Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2015/17
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2015
Public sitting
held on Friday1 May 2015, at 3 p.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 vendredi 1 mai 2015, à 15 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
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
Mme Xue
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, Ambassador of the Republic of Nic aragua 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, D eputy 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 School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre et ancien président de la Commission
du droit international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, m embre 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, memb re 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 H oag 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’Univ ersidad 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 Consulting,
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 études 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, Mini ster 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
aujourd’hui pour entendre le second tour de plaidoiries du CostaRica en l’affaire relative à la
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica).
Madame la juge Donoghue, pour des raisons dont elle m’a dûment fait part, ne peut être
présente aujourd’hui sur le siège.
Je donne maintenant la parole à M. Wordsworth pour le CostaRica. Monsieur Wordsworth,
nous vous écoutons.
Mr. WORDSWORTH:
THE ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT HARM AND RISK OF SIGNIFICANT HARM
TO THE SAN JUAN R IVER
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the Court will have fully on board the point that,
yesterday, there was a none too subtle shift in gear from the Nicaragu an team, with the emphasis
now very much on allegations as to the absence of an EIA on the road and the need for an EIA with
respect to future construction works.
2. There is still, however, a residual case on significant harm actually caused by construction
of the road, and I will be dealing with that, and also with what was said about there being a risk of
significant harm which is, of course , an important pre-requisite to the obligation to carry out any
transboundary EIA.
3. The points, in outline, are as follows.
4. First, Nicaragua has failed to make out a case of discernible impact, let alone of significant
harm.
5. Secondly, Nicaragua seeks to bypass the fact that it has no empirical evidence of
significant harm, or even of impact, by mischaracterizing the purpose that would be fulfilled by the
notably absent data and measurements of sediment concentrations in the river.
6. Thirdly, there is no empirical evidence that any sediment from the r oad is being deposited
and then dredged in the delta area, while Professor Thorne’s view which is that no coarse sediment
from the road even reaches the Lower San Juan was mischaracterized. - 11 -
7. Fourthly, Professor Thorne’s estimate as to the amou nt of sediment coming from the road
is conservative and is to be preferred to that of Dr.Kondolf, who has not even visited the road.
8. And, finally, while Nicaragua’s case on impacts to aquatic species has been downgraded
from a claim of harm to a claim of risk of harm, it still suffers from the same defect , which is that it
is based on generalities and evidence given by counsel, instead of studies and measurements
conducted by experts in the field.
9. I deal with these issues in turn, but they all point in the same direction. Nicaragua has no
data or studies that evidence significant harm, or even risk of harm.
A. No significant harm; no discernible impact
10. First, by reference to the ILC Commentary 1, it was said, apparently with a straight face,
that it is sufficient that the harm be “susceptible of measurement”, and that this criterion had been
satisfied because the amount of sediment com ing into the San Juan from the r oad has been
2
measured, or at least estimated .
11. But that does not come close to responding to the defence that Costa Rica put in opening,
and still less does it satisfy the burden of proving significant harm. Nicaragua must show that the
sediment coming from the r oad is (i) causing harm that (ii) is significant. Nicaragua has shown
neither, and it does not assist to say that it is common ground that some sediment is coming into the
river3.
12. The simple point, to which Nicaragua has no answer, is that the amount of sediment
coming into the river from the road is insignificant compared to the sediment that is already in the
river, and so it is unable to point to any form of harm to the r iver, let alone significant harm.
Likewise so far as concerns risk of significant harm. As I said in opening , the sediment coming
from the road represents only a tiny fraction of the total annu al sediment load of the Rio San Juan:
1
Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, Commentary to Art. 2, para. 4,
Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YILC) , 2001, Vol.II (2), p. 152, judges’ folder, tab 2.
2CR 2015/16, p. 23, paras. 19-22 (Reichler).
3
CR 2015/16, p. 27, paras. 31-32 (Reichler). - 12 -
on Costa Rica’s figures, it is 0.6 per cent; on Nicaragua’s, in the range of 1-2 per cent . Yesterday,
5
Mr. Reichler could only say that “This may be true, but it is not relevant. ” But these figures are of
central relevance when it comes to determining whether there has been or may be any significant
6
harm all the more so in a case where it is not suggested that a tipping point has been reached .
13. To quote Professor Thorne, who has been identified time and agai n by Nicaragua as a
reliable expert in geomorphology and environmental impact to the Rio San Juan:
“The Road has had no significant impact on sediment transport in the Río San
Juan because the quantity of additional sediment derived from the Road is tiny
compared to the heavy sediment load that was already being carried by the River prior
to construction of the Road. Also, the additional load from the Road is indiscernible
due to high seasonal and inter -annual variability in sediment loads derived from other
sources and complexity in sediment transport processes.” 7
14. To counter these expert views, Nicaragua offers you nothing. No data, no sampling,
no recorded impacts to any form of aquatic fauna or flora in the river . My friend Mr. Reichler
might perhaps be applauded for ingenuity in seeking to fill the gaps by projecting an animation of a
bucket of sand being poured into a tank of water 8, but such projections merely highlight the
absence of any evidence and do not of course demonstrate that sediment from the road is causing or
even risks significant harm. Indeed, standing here on a Friday afternoon I think “hat off to
Mr. Reichler”, because it seems hard enough to bring these facts to life without also having to deal
with the minor inconvenience of having to argue a case on significant harm with, it has to be said,
zero evidence of actual harm.
15. Mr. Reichler also appeared to suggest that it was enough merely to show that the harm in
question could in theory be measured, saying that: “What is important, under the ILC standard, is
not the actual numerical measure of sediment, but whether it is susceptible of being measured .”9
4RCR, paras. 2.64-2.65, referring to Professor Colin Thorne, 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, paras. 4.93 and 4.94, p. 62;
see also The Road, Written Statement of Professor Colin Thorne, Mar. 2015, paras. 3.21 (c) and 3.23 and The Road ,
Written Statement of Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, 16 Mar. 2015, para. 22 and table, p. 8.
5CR 2015/16, p. 25, para. 27 (Reichler).
6CR 2015/9, p. 32 (Andrews and Wordsworth).
7
The Road, Professor Colin Thorne, Written Statement of Professor Colin Thorne, Mar. 2015, para. 7.1 (b),
emphasis added; see also Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 7.1 (b); emphasis added.
8
CR 2015/16, p. 28, paras. 34-35 (Reichler).
9CR 2015/16, p. 24, para. 23 (Reichler). - 13 -
That is a very confused submission. The ILC Commentary, which can only be taken as a useful
reference point not as a st andard, says that for there to be significant harm there must be a “real
detrimental effect” which must be “susceptible of measurement by factual and objective
standards” 10. What is important, indeed vital as this is all largely a matter of common sense, i s
therefore to show harm that is significant by reference to some factual and objective standard.
Nicaragua does not come close to meeting that test.
16. It is not sufficient to point to standar ds in the abstract such as the t otal daily maximum
load figures that United States authorities may establish for listed waterbodies 11. We have no idea
what a TDML for the San Juan would be, despite Mr. Reichler’s attempt to conjure up one on the
supposition that all sediment that reaches the Lower San Juan is bad , whereas that is directly
12
contrary to the evidence from the U nited States EPA document to which Mr. Reichler has
referred 13, and likewise directly contrary to the evidence of Professors Thorne and Cowx . As to 14
15
the continued reliance on Pulp Mills, my argument was strangely mischaracterized , and the basic
point remains that, in that case, there was an applicable limit for a given input into the river, and
here there is not.
B. The manifest gaps in Nicaragua’s evidence
17. And this leads to my second po int, which is that if there had been significant harm, it
could and would have been measured by Nicaragua. There would have been evidence equivalent
to that submitted by the claimants in the past cases, including Pulp Mills , that I referred to in
opening 16.
18. Nicaragua offered two forms of response to this yesterday.
10
Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, Commentary to Art.2, para. 4,
YILC, 2001, Vol. II (2), p. 152.
11CR 2015/16, p. 35, para. 54 (Reichler).
12United States Environme ntal Protection Agency (EPA), “Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs”,
Oct. 1999, p. 2-1. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/sediment/pdf/sediment.pdf.
13
CR 2015/10, p. 19, fn. 45 (Reichler).
14
CR 2015/12, p. 52 (Thorne); and CR 2015/12, p. 19 (Cowx).
15CR 2015/16, pp. 35-36, paras. 55-56 (Reichler); cf. CR 2015/13, pp. 13 and 22- 23, paras. 11 and 50
(Wordsworth).
16See CR 2015/13, pp. 12-13, paras. 9-12 (Wordsworth), referring to Gabčíkovo -Nagymaros, Pulp Mills, and
Kishenganga. - 14 -
19. The first was to mischaracteriz e the point Costa Rica is making. Mr. Reichler would
have the Court believe that the purpose of a sampling programme would be to detect whether or in
precisely what quantities sediment from the r oad is entering the river . That is not correct.
18
Rather, as Nicaragua is well aware , the purpose of sampling would be to identify whether
sediment from the r oad is having any significant or even measurable imp act on the existing
sediment load and sediment concentration levels in the r iver and, hence, whether it is causing or
risks causing significant harm.
20. The second response was the suggestion that the focus on the importance of actual
measurements was a new idea of Costa Rica’s counsel, unsupported by the expert evidence 19 and
there is no basis for that either.
(a) As to Dr. Kondolf, he confirmed in cross -examination how “procedures developed by the
United States Geological Survey” and adopted worldwide establish that “you have to do what is
called a depth integrated sample across the channel” and he accepted in unambiguous terms
that through this method “you would have a way of getting reliable information in term s of
20
impact on sediment load” . The Court will recall that I went to that in some detail in opening
precisely so it could not be suggested that his expert views were being taken out of context 21.
And indeed they were not.
(b) As to Professor Thorne, yesterday you wer e referred to part of hi s 2013 r eport,
22
paragraph 8.17 . That passage has nothing to do with the question of whether Nicaragua could
or should have measured sediment concentrations in the r iver. As Professor Thorne explained
in cross -examination, that part of his 2013 report concerns only the very limited set of
17CR 2015/16, pp. 27-28, para. 33-35 (Reichler).
18Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica, ref. MRE/DM -AJ/129/03/13, 5 Mar. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 48; Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the
Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. HOL-EMB-108, 14 June 2013; CMCR, Ann. 54; and Letter from the
Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice,HOL-EMB-167, 30 Aug. 2013; CMCR,
Ann. 64.
19CR 2015/16, pp. 28-29, paras. 36-38 (Reichler).
20CR 2015/8, p. 46 (Kondolf and Wordsworth).
21
CR 2015/13, p. 14, para. 17 (Wordsworth).
22CR 2015/16, p. 28, para. 36 (Reichler). - 15 -
measurements available from the mid-1970s and the more recent measurements that Costa Rica
has taken on the Colorado River . More to the point, Professor Thorne said in his 2015 report:
“Costa Rica is unable unilaterally to measure discharges and sediment loads in
the Río San Juan and, notably, Nicaragua’s experts choose not to do so, or indeed to
supply any measured discharges or sediment loads to support any of their statements
regarding the significance of Road- derived sediment in the context of the sediment
load currently carried by the Río San Juan.” 24
(c) And as to the utility of a proper sampling exercise, Professor Thorne stated in
cross-examination:
“If I were doing this and I had a free hand, the first thing I would do is set up
stations just upstream and just downstream of the 17 severely eroding sites identified
by Dr. Kondolf and I would expect to be able to see a signal from that sediment that 25
comes in between two stations, if there was indeed any sediment coming in.”
21. And, far from this focus on sampling data being a recent invention of counsel, from the
early stages of this case, Costa Rica has been seeking access to actual data derived from
measurements of sediment concentrations in the r iver 26. Nicaragua recognized then the value of
27
sampling, but refused access to Costa Rica , conditioning a joint measurement program me on
Costa Rica’s cessation of works, incl uding mitigation works, on the r oad. You will find the
relevant correspondence at tab 3 of the judges’ folder of 24 April 2015, and you will see from that
correspondence that it was not correct to suggest that Costa Rica withdrew its offer of joint
measurements once it had received Professor Thorne’s report for its Counter -Memorial, on the
basis that measurements were no longer considered necessary. I refer you in particular to
Costa Rica’s letter of 27 September 2013 28, extracts of which are in your judges’ folder at tab6.
23CR 2015/12, p. 32 (Thorne).
24
Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 4.48.
25
CR 2015/12, p. 33 (Thorne, under cross-examination).
26Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for oreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, ref. DMAM-063-13, 6 Feb. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 46.
27See Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica, ref. MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13, 5 Mar. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 48; letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the
Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. HOL-EMB-108, 14 June 2013; CMCR, Ann. 54; and L etter from the
Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref.ECRPB-63-2013, 27 Sep. 2013;
CMCR, Ann. 65.
28Letter from the Co -Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice,
ref. ECRPB-63-2013, 27 Sep. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 65. - 16 -
22. But, as I said in opening, the details of all this do not matter. The fate of Costa Rica’s
initial request to carry out sampling on the Rí o San Juan, which turned into a back and forth on
joint sampling, is irrelevant. N icaragua is sovereign over the r iver and nothing prevented it from
carrying out sampling itself. It was and is for Nicaragua to prove its case on significant harm; if
there were significant harm, or risk of significant harm , it could and would have carried out the
obvious sampling exercise that Dr. Kondolf confirmed would have yielded “reliable information in
29
terms of impact on sediment load” . Yet Nicaragua chose not to do so.
23. And it is worth noting that the more we see of Nicaragua’s documents, the more it
appears that all the relevant material has not been put before you. The Court will recall that last
week Nicaragua submitted its response to the Ramsar report of April 2011, which was referred to
by Mr. Reichler in his closing submissions in the Certain Activities case 30. As with the April 2011
31
Ramsar report, this is a document that we ask the Court to give a careful read in due course . It is
at tab 7 of your judges’ folder and for present purposes I would just ask you to turn to page 7. This
is at page 22 of the judges’ folder.
24. And what one sees there is a reference to a 2010 study:
“In 2010, a study was made of the current state of the water and sediment
quality in the Rio San Juan, in an area where impacts of mining in Las Crucitas are
expected to manifest themselves, as part of the establishment of a Baseline on the Rio
San Juan in an area which involves three tributaries from Costa Rican territory. The
information was generated through: (a) direct observation, (b) laboratory analyses
carried out on water and sediment samples, and on benthic organisms collected during
an initia l sampling campaign (MARENA -CIRA, April 2010) and (c) the in situ
measurements of some variables.”
Well, where is that study, one asks? The answer continues:
“The laboratory analyses contemplated the detection and quantification of
metals, anthropogeni c organic compounds, nutrients, cyanides, constituent ions of
waters and solids as well as, an analysis of the benthic community in the Rio San Juan
and in the mouths of the Infiernito, Caño Crucitas and Caño Venado tributaries.” 32
29CR 2015/8, p. 46 (Kondolf and Wordsworth).
30CR 2015/15, pp. 32-32, para. 25 (Reichler).
31
Annex to L etter from Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources to
Mr. Anada Tiega, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, ref. DM.JAS.1359.11.11, 30 Nov. 2011;
Ann. 3 to Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-078, 24 Apr. 2015; English translation, Ann. 3
to Letter from the Agent of Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref.ECRPB-070-2015, 28 Apr. 2015.
32Annex to L etter from Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environment and Nat ural Resources to
Mr. Anada Tiega, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, ref. DM.JAS.1359.11.11, 30 Nov. 2011;
Ann. 3 to Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-078, 24 Apr. 2015; English translation, Ann. 3
to Letter from the Agent of Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref.ECRPB-070-2015, 28 Apr. 2015, p. 7. - 17 -
25. Now, the Court may recall these names, in particular Las Crucitas, as it is the name of
the area in which Dr. Kondolf’s severely eroding sites 9.4 to 9.6 are located 33. Photographs of
Las Crucitas have now been up on your screen on multiple occasions because this is, in effe ct, the
best evidence that Nicaragua seeks to put before you. And what this short extract of Nicaragua’s
response to the Ramsar report appears to show is not just that Nicaragu a recognizes the obvious
importance of sampling, but that it has to hand 2010 m easurements against which to compare
actual impacts if any arising from sediment from the road. Yet we have seen nothing of this.
C. No significant harm by deposition in the Lower San Juan
26. Thirdly, I come to the a rgument that sediment from the r oad is being deposited in the
Lower San Juan, and is having to be dredged by Nicaragua, which is in turn said to represent
significant harm. This comes down to presenting a number of figures on sediment that is said to be
34
deposited as if these figures we re “measurements” , when they are in fact estimates based on a
number of untested assumptions, and also on a mischaracteriz ation of the evidence of
Professor Thorne.
27. To recall, there are two elements to this part of Nicaragua’s argument. First, it says that,
as part of its current dredging programme, it is having to dredge all the sediment that arrives in the
Lower San Juan; and, secondly, it says that part of the sediment that it is having to dredge is
sediment coming from the road.
28. On both points, the evidence of Professor Thorne was mischaracterized.
29. Yesterday Mr. Reichler said that Professor Thorne h ad told the Court during his
re-examination that some of the coarse sediment from the r oad get s trapped upstream of the
Lower San Juan. Professor Thorne was portrayed as saying that this was like staying at a “hotel
room for sediment”, and that in a year or more the sediment would be transported downstream.
Hence, Mr. Reichler said, we are in year four of construction of the road, but only now getting the
sediment from year three in the Lower San Juan 35.
33
Indicated on map annexed to Letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-055-2015, 10 Apr. 2015.
3CR 2015/16, p. 32, para. 49 (Reichler).
35
CR 2015/16, pp. 33-34, para. 51 (Reichler). - 18 -
30. And this was not in any way an accurate portrayal of the evidence of Professor Thorne,
and we have put the relevant pages of the transcript that is pages 40 through to 51, in the judges’
folder at tab 9. We ask the Court to read the entirety of this important passage of the evidence in
due course, but I pick it up for now at the top of page 45 and this is actually 54 at the bottom of
the judges’ folder, page 45 at the top and there you can see Professor Thorne expressing the
view that Nicaragua’s current dredging programme, far from being necessary, is in fact having “a
highly deleterious effect on the channel”. The questioning continues:
“Mr. REICHLER: But my question is whether there is, to maintain the channel
that you described before, that is, the object of Nicaragua’s dredging programme, you
would agree that that requires repeated dredging just to maintain that channel?
Mr. THORNE: Yes, but there are much better ways of maintaining that channel
than repeatedly dredging it, which clearly is not working.
Mr. REICHLER: And the reason it is not working is because the channel keeps
filling up with sediment as they dredge it?
Mr. THORNE: Yes! As I stated before, if there is a pool, if you dredge a deep
hole in the channel, it will refill very quickly.
Mr. REICHLER: Especially if there is a lot of sediment coming from upstream
sources, whatever they may be.
Mr. THORNE: Yes! We have got 11 live volcanoes putti ng sediment into the
river. In my opinion, the road-derived sand has not got there yet.
Mr. REICHLER: I had a feeling you would sneak that in at one point, so
36
touché!”
31. Now it does not do Professor Thorne justice to say he was sneaking anything i n, but the
point for present purposes is that far from this being a new point made in re -examination, as
suggested by Mr. Reichler yesterday , this was a view expressed by Professor Thorne in
cross-examination that Mr. Reichler had been anticipating. More over, Professor Thorne’s view
was evidently not that the sediment from the road was just being delayed by a year. His evidence is
quite clear: “In my opinion, the road-derived sand has not got there yet.” 38
32. And if I can ask the Court to note in due c ourse the further evidence given by
Professor Thorne starting from half way down page 49, over the page to page 50, you will see that
36
CR 2015/12, p. 45 (Thorne and Reichler).
3CR 2015/16, p. 33, para. 51 (Reichler).
38
CR 2015/12, p. 45 (Thorne). - 19 -
there, you find the reference to hotel rooms that Mr. Reichler picked up upon and you will also
see that it was in no se nse Professor Thorne’s evidence that sediment from the road is just being
39
delayed along the way by a year or so .
33. In addition, the Court may recall that I said in opening that there is no empirical support
for the claim that coarse sediment from the r oad is reaching the delta area in measurable
quantities 40. And notably, there was no come back on that yesterday.
34. As to the table of figures that Mr. Reichler put before you, tab 34 of yesterday’s folder,
we have now put those back up on the screen, and at tab 10 of today’s folder, and there are four
points.
35. First, column 2 purports to give the view of Professor Thorne. If his actual view were
given, the amount for “total that must be dredged” would evidently be zero. There would also be a
41
zero in the above row so far as concerns coarse sediment accumulating in the Lower San Juan ,
while Professor Thorne did not give a figure for settlement of fine sediment.
36. Secondly, as to the contention underpinning the table that 20 per cent of the sedi ment
from the Río San Juan enters the Lower San Juan, there should be a large asterisk saying that this is
on the basis of a model prepared by Costa Rica, which has large stated uncertainties, whilst the
42
correct position could be known, or is known, solely by Nicaragua .
37. Thirdly, as to Dr. Kondolf’s estimates, the final total should be 7,600 tons per year,
which is from 1.5 to 2.9 per cent of what Nicaragua has in fact been dredging over the past three
years 43. Not significant, even as a proportion of what is being dredged; and much less significant
harm or risk thereof.
38. Now, this figure was boosted up to 22,000 tons by the contention that Nicaragua must
dredge the fine sediment. As to this, Professor Thorne and Dr. Andrews disagree as to what
precisely happens to the fine sediment and how much goes out to sea, but the more immediate point
is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Nicaragua is dredging any fine sediment from the
39CR 2015/12, pp. 49-50 (Thorne and Wordsworth).
40
CR 2015/13, pp. 19-20, para. 37 (Wordsworth).
41CR 2015/12, p. 45 (Thorne).
42See, e.g., CR 2015/12, p. 48 (Thorne); see also CR 2015/9, p. 28 (Andrews and Wordsworth).
43
CR 2015/13, p. 22, para. 48 (Wordsworth). - 20 -
Lower San Juan. It has not been dredging the fine sediment in t he delta region because it does not
44
settle there and Mr. Reichler has evidently pulled back from that contention . And it does not
dredge the fine sediment at some other location because in fact, since 2011, it has not dredged
45
anywhere else , and nor is there any evidence before you that Nicaragua is about to start dredging
elsewhere.
39. Mr. Reichler put a map before you illustrating eight priority areas and that was at
tab 35 of yesterday’s folder but all we know is that nothing has been happening in any so-called
“priority areas” other than the delta, while their identification, apparently pre-dates construction of
the road . So quite what they have to do with the road, and with Nicaragua’s current plans
remains entirely obscure.
40. In short, the table put up by Mr. Reichler should not be allowed to confuse the basic
point that Nicaragua has only been dredging one form of sediment that is coarse sediment in
one location that is the delta area. There is no support at all for this 22,000 tons figure that you
see on the table.
41. And as to the coarse sediment, in his report of February 2015, Professor Thorne noted as
follows: “even using Dr. Kondolf’s estimates and Dr. Andrew’s analysis, which I do not accept,
the input of coarse sediment from the Road constitutes only 2% to 4% of the coarse sediment load
expected to enter the lower Río San Juan in an average year” 47. He then explained, by reference to
the uncertainties associated with bed load measurements and calculations:
“it is cl ear that a difference of 2% to 4% in the annual bedload would not only be
insignificant but scientifically undetectable , ruling out even the possibility of
44CR 2015/16, pp. 32-33, paras. 49-50 (Reichler); cf. CR 2015/10, pp. 11-12, paras 7 -11, and pp. 13-14,
paras. 14-15 (Reichl er) and the criticism of Mr. Reichler’s approach at CR 2015/13, pp. 19-22, para. 37-46
(Wordsworth).
45Dredging Project Technical Evaluation Analysis: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua
River (EPN 2011 Annual Report), 23 Jan. 2012; CMN , Ann. 17, pp. 5-6; Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in
the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress Report Corresponding to 2014 (EPN 2014 Annual
Report), 2015, Ann. 1 to L etter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL -EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 10, 20, 36-41. See
also Certain Activities, Written Statement of Professor Cornelis van Rhee, 15 Mar. 2015, p9; and CR 2015/6, p. 26
(van Rhee).
46Dredging Project Technical Evaluation Analysis: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua
River (EPN 2011 Annual Report), 23 Jan. 2012; CMN, Ann. 17. p. 5-6; Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in
the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical -Financial Progress Report Corresponding to 2014 (EPN 2014 Annual
Report), 2015, Ann. 1 to Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015, pp. 9-10.
47Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 4.98. - 21 -
demonstrating any causal relationship between construction of the Road and any
change in the quantity of coarse bedload entering the lower Rio San Juan” . 48
42. Nicaragua might now wish to increase these percentages by reference to its opportunistic
reliance on the updated ICE model of Costa Rica, when Nicaragua alone knows or can know the
actual percentage of coarse sediment that goes into the Lower San Juan, but the basic point remains
that Nicaragua has not shown that any coarse sediment from the road reaching the Lower San Juan
is either significant or even scientifically detectable.
D. Estimate of sediment coming from the road
43. Finally, in response to Mr. Reichler, I come to the question of which expert’s estimate of
the amount of sediment coming from the road should be accepted. And we submit that
Professor Thorne’s evidence is to be preferred. And there are four points as to this.
49
44. First, unlike Nicaragua’s experts , Professor Thorne has visited the road not once but
five times 50.
45. Secondly, Professor Thorne was throughout a credible and reliable witness, who
evidently did not seek to t ake positions that were convenient to Costa Rica’s legal position.
Nicaragua cannot just pick and choose as it sees fit with the evidence of Professor Thorne.
46. Thirdly, Professor Thorne’s estimate of 75,000 tons/year is a worst -case estimate which
he emphasizes is very conservative, including because it takes no account of the ongoing mitigation
51
works .
47. Fourthly, Mr. Reichler has come up wi th a number of reasons why Dr. Kondolf’s
estimate is said to be preferable. Not one of these points was put to Professor Thorne in
cross-examination, even though Mr. Reichler had ample cross- examination time remaining to him
when he stopped his questioning. Instead, he elected to make points on Professor Thorne’s
estimate only when Professor Thorne was not in a position to answer.
48
Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 4.99; emphasis added.
49See CR 2015/8, p. 40 (Kondolf and Wordsworth).
50
Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 3.3 (c); Professor Colin 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, para. 3.3 (c).
51
Road case, Professor Colin Thorne, Written Statement, Mar. 2015, para.3.14. - 22 -
48. As to those points, the first and most important was that Professor Thorne’s estimate only
covered the roadbed and slopes, and did not include additional disturbed areas . As I explained in
opening, these additional 2.2 sq km are flat areas where there has been some disturbance, including
because materials were stored there or undergrowth was cleared for access and other necessities of
53
construction . These are not areas which are somehow continuously contributing sediment to the
San Juan River, as Nicaragua would have you believe.
49. Mr. Reichler’s second point is that Professor Thorne’s estimate did not include erosion
from 332 km of “access roads”, which were assumed by Nicaragua’s expert to be 30 m wide, on
54 55
average . Some of these roads are up to 50 km away from the river , and no attempt was made by
Mr. Reichler, or by Nicaragua’s experts, to establish how or to what (if any) extent such roads are
somehow contributing sediment to the r iver. Professor Thorne has driven along some of these
access roads and he concluded:
“Bearing in mind the stable condition of the access roads, their remoteness from
the River and the scarcity of streams linking them to the River, in my opinion it is
highly unlikely that sediment from these access roads reaches the Rio San Juan in any
appreciable quantities.” 56
And, yet, Nicaragua’s expert is telling you that they reach the San Juan in thousands of tons.
50. Professor Thorne also included in his report some views of these roads on your screen
now and I suppose one’s reaction is “more photos”; but I guess at least the Court has not seen
these. To meet the obvious retort that these are, at best, evidence of the hire car selected by
Professor Thorne, he does at least say that these are typi cal views of access roads travelled on a
given day. And, from the other side of course, we have nothing; pure assertion that these access
57
roads are 30 m wide and the like .
52CR 2015/16, p. 31, para. 43 (Reichler).
53CR 2015/13, p. 19, para. 35 (Wordsworth).
54
CR 2015/16, p. 31, para. 44 (Reichler).
55
CR 2015/13, p. 19, para. 26 (Wordsworth).
56Professor Colin Thorne, 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, para. 7.32.
57Professor Colin Thorne, 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, fig.7.10, p. 290. - 23 -
51. Mr. Reichler’s third point is that Professor Thorne’s estimate of road surface erosion was
58
“arbitrarily reduced” from 2013 to 2014 . That is not correct for the reasons explained in
Costa Rica’s response to Nicaragua’s request for information in March this year 59.
52. Mr. Reichler’s final point is that Professor Thorne applied reduced erosion rates in his
2014 report, when compared to those applied in 2013 6. As was explained in the reports submitted
with Costa Rica’s Rejoinder, that is simply because, in 2014, more advanced technology was used
to make more accurate measurements of erosion 61.
E. Evidence relating to aquatic ecology
53. I move briefly onto the evidence, such as it is, relating to aquatic ecology. Yesterday
Mr. Loewenstein made clear that Nicaragua had abandoned its case on significant harm, and that its
only case on aquatic ecology is an EIA case, based on risk 62.
(1) Alleged risk of significant harm to macroinvertebrates and water quality
54. As to the alleged risk to macroinvertebrates and water quality in the San Juan, there are
three short points.
55. First, the only evidence on which Nicaragua relies is the CCT’s study, carried out by
Costa Rican experts, on small Costa Rican streams. The much -criticized study of Nicaragua’s
expert, Dr. Ríos, got a passing mention in Nicaragua’s first round but not even a footnote in its
second round.
56. Mr. Loewenstein does not agree with the conclusions of CCT as to what their data
shows 63. However, he did not put his assertions about that data to Professor Cowx. Indeed, the
Court will recall that Nicaragua was keen to get Professor Cowx off the witness stand as soon as
possible, asking him only entirely general questions, and using nothing like its allotted time.
58
CR 2015/16, p. 31, para. 45 (Reichler).
59
See Letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-036-2015, 16 Mar.2015, pp. 2-3.
60CR 2015/16, p. 32, para. 46 (Reichler).
61University of Costa Rica Centre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil Engineering,
Second Report on Systematic Field monitoring of Eros ion and Sediment Yield along Route 1856 , Nov. 2014; RCR,
Ann. 1, Sec. 2.2.
62
CR 2015/16, p. 37, heading “The risk to the San Juan River’s ecological resources” (Loewenstein).
63CR 2015/10, p. 28, para. 13 and p. 25, para. 3 (Loewenstein); pp. 37-39, paras. 3-8 (Loewenstein). - 24 -
57. Secondly, yesterday we heard further unevidenced assertions, including that upstream of
64
Marker II, the river “is a different habitat” ; that deltas “bury habitats in the San Juan with
sediment” and then, when they erode, they “sweep along the bank, impacting the aquatic organisms
65
and their habitats” . That is the picture as Nicaragua’s counsel would like to portray it, but it is
not what the evidence before you shows.
58. Thirdly, the CCT study does not tell one what any impacts of sediment might be in the
66
far larger, far wider R ío San Juan and this was accepted to a large degree by Dr. Kondolf . The
simple point is that any impacts on small streams in Costa Rica, most of which are about 3 m wide,
do not equate to likely impacts in the river which is, on average, 292 m wide in the relevant part of
the river67.
59. Nevertheless, yesterday Mr. Loewenstein said CCT’s conclusions as the localized
character of any impacts were “disproven by photographic evidence” and showed you a photograph
of a slope and some deltas, saying that “plumes of sediment [have swept] the bank of the river”, a
habitat for macroinvertebrates 68. Counsel’s testimony in this regard is, again, not supported by any
evidence, and none of these colourful contentions were put to Professor Cowx last week.
(2) Alleged risk of significant harm to fish
60. In so far as risk to fish is concer ned impacts to fish, risk of impacts to fish
yesterday Nicaragua pointed to the absence of studies of fish in the San Juan and said that this
showed that an “EIA is necessary”. It was said that Nicaragua “will co -operate in every way
64
CR 2015/16, p. 39, para. 10 (Loewenstein).
65Ibid., para. 9 (Loewenstein).
66CR 2015/9, p. 64 (Kondolf). See also Centro Científico Tropical (CCT) Follow-up and Monitoring Study Route
1856 Project- EDA Ecological Component, Jan. 2015; RCR, Ann. 14, p. 519, para. 11.
67
CR 2015/11, p. 16, para. 8 (Brenes).
68
CR 2015/16, p. 38, para. 7 (Loewenstein), referring to Nicaragua’s judges’ folders, tab 38. - 25 -
possible” , and all was as if Nicaragua had never positively refused access to CCT’s scientists
70
when they tried to carry out sampling on the San Juan River .
61. And as to the obvious point that if fish in the river are not impacted by a 70 per cent
increase in the suspended sediment load when the San Carlos flows into the San Juan, if, then, there
is no risk of harm from an increase , and taking Nicaragua’s case at is highest , 3 per cent sediment
comes into the river from the road, Mr. Loewenstein’s only answer was to sugg est that fish on the
71
San Juan upstream of the San Carlos could be more sensitive to sediment . That may be a
theoretical possibility. But of course there is no evidence of that, because Nicaragua says it has not
studied the fish in this part of the river, and it has not permitted Costa Rica to do so.
62. It was also said that Nicaragua had not been able to devote resources to study the
72
San Juan’s flora and fauna . Well, that is not credible. It has put together a more than ample legal
and expert team in these proceedings. Of course its experts, internal or external, could have been
out doing sampling exercises in the field.
F. Conclusion
63. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that has been rather a long haul, and I will not try
your patience with anything other than one short conclusion.
64. It was Nicaragua’s choice to bring this claim, and it is Nicaragua’s burden to make good
its claims of significant harm and risk of such harm. It has had ample time in which to do so and,
unlike Costa Rica, has unimpeded access to the San Juan to obtain all the sampling and other
evidence it would need to make out its case. And yet Nicaragua has failed to put such evidence
before you, the obvious inference being that it well knows that the quantity of sedim ent reaching
the river, with its already high sediment load , is precisely insignificant, and indeed indiscernible.
Nicaragua has failed to discharge the burden upon it.
69CR 2015/15, p. 42, para. 17 (Loewenstein).
70
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT) Environmental Diagnostic Assessment EDA), Route 1856 Project
Ecological Component, Nov. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 10, p. 513 (last paragraph) and p. 519, para. 2.7; and Centro Científico
Tropical (CCT) Follow-up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project EDA Ecological Component, Jan. 2015; RCR,
Ann. 14, p. 456, para. 2.6. See also Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, refMRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13, 5 March 2013; CMCR, Ann. 48, p. 229 (rejecting
Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan River “for scientific purposes”).
71
CR 2015/16, p. 39, para. 10 (Loewenstein).
72
Ibid., p. 41, para. 16 (Loewenstein). - 26 -
65. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my remarks. I thank you for your
attention throughout these three weeks, and ask you, Mr. President, to call Dr. Del Mar to the
podium to make some brief remarks on mitigation works.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Wordsworth. Je donne maintenant la parole à
Mme Del Mar.
Ms DEL MAR:
C OSTA RICA ’S MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I am again addressing Costa Rica’s mitigation
works. As was made clear during the first round , mitigation works are not relevant to the central
issues in this case. However, Nicaragua’s insistence on mitigation works prompts me to respond to
a number of points raised by counsel.
2. A preliminary point to note is Nicaragua’s contradictory position as to what it does and
does not want in terms of mitigation. In 2013, Nicaragua insisted that Costa Rica carry out
74 75
mitigation works on the road . Now it finds the temporary nature of mitigation works troubling .
And yet it does not want Costa Rica to put in place a permanent solution for all remaining issues on
the road 7.
3. I will address the permanent solution for the road, before returning to the ongoing
mitigation works.
B. Permanent solution
4. In terms of a permanent solution, Mr. Reichler suggested yesterday that this was
imminent. He said : “Dr. Del Mar assures us that new construction will commence right after
CONAVI receives and approves the design plans. What this means, Mr. President, is that
73
CR 2015/11, p. 29, para. 1 (Del Mar); CR 2015/12, pp. 46-48 (Wordsworth and Thorne).
7CR 2013/30, p. 25, para. 14 (Reichler); p. 29, para. 2 (Pellet).
7CR 2015/16, p. 18, para. 7 (Reichler).
76
Ibid., p. 21, para. 15 (Reichler). - 27 -
77
Costa Rica is planning imminently to embark on new construction.” That is not correct. I did not
say this, nor did I suggest that work on the permanent solution would be carried out imminently. I
said: “Once CONAVI receives the new designs, a new tendering process will be initiated for the
construction of the road.” 78 I also said that the process had b een delayed because a series of steps
79
had first to be followed, including a system of appeals . After those steps are completed, and after
the new designs are received, a new tendering process will be initiated. New works will not be
commencing any time soon.
5. Mr. Reichler also tried to paint a picture of doom and gloom about the permanent solution.
He said that it would “necessitate the bulldozing of massive amounts of earth”, that Costa Rica “is
planning to demolish all of the unstable cut and fil l slopes”, and that it “risks bringing many
thousands of tons of sediment into the river” 80. This is scaremongering, pure and simple. It is not
based on any concrete fact or evidence. Indeed, it couldn’t be. The new designs for the road have
not yet bee n received by Costa Rica, much less implemented. The very purpose of the se new
designs for the r oad is to ensure that new works are carried out to the highest environmental and
engineering standards.
C. Mitigation works slopes
6. I turn now to the mitigation works themselves. As I said during the first round, these are
81
ongoing . This was confirmed by Professor Thorne last week, who said that “there was a huge
effort being made in the latter third of 2014, continuing into early 2015” 8. Mitigation works have
83
continued at the fastest pace possible . This is despite matters outside the control of those carrying
out the works delaying the implementation of some measures. For example, as Professor Thorne
84
noted, it is difficult to carry out mitigation work during the wet season .
77CR 2015/16, p. 21, para. 15 (Reichler); emphasis added.
78
CR 2015/11, p. 31, para. 6 (Del Mar).
79CR 2015/11, p. 31, para 6 (Del Mar).
80CR 2015/16, p. 21, para. 15 (Reichler).
81CR 2015/11, p. 37, para. 22 (Del Mar).
82
CR 2015/12, p. 25 (Thorne).
83Ibid., p. 26 (Thorne).
84CR 2015/11, p. 26 (Thorne). - 28 -
7. The success of Costa Rica’s mitigation works cannot be measured by numbers listed on a
table. Nicaragua’s insistence on figures in charts in order to determine whether mitigation works
85
have been successfully carried out misses the point , as I will demonstrate shortly.
86
8. You will recall that Mr. Reichler placed particular emphasis on slopes yesterday ,
emphasizing the number of sites where mitigation works were not yet complete 87. But what
amounts to “complete” in terms of mitigation is not the same as to whether mitigation works have
been successfully carried out at a particular site. Mitigation may be very successful at a particular
site, but because for example vegetation has not completely covered a hillside, i t is deemed
to be ongoing, rather than “complete”. And given the time it takes for revegetation of some areas,
it is unsurprising that many sites are not yet considered complete.
9. I should make clear that mitigation work does not always involve human intervention. It
can amount to the monitoring of a site whilst letting nature take its course. Dr. Mende’s report
documents the natural regrowth of vegetation at some sites as the only mitigation taking place
there. There is nothing wrong with this. H uman intervention is not required at all sites, as I will
show you with respect to slopes. To do so, I am afraid I will have to unleash some more
photographs on the Court.
10. On your screens is a photograph taken in October 2012, showing a location
corresponding to Dr. Kondolf’s so-called Severely Eroding Area number 3. You can see a small
slope on the far right, a larger slope roughly in the middle, and a quarry site to the left. I will
address each of these locations in turn, beginning with the small slope on the far right.
11. Now on your screen are “before” and “after” photographs of that same small slope taken
in 2013 on the left of your screens and 2014 on the right. As you can see, the slope has
remained stable. These two photographs show a year’s worth of revegetation, which has grown up
at the foot of and on some of the slope. The orange colour of the soil on the slope can still be seen
but the slope has not failed: it is stable and revegetation is ongoing.
85
CR 2015/16, p.17, para. 4 (Reichler).
86Ibid., pp. 17-18, paras. 5-6 (Reichler).
87
Ibid., para. 5 (Reichler). - 29 -
12. Let us look now at t he larger of the slopes, located towards the middle of the
2012 photograph I showed you earlier. In this 2012 photograph, a lot of exposed earth on the slope
can be seen. The r oad looks recently constructed. On your screens now is a photograph taken by
Nicaragua of the same site in March of this year. As you can see, over a two -and-a-half-year
period the exposed soil in the previous 2012 photograph has been almost entirely covered with
grass and vegetation. The land between the road and the river is very green. Natural mitigation on
this slope is not complete. But that does not mean mitigation has not been successful.
13. I shall now show you the quarry, which is on the left -hand side of the 2012 photograph.
You can see large amounts of exposed ro ck and soil. The recently constructed road runs along its
base. Now on your screens is a photograph of the same location taken by Nicaragua in March of
this year. The exposed rock and soil is almost entirely covered with grass and vegetation. Again,
mitigation at this site is not complete. But, again, this has no bearing on how successful natural
mitigation at this site has been.
14. There are many other slopes which have been monitored by Costa Rica and successfully
mitigated by nature alone. Som e of these are now on your screens. They are shown in “ before”
and “after” photographs. They are also in your judges’ folder. You can see how over a relatively
short period of time, slopes along the r oad have recovered. Every one of the slopes now on y our
screens is classified as “mitigation in progress” in the 2014 Mende report. As you can see, natural
mitigation has been successful.
D. Mitigation works water crossings
15. I will now say a brief word about water crossings, as this was another po int of focus of
counsel for Nicaragua. The Court will recall that during the first round, Mr. Reichler showed the
88
Court a drawing from Dr. Weaver’s report, which is now on your screens . This, we were told in
no uncertain terms, “is how it is supposed to be done” 89. With great respect, it is not. This drawing
has three important features missing, namely: (1) a headwall to hold the fill material in place
directly surrounding the outlet of the culvert; (2) wingwalls, to stop fill material and soil erodin g
8Nicargua’s judges’ folder, 20 Apr. 2015, tab 3, page 1.
8CR 2015/8, p. 25, para. 26 (Reichler). - 30 -
into the path of the water stream; and (3) a bottom plate. These features are necessary in order to
protect the fill and nearby soil from entering the water stream. They are required in order to
prevent erosion.
16. Culverts installed by Costa Rica include these features. Two sets of “before” and “after”
photographs of water crossings are on your screen s. The headwalls, the wingwalls and the bottom
plates in the photographs from 2014 can clearly be seen.
E. Conclusion
17. Mr. President, the Court has been supplied with photographs of mitigation works from
both Parties. Costa Rica documented mitigation works on the road in photographs contained in the
larger A3 size j udges’ folder last week. The Court also has a video of the full length roadhe
filmed in February. Any problematic parts of the road can thus be viewed in their full context, as
well as the many mitigation measures in place along the road.
18. One final word about photographs. Yesterday, Mr. Reichler complained that I had m ade
“unfounded and unfair accusation[ s]” during the first round about photographs counsel for
Nicaragua projected on screens during the hearing, which I said might risk misleading the Court.
They are on your screen again, together with the source informat ion provided by Nicaragua in the
larger font size. The ph otographs were taken in October 2012. I leave it to the Court to decide
whether these photographs were correctly presented.
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my brief presentation. I thank you
for your kind attention. Mr. President, I ask that yu give the floor to Mr.Brenes to answer
Judge Bhandari’s questions.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Madame Del Mar. Je donne la parole à M. Brenes.
Mr. BRENES:
R ESPONSE TO JUDGE B HANDARI S QUESTIONS : THE APPLICABLE STANDARD
FOR N ICARAGUA ’S CLAIMS IN THIS CASE
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, on Friday, 24 April 2015, JudgBhandari referred
to environmental standards in the context of the construction of the r oad, and in par ticular, made - 31 -
reference to Principle 23 of the Stockholm Declaration, Principle 11 of the Rio Declaration, and
paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 of the ILC’s Commentaries to Article 3 of the ILC Draft Articles on
Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Acti vities. The first question raised by
Judge Bhandari was the following:
“1. How, if at all, should the authorities I have just mentioned be applied by the
Court in90ssessing whether Costa Rica exercised sufficient care in constructing the
Road?”
2. The authorities mentioned by Judge Bhandari are useful instruments that might be applied
in certain cases where the particular circumstances allow it. Costa Rica understands the question as
being directed to the evaluation of the care it exercised in constructing the road in order to avoid
causing significant transboundary harm. As Nicaragua noted in its response to this question on
Wednesday, the standard that should be applied to Nicaragua’s claim of transboundary
environmental harm in the present case is one of significant harm 91. For that claim, Nicaragua
bears the burden of proof. As Costa Rica has explained throughout these proceedings, including
what you just heard from Mr. Wordsworth, there is no evidence of significant harm, or of risk
thereof, and therefore Nicaragua’s claim based on significant harm must fail.
3. Judge Bhandari’s second question was the following:
“2. How much weight should the Court place on standards or ‘best practices’
from highly developed countries while evaluating Costa Rica’s construction of the
Road?” 92
4. Because Nicaragua’s case is based on violation of the obligation not to cause significant
harm, the standard of construction of the road per se is not an issue in the present case, although it
93
is a matter that Nicaragua h as nevertheless repeatedly attempted to focus on . Whether the road
was initially constructed to particular engineering standards, including those applicable in other
94
countries, or even in Costa Rica , is beside the point: the only question is whether the r oad is
90CR 2015/13, p. 55 (Judge Bhandari).
91
CR 2015/15, p. 45, para. 27 (McCaffrey).
92
CR 2015/13, p. 55 (Judge Bhandari).
93
See, e.g., RN, paras. 3.2-3.15.
94Cf. CR 2015/16, pp. 21-22, para. 14 (Reichler). - 32 -
causing significant harm to the environment of the San Juan River. Construction standards could
only play a role if Nicaragua had a basis for bringing them into play. It does not.
5. Judge Bhandari’s third question was as follows:
“3. What exactly is the standard of care that should be applied to Costa Rica in
this case? For instance, is it one of recklessness? Negligence? Due diligence? Strict
liability? Or something else?” 95
6. Costa Rica considers that the relevant applicable standard in this case is significant harm.
96
Nicaragua has also acknowledged this . With respect to the threshold for the imposition of an
obligation to conduct an EIA in advance of a project, as the Court noted in Pulp Mills, a standard of
97
due diligence may be relevant . Of course, there the Court was applying a bilateral treaty régime
containing detailed environmental provisions, institutions and procedures, and there is no
equivalent treaty ré gime applicable in the present case. For the purposes of this case,
Professor Craik applied the standard of due diligence in his analysis of the international obligations
concerning an EIA, which led him to conclude that Costa Rica did not breach its obligations in this
98
regard . In any event, the obligation of due diligenc e is predicated on there being a risk of
significant harm, which is not the case here.
7. Costa Rica nevertheless complied with any obligation of due diligence when it contacted
Nicaragua to discuss its concerns about the construction of the r oad, including by requesting that
Nicaragua present the relevant studies and information to substantia te any claim of harm to the
San Juan River 99. Nicaragua, however, did not cooperate, nor did it allow measurements to be
100
taken by Costa Rica on the San Juan River, in spite of Costa Rica’s repeated requests .
95
CR 2015/13, p. 56 (Judge Bhandari).
9CR 2015/15, p. 45, para. 27 (McCaffrey).
9Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 205.
9RCR, Ann. 1, Professor Neil Craik, “The Requirement to Perform a Prior Environmental Impact Assessment”,
Jan. 2015, paras. 3.3-4.8.
9CMCR, p. 10, paras 1.17 -1.23. See also, CMCR, Ann. 39, letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM- AM-601-11, 29 Nov. 2011, p. 179; see
also, CMCR, Ann. 41, letter from the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua, ref. DVM-AM-286-11, 20 Dec. 2011, p. 189; CMCR, Ann. 42, letter from the Vice -Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, reDM-AM-045-12, 26 Jan. 2012,
p. 197.
100
See, e.g., CMCR, Ann. 46, letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-063-13, 6 Feb. 2013. See also RCR, pp. 23-24, paras. 2.28-2.33,
and p. 94, para. 3.29. - 33 -
8. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention
throughout these proceedings. I kindly request that you call upon Professor Kohen.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Brenes. J e donne maintenant la parole au
professeur Kohen.
M. KOHEN :
L’ ABSENCE DE VIOLATION DE LA SOUVERAINETÉ TERRITORIALE DU N ICARAGUA ET DE
L’OBLIGATION D ’EFFECTUER ET NOTIFIER UNE ÉTUDE D ’IMPACT ENVIRONNEMENTAL
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messi eurs les juges, il m’appartient d’aborder
aujourd’hui, dans cette journée des travailleurs, la question relative à la prétendue violation de la
souveraineté et intégrité territoriales du Nicaragua du fait de la construction de la route. Je
répondrai égale ment aux allégations relatives à la violation de l’obligation de conduire et de
notifier une EIE.
2. Permettez-moi tout d’abord une référence rapide aux citations par l’ambassadeur Argüello
d’un prétendu «arrêt» que la C our centraméricaine de j ustice aurait rendu contre le Costa Rica.
Dans notre contre -mémoire, nous avons expliqué que le Costa Rica n’est pas partie au s tatut de
cette Cour, le P arlement costa- ricien s’étant prononcé contre sa ratification en 1995. Par
conséquent, la C our centraméricaine n ’a aucune compétence à l’égard du Costa Rica 10. Le
Nicaragua connaît cette situation et n’a pas daigné s’y référer. Au contraire, il persiste de manière
regrettable à vouloir instrumentaliser ce prétendu «arrêt», que ce soit dans sa réplique ou encore
lors de sa plaidoirie d’hier. Cela ne contribue certainement pas au développement du système
judiciaire régional.
3. Par souci de clarté, j’attire votre attention sur le fait que cetteour centraméricaine de
justice n’est pas du tout le même organe que la Cour de justice centraméricaine, qui a rendu l’arrêt
de 1916 condamnant le Nicaragua pour avoir conclu un accord de canalisation sans consulter le
Costa Rica, et celui de 1917, dans une affaire introduite par El Salvador, que vous avez utilisé dans
101CMCR, par. 3.67-3.75. - 34 -
l’affaire El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant) 102. La Cour de justice centraméricaine a
été la doyenne des cours internationales, mais a malheureusement dû cesser ses activités du fait de
la réaction nicaraguayenne face aux deux décisions négatives à so n égard que je viens de
mentionner.
A. La prétendue «invasion par sédimentation»
4. Laissons l’histoire de côté , Monsieur le président, et venons-en à ce qu ’AlainPellet a
qualifié comme étant «la mère de toutes les violations» découlant de la constructio n de la
route 1856 : la prétendue violation de la souveraineté et intégrité territoriales du Nicaragua et du
traité de 1858 103. Il est somme toute assez curieux que, malgré son statut de «mère de toutes les
violations», pas une phrase n’ a été prononcée durant le premier tour pour la fonder devant vous.
C’est une stratégie récurrente du Nicaragua, tant dans cette affaire que dans l ’autre qui a été jointe,
de ne plaider certaines questions importantes qu ’au second tour, stratégie qui n ’est certainement
pas passée inaperçue.
5. De notre côté, nous suivons scrupuleusement, tant dans cette affaire que dans celle des
Activités du Nicaragua, vos instructions , Monsieur le président. Dans les deux affaires, de
nombreuses affirmations du second tour de la P artie adverse trouvent déjà une réponse dans nos
exposés du premier tour. Ainsi, pas besoin de s’y référer, ni même de les mentionner.
6. Je croyais, Monsieur le président, que nos amis nicaraguayens avaient abandonné l’idée
d’une invasion du territoire du Nicara gua et d’une atteinte à sa souveraineté … par voie de
104 105
sédimentation . Cette idée quelque peu biscornue apparaissait dans le m émoire , mais avait
disparu de la réplique 106. Pourtant, je me suis trompé. Hier, mes amis les professeurs McCaffrey et
107
Pellet sont revenus à la charge . A en croire mes deux collègues, cette invasion n ’a besoin ni de
102Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant)), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p. 589-600, par. 387-401.
103
CR 2015/16, p. 54, par. 10 (Pellet).
104CR 2015/11, p. 41, par. 10 (Kohen).
105MN, par. 4.13.
106
Voir MN, par. 5.4.
107CR 2015/16, p. 43, par. 5 (McCaffrey) ; p. 55-56, par. 11-12 (Pellet). - 35 -
chars ni de soldats 108. Selon eux, le Costa Rica utiliserait des moyens beaucoup plus subtils. Il
s’agirait de la construction d’une route, sur son territoire,qui produirait des sédiments, lesquels, ne
pouvant être charriés par le fleuve, produiraient à leur tour des deltas le long de sa rive, faisant
gagner ainsi des m ètres carrés ou plutôt des mètres cubes au fleuve et étendant de la sorte la
souveraineté territoriale costa-ricienne.
7. Vous vous souvenez bien sûr de la manière dont le Nicaragua s’ insurgea, il y a quelques
jours à peine, nous accusant d ’exagérer lorsque nous parlions d ’«invasion» pour qualifier la
présence des forces armées nicaraguayennes en territ oire costa-ricien 109. A chacun sa manière de
mesurer l’exagération.
8. Tant M. McCaffrey que M. Pellet vous ont parlé d’ une sorte de conquête territoriale
costa-ricienne par voie de sédimentation. Le premier vous disait que «Costa Rica is claiming that it
can acquire Nicaraguan territory by causing Costa Rican soil to be deposited across the border into
110
Nicaragua» . Il s’est adonné à des comparaisons qui ne correspondent pas du tout à la situation à
l’examen. Monsieur le président, nous sommes aux Pays -Bas et cela a peut -être inspiré nos
distingués collègues, mais je tiens à les rassurer : le Costa Rica n’entreprend aucune activité de
poldérisation du San Juan ! Plus simplement même, le Costa Rica n ’a rien déposé ni rien déversé
en territoire nicaraguay en. Pour Stephen McCaffrey 111, si le Costa Rica savait que du sédiment
allait finir dans les eaux du San Juan, alors le lien de causalité existe, tout comme l ’intention, et la
«conquête sédimentaire» serait ainsi prouvée. Nous avons déjà réfuté tout cela l ors du premier
112
tour .
9. Je crois sincèrement que mon collègue va très vite en besogne et ce, pour les raisons
suivantes :
10. Primo, malgré les longs discours de nos contradicteurs, les rapports scientifiques, les
interrogatoires et les contre-interrogatoires, le Nicaragua n’a pas prouvé quels seraient les deltas
qui seraientle résultat de la construction de la route.
108
Dossier des juges du Nicaragua, 29 avril 2015, tab 13, CAG2-13.
109
CR 2015/15, p. 45 et 59, par. 1 et 28 (Pellet).
110CR 2015/16, p. 43, par. 6 (McCaffrey).
111
Ibid., p. 44, par. 8 (McCaffrey).
112
CR 2015/11, p. 41-43 , par. 10-18 (Kohen). - 36 -
11. Secundo, il a plutôt était démontré que les deltas sont des formations alluviales qui
existaient sur les deux rives du San Juan avant même la construction de la route. Alain Pellet croit
pouvoir écarter cet argument, qu ’il qualifie de «vraiment sot», en laissant croire que, puisque les
sédiments s’ arrêtent là où ils rencontrent un obstacle, alors les sédiments prétendument en
113
provenance de la route auraient bien pu s ’arrêter à l ’autre rive d ’où ils proviennent . Cela
requiert vraiment beaucoup d’ imagination, Monsieur le président. Faut-il encore rappeler à ce
stade que c ’est Mme Ríos, membre de la délégation nicaraguayenne , ici présente je crois, qui a
essayé de faire des études sur des deltas des deux côtés dans le but de démontrer qu ’ils seraient
composés de manière diverse ? Vous voyez à l ’écran les deltas existant des deux côtés du fleuve
qui furent visités par Mme Ríos. Certes, le Nicaragua n’invoque plus son rapport à l ’appui de ses
thèses. Vous voyez maintenant l’emplacement des deltas sur la rive nicaraguayenne tels qu ’ils ont
été relevés par le professeur Thorne dans son rapport. Je montrerai seulement trois de ces
formations deltaïques côté nicaraguayen. Compte tenu de la configuration du fleuve, il n ’y a rien
114
d’étonnant à l’existence des deltas sur les deux rives .
12. Tertio, l’apport dérivé aux deltas de sédimentation du fait de la construction de la route,
s’il existe, reste infime et passager. Après avoir mis en doute la possibilité que des deltas nouveaux
115
aient pu être créés comme résultat de la route , le professeur Thorne l’affirme :
«Where sediment derived from the Road has accumulated on a pre- existing
tributary delta at the south bank, any local, small -scale impacts will be transitory and
short-lived. If Road-derived sediment has formed any entirely new deltas, these will
be removed by the Río San Juan as the mitigation works reduce the supply of new
clasts, those currently forming the delta disintegrate, and the River entrains and
transports the crumbling clasts away, quickly wearing them down to sand, silt and
clay-sized particles in the process.» 116
13. Quarto, les deltas eux -mêmes sont par définition des formations instables, dont la
configuration est fréquemment sujette à modification, voire à apparition et disparition.
14. Vous voyez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, la photographie de la présence illicite
117
nicaraguayenne en territoire costa-ricien que j’ai montrée à l’écran le 23 avril . Mes collègues et
113CR 2015/16, p. 54, par. 8 (Pellet).
114
Voir exposé écrit de M. Thorne, par. 5.2 ; RCR, appendice 1, par.5.8-5.10.
115Construction d’une route, exposé écrit de M. Thorne, par. 5.3.
116Ibid., par. 5.5.
117
Dossier de plaidoiries du Costa Rica, 23 avril 2015, tab 55. - 37 -
118
amis ont eu la délicatesse de vous la montrer hier deux fois , mais en signalant que la présence
des deltas constituait une atteinte au droit de navigation du Nicaragua 11. Je crois que vous voyez
comme moi qu’il y a un arbre sur ce delta. Il ne faut pas être botaniste pour s ’apercevoir que cet
arbre doit être là depuis un bon moment et qu’il ne peut être là du fait de la construction de la route.
Difficile de croire donc au dramatisme nicaraguayen. Si on veut même laisser de côté l ’hypothèse
la plus vraisemblable, à savoir que ce delta n ’est pas le résultat de la construction de la route, que
voudrait le Nicaragua ? Qu’on procède à la démarcation d ’une hypothétique frontière dont les
bornes devraient être fixées là où le delta s’est étendu? Tout cela n’est pas franchement sérieux.
15. On dirait, M onsieur le président, que le Nicaragua aime les frontières insolites. Dans
l’autre affaire, il vous a suggéré, de manière même pas voilée, de tracer une f rontière entre la forêt
et la plage d’Isla Portillos. Dans cette affaire, il vient nous dire que les deltas son t nicaraguayens.
Dans l’autre affaire, il s’ insurgeait contre le fait que le Costa Rica voulait enclaver la lagune
Los Portillos. Je laisse de côté le fait que le Nicaragua se trompe de destinataire. L’érosion marine
qui a eu raison de la bande de sable qui se trouvait au-dessus d’Isla Portillos, tout comme du chenal
qui existait entre les deux formations, n’est pas l’Œuvre du Costa Rica.
16. Tout cela est curieux, voire très curieux, Monsieur le président , Mesdames et Messieurs
les juges : après les avoir durement critiqué es avant-hier, le Nicaragua est venu devant vous hier
revendiquer l ’existence d ’enclaves nicaraguayennes terrestres, cet te fois -ci sur la rive
costa-ricienne du fleuve San Juan et, qui plus est, qui seraient l ’Œuvre du Costa Rica ! Dans la
logique nicaraguayenne, il faudrait sans doute là aussi envoyer des experts pour procéder à
l’abornement de la frontière deltaïque.
17. Mais revenons à la réalité. Dans sa troisième sentence, l ’arbitre Alexander, examinant
l’influence des crues et décrues sur la limite à la rive droite du San Juan, affirma que «[s]i la rive
recule, la ligne frontière recule avec elle et si la rive se rapproche du fleuve, la frontière
120
également» . Il serait franchement regrettable que le Nicaragua vienne promouvoir des querelles
118
Dossier des juges du Nicaragua, 30 avril 2015, tab 44, SM2-1 ; tab 48, AP2-1a.
119Dossier des juges du Nicaragua, 30 avril 2015.
120
Affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frotalière (Costa Rica
c. Nicaragua), MCR, annexe 11. Troisième sentence de l’arbitre E. P Alexander sur la question de la frontière entre le
Costa Rica et le Nicaragua, rendue le 22 mars 1898 à San Juan del Norte et réimprimée dans le Recueil des sentences
arbitrales des Nations Unies, RSA, vol. XXVIII (2007), p. 229 [traduction du Greffe]. - 38 -
et aggraver ainsi la situation revendiquant quoi que ce soit sur la base de ces fo rmations mineures
et instables.
18. Une deuxième prétendue violation à la souveraineté nicaraguayenne serait celle faite à
son droit de libre navigation, comme cela a été illustré de manière étrange par la photo avec l’arbre
121
que nous venons d ’examiner . La justification avancée par le conseil du Nicaragua est que les
sédiments s ’accumuleraient en des endroits particuliers qui formeraient des obstacles à la
navigation 122. Il n ’a cité aucune source scientifique à l ’appui de sa thèse. Comme le
professeur Thorne l’a affirmé, toute contribution que des sédiments en provenan ce de la route
pourraient faire à des formations morphologiques dans le fleuve serait temporaire et
123 124
insignifiante . Comme nous l ’avons affirmé , aucune entrave à la navigation en raison de la
construction de la route n’a été prouvée.
19. Une troisième prétendue violation à la souveraineté et intégrité territoriales identifiée hier
par mon contradicteur a été la présence prétendue du débris d’un tuyau dans le fleuve San Juan. Ce
sont les morceaux d’un tuyau de drainage que le Nicaragua a soi-disant «repêché» dans les eaux du
San Juan, «trouvés» juste une semaine avant les audiences sur les mesures conservatoires
demandées par le Nicaragua en 2013. Le professeur Pellet n ’a pas hésité à vous montrer
sept photographies de ce même débris 12.
20. Monsieur le président, quatre ans de travaux de construction se sont écoulés et tout ce
que l’on a soi-disant trouvé comme débris, c ’est un morceau d’un tuyau de drainage . Lors de sa
demande d’indication de mesures conservatoires, le Nicaragua av ait fourni une vidéo, où, d’après
ce que l ’on pouvait voir, on pouvait dire que le tuyau avait été extrait du territoire costa -ricien.
Cette fois-ci la Partie adverse nous a épargné sa vidéo, et pour cause. Si c’est cela la preuve de la
négligence costa-ricienne à l ’égard de la souveraineté nicaraguayenne, eh bien, Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges, je pense que l ’on peut parler au contraire d ’une bonne diligence requise, ou
due diligence, si vous préférez l’anglais.
121CR 2015/16, p. 53-54, par. 6-9 (Pellet).
122
Ibid., p. 53, par. 6.
123Construction d’une route, exposé écrit de M. Thorne, par. 5.5-5.6.
124DCR, par. 3.15 ; CR 2015/11, p. 44, par. 21 (Kohen). Voir aussi RCR, appendice 1, par. 6.58.
125
Dossier des juges du Nicaragua, 30 avril2015, tab 49, AP2-2a, AP2-2b, AP2-2c, AP2-2c. - 39 -
21. Donc, ni invasion sédimentaire, ni conquête deltaïque, ni atteinte à l’intégrité territoriale,
ni violation du t raité de 1858. Si la «mère de toutes les violations » était cela, on comprend bien
que les espoirs quant à sa progéniture que la Partie demanderesse semble nourrir sont loin d ’être
encourageants pour elle.
B. Le Nicaragua n’a pas démontré l’existence de violations des obligations
relatives à une EIE
22. J’en viens maintenant à la question des obligations environnementales de nature
procédurale. Je vais brièvement me référer aux positions de la Partie adverse par rapport à la
portée du seuil déclencheur de l’obligation de produire et notifier une EIE ; à l’existence dans la
règle primaire d’une exemption d’une telle mise en Œuvre et notification en raison d’une situation
d’urgence ; à la situation concrète d’urgence ; ainsi qu’à la situation concrète dans laquelle le
Costa Rica demanda des informations et proposa des négociations au Nicaragua et au sujet
desquelles ce dernier n’a pas réagi favorablement.
23. Mon collègue et ami Stephen McCaffrey a cru devoir opposer votre position prise dans
l’affaire des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay aux règles semblables que l ’on trouve
dans des instruments internationaux de diverse nature. Son but était d’abaisser le plus possible le
seuil d’exigence en la matière. Il est regrettable de voir invoquée cette apparente contradiction.
D’autant plus que c ’est votre Cour elle -même qui s ’est appuyée sur «une pratique acceptée si
126
largement par les Etats ces dernières années» . Pratique qui, bien entendu, inclut les instruments
internationaux auxquels nous avons fait référence.
24. Cette tentative d’abaisser le seuil déclencheur que vous avez établi aux désormais
célèbres paragraphes 204 et 205 de votre arrêt du 20 avril 2010 n’est pas heureuse. Je me suis déjà
127
expliqué sur les nombreuses différences entre l ’affaire des Usines de pâte à papier et la nôtre .
Steve McCaffrey souhaite abaisser le seuil du fait que votre arrêt indique l ’exigence d’une EIE
«lorsque l’activité industrielle projetée risque d ’avoir un impact préjudiciable important dans un
cadre transfrontière» , au lieu de parler de l ’existence «d’un risque de dommage ou préjudice
126
par. 204. Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine Uruguay), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (I), p. 83,
127CR 2015/11, p. 49-50, par. 34-35 (Kohen). - 40 -
transfrontière important ou significatif» (j’attire votre attention sur le fait qu’ important es t
l’équivalent français de «significant» en anglais). Il me semble que la formule «longue» de votre
Cour et la formule «abrégée» que l’on trouve dans différents instruments ne sont pas
contradictoires et correspondent parfaitement l’une à l’autre. Votre Cour saura certainement
procéder à une adéquation de son analyse de 2010 avec la réalité et le contexte différents que nous
sommes en train d’examiner ici.
e
25. M Wordsworth vient de vous parler de l ’absence de risque de dommage transfrontière
significatif et je n’insisterai pas là-dessus. En l’absence d’un tel risque, le seuil déclencheur n’ est
pas atteint.
26. Par contre, je vais m’attarder un instant sur l’existence, dans l’obligation primaire, d’une
exemption d’EIE dans un contexte d’urgence, obliga tion que conteste mon collègue McCaffrey.
Le professeur Craik a établi l’existence de cette exemption en droit international général, utilisant
la même méthode que vous avez suivie aux paragraphes précités de votre arrêt dans l’affaire
128
Argentine c. Uruguay . A la longue liste d’instruments nationaux et internationaux auxquels le
professeur Craik s’est référé, je voudrais en ajouter un autre que mon cher collègue McCaffrey
connaît très bien. Il s’agit de la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit relati f à l’utilisation des
cours d’eau internationaux à des fins autres que la navigation. Certes, j’en conviens , Monsieur le
président, cette convention n’est pas applicable en l’espèce. Mais son article 19,
paragraphe premier, est «significatif», si je puis utiliser ce terme ici. Il contient aussi une
exemption à l’obligation de notifier des mesures projetées «susceptibles d’avoir des effets négatifs
significatifs pour les autres Etats du cours d’eau». Le texte pertinent a la teneur suivante :
«Si la mise en Œuvre des mesures projetées est d’une extrême urgence pour la
protection de la santé ou de la sécurité publiques ou d’autres intérêts également
importants, l’Etat qui projette ces mesure s peut, sous réserve des articles 5 et 7,
procéder immédiatement à leur mise en Œuvre nonobstant les dispositions de
l’article 14 et de l’article 17, paragraphe 3.» 129
128Rapport Craik, DCR, vol. II, annexe 1, par. 5.1-5.6.
129Convention sur le droit relatif aux utilisations des cours d’eau multinationaux à des fins autres que la
navigation, New York, 21 mai 1997, Nations Unies, résolution 51/229 de l’Assemblée générale. - 41 -
27. Si cette disposition était applicable, elle l’aurait été pour la construction de la route.
Quoi qu’il en soit, elle vient à l’appui de l’existence de cette exemption de notification en droit
international général.
28. Le Nicaragua s’insurge contre cette exemption alors qu’elle est présente dans son
130
droit interne , et argue que si elle était applicable, elle réduirait l’obligation à néant . Nous ne
le croyons pas. De telles exceptions d’urgence ou de sécurité existent dans de nombreux
instruments relatifs à des domaines très différents des relations internationales, tant sur le plan
multilatéral que bilatéral 131.
29. L’existence de cette exemption tr ouvant un solide appui dans la pratique internationale,
je passe maintenant aux considérations faites à propos de la situation concrète. Le Nicaragua essaie
de minimiser la situation de crise qu’il a créée, violant la frontière établie depuis 1858 avec se s
forces militaires. Il s’agit de sa présence militaire à la frontière, sa menace de naviguer le fleuve
Colorado sans autorisation du Costa Rica, et tout le reste dont, à ce stade, je me dois de vous
épargner le récit. Le professeur McCaffrey a pourtant oublié l’essentiel dans sa lecture de l’exposé
de M. Brenes : la citation du président Ortega sur le prétendu droit nicaraguayen de naviguer le
Colorado dans le contexte des travaux de dragage 132, que le Nicaragua menait comme une activité
133
militaire, comme il l’en a lui-même fait la publicité dans son «Livre blanc» connu .
30. Enfin, quatrième point fondamental, que tant l’agent que les conseils nicaraguayens ont
passé sous silence : l’attitude du Nicaragua lui-même. Comme disent nos amis anglophones, et un
argentin ne les détrompera pas : «it takes two to tango». J’avais pourtant mentionné, projeté à
l’écran et inclus dans vos dossiers la lettre du 29 novembre 2011 du ministre des affaires étrangères
costa-ricien à son homologue nicaraguayen, lui demandant de l’information scientifique et lui
proposant la tenue de négociations sur l’ensemble des questions environnementales communes dans
le cadre de la facilitation offerte par le Mexique et le Guatemala, suite à l’occupation
130
CR 2015/16, p. 13, par. 15 (Argüello) ; p. 46, par. 16 (McCaffrey).
131 Voir article 27 de la Convention inter américaine des droits de l’homme ; Article 4 du Pacte international
des droits civils et politiques ; Article XXI du GATT, etc.
132
CR 2015/11 p. 24, par. 34 (Brenes).
133
Affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica
c. Nicaragua), MCR, annexe 30, Gouvernement du Nicaragua, «Le San J uan de Nicaragua : les vérités que cache le
Costa Rica», (Livre blanc), 29 novembre 2010. - 42 -
134
d’IslaPortillos et à l’absence de contacts directs entre les P arties du fait de cette occupation .
Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, si le Nicaragua avait accepté ces
propositions, peut-être que nous ne serions pas dans ce grand hall de justice un 1 ermai !
31. «Tout est dans le contexte», c’est la phrase que mon vieil ami Paul Reichler affectionne à
dire. Eh bien, dans le cas d’obligations procédurales de nature environnementale, le contexte
montre précisément que le Costa Rica ne les a pas violées.
Remarques conclusives
32. Avant de conclure, Monsieur le président, je me permettrai deux commentaires avec
votre permission. Du fait que la Partie adverse avait choisi de répondre à notre position sur la
nouvelle revendication nicaraguayenne de la plage d’Isla Por tillos au second tour, nous avions
réservé notre droit de commenter sa position . Cela ne sera pas nécessaire, Monsieur le président.
En effet, malgré les distorsions évidentes de nos positions opérées par la P artie adverse au second
tour, il ne s’avère pas nécessaire d’y revenir ici.
33. Mon second commentaire a trait au fait que mercredi, le Nicaragua s’est permis de
commencer à plaider la délimitation maritime. Le Nicaragua vous a même montré des croquis
accompagnés de prétentions au sujet desquelles nous reviendrons uniquement au moment
procédural opportun. Cette troisième affaire pendante entre les mêmes parties n’a pourtant pas été
jointe aux deux que nous venons de plaider. Tant l’agent que le conseil se sont permis d’estimer
que l’enjeu de la r equête du Costa Rica dans l’affaire des Activités du Nicaragua était la
135
délimitation maritime . Je me demande s’il ne s’agit pas de ce que, psychologiquement parlant,
on appelle une projection. Peut -être est-ce le Nicaragua qui a eu des arrière- pensées maritimes
lorsqu’il a prétendu changer la réalité géographique et juridique actuellement existante,
construisant un caño pour couper la connexion du Costa Rica à la mer des Caraïbes dans la zone de
l’embouchure du San Juan.
34. Monsieur le président, le C osta Rica a toujours agi à la lumière du jour, de manière
cohérente et sans demander plus que le respect de ce qui lui revient. Il n’y a aucune intention
134Construction d’une route, CMCR, annexe 39.
135CR 2015/15, p. 51, par. 11 (Pellet). - 43 -
cachée de sa part. Il a introduit l’instance relative à la délimitation maritime avant même que
l’affaire relative aux Activités du Nicaragua soit close. Les accusations nicaraguayennes sont ainsi
dépourvues de toute justification.
35. Hier, le Nicaragua a en outre élargi le champ de ses revendications. Le Nicaragua vous
demande de déclarer maintenant que le Costa Rica n’a pas le droit de développer sa région
frontalière sans une EIE transfrontière 13. Son agent a dressé une liste : pas de permis de
construire, pas d’utilisation des terres, pas d’hôtels, etc. Cette position extrême éclaire peut-être
d’un jour nouveau les positions des Parties.
36. Après trois semaines de plaidoiries, nous avons abordé des questions fort différentes et
d’une grande importance pour l’avenir des relations bilatérales, mais ayant également des
répercussions allant bien au-delà de ces deux affaires. Le Costa Rica est confiant que vous saurez
rendre un arrêt qui mettra fin de manière complète et précise à ces différends entre les deux Etats.
37. Je vous remercie , Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de votre attention et vous prie,
Monsieur le président, de donner la parole à l’ambassadeur SergioUgalde.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur Kohen. Je donne la parole à l’ambassadeur
Sergio Ugalde.
Mr. UGALDE:
N ICARAGUA ’S CASE AND REMEDIAL CLAIMS
A. Introduction: Nicaragua’s case
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, after two rounds of oral argument, it is apparent that
137
as a result of the construction of Costa Rica’s 10-m-wide road , built entirely within its sovereign
territory, no significant harm has been caused to Nicaragua, no significant harm is being caused at
present, and there is no risk of significant harm being caused in the future.
13CR 2015/16, p. 15, par. 24 (Argüello).
137
Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf, Erosion and sedi ment delivery to the Rio San Juan from Route 1856, July 2014;
Reply of Nicaragua (RN), Ann. 1, p. 62. - 44 -
2. After three and a half years of Nicaragua’s allegations and accusations, it is patent that
Nicaragua has used the Road case as an attempt to divert attention away from the Certain Activities
case.
3. At this juncture, I am afraid it is still necessary to recall, even if briefly, the facts
underlying the present proceedings. In late 2010, Costa Rica found that its neighbour had militarily
occupied part of its territory. As a first response, Costa Rica first sought the application of relevant
dispute mechanisms, such as those under the Charter of the Organization of American
138
States (OAS). Yet these efforts were unsuccessful, given Nicaragua’s refusal to abide by them .
Bilateral negotiations were also rejected by Nicaragua 139.
4. Further, Costa Rica found that Nicaragua had carried out works in its territory, resulting in
the loss of forest and damage to the ecology of an internationally protected wetland.
140
5. Nicaragua then advanced claims to rights it does not possess on Costa Rican territory .
It announced that the 3 sq km it had invaded were not enough, and that what it was really after
141
were thousands of square kilome tres, an entire Costa Rican Province . Yesterday Nicaragua’s
Agent and counsel tried to minimize the significance of that threat. It was suggested that
Nicaragua can claim all it wants provided that it says it will bring the matter before the Court 14.
But, these threats cannot be taken lightly. Costa Rica has every right to vigorously reject unlawful
and unfounded territorial claims, and to take any necessary precautions within its power to protect
its population and its territory.
6. Mr. President, Mem bers of the Court, confronted with these e xceptional circumstances,
Costa Rica responded in two ways. First, it brought the matter before this Court. Second, it
138
The Certain Activities case, Memorial of Costa Rica (MCR), Ann. 112, statement of Denis Ronaldo Moncada,
Nicaraguan Ambassador to the OAS, as recorded i n “Call to troop withdrawal in Nicaragua, Costa Rica dispute”,
CNN International, 13 Nov. 2010. See also, MCR, Ann. 113, English translation by Costa Rica of the speech given by
President Ortega on national Nicaraguan television on 13 Nov. 2010; extracts.
139
See MCR, para. 3.42; Note from the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DVM -357-10, 24 Nov. 2010; MCR, Ann. 59, Note from the acting
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicara gua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
ref. MRE/DVMS/VLJ/0679/11/2010, 24 Nov. 2010; MCR, Ann. 61.
140
See El 19 (Nicaragua), “Nicaragua will request before the ICJ Navigation through Río Colorado”, 13 Nov.
2010; Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica (CMCR), Ann. 71.
141
“Inaugural Lesson of the Academic Year 2011, 6 April 2011”, transcript of public speech delivered by
President Ortega, CMCR, Ann. 16.
14CR 2015/16, p. 14, para. 22 (Argüello); and, p. 47, para. 20 (McCaffrey). - 45 -
commenced work on a basic infrastructure project, in a situation of emergency, to facilitate
communication with the population along the border, and access by police a nd emergency
personnel to Costa Rica’s border territory, in order to protect these remote communities if required.
There were entirely reasonable actions for Costa Rica to take in these circumstances.
7. Nicaragua, in turn, immediately took actions to br ing a halt to the works on the r oad,
invoking environmental obligations.
8. It is obvious that the Road case was a diversionary tactic, just as it is equally obvious that
Nicaragua could not care less about fulfilling its own international environment al obligations as
regards Costa Rica. The manner in which the case was put last w eek and yesterday was as a
last-ditch attempt at justifying its dredging project by implying that Costa Rica was responsible for
sediment coming into the Lower San Juan River. You have heard this afternoon from
Mr. Wordsworth why that suggestion is wrong, but most obviously because there is no evidence
that any material coming in to the San Juan River from the road has in fact reached the area where
Nicaragua has been dredging.
9. The Nicaraguan official in charge of dredging operations in the San Juan contradicts these
statements. In a Nicaraguan news report dated 29 April 2015, only two days ago, which is at tab 38
of your folders, Mr. Pastora is quoted as announcing that Nicaragua has achieved 100 per cent
navigability on the San Juan. This suggests no damage, and certainly no ongoing damage. But this
statement is also useful because it underlines the fact that Nicaragua has not been forthcoming as to
what is actually being done on the ground, which remains entirely unclear.
10. As to Costa Rica’s compliance with any obligation of due diligence, it has produced
22 different technical reports, all of w hich have been transmitted to Nicaragua, and which
demonstrate that Costa Rica was right all along. In the absence of any hard proof of its own of any
harm, let alone significant harm, Nicaragua’s case rests on extrapolations and exaggerations of the
data underlying those reports. But it is apparent that there is no evidence of actual significant
harm, and even less of any risk of significant harm. The remainder of Nicaragua’s case is based on
old, out-of-date pictures, and criticism of Costa Rica’s efforts.
11. In making its case, Nicaragua appears to advance the extraordinary theory that any grain
of sand that crosses from one State to another is a violation of the latter’s sovereignty and territorial - 46 -
integrity. I need not examine the implications that such a bizarre theory would have at the
international level if it were to be accepted.
12. Mr. President, Costa Rica has done everything in its power to remediate the part of the
road, which constitutes only 10 per cent of its length, which has been the principal focus of
Nicaragua’s case. We shall continue to do so. This is not prompted by Nicaragua’s complaints,
but by Costa Rica’s long-standing compliance with its environmental obligations and its legitimate
interest in having a serviceable road.
B. Nicaragua’s last offensive on remedies
13. I turn now to Nicaragua’s request for relief.
14. As a matter of general observation, one must wonder what exactly it is that Nicaragua
wants. My understanding of what Nicaragua has been saying is: mitiga te but do not mitigate,
build but do not build, cease but do not cease, provide restitution, but only as far as possible and in
Costa Rican territory. Finally, as Nicaragua does not know exactly what it wants, and has not been
able to establish any harm at all, it asks the Court to appoint an expert to do it for it.
15. I have seven points. First, Costa Rica takes note that Nicaragua is no longer seeking a
declaration that it is entitled to suspend Costa Rica’s right to navigation 143. Costa Rica must,
however, express its concern as to the explanation given that there is no need for a declaration to
that effect by the Court if the conditions for countermeasures are in any case fulfilled, and to the
ominous observation that, at least for the moment, such a measure is not envisaged 14.
16. Second, Professor Pellet suggested yesterday that I had said last Friday that Nicaragua
had abandoned its claim for a declaration that Nicaragua is entitled to carry out dredging works 14.
The only point I made was that Nicaragua’s claim for a declaration, which parallels the declaration
it seeks in the Certain Activities case, was more properly dealt with in the context of the other case,
where it has been maintained 14.
143
CR 2015/16, p. 57, para. 17 (Pellet).
144Ibid.
145Ibid., para. 18 (Pellet).
146
CR 2015/13, p. 44, para. 6-7 (Ugalde). - 47 -
17. Professor Pellet is obviously anxious to discus s Nicaragua’s supposed right to dredge in
the context of these proceedings, as highlighted by his attempt, once again, to establish the
admissibility of its claim for a declaration 147. The reason for this is clear the claim for a
declaration forms an essential part of the foundation for Nicaragua’s claims that Costa Rica must
pay an indemnity for the supposed additional cost of Mr. Pastora’s dredging programme.
18. However, but for the joinder of the two cases, serious questions would have been raised
as to the admissibility of Nicaragua’s claim for a declaration as to its entitlement to dredge in these
148
proceedings. The claim was not included in its Application , and was put forward for the first
time in these proceedings only in Nicaragua’s Memorial 149, without any discussion in the body of
the pleading. As this shows, and notwithstanding Professor Pellet’s sustained efforts to convince
you otherwise, the request has little to do with the dispute submitted to the Court in the Road case.
This dispute, as is apparent from the Application, concerns the alleged harm resulting from the
150
construction of the r oad . By contrast, in Certain Activities case, Nicaragua’s claim for a
declaration as to its entitlement to dredge as it deems suitable is directly in issue.
19. In this context, I should note that Professor Pellet was wrong to suggest that Costa Rica
denies Nicaragua’s right to dredge, whether in this case or in Certain Activities 151. As has been
reiterated on a number of occasions, Costa Rica recognizes t hat Nicaragua is entitled to carry out
works of improvement, provided it complies with the obligations and limitations arising from the
152
Cleveland Award and international environmental law .
20. To be clear, Costa Rica does not oppose the making of a decla ration clarifying the extent
153
of Nicaragua’s entitlement to dredge in the context of the Certain Activities case . G iven the
events since your 2009 Judgment, a declaration by the Court clarifying the precise scope of
Nicaragua’s entitlement to carry out wo rks of improvement, and making clear the limits upon that
147CR 2015/16, pp. 57-58, para. 19 (Pellet); see previously CR 2015/10, p. 59, para. 23 (Pellet).
148
Nicaragua’s Application instituting proceedings, Constru ction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan
River, 22 Dec. 2011.
149
The Road case, Memorial of Nicaragua (MN), p. 252, para. 3(i) and (ii).
150See the Road case, CRCM, paras. 4.34-4.35.
151CR 2015/16, p. 57, para. 19 (Pellet).
152
CR 2015/3, p. 55, paras. 2-3 (Ugalde); CR 2015/14, p. 55, paras. 35-36 (Ugalde).
153CR 2015/16, p. 60, para. 29 (Pellet). - 48 -
entitlement, would have a calming effect upon the relati ons between the Parties. Costa Rica’s
preference is for any declaration to be included in the dispositif , rather than merely in the body of
the Judgment, such that there could be no basis for any dispute as to its binding effect.
21. Nevertheless, in the context of the present case, Nicaragua’s claim for a declaration has
no obvious place.
22. Third, whether looked at from the perspective of cessation or restitution, Professor Pellet
continued to fail to explain how the particular measures requested by Nicaragua relate to the
breaches alleged. He agreed that in determining the content of restitution required, it is necessary
to have regard to the specific obligation allegedly breached 154. Nevertheless, although he affirmed
that various obligations had been breached in addition to the obligation not to cause significant
harm 15, he did not explain how the measures requested constituted cessation o r restitution in
relation to those obligations.
23. This is notably the case as regards the suggestion that the Court order the taking of
specific measures of remediation and mitigation, in accordance with particular standards, including
under the supervi sion of an expert 156. Professor Pellet gave no explanation as to how those
measures constitute cessation or restitution of any of the obligations alleged to have been breached
in paragraph 1 of the submissions.
24. There is no allegation that Costa Rica has breached an obligation requiring it to construct
the road in a particular fashion, or to take remedial or mitigation works in a particular way. As a
consequence, if quod non the Court were to conclude that the r oad is causing harm to
Nicaragua which surpasses the relevant threshold, and that that harm i s continuing in breach of
Costa Rica’s obligations, restitution or cessation would be achieved by putting a stop to that harm.
The precise modalities of that would be a matter for Costa Rica. On such a hypothesis, there is no
basis for a coercive measure involving specification of the measures required, or the appointment
of an expert to supervise that process.
154
CR 2015/16, p. 60, para. 25 (Pellet).
15Ibid., p. 58, para. 21 (Pellet).
156
Ibid., pp. 60-61, para. 25 (Pellet). - 49 -
25. The same is true in relation to Professor Pellet’s suggestion that restitution would require
relocation, at least in part, of the r oad to another route 15. Nicaragua has not specified which parts
of the road, would, in its view, need to be relocated, nor has it demonstrated that any particular
segment has caused the harm alleged. In the event that the Court were to conclude that harm was
being caused, in breach of Costa Rica’s obligations, one amongst a number of possible options
open to Costa Rica in order to comply with its obligations of cessation and restitution might well be
to change the route. But that does not imply that it would have to do so, still less that the Court
should make an order requiring that result.
26. It is telling that Nicaragua does not include in its s ubmissions a request that the Court
should require relocation of the road, or that it should be constructed in accordance with the views
of its experts.
27. Fourth, as regards the declaration requested as to transport of hazardous substances ,
Professor Pellet persisted in suggesting that the risk was more than hy pothetical. However,
Professor Pellet’s concern now appears to be that it is not clear that the relevant legislation
concerns transport of everyday products such as petrol 158. This is a far cry from the tanker lorries
he imagined last week. As I said th en, given the relevant Costa Rican legislation, the short answer
is that there is no prospect that significant quantities of hazardous materials will be transported on
the road, and therefore no risk of the harm Nicaragua professes to fear 159.
28. However, if Nicaragua’s alleged concern is in fact about the transport of a few l itres of
diesel in a jerrycan by riparian residents, this reveals this claim for what it in reality it is a false
claim designed to cause an unwa rranted inconvenience for Costa Rica and its residents, and which
may be portrayed as a victory for Nicaragua to its domestic audience.
29. In addition, Professor Pellet referred in this context to Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration
that, in case of a risk of serious or irreversible damag e, a lack of full scientific certainty is not a
157
CR 2015/16, p. 59, para. 22 (Pellet).
158Ibid., p. 60, para. 23 (Pellet).
159
Ibid. - 50 -
reason for failing to take preventive measures 16. With respect, we fail to see the relevance of the
precautionary principle and “scientific certainty” to the hypothesis under discussion.
30. Fifth, the Age nt somewhat clarified the scope of Nicaragua’s request requiring
Costa Rica to undertake a transboundary EIA in relation to all and any new development in the
area, which apparently includes even such matters as the grant of authoriz ation for construction of
161
any new house , and this whether or not they in fact present any risk of transboundary harm,
which is obviously ridiculous. No such order is justified, for the reasons I gave last week 162, in
particular because it is both excessively broad, and insuffici ently precise as to its scope. Even a
more narrowly drawn requirement would do no more than simply reproduce the obligations which
Costa Rica accepts are binding upon it, and it is superfluous.
31. Sixth, in light of the fact that Professor Pellet did no t address the question of
compensation, I will be very brief in that regard; the short point of course is that, as
Mr. Wordsworth has explained, there is no evidence of significant harm, nor even any evidence
that any sediment has been deposited in the reach of the Lower San Juan where Nicaragua has been
concentrating its dredging 163.
32. Seventh, despite the time he spent on the topic, I note that a request for the appointment
of experts is not included in Nicaragua’s s ubmissions. I have already explained why the
appointment of an expert to assure the implementatio n of remedial measures by Costa Rica is
inappropriate. The suggestion of appointment of an expert or experts “to assist the Court in the
evaluation of the damages suffered by Nicaragua” 164is a reformulation of the plea that the Court
should assist Nicaragua in substantiating its claim that it has suffered damage. But as I explained
last week, if Nicaragua has not discharged its burden of proof that any damage has been suffered,
165
that is the end of its claim .
160CR 2015/16, p. 60, para. 24 (Pellet).
161
Ibid., p. 15, para. 24 (Argüello).
162CR 2015/13, pp. 47-48, paras. 22-24 (Ugalde).
163See speech 1 (Wordsworth), above.
164
CR 2015/16, p. 62, para. 28 (Pellet); emphasis in the original and added.
165CR 2015/13, p. 46, paras. 15-16 (Ugalde). - 51 -
C. Conclusion
33. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Costa Rica was in effect challenged yesterday to
do one of two things: either accept that it owes Nicaragua an EIA, or to wait for the Court to
decide that for it. I am not going to expand further on Costa Rica’s position, except to say that for
the project it started in 2010, Costa Rica had no obligation to carry out an EIA, given, first, the
scale and characteristics of the project, and second, the emergency circumstances in which it w as
forced to carry it out.
34. That said, Costa Rica also notes that Nicaragua seemed to have finally accepted
the invitation made by Costa Rica to consult and co- operate. As p roposed in its letter of
166
29 November 2011 , Costa Rica reiterates that it sta nds ready to meet with Nicaragua, with no
reservations, in order to address all, absolutely all, the bilateral issues regarding environmental
concerns that are legitimately held by each country. To that end, and in so far as the construction
of the r oad will only resume after all designs are ready, Costa Rica remains ready to carry out
additional environmental studies to complement the 22 that have been carried out thus far, in so far
as they are necessary to address any reasonable concerns that Nicaragua may have in relation to the
project.
35. Mr. President, Members of the Court. This brings Costa Rica’s second round of
pleadings to its conclusion. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the attention that you
have so kindly given to me. Mr. Pre sident, I ask that you call Ambassador Edgar Ugalde, to
present Costa Rica’s closing remarks and read Costa Rica’s final submissions.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. Je donne maintenant la parole à l’agent
du Costa Rica, M. l’ambassadeur Ugalde Álvarez.
Mr. UGALDE ÁLVAREZ:
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, as we conclude the second round of
hearings in this case, there is no doubt that the road works carried out entirely on undisputed
Costa Rican territory have not caused, and do not risk causing significant transboundary harm.
16Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-601-11, 29 Nov. 2011; CMCR, Ann. 39. - 52 -
2. The road is not a highway. The Court was shown a video of the road filmed in February
of this year. As you were able to see, it is a narrow, rural road in the process of being constructe d
in large part on pre -existing paths and tracks in Costa Rica. It provides isolated communities of
riparians with land access to essential services, and it allows the police posts in the border to have
access and communication. Nicaragua has tried to pr esent the road as some kind of disaster,
although its case was focused on a very small portion of it, and based on a careful selection of
out-of-date photographs, and not on any reliable and objective data.
3. There is no impact of the road on the San J uan River, and certainly no significant harm
caused to the river as a result of the contribution of sediment to it. It is obviously untrue that the
indiscernible proportion of sediment that may be entering the San Juan River from the road has
caused, or would cause, any harm at all to the river and its ecology.
4. Work on the road was begun in the context of an emergency situation brought about by
Nicaragua’s military actions and threats against Costa Rica, compounded by other serious breaches
by Nicaragua, including its persistent attempts to prevent Costa Rica from exercising its rights of
navigation, and Nicaragua’s extravagant and illegal interpretations of the well -established border
régime. Despite these circumstances, Costa Rica has consistently sought to address Nicaragua’s
concerns about the road, including when Nicaragua’s hostile acts were ongoing.
5. Costa Rica proposed addressing Nicaragua’s concerns through the then facilitation of the
Governments of Guatemala and Mexico, and it proposed that all environmental issues be
addressed, without condition 167. Nicaragua did not accept this proposal. Costa Rica also proposed
168
that the two countries undertake joint measurements on the San Juan . Nicaragua did not accept
16Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the MinisteForeign Affairs of
Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-601-11, 29 Nov. 2011; CMCR, Ann. 39.
168
Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the MinisteForeign Affairs of
Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-063-13, 6 Feb. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 46. - 53 -
this proposal 169. Costa Rica then proposed that Nicaragua undertake its own monthly flow
measurements of the river. Apparently Nicaragua has not done so. Costa Rica thus acted in good
faith, and complied with any obligation of due diligence, including by producing 22 different
technical studies on the road in the context of this case.
6. We know that Nicaragua has the apparatus in place to take regular flow measurements on
the San Juan River 170. Nicaragua has either not carried out such measurements, or it has not seen
fit to share t hem with Costa Rica or the Court . Whatever the real reason, Nicaragua’ s case must
fail because it has not discharged its burden of proof either that significant harm has been caused,
or that there is or was any risk of significant harm.
7. Nicaragua’s claims that work on the road has meant that Nicaragua has had to dredge the
San Juan River are unfounded, and Nicaragua’s claim that Costa Rica should pay for those works is
unwarranted. As Ambassador SergioUgalde has stated, Costa Rica stands ready to consult and
co-operate with Nicaragua in good faith, and it will do so in so far as Nicaragua’s statements before
you yesterday are fully backed by a genuine commitment.
8. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is apparent that this case was conceived wi th the
sole purpose of responding to Costa Rica’s case of 2010. My country laments that a legitimate
international dispute was the subject of this tactical move. Costa Rica is confident that the Court
will see through this diversion, and it respectfully requests that the Court not reward Nicaragua in
any way for its procedural tit-for-tat. Nicaragua’s case before you must fail in its entirety.
9. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I will proceed to read Costa Rica ’s
submissions.
169RCR, para. 2.29, ftns 61 to 64 and Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, Costa Rica, ref . MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13, 5 Mar. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 48;
letter from the Co -Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. E-013-2013,
7 Mar. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 49; letter from the Co -Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of
Justice, ref. ECRPB-26-13, 24 May 2013; CMCR, Ann. 52; letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of
the International Court of Justice, ref. ECRP-31-13, 13 June 2013; CMCR, Ann. 53; letter from the Agent of
Nicaragua to the Registrar of the Internation al Court of Justice, ref. HOL -EMB-108, 14 June 20CMCR, Ann. 54;
letter from the Co -Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. ECR-036-13,
24 June 2013; CMCR, Ann. 55; letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of
Justice, ref. ECRPB -052-13, 7 Aug. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 59; letter from the Registrar of the International Court of
Justice to the Agent of Costa Rica, ref. 142331, 8 Aug. 2013; CMCR, Ann. 60; letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the
Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. HOL -EMB-167, 30 Aug. 2013CMCR, Ann. 64; letter from the
Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. ECRPB-63-2013, 27 Sep. 2013;
CMCR, Ann. 65.
170See e.g. Certain Activities, INETER, “Summary of Measurement of liquid and suspended solids content during
the years 2006, 2011, 2012”, 26 June 2012; CMN, Ann. 16. - 54 -
SUBMISSIONS
For the reasons set out in the written and oral pleadings, Costa Rica requests the Court to
dismiss all of Nicaragua’s claims in this proceeding.
10. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, to conclude our participation in these
oral hearings, I wish to extend, on behalf of the Republic of Costa Rica, our appreciation to you,
Mr. President, and each of the distinguished Members of the Court, for your kind attention to our
presentations.
May I also offer our thanks to the Court’s Registrar, his staff, the interpreters and translators,
and all the Court staff, who performed an extraordinary work during these long weeks . Finally, I
would also like to t hank publicly Costa Rica ’s counsel and all members of our delegation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Le PRESIDENT : Je vous remercie, Monsieur l’agent.
La Cour prend acte des conclusions finales dont vous venez de donner lecture au nom de la
République du Costa Rica, comme elle l’a fait hier pour les conclusions finales du Nicaragua.
Cela nous amène à la fin de s audiences consacrées aux plaidoiries des Parties en l’affaire
relative à la Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua
c. Costa Rica) et donc à la fin de la série d’ audiences dans les deux instances jointes. Je tiens à
remercier les agents, conseils et avocats des deux Parties pour l’assistance qu’ils ont apportée à la
Cour par leurs exposés oraux et pour la courtoisie dont ils ont fait preuve tout au long de cette
procédure. Je demande aux agents d e rester à la disposition de la C our pour toutes informations
dont la Cour pourrait avoir besoin.
La Cour se retirera à présent pour entamer sa délibération. Les Parties seront informées en
temps utile par le greffier de la date à laquelle la Cour rendra sa décision en séance publique.
L’audience est levée à 17 heures.
___________
Public sitting held on Friday 1 May 2015, at 3 p.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)