manière synthétique. Pour la commodité des juges et de la
Partie costa-ricienne, le texte écrit de ma plaidoirie comporte, pour chacune de ces conclusions, les
références aux principaux passages des écritures des Parties susceptibles d’éclairer ces éléments.
o
[Projection n 1 : Cessation des faits internationalement illicites de caractère conti nu commis
par le Costa Rica et exécution des obligations violées]
1. La cessation de la violation et la reprise des obligations violées 159
10. Monsieur le président, comme l’écrit la Commission du droit international dans son
commentaire de l’article 30 des Articles de 2001, «[l]a cessation du comportement en violation
d’une obligation internationale est la première condition à remplir pour éliminer les conséquences
160
du comportement illicite» . La cessation s’impose essentiellement, même si pas exclusivement ,
lorsque la violation est continue et, dans ce cas, elle doit conduire à la reprise de l’exécution de
161
l’obligation violée .
11. Mis à part les arguments «pavloviens» selon lesquels il n’a pas commis de fait
162
internationalement illicite , ni le Nicaragua s ubi de dommages du fait de la construction de la
route 1856, le Costa Rica s’appuie, dans sa duplique, sur un extrait de votre arrêt de 2009 selon
lequel
159 Voir MN, p. 231-234, par. 6.13-6.17 ; CMCR, p. 132, par. 6.9 ; RN, p. 255-257, par. 7.3-7.6 ; DCR,
p. 124-125, par. 4.11-4.13. Voir aussi, RN, p. 264-265, par. 7.17-7.18 ; DCR, p. 128-131, par. 4.18-4.24.
160Commentaire de l’article 30 des Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fait internationalement
illicite, par. 4, Annuaire 2001, vol. II, deuxième partie, p. 94.
161
Cf. l’article 29 des Articles de la CDI.
162
Voir DCR, p. 124-125, par. 4.11 et 4.13. - 53 -
«Il n’est pas nécessaire, et il n’est pas utile en règle générale, que la Cour
rappelle l’existence de cette obligation dans le dispositif des arrêts qu’elle rend : du
seul fait que la Cour constate l’existence d’une violation qui présente un caractère
continu, il découle de plein droit l’obligation de la faire cesser, à la charge de l’Etat
concerné.
La Cour peut estimer opportun, dans des circonstances spéciales, de mentionner
expressément ladite obligation dans le dispositif de son arrêt. Elle n’aperçoit pas de
raison particulière de le faire en l’espèce.» 163
12. J’avoue, avec tout le respect dû, que j ’ai quelque doute sur le principe même ainsi
énoncé, ne fût-ce que parce que le caractère continu d’un fait internationalement illicite peut être
164
douteux . Mais cela n’a pas d’importance en l’espèce. Dans notre affaire
la violation est certainement continue ;
elle continue évidemment à produire des effets préjudiciables ; et
il y a assurément des raisons particulières pour que la Cour insiste sur l’obligation de cessation
dans le dispositif de son arrêt.
13. S’agissant du premier point (la violation cont inue), il faut garder à l’esprit que la
construction de la route a été entreprise en décembre 2010 165. Les travaux sont ensuite allés bon
train (c’est une litote) : en un an (c’est-à-dire à la date du dépôt de la requête, une centaine de
kilomètres de route avaient été bâclés plus que construits. Le 7 mars 2011, le
166
Gouvernement costa-ricien publia un décret instituant l’état d’urgence complété, en septembre,
167
par un autre décret réglementant cet état d’urgence ; tous deux visaient à tenter de justifier
ex post la précipitation avec laquelle la construction de la route avait été entreprise et conduite je
ne sais si ces règles Potemkine peuvent avoir un effet exonératoire en droit interne comme le
Costa Rica l’affirme 168; elles ne sauraient en tout cas const ituer des «circonstances excluant
163
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 267, par. 148.
164
Cf. le commentaire de l’article 14 des Articles de la CDI de 2001, en particulier les paragraphes 4 et 5
(Annuaire 2001, vol. II, deuxième partie, p. 63).
165
Voir DCR, p. 102, par. 3.41 et CR 2013/29, p. 13, par. 6 et p. 14, par. 9 (Brenes).
166Costa Rica, décret n 36440 du 7 mars 2011 (année CXXXIII), La Gaceta n o46 (La Uruca, San José
(Costa Rica)) (MN, vol. II, annexe 11).
167Décision n 0362-2011, règlement du 21 septembre 2011 relatif aux procédures d’achat et de passation de
marchés sous un régime d’exception, conformément au décret no 36440 instituant l’état d’urgence (MN, vol. II,
annexe 12).
168CMCR, p. 22-27, par. 2.25-2.35 et DCR, p.61, par. 3.42. Voir aussi CR2015/3 (Parlett), p. 47, par. 10. - 54 -
l’illicéité» en droit international comme le professeur McCaffrey toujours lui ! l’a montré
tout à l’heure.
14. L’introduction de la requête du Nicaragua a freiné l’ardeur bâtisseuse du
Gouvernement costa-ricien qui explique le ralentissement, voire la suspension des travaux par le
169
manque de fonds , à quoi semblent s’être ajoutés des problèmes de corruption et d’irrégularité
dans l’adjudication des contrats de travaux 170. Mais je ne peux m’empêcher de remarquer
d’intéressantes coïncidences entre les différentes étapes de la procédure et les annonces successives
du retardement de la reprise des travaux. Tout donne l’impression que le Costa Rica recule
périodiquement la reprise des travaux, je dirais pour «amadouer» vot re haute juridiction et éviter le
prononcé de mesures obligatoires tant qu’elle est saisie. Mais dès que la procédure sera achevée ou
votre arrêt rendu, le Costa Rica reprendra les travaux qui n’ont jamais été officiellement
suspendus et encore moins ar rêtés. Et ce contexte justifie amplement que vous enjoignez le
Costa Rica de cesser et de ne pas reprendre ses agissements illicites. Je relève d’ailleurs en
passant que les autorités costa- riciennes «jouent» très systématiquement avec le calendrier de la
procédure, puisque nouvelle coïncidence, M. Segnini, ministre costa-ricien des travaux publics et
des transports, a annoncé hier non pas la construction de nouveaux tronçons de route, mais des
travaux de remise en état de la route qu’il décrit comme ét ant «détériorée et abandonnée»
(deteriorada y abandonada) 17.
o o
[Fin de la projection n 1 Projection n 2 : Faute de remise en état le préjudice se poursuit]
15. Au demeurant, quand bien même le Costa Rica ne donnerait pas suite à son intention
proclamée de poursuivre la construction stricto sensu de la route, le principe même de l’utilisation
dommageable du territoire continuerait que dis-je «continuerait» ? continue à être violé aussi
longtemps que les malfaçons dans la conception et la réalisation de la route causent des dommages
au fleuve San Juan de Nicaragua. Je ne peux, Monsieur le président, rivaliser d’éloquence avec
169CR 2013/29 (Brenes), p. 17, par. 17.
170
Voir notamment R. Madrigal, «Works on the Trail Paralyzed while Waiting for Designs and Modular
Bridges», crhoy.com, 10 juillet 20 14 (RN, vol. II, annexe 21). Voir aussi La Nacion, 7 octobre 2014
(http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/poder-judicial/Fiscal-jefe-OIJ-chocan-tro…) et La Nació n,
5 février 2015 ( http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/poder-judicial/Llega-numero-imputados-tro…-
fronteriza_0_1467853357.html). Voir aussi ibid.
171
J. Bravo, «Costa Rica reinicia mejoramiento de carretera fronteriza», La Prensa , 20 avril 2015
(http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2015/04/20/nacionales/1818310-costa-rica-rei…). - 55 -
e
M Reichler qui a montré dans ses présentations d’hier et de ce matin combien le fleuve avait
souffert, et continuait de souffrir , des malfaçons de la route et des centaines de milliers de tonnes
de sédiments qui s’y sont déversées et continuent de s’y déverser. Il a montré aussi que les travaux
de remise en état, très partiels, intervenus jusqu’à présent, laissaient eux -mêmes souvent
grandement à désirer et n’avaient nullement mis fin aux atteintes à l’intégrité du fleuve et, pire,
que, dans bien des cas, le délabrement de la route auquel il n’a pas été remédié a été jusqu’à
aggraver la situation résultant de sa construction stricto sensu. J’aurais, si j’avais le temps, rappelé
un certain nombre de chiffres mais vous en avez eus suffisamment.
16. De toute façon, les chiffres ne sont sans doute pas l’essentiel . En lisant ses écritures, j’ai
eu l’impression que le Costa Rica voula it faire une lecture exclusivement «statistique» des
dommages ; d’où ces disputes interminables sur la densité de grains de sable au mètre ou au
kilomètre carré q ui ont conduit hier le président Tomka à sortir sa calculette. Mais à lire ou à
écouter les experts, il m’a semblé que ce n’était pas la bonne façon de poser le problème : les
sédiments ne se répartissent pas uniformément sur le lit du fleuve ; leur dépôt se concentre en des
lieux précis qui deviennent, très concrètement, des obstacles à la navigation du fleuve à laquelle
le Costa Rica se montre par ailleurs si viscéralement attaché , et tout ceci accroît en particulier
l’ensablement du cours inférieur du San Juan.
17. Tout ceci a été confirmé par les experts consultés par le Nicaragua que vous avez pu
entendre et interroger hier. Comme l’a résumé avec force M. Weaver que le Costa Rica n’a pas
jugé utile de contre-interroger:
«Four years after construction of the Road, widespread and effective mitigation
is not apparent. [. . .] The majority of watercourse crossings, cut slopes, and fill slopes
remain unstable, exhibit significant visible erosion, and have not been treated or fully
treated with appropriate stabilization and erosion control measures. The lack of
progress is striking, as is the amount of work that remains to be done.» 172
[Fin de la projection n 2]
18. Le caractère continu de la violation (et de ses effets préjudiciables) ne fait donc aucun
doute. Et il appartient au Costa Rica de la faire cesser . Mais il y a aussi d’excellentes «raisons
172Déclaration écrite de M.William E. Weaver, 15 mars 2015, p. 19, par. 50. - 56 -
particulières» pour que vous rappeliez avec force cette obligation dans votre ar rêt, Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges. Et j’en aperçois au moins trois :
comme je l’ai dit il y a un instant, le Costa Rica, loin de s’engager à cesser la constr uction
litigieuse, proclame au contraire son intention de la reprendre ; tout au plus retarde -t-il
prudemment cette reprise à la période qui suivra le prononcé de votre arrêt ;
ce faisant, le Costa Rica fait en sorte que la Cour ne puisse pas apprécier si ces nouveaux
travaux sont ou non conformes à ses obligations internationales c’est d’ailleurs ainsi qu’il a
réussi à convaincre la Cour qu’il n’y avait pas urgence à se prononcer sur la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires présentée par le Nicaragua dans son ordonnance
du 13 décembre 2013 ;
moyennant quoi, même s’il retarde la repri se de la construction, le Costa Rica se garde bien de
prendre l’engagement de procéder différemment, en s’entourant, comme il le devrait, de toutes
les précautions requises pour que la construction de la route et la route elle-même une fois
construite ne causent pas de dommage significatif au fleuve San Juan de Nicaragua ; ceci est
aussi regrettable que logique puisqu’il s’obstine à ne pas reconnaître que les tronçons construits
l’ont été en violation de ses obligations en vertu du droit international ;
seuls des travaux de réhabilitation et de remise en état de l’ensemble des portions déjà
construites, conçus de façon à éviter durablement toute atteinte au San Juan c’est-à-dire à la
souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua seraient de nature à faire cesser le fait
internationalement illicite qui engage la responsabilité du Costa Rica ; or, maintes fois promise,
cette remise en état est à peine achevée au quart et les travaux supposés remédier aux
malfaçons actuelles ne réalisent bien souvent pas cet objectif.
19. Ceci étant, Monsieur le président, il faut s’entendre sur l’objet de la cessation que
demande le Nicaragua. Il ne s’agit évidemment pas que vous ordonn iez que toute construction de
route dans la région, et même le long du fleuve, cesse à jamais. Comme je l’ai dit, nous ne
contestons nullement le droit du Costa Rica de construire tout ce qu’il veut sur la rive droite du
fleuve; ce qui doit cesser c’est le projet actuel et ses intolérables conséquences. En ce sens, la
cessation que le Nicaragua vous demande d’ordonner est inséparable de la remise des choses en
l’état la restitutio in integrum (j’ai toujours regretté que la CDI l’ait «délatinisé e» dans - 57 -
l’article 35 de ses Articles sur la responsabilité). Je pense que cet article vous est suffisamment
connu donc ; je ne vais pas le relire.
[Projection n 3 : Le rétablissement du statu quo ante]
2. La restitutio in integrum 173
20. Comme il l’a expliqué dans sa réplique , le Nicaragua n’exige pas que le rétablissement
du statu quo soit intégral ce qui signifierait la destruction complète de la route 1856 et la
réinvention, ou la réhabilitation d’une situation géographique, morphologique et paysagère qui e st
probablement hors d’atteinte. Loin de s’en montrer reconnaissant, le Costa Rica s’indigne de cette
modération, pourtant conforme aux prescriptions de l’article 35. Il juge notre demande de
restitution confuse, inadaptée et incompatible avec notre demande d’indemnisation.
o o
[Fin de la projection n 3 Projection n 4 : Paragraphe 7.9 de la réplique du Nicaragua]
21. Pour ce qui est de la confusion alléguée, je me permets, Mesdames et Messieurs de la
Cour, de vous renvoyer au paragraphe 7.9 de notre réplique. Il est un peu long à lire mais il figure
à l’onglet 18 de nos dossiers. Il vous y est demandé de décider les choses suivantes :
replanter des arbres dans les zones touchées par des abattages inconsidérés (pour rappel : la
construction de la route e st à l’origine de la destruction de plus de 83 hectares de forêt, dont
175
68,3 hectares de forêt primaire en zone humide protégée par la convention RAMSAR ) ;
reconstruire et consolider les rives du fleuve là où elles ont été affectées par la construction mal
conçue et bâclée de la route, et, plus généralement ;
procéder à une remise en état conforme aux règles de l’art.
Voici qui ne semble ni déraisonnable, ni hors de portée. Et le Costa Rica se montre tout d’un coup
bien ombrageux lorsqu’il s’indigne que nous ayons pu suggérer que, ce faisant, il devrait agir en
suivant les recommandations des experts (qu’ils soient d’ailleurs nommés par le Nicaragua, par la
Cour elle-même, voire éventuellement par lui -même (le Costa Rica) à condition que ce ne soit
173
MN, p. 241-242, par. 6.31-6.32 ; RN, p. 257-258, par. 7.7-7.10 ; DCR, p. 122-123, par. 4.5-4.8 ; voir aussi, en
ce qui concerne le dragage du fleuve : MN, p. 252, par. 3 i) et ii) ; CMCR, p. 133-134, par. 6.10-6.11 ; RN, p. 277-279,
par. 7.44-7.47 ; DCR, p. 134-135, par. 4.34-4.35 ; voir également CMN ( Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua
dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), p. 455-456, par. 2 iii) et iv)).
174
Voir RN, p. 257-259, par. 7.8-7.10.
175 Costa Rica, centre de sciences tropicales, d iagnostic sur l’impact sur l’environnement de la
route 1856 volet écologique du projet novembre 2013 (CMCR, Affaire de la Route, vol. II, annexe 10). - 58 -
pas exclusif j’y reviendrai si j’ai le temps). Le professeur Kohen était moins sourcilleux sur les
limites de la compétence de la Cour lorsqu’il vous expliquait mercredi dernier, Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges, que vous pouviez, sans scrupule particulier, or donner l’abrogation ou la
176
modification du décret nicaraguayen de 2009 sur la navigation touristique sur le San Juan .
o o
[Fin de la projection n 4 Projection n 5 : Une déclaration selon laquelle le Nicaragua est
en droit de draguer le San Juan]
22. Par ailleurs, le Costa Rica se dit troublé par notre demande d’indemnisation en
compensation «for restoring the natural flow of the waters that flow through the south basin to the
San Juan River which has been modified as a consequence of the construction works which have
also modified the drainage of the surrounding wetlands in the lower San Juan and its delta». Je ne
pense pas, Monsieur le président , que ceci soit tellement troublant mais il est vrai que cette
demande est, en quelque sorte, «à cheval» sur la restitutio et l’indemnisation. Je m’explique : il ne
peut faire de doute que le dragage du San Juan constitue un élément indispensable de la remise en
état ; ceci ressort notamment du rapport du professeur Andrews de juillet 2014 177 et de nombreux
178
documents scientifiques que vous avez eus sous les yeux . Toutefois, seul souverain sur le lit du
fleuve, le Nicaragua entend procéder lui-même à ces travaux qui ne peuvent être menés que sur son
territoire et il entend être indemnisé de leur coût par le Costa Rica. C’est bien de restitutio qu’il
s’agit et l’indemnisation attendue de l’autre Partie est destinée à compenser le coût de cette
restitution. Cela ne me paraît avoir rien d’inconsistant ou d’incohérent.
23. Le Costa Rica affirme en outre que la même demande aurait été rejetée par votre arrêt
de 2009 dans la première affaire du San Juan 179. Vous aviez relevé alors que la question
abstraite et générale du «droit [du Nicaragua] de draguer le San Juan afin de rétablir le débit
d’eau qui existait en 1858, même si cela modifie le débit d’autres cours d’eau récepteurs comme le
Colorado», avait été réglée
176Voir CR 2015/4, p. 37, par. 9.
177 Edmund D. Andrews, «Evaluation des méthodes, des calculs et des conclusions du Costa Rica concernant
l’apport et le transport de sédiments dans le bassin du fleuve San Juan», juillet 2014, section V)I (RN, vol. II, annexe 3).
178
Déclaration écrite de M. le professeur émérite Edmund D. Andrews, 15 mars 2015, p. 2, par. 3.
179
Voir CMCR, p. 133-134, par. 6.11. - 59 -
«dans le dispositif de la sentence Cleveland. Cette sentence a en effet décidé, dans les
points 4 à 6 de la troisième partie, que le Costa Rica n’est pas tenu de contribuer aux
dépenses nécessaires pour améliorer la navigation sur le fleuve San Juan et que le
Nicaragua peut exécuter les travaux d ’amélioration qu’il estime convenables, à
condition que lesdits travaux ne perturbent pas gravement 180navigation sur les
affluents du San Juan appartenant auCosta Rica» .
Mais ici, les circonstances sont toute différentes de ce que la Cour avait à l’esp rit à ce
moment-là : en l’espèce, le Nicaragua ne vous demande pas de confirmer le droit reconnu par la
sentence Cleveland dans l’abstrait, mais de déclarer très concrètement que, pour remettre les choses
en l’état, à titre de réparation, de restitutio in integrum, il peut procéder à un tel dragage ; et ceci
aux frais du Costa Rica, hypothèse qui n’est pas du tout celle de la sentence de 1888, qui est toute
différente de la nôtre : ce qui est en cause ici, c’est la responsabilité du Costa Rica dans la situation
qui est à l’origine de l’obligation de procéder au dragage . De même le Costa Rica proteste contre
181
le fait que nous aurions fait la même demande dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités . Il est
exact que nous avions formulé dans cette affaire u ne demande reconventionnelle destinée en des
termes voisins de ceux utilisés dans les conclusions de la r éplique relative à la route 182. Mais je
rappelle que la Cour a rejeté notre demande reconventionnelle, cette demande reconventionnelle
du Nicaragua en r elevant qu’elle n’était «pas suffisamment liée aux demandes principales du
183
Costa Rica pour pouvoir être déclarée recevable sur la base de l’article 80 du Règlement» . Or, il
paraît évident que le lien de connexité factuelle et juridique, qui faisait défaut en 2013 à la demande
du Nicaragua, existe en la présente espèce d’autant plus qu’il s’agit ici non pas d’invoquer (en
tout cas pas exclusivement) un droit conventionnel, mais il s’agit simplement d’une modalité selon
laquelle la restitutio in integrum pourrait et même devrait être réalisée.
[Fin de la projection n o5 Projection n 6 : Une indemnisation pour les dommages
susceptibles d’évaluation financière]
180 Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 269, par. 155.
181
Voir CMCR, p. 133, par. 6.11, et DCR, p. 134, par. 4.34.
182
CMN (Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) ),
p. 455-456, par. 2 iii) et iv).
183 Construction d’une route au Cost a Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica) ; Certaines
activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica cNicaragua), demandes reconventionnelles ,
ordonnance du 18 avril 2013, C.I.J.Recueil 2013, p. 214, par. 36 et 37 ; voir aussi p. 215, par. 38. - 60 -
3. L’indemnisation 184
24. Monsieur le président, pour les raisons que j’ai indiquées il y a quelques instants, le coût
du dragage nécessaire à la remise du fleuve en l’état doit être inclus dans l’indemnité que le
Nicaragua prie la Cour de bien vouloir fixer dans une phase ultérieure de la procédure
conformément à la pratique bien établie dont le Costa Rica se réclame d’ailleurs dans l’affaire
relative à Certaines activités 185.
25. Nos contradicteurs n’ont pas eu grand- chose à dire sur l’indemnisation réclamée par le
Nicaragua dans la mesure où la réparation ne peut être pleinement assurée par la restitution . Dans
leur contre-mémoire comme dans leur duplique, ils se bornent à répéter : «the simple point is that
Nicaragua’s claim for compensation is not based on any showing of actionable damage. The
waters continues to flow from the south basin on C osta Rican territory to the San Juan River, as it
186
has always done .» Eh bien non, Monsieur le président, ce n’est malheureusement pas exact :
certes les eaux du bassin de la rive sud continuent à grossir le fleuve ; mais aux sédiments habituels
s’en ajoutent d’énormes quantités résultant de la construction de la route, mais également des
débris de ponts, des débris de ponceaux, qui entraînent une sédimentation tout à fait abusive du
fleuve, affecte la qualité de ses eaux et de sa faune, entraîne la formati on de deltas de sédiments
dont la dimension va croissant, et entraîne une limitation de plus en plus marquée de la navigabilité
du San Juan de Nicaragua particulièrement dans le cours inférieur du fleuve (entre la bifurcation
avec le Colorado et l’embouchure) 187.
26. Face au mutisme obstiné de nos contradicteurs sur l’indemnisation, je me bornerai à
quelques remarques en style télégraphique :
184 Voir MN, p. 242-243, par. 6.32-6.34 ; CMCR, p. 134-136, par. 6.12-6.14 ; RN, p. 265-266, par. 7.19-7.21 ;
DCR, p. 123-124, par. 4.9-4.10.
185Voir CR 2015/4, p. 36-37, par. 7 (Kohen).
186
DCR, p. 123-124, par. 4.10.
187 Voir notamment : Déclaration écrite de M. William E. Weaver, 15 mars 2015 ; Déclaration écrite du
professeur G. Mathias Kondolf (Affaire de la Route), 16 mars 2015 ; RN, p. 47-48, par. 2.40 et p. 48, fig. 2.13. - 61 -
1) comme ceci est communément admis, une indemnité n’est due à titre de réparation que «dans la
188
mesure où le dommage n’est pas réparé par la restitution» ;
2) dans notre affaire, je l’ai dit, on ne peut tout attendre de la restitution, ne fût -ce que parce
qu’elle ne peut pas avoir d’effet rétroactif et effacer les dommages qui ont déjà été causés au
fleuve et à son ut ilisation par le Nicaragua (par le Costa Rica aussi d’ailleurs mais ce n’est
pas le préjudice dont nous vous demandons réparation ici !) ;
3) il est d’autant plus impossible d’évaluer maintenant l’étendue des préjudices matériels subis par
le Nicaragua, que, faute de remise de la route en état, celle-ci ou ses malfaçons continuent
de causer au «territoire fluvial» du Nicaragua des dommages extrêmement substantiels ;
4) dans l’hypothèse où la consistance et l’étendue de ces dommages ne sembleraient pas
suffisamment établies par les rapports précis, détaillés, motivés, des experts que nous avons
consultés, nous continuons de souhaiter que la Cour désigne un ou des experts de son choix
pour établir d’une manière complètement objective et irréfutable l’existence de ces préjudices et
la chaîne de leur causalité ;
5) et enfin, comme j’ai eu l’occasion de le dire vendredi en discutant les réparations demandées
189
par le Costa Rica dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités , il nous paraît aller de soi que si,
par impossible, vous estimiez qu’une réparation pécuniaire est due par le Nicaragua en
réparation du (très modeste) préjudice matériel que le creusement et le nettoyage, en 2013, de
deux petits caños par M. Pastora et ses ouvriers, cette réparation pécuni aire devrait être déduite
de la somme, assurément beaucoup plus importante, que le Costa Rica sera appelé à verser au
Nicaragua pour les dommages considérables dus à la construction de la route et qui n’auront pu
être réparés par la restitutio. Et ceci semble être une conséquence normale en outre de la
jonction des affaires.
188Article 36 des Articles de la CDI. sur la respon sabilité de l’Etat pour fait internationalement illicite et son
commentaire, Annuaire 2001, vol. II, deuxième partie, p. 105-113. Voir aussi notamment : Usine de Chorzów, fond,
arrêt n o 13, 1928, C.P.J.I. série A n o17, p. 47 ; Projet Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (Hongrie/Slovaquie), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1997, p. 80, par. 149 ; Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (I), p. 103, par. 273 ; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du
Congo), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (II), p. 691, p. 161 ou Immunités juridictionnelles de l’Etat (Allemagne c.Italie ;
Gerce (intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 2012 (I), p. 153, par. 137 ; ou Tribunal international du droit de la mer, arrêt du
1 juillet 1999, Affaire du navire Saïga (n° 2) (Saint-Vincent-et-les Grenadines c. Guinée), par. 170.
189CR 2015/7, p. 61, par. 43 (Pellet). - 62 -
o o
[Fin de la projection n 6 Projection n 7 : Une déclaration de la Cour constatant que le
Costa Rica a commis des faits internationalement illicites]
4. La constatation de la violation de ses obligations par le Costa Rica
27. Au demeurant, ni la restitution ni l’indemnisation ne sont de nature à réparer le préjudice
moral (ou «juridique») subi par le Nicaragua. C’est pourquoi celui -ci prie par ailleurs la Cour de
déclarer formellement que le Costa Rica a violé ses obligations internationales à son égard 190et, en
premier lieu sa souveraineté territoriale en déversant dans le fleuve San Juan de Nicaragua,
illicitement et sans consultation aucune avec le souverain territorial, d’énormes quantités de
sédiments, qui en altèrent le cours et en limitent la navigabilité . Il s’agit là d’une autre forme de
déclaration, plus directement réparatrice, qui relève de la satisfaction.
28. Le Costa Rica s’y oppose en affirmant n’avoir commis aucune violation c’est la loi du
genre ! Par hypothèse, lorsque l’on discute les remèdes, il faut postuler le contraire, au moins aux
fins du débat et l’absence de toute discussion par le Costa Rica sur cette demande
nicaraguayenne autre que cette défense passe- partout, montre, a contrario , qu’il admet que, si la
Cour constate qu’il a commis les violations dont le Nicaragua l’accuse, un tel jugement déclaratoire
est, en l’occurrence, justifié.
29. Il aurait, à vrai dire, mauvaise grâce à prétendre le contrai re. Certes, ces constatations
sont le support nécessaire de l’arrêt à intervenir mais, dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités,
malgré les dommages infiniment moins graves qu’il a subis, le Costa Rica a formulé, sans les
justifier clairement, des demandes de déclarations comparables alors même que, dans cette
affaire-là, sa souveraineté est contestée. Dans celle qui nous occupe plus directement aujourd’hui,
la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua sur le San Juan n’est pas contestée, les atteintes que lui
porte la construction de la route sont avérées. Il s’agit là d’un dommage immatériel qui s’ajoute
aux préjudices matériels causés au fleuve et à son environnement et qui appelle une satisfaction .
Comme l’a noté la Commission du d roit international dans son commentaire de l’article 37 des
Articles de 2001, dans des cas de ce genre, «[u]ne des formes de satisfaction les plus
190MN, p. 229 -231, par. 6.10 -6.12 ; CMCR, p. 132, par. 6.8 ; RN, p. 268 -269, par. 7.24-7.26 ; DCR, p. 132,
par. 4.27-4.28. - 63 -
fréquentes ... est la déclaration d’illicéité faite par une cour ou un tribunal compétent» 19. C’est ce
que le Nicaragua vous demande.
30. J’ajoute que l’attitude systématiquement blessante et outrancière du Costa Rica justifie
en l’espèce tout particulièrement cette demande qui permettra de clarifier définitivement la
situation juridique avec l’autorité de la chose jugée ce qui est toujours plus incertain si l’on doit
s’en remettre aux seuls motifs de l’arrêt . Et, sans que je crois utile de m’y appesantir,
permettez-moi, Monsieur le président, de donner deux exemples de ces attitudes costa-riciennes qui
expliquent l’amertume du Nicaragua et plaident, en l’espèce, en faveur d’un tel arrêt déclaratoire :
il y a d’abord (encore une fois, ce ne sont que des exemples) le nom officiel de la route
(«JuanRafael Mora Porras – Route 1856») qui ravive des souvenirs amers dans la mémoire
collective nicaraguayenne : 1856 est l’année de l’invasion et de l’occupation du Nicaragua par
l’aventurier américain William Walker ; quant à Juan Rafael Mora Porras, s’il contribua à la
lutte contre Walker, son armée occupa en 1857 une partie du territoi re nicaraguayen et il
complota avec l’envoyé de l’homme d’affaire Cornelius Vanderbilt pour arracher le San Juan
192
au Nicaragua ;
je mentionne aussi la réaction complètement disproportionnée du Costa Rica face à l’affaire
des caños transformée en une «occup ation de l’Isla Portillos» et qui est à l’origine de la
proclamation de l’état d’urgence et de la construction précipitée de cette route désastreuse...
Nous sommes convaincus qu’une exposition claire et autorisée, comme vos décisions le sont,
contribuerait à un apaisement nécessaire en clarifiant, dans le dispositif de votre arrêt, les
obligations et les droits respectifs des deux Parties.
o o
[Fin de la projection n 7 Projection n 8 : Autres réparations déclaratoires]
191Commentaire de l’article 37 des Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fait internationalement
illicite, par. 6, Annuaire2001, vol. II, deuxième partie, p.114. Voir notamment affaire du Détroit de Corfou
(Royaume-Uni c. Albanie), fond, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 1949, p. 35 et sentence arbitrale du 30 avril 1990, Affaire
concernant les problèmes nés entre la Nouvelle -Zélande et la France relatifs à l’interprétation ou à l’application de deux
accords conclus le 9 juillet 1986, lesquels concernaient les problèmes découlant de l’affaire duRainbow Warrior ,
Nations Unies, Recueil des sentences arbitrales(RSA.), vol. XX, p. 273, par. 123.
192 Arthur Mcmillan, Cornelius Vanderbilt 163 Success Facts - Everything you ne ed to know about
Cornelius Vanderbilt , Emereo Publishing, May 23, 2014 - Biography & Autobiography - 170 pages,
Google eBook https://books.google.fr/books?id=ndgKBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT85&lpg=PT85&dq=juan+…
rras+%2B+vanderbilt&source=bl&ots=rsjlkFeu4h&sig=mPEuIDbro-8qQfXA6ZED9raPQjg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9C00
VcbNDZLfaP6kgcAM&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=vanderbiltjuan%20rafael%20mora%20porras%20%20%2
0vanderbilt&f=false. Voir MN, p. 2, note 1 ; voir aussi CMN (Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la
région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)), p. 30-31, par. 2.25-2.27 et CMN (Différend relatif à des droits de
navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)) , p. 31-33, par. 1.2.41-1.2.43. - 64 -
5. Autres réparations déclaratoires 193
31. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, compte tenu des circonstances très particulières de
l’affaire, le Nicaragua prie en outre la Cour de décider
d’une part, que le Costa Rica ne peut entreprendre d’activités nouvelles dans la région du
San Juan sans avoir préalablement préparé une EIE et l’avoir communiquée en temps utile au
Nicaragua ; et
d’autre part, qu’il n’utilisera pas ni ne laissera utiliser la route 1856 pour le transport de
matières dangereuses.
32. Peut-être est-ce là ce que l’on appelle des «garanties de non -répétition» même si j’avoue
avoir peu d’inclinaison pour cette notion que les Articles de la CDI jumellent bizarrement (à mon
194
avis à tort) avec la cessation du fait internationalement illicite , que les Parties ont pris la
mauvaise habitude d’invoquer un peu à tort et à travers devant vous, même lorsque l’affaire qui
vous est soumise ne s’y prête à l’évidence pas. Celle relative à Certaines activités parexemple : le
Costa Rica exige de telles garanties mais se garde bien d’indiquer en quoi elles pourraient
consister 195.
33. Il en va différemment dans la présente espèce dans laquelle le Nicaragua a, je pense, de
bonnes raisons de vous prier d’ordonner ces deux mesures très concrètes qui sont des mesures de
sage précaution. Le CostaRica les rejette l’une et l’autre.
34. En ce qui concerne l’EIE préalable à toute nouvelle activité présentant, cela va de soi,
196
un risque significatif de dommage transfrontière , comme c’était le cas pour la route, le
Costa Rica répond essentiellement «à côté de la question» si vous me permettez de finir, j’en ai
pour trois minutes pour cette rubrique… :
selon sa coutume, il affirme n’avoir violé aucune obligation internationale puisque la
construction de la route n’a causé aucun dommage au Nicaragua 197 je renonce à commenter
cela ;
193
Voir MN, p. 234-238, par. 6.18-6.25 ; RN, p. 258-263, par. 7.11-7.15 ; DCR, p. 125-126, par. 4.14
194Article 39 des Articles de 2001 : «Cessation et non-répétition».
195Voir CR 2015/7, p. 62, par. 46 (Pellet).
196
Voir MN, p. 233-236, par. 6.17 et p. 252, par. 2 iv) ; CMCR, p. 132, par. 6.9 ; RN, p. 269-273, par. 7.27-7.35 ;
DCR, p. 132-133, par. 4.29-4.31.
197
DCR, p. 132-133, par. 4.29. - 65 -
il en irait d’autant plus ainsi en l’espèce que la déclaration instituant l’état d’urgence l’aurait
dispensé de l’obligation d’établir une EIE 198 ;
de toute manière, il aurait finalement, produit l’ étude en question en ... novembre 2013, soit
plus de trois ans après le début des travaux ; et,
n’en n’étant pas à une contradiction près bien qu’il ait produit, dit -il, cette étude le
Costa Rica affirme «that it would have been impossible for Costa Rica to conduct a
transboundary EIA since Nicaragua has systematically denied Costa Rica access to the
199
San Juan River»] !
35. C’est justement parce que tout ceci est inquiétant, Monsieur le président , qu’une ferme
déclaration de la part de la Cour semble s’imposer . Il est en effet passablement préoccupant que le
Costa Rica estime que la construction de la route 1856 ne comportait aucun risque de dommage
significatif au territoire du Nicaragua (en l’occurrence au fleuve San Juan) . Il est assez alarmant
que le Costa Rica persiste à s’abriter d errière son droit interne pour prétendre à la licéité
internationale de son comportement en la matière . Et il est proprement atterrant qu’il considère
qu’une EIE digne de ce nom peut intervenir trois ans après l’achèvement des travaux qui en sont
l’objet.
[Fin de la projection n 8 Projection n 9 : Imaginez un camion-citerne... (Sediment deltas
downslope from failing watercourse crossings and exposed slopes. Severely Eroding Area 9,
Kondolf (2014), March 2015)]
36. L’autre déclaration de précaution que le Nicaragua prie la Cour de bien vouloir faire est
surtout une affaire de bon sens ici encore la réponse du Costa Rica ne fait qu’aviver nos
inquiétudes et nous conforter dans la conviction qu’il vous faut, Mesdames et Messieurs de la
Cour, déclarer que la route doit être fermée à la circulation des produits dangereux jusqu’à ce
qu’elle soit conforme aux règles de l’art et présente des garanties normales de sécurité 20, ce qui est
loin d’être le cas. Imaginez un camion-citerne s’aventurant sur le tronçon de route visible sur cette
photo...
198Ibid.
199DCR, p. 133, par. 4.31
200
Voir RN, p. 273-276, par. 7.36-7.43 ; DCR, p. 134, par. 4.32-4.33. - 66 -
Le PRESIDENT : Monsieur le professeur, vous n’avez plus que deux minutes.
M. PELLET : Je ne prends que trente secondes.
37. La Partie costa-ricienne écrit dans sa d uplique qu’il s’agit d’une simple spéculation et
que, de toute façon, la route 1856 n’est pas ouverte à la circulation de produits dangereux. Soit !
mais lorsque l’on voit la manière dont le Costa Rica laisse de côté sa propre législation
environnementale dont il se glorifie lorsqu’il invente un état d’ur gence suite à une contestation
frontalière mineure, il n’y a pas vraiment là de quoi être rassuré le Nicaragua le serait bien
davantage par un clair prononcé judiciaire, qui devrait être d’autant plus acceptable par nos amis
costa-riciens qu’il correspondrait à l’état du droit national tel qu’ils le décrivent.
[Fin de la projection n o9]
Je renonce à vous expliquer, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, pourquoi nous souhaitons que
vous désigniez un ou plusieurs experts. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président. Je m’excuse pour
les deux minutes ou trois minutes de retard.
Le PRESIDENT : Monsieur le professeur, nous arrivons au terme du premier tour de
plaidoiries du Nicaragua. L’un des membres de la Cour souhaiterait poser au Nicaragua une
question à laquelle le Nicaragua est invité à répondre lors de son second tour de plaidoiries dans la
présente affaire. Je donne la parole à Mme la juge Xue.
Judge XUE: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to pose one question to Nicaragua after
the first round hearing.
“In order to possibly assess the intolerable level of sediments in the Lower San
Juan, could Nicaragua inform the Court during the second round of oral hearings
whether in the past century it has done dredging operations on the Lower San Juan; if
so, how frequently such operations have been done and, each time, approximately how
many tons of sediments they dredged, if such data is available?”
Thank you, Mr. President. - 67 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Le texte écrit de cette question sera remis aux Parti es à bref délai.
La Cour se réunira de nouveau jeudi après -midi, de 15 heures à 18 heures, pour entendre le début
du premier tour de plaidoiries du Costa Rica. Je vous remercie. L’audience est levée.
L’audience est levée à 13 h 5.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 21 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)