Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING RHGHT OFPASSAGE OVERINDIAN TERRITORY
(PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONS)
Judgmentof 26 Novemlber 1957
Thecaseconcerningrightofpassage overIndianterritory TheGovernmentofIndiaforitspartraisedsixPreliminary
(hliminary Objections)between Portugal and Indiawas Objectionsto thejurisdictionof theCourtwhich wbased
requesting the Courtto recognizeand declarethat Portugalnthefollowinggrounds:
was theholderorbeneficiaryofarightofpassagektween its TheFirst PreliminarOy bjectionwas to the effect thata
temtoryof Damgo(littoralDamgo)anditser~clavesfDadra condition inthe PortugueseDeclarationof December19th,
andNagar-Aveli andbetwee:rtachof the1at.trndthatthis 1955,acceptingthejurisdictionoftheCourtresewedforthat
right compriseshefacultyof transitforpersons.andgoods, Goverr~ment"the right to exclude from the scopeof the
includingarmed forces, witlloutrestrictionsor difficultiessentDeclarationatanytimeduring itsvalidity any given
andinthemanner andtothe extentrequiredbytheeffective categolyorcategoriesofdisputesbynotifyingtheSecretary-
exerciseofPortuguesesoven:igntyinthesaidterritories,thateneral of the United Nations andwith effect from the
Indiahas preventedandconti.nuesto prevent theexerciseofmomentofsuch notification" anwasincompatiblewiththe
therightinquestion,thuscommittinganoffencet:othedetri- objectand purposeof the OptionalClause, withthe result
ment of PortugueseSovereilptyover theer~clavand vio- that theDeclarationofAcceptancewasinvalid.
lating its internationalobligiitionsand to adjudgethat InThe SecondPreliminaryObjectionwasba&donthealle-
should put an immediateend to this situationby allow- gation thatthe Pbrtuguese Applicatofnkcember 22nd,
ing Portugal toexercisethe right of passagethus claimed.955,wasfiled beforea copy ofthe DeclarationofPortugal
TheApplicationexpresslyreferredto Article36, paragraph acceptingthecompulsoryjurisdictionof the Court couldbe
2,of the Statuteandto the l[)eclarationsby whichPbrtugatransmitted tootherartiesto the Statuteby.the Secretary-
and Indiahave acceptedthe compulsoryjurisdictionof the Generalin compliancewithArticle 36,axagraph4, ofthe
Court. Statute. Thefilingof the Applicationhad thus violatedthe
Continued on next pageequality,mutualityandreciprocityto whichIndiawasenti- the Judgment statementsof their dissenting opinions.M.
tled underthe OptionalClauseandundertheexpresscondi- Fernandes, Judge ad hoc, concurredin the dissenting opin-
tion of reciprocitycontainedin its Declarationof February appended to the Judgmenta statement of his dissenting
Court.1940, acceptingthe compulsoryjurisdiction of the opinion.
The Third Preliminary Objection was based on the
absence,priortothe filingofthe Application,of diplomatic
negotiationswhich wouldhavemadeit possilbleto define the
subjectmatteroftheclaim.
TheFourthPreliminaryObjectionrequestedthe Courtto
declare that sinceIndiahadignoredthePortuguese Declara- Withregard tothe FirstPreliminaryObjectiontotheeffect
tion beforetheApplicationwasfiled, Indiahadbeenunable that thePortugueselDeclarationwas invalidfor the reason
toavailitselfonthebasisofreciprocityofthe conditioninthe that the condition enablingPortugal toexcludeat any time
Portuguese Declarationenablingittoexclude:from thejuris- disputesby merenotificationto the Secretary-General,the
dictionoftheCourtthedisputewhichwasthe subjectmalter Courtsaidthatthewordsusedinthecondition,construedin
ofthe Application. their ordinary sense,meant simplythata notification under
TheFi'hPreliminaryObjectionwasbasedonthereserva- that condition appliedonly todisputesbrought before the
tioninthe Indian DeclarationofAcceptance'whichexcludes Courtafer the datecbfthe notification.Noretroactiveeffect
from thejurisdictionofthe Courtdisputesinregard toques- couldthusbe imputedto sucha notification.Inthis connec-
tionswhichby internationallawfall exclusi.velywithinthe tiontheCourt refemi totheprinciplewhichithadlaid down
jurisdictionof the Governmentof India. That Government intheNottebohmcaseinthefollowingwords:"An extrinsic
assertedthat thefactsandthe legal considerationsadduced fact such asthe lapse of the Declarationby reasonof the
before the Court dinotpermitthe conclusiorithat therewas expiry of the periodor of denunciation cannot deprive the
areasonably arguable caseforthecontentionthatthesubject Court of the jurisdiction alreadyestablished." The Court
matterofthedisputewasoutsideits domesticjurisdiction. addedthatthis principle appliedbothto total denunciation,
Finally,in The SixthPreliminaryObjectio.n,the Govern- and topartial denunciationas contemplatedintheimpugned
mentof IndiacontendedthattheCourtwas withoutjurisdic- conditionofthe PortugueseDeclaration.
tion on the ground thatIndia'sDeclarationof Acceptance Indiahavingcontendedthatthiscondition had introduced
was limited to "disputes arisingafter Febnlary 5th 1930 intothe Declarationaldegreeof uncertainty as toreciprocal
with regard to situationsor facts subsequerltto the same rightsandobligationswhich deprivedtheAcceptanceofthe
date."TheGovernmentofIndiaargued:first,lhatthedispute compulsoryjurisdictionof the Courtof all practicalvalue,
submittedto the CourtbyPortugal did not ariseafterFebru- theCourt heldthat as:kclarations andtheir alterationsmade
ary5th, 1930and,secondly,thatinanycase,itwasadispute underArticle 36of the Statutehad to be depositedwiththe
with regardto situationsandfactspriortothatdate. Secretary-Generalit followedthat, whenacasewassubmit-
The GovernmentofPortugalhadadded to itsSubmissions ted to the Court, it was always possibleto ascertainwhat
a statement requestingthe Courtto recallto the Parties the were, at that moment, the reciprocal obligatiosf thePar-
universally admittedprinciplethattheyshouldfacilitatethe ties in accordance with their respective Declarations.
accomplishmentof the taskof theCourtbyabstainingfrom Although itwastruethatduringthe intervabl etweenthedate
any measurecapable of exercisinga prejudicial effectin ofthe notificationtoheSecretary-Generalanditsreceiptby
regard to the executionof its decisionor whichmight bring thePartiesto the Statutethere mightexistsomeelementof
about eitheran aggravationor an extension of the dispute. uncertainty,suchuncertaintywasinherentintheoperationof
The Court didnot considerthat in the circumstancesof the thesystemoftheOptionalClauseanddidnotaffectthevalid-
present caseit should complywiththis requestof the Gov- ityofthe conditioncontainedinthe PortugueseDeclaration.
ernmentofPortugal. TheCourtnotedthatwithregardtoanydegreeofuncertainty
In its Judgment,the Courtrejectedthe Fint and theSec- resultingfrom therightofPortugalto avail itselfatanytime
ond Preliminary Objectionsby fourteenvotesto three, the oftheConditioninitsAcceptance,thepositionwassubstan-
ThirdbysixteenvotestooneandtheFourthbyfifteen votes tially the same as that creaby theright claimedby many
totwo.Bythirteenvotes tofouritjoined the FifthObjection SignatoriesoftheOptionalClause,includingIndia,totermi-
to the merits and by fifteen votes totwo joined theSixth nate their Declarationsof Acceptancebysimplenotification
Objectiontothe merits. Finally,iteclatedthattheproceed- withoutnotice.It recalledthat IndiahaddonesoonJanuary
ings on the meritswere resumedand fixed as follows the 7th, 1956, when it notified the Secretary-Generalof the
time-limitsforthe restofthe proceedings: denunciation of its 1)eclarationof February 28th. 1940
Forthefilingofthe Counter-Memoriao lf hdia, February (relied upon by Portugalin its Application),for which it
25th, 1958;forthefilingofthe PortugueseReplyM , ay25th. simultaneouslysubstituteda new Declarationincorporating
1958;forthe filingoftheIndian Rejoinder,July25th, 1958. reservationswhich wt!reabsent from its previous Declara-
tion. Bydoingso, India achievedin substancethe objectof
theconditioninPortugal'sDeclaration.
Moreover,intheviewoftheCourt,therewas noessential
differencewithregard tothedegreeofuncertainty between a
situation resultingfrornrightof total denunciationand that
Judge Kojevnikovstatedthathecouldnot concureitherin resultingfrom the conditionin the PortugueseDeclaration
the operative clauseor in the reasoningof the Judgment whichleftopen the poaisibiliofapartial denunciation. The
because,inhis opinion,theCourtshould,atthe presentstage Courtfurtherheldthatit wasnotpossibletoadmitasa rele-
oftheproceedings,have sustainedoneor indeedmoreofthe vant differentiatingfactor that while in the case of total
PreliminaryObjections. denunciation the denouncing State could no longer invoke
Vice-PresidentBadawiand Judge Klaestad appendedto anyrightsaccruingunderitsDeclaration,inthecaseofa par-tial denunciationunderthetetmsofthePortuiguese Declara- had transmittedacopy thereof tothe Parties.TheCourtheld
tion Portugal couldotherwisecontinueto claimthebenefits thatthedeclarantStatewasconcernedonlywiththe deposit
ofitsAcceptance.Theprincipleofreciprocitymadeitpossi- of its Declarationwith the Secretary-Generaland was not
bleforotherStatesincluding :Indiato invokeagainstPortugal concernedwiththedutyoftheSecretary-Generao l rtheman-
alltherightswhichit mightthuscontinuetoclaim. ner of its fulfilment. The Courtcould not read into the
Athirdreasonfortheallegedinvalidityofthe 1)ortuguese Optional Clause the requirementthat an interval should
Conditionwasthatit offendedagainstthebasicprincipleof elapsesubsequenttothedepositoftheDeclaration.Anysuch
reciprocityunderlyingthe OptionalClause, inasmuchas it requirementwouldintroduceanelementof uncertaintyinto
claimedfor Portugala right whichin effect was denied to theoperationoftheOptionalClausesystem.
other SignatorieswhoseDeclarationsdidnotcontaina simi- As India had not specifiedwhat actual light which she
lar condition.The Courtwas unableto acceptthis conten- derived from the Statute and the Declaration had been
tion. It heldthatif the positiof theParties as~egardsthe adversely affectebythemannerofthe filingofthe Applica-
exercise of their rightswas;in any way affected by the tion, theCourtwasunable todiscoverwhatrighthadinfact
unavoidable intervalbetweelm the receiptby the Secretary- thusbeenviolated.
Generalof theappropriatenotification andits receiptor by Having arrived atthe conclusionthat theApplicationwas
theotherSignatories,thatdelay operatedequallyinfavourof filedin a mannerwhichwas neither contraryto the Statute
oragainstallSignatoriesofthe OptionalClaiise. nor inviolationofanyrightofIndia,theCourtdismissedthe
The Courtalsorefused toa.ccepttheviewthattheCondi- Second Preliminary Objection.
tioninthePortugueseDeclarationwasinconsistentwiththe
principle ofreciprocity inasmuch as it renderenoperative
that part of paragraph2 of Article 36 which refers to the
acceptance of the Optional Clause in rel.ationto States
acc&ting "the sameobligationw.It wasnoi:necessary that
"the same obligation"shouldbe irrevocabl:defined at the The Courtthendealtwiththe FourthPreliminaryObjec-
time of acceptancefor theentireperiodof its duration; that tionwhichwasalsoconcernedwiththemannerinwhichthe
expressionsimply meantno morethanthat, asbetweenthe Applicationwasfiled.
Statesadheringtothe OptionalClause, each and allofthem India,contendedthathaving regardtothernannerinwhich
were boundby such identicelobligations asmightexist at theApplication wasfiled,ithadbeenunable toavailitselfon
any timeduringwhichtheacceptancewasmutually binding. the basisof reciprocityof the conditionin the Portuguese
As the Court foundthat the conditionin the Portuguese DeclarationandtoexcludefromthejurisdictionoftheCourt
Declarationwas notinconsistentwiththeStatute,it wasnot thedisputewhichwasthesubject matterof theApplication.
necessary forit to considerthe position whether,if it were TheCourtmerely recalledwhatithadsaidindealingwiththe
invalid, its invalidityoul~ralffect the D'eclarationas a SecondObjection,inparticular that the Statutedid notpre-
whole. scribe'myintervalbetweenthe depositof a Declarationof
Accepmce andthe filingofanApplication.
TheCourtthendealtwiththe SecondObjectionbased on
the allegation thatastheApplicationwas filtd before Portu-
gal's acceptanceoftheCour1:'jsurisdictioncouldbenotified On the Third PreliminaryObjectionwhich invokedthe
by the Secretary-Generalto 'theother Signatories, thefiling absenceof diplomatic negotiationspriorto the filingof the
of theApplicationviolated hieequality,mu1:ualityandreci- Application,the Court held that a substantial partof the
procitytowhichIndiawasentitledundertheOptionalClause exchangesor viewsbetweenthePartiespriorto thefilingof
and under theexpressconditioncontainedinits Declaration. theApplicationwasdevoted to the questionof accessto the
The Court noted that two questionshad to be considered: enclaves,that the correspondenceand notes laid beforethe
first,infilingitsApplicationnthedayfollowingthedeposit Court revealedthe repeated complaints of Portugal on
ofitsDeclarationofAcceptance,didPortugatactinamanner accountofdenialoftransitfacilities,andthat the correspon-
contrary tothe Statute;second,if not, did ittherebyviolate dence :showedthat negotiationshad reached a deadlock.
anyrightofIndiaunderthe StatuteorunderitsDt:claration. Assumingthat Article 36, paragraph2, of the Statuteby
India maintainedthatbeforefilingitsApplication Portugal referringtolegaldisputes,didrequireadefinitionof thedis-
oughttohave allowedsuch pe:riodtoelapseaswouldreason- pute throughnegotiations, the conditionhadbeencomplied
ably have permittedotherSignatoriesoftheOptionalClause with.
toreceivefromthe Secretary-Generan lotificationofthePor-
tugueseDeclaration.
TheCourtwasunableto acceptthat contention. Thecon-
tractual relationbetween the Parties and the compulsory In its;FifrhObjection,India relied ona reservationin its
jurisdictionof theCourtres~~ltintherefrom are established own Declarationof Acceptancewhich excludesfrom the
"ipsofacto andwithoutspeciialagreement"bythefactofthe jurisdictionof the Court disputeswith regardto questions
of the Courtmust expectthat an Applicationmay be filedion whichby internationallawfallexclusivelywithin the juris-
diction of the Governmentof India, and assertedthat the
same dayon whichthat CouStaledeposits itsAcceptance withe factsandthe legalconsiderationsadduced beforethe Court
the Secretary-General. did not permit the conclusion that therewas a reasonably
arguablecaseforthecontentionthatthesubjectmatterofthe
Indiahadcontendedthat iicceptanceof theCourt'sjuris- disputewas outside the exclusive domestic jurisdictionof
diction becameeffectiveonly when the Secretary-General India. TheCourtnotedthatthefactsonwhichtheSubmissionsof Finally,in dealingwiththe SixthObjectionbasedon the
Indiawere based were notadmittedbyPortugalandthatelu- reservationratione.temporisintheIndian Declaration limit-
cidationof thosefacts and their legalons.equenceswould ing the Declarationto disputes arising after February5th,
involveanexaminationof the practiceof the British. Indian 1930, with regardI:Osituationsor facts subsequent tothat
andPortugueseauthoritiesin the matterof therightof pas- date, the Courtnotedthatto ascertainthe dateonwhichthe
sage,inparticulartodeterminewhetherthis practice showed disputehadarisenitwasnecessarytoexaminewhetherornot
that thePartieshadenvisagedthisrightas aquestion which the disputewas only acontinuationof a disputeontheright
accordingto internationallaw was exclusivelywithin the ofpassage whichhadarisen before 1930T . he Courthaving
jurisdictionoftheterritorialsovereign.Alltheseandsimilar heard conflictingargumentsregardingthenatureof thepas-
questionscould not beexaminedat this pireliminarystage sageformerlyexercisedwas not in a positionto determine
without prejudgingthe merits. Accordirrgly,the Court thesetwoquestionsatthisstage.
decidedtojoin theFifthObjectiontothemerits. Nor did-theCOUIZ have atpresent sufficientevidenceto
enable itto pronounceon the questionwhetherthe dispute
concernedsituation!;or factspriorto 1930. Accordingly,it
joined theSixthPreliminary Objectiontothemerits.
Summary of the Judgment of 26 November 1957