Summary of the Judgment of 12 November 1991 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Document Number

6865

Document Type

summary

Case

82 - Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)

Number (Press Release, Order, etc)

1991/2

Date of the Document

Tue, 11/12/1991 - 12:00

Document File

6865.pdf

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document

CASECONCERNING THE ARBITRAL AWARD OF31JULY1989
(GUINEA-BISSAU V.SENEGAL)

Judgment of12November1991

of 31 July 1989(Guinea-Bissauv.iSencsgal),the Court ment of12March1985betweentheRepublicofGuinea-ee-
rejectedthe submissions of Guinea-Bissahat:(1) the BissauandtheRepublicoS fenegalisinexistent;
Awardof 31July 1989isinexistent;(2) trubsidiarilyi,t is
absolutely null void;(3) theGovernmentof Senegalis "(2) Byeleven votestfour,
notjustifiedseekingtorequireGuinea-Bisstoapplythe "Rejectsthe t;ubmissionof the Republicof Guinea-
Award.The Courtthenfound, on thesu;bmissiontothat Bissau thathe ArbitralAward of31July 1989isabso-
effect ofSenegal,that theAwardwasvalid and binding lutelynull andoid;
bothStateswhich hadth ebligationtoapplyit. "FOR:PresidentSiRobertJennings;ice-Presidentda;
Judges Lachs,Ago, Schwebel, i.Evensen,Tarassov,
Guillaume, Shahabuddeen;dgead hocMbaye.
'"GAINST: Judges Aguilar Mawdsley,Weeramantry,
RanjevaJudgeadhocThierry.
TheCourtwascomposedasfollows: PresidenSirRobert "(3) Bytwelvevotestothree,
Jemings; Vice-president Oda, Judges Lachs, Ago, "Rejectsthe submissionof the Republicof Guinea-
den, AguilarMawdsleyW, eeramantry, anjevaJudgesad Bissauthat theGovernmentof Senegal is nutstifiedin
hacThierry,Mbaye. seeking torequin the Governmentf Guinea-Bissauto
applytheArbitraAl wardof 31July1989;and,onthesub-
missiontothateffectoftheRepublicofSenega1,findtshat
theArbitralAwardof 3July1989isvalidandbindingfor
the Republic of Senegaalnd theRepublicof Guinea-
ThefulltextoftheoperativepaotftheJudgmentisasfol- Bissau,whichhavethe obligatitoapplyit.
lows: "FOR:PresidenSirRobertJennings;ice-PresideOtda;
"THE COURT, Judges Eachs,Ago, Schwebel, i,Evensen,Tarassov,
Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,Ranjeva; Judge ad hoc
"(1) Unaninlously, Mbaye.
"Rejectsthe submission ofthe Repuljlicof Guinea- "AGAINST: Judges Aguilar Mawdsley,Weeramantry;
Bissauthatthe ArbitralAwardgivenon?I1July1989by Judge adhocTiliemy."

rationstotheJudgmentoftheCourt. Vice-PresidentOda,JudgesI.achs, NiandShahabuddeen appendedseparateopinionstotheJudgmentoftheCourt. Judges AguilarMawdsleyand Ranjevaappendedajoint dissenting opinion,and JudgeWeeramantry:mdJudge ad hoc Thierry dissentingopinic~ns,tothe Judgment of the Court. I. Reviewoftheproceedingsandsummary ojfact.~ (paras. 1-21) The Court outlines the successistagesof the proceed- ingsas from the time thecasehas brought beforeiit(paras.
otherthings,thatthedecision "shall includethe drawingof
th eoundarylineonamap".
An ArbitrationTribunal(hereinafter called "the Tribu-
nal") was duly constituted under the Agreement, Mr.
MohammedBedjaouiand Mr. An& Gros having succes-
sivelykn appointedas arbitratorsand Mr. Julio A. Bar-
berisasPresident.On3 1July 1989the Tribunal pronounced
theAwardtheexistenceandvalidityofwhichGuinea-Bissau
haschallengedinthepresentcase.
The findingsof the Tribunal were summarizedby the
Court as follows: the Tribunal concludedthat the 1960
Agreementwasvalidandcouldbeopposed toSenegalandto
Guinea-Bissau (Awardp,ara.80);thatithadtobeinterpreted
(ibid.,ara.85);thatlaw in force atthe date of its conclusion
/> "the 1960Agreementdoes not delimit those maritime
spaceswhichdid not exist at thatdate, whethertheye
termedexclusiveeconomiczone, fishery zoneor what-
ever. ..",
butthat
"the territorialsea, thecontiguouszonethecontinen-
tal shdf... areexpresslymentionedinthe 1960Agree-
ment ,andthey existed at the time ofitsconclusion"
(ibid.).
Afterexmining "the questionof determininghow far the
boundarylineextends ...today,in viewoftheevolutionof
thedefinitionofthe conceptof 'continentalshe",the Tri-
bunalexplainedthat
"Bearingin mindthe aboveconclusionsreachedbythe
Tribunal andthe wordingof Article2 of the Arbitration
Agreeiment,inthe opinionof theTribunal itis notcalled
upon toreplytothe secondquestion.
"Furthermore,inviewofitsdecision,theTribunalcon-
sidemi that therewasno needto append amap showing
thecourseofthe boundaryline."(Award,para. 87.)
The operativeclauseoftheAwardwasasfollows:
"For thereasons stated above,thembunal decidesby
prolon-two votestoone:
"To replyas followsto the first question formulined
Article2 of the ArbitrationAgreement:The Agreement
concludedby anexchangeof lettersof26 April1%0, and
relatingothe maritimeboundary,hastheforceof lawin
the relationsbetween the Republicof Guinea-Bissauand
the Rcpublicof Senegalwith regard solely tothe areas
mentionedin that Agreement,namely theterritorialsea,
the contiguous zone and the continental shelf. The
'straightlinedrawn at2400'is a loxodromicline(Para.
88.)
Mr. Barberis, Resident of the Tribunal, who, together
withMr. Gros, votedfortheAward,appendedadeclaration
toit, whileMr.Bedjaoui,whohadvotedagainsttheAward,
appendeda dissenting opinion.Thedeclaration Mr. Bar-
berisread,inparticulaasfollows:
"I feel thatthe reply givenby the l[tibimalto the first
question put by the ArbitrationAgreement couldhave
beenInorepmise. Iwould haverepliedtothat questionas
follows:
" 'The Agreemenc toncludedby anexchangeof let-
tersof 26 Ajnil 1960,and relating to the maritime
boundary,hastheforceof lawintherelationsbetween
the Republicof Guinea-Bissau and the Republicof
Senegalwithrespect tothe temtorial sea, the contigu-
ouszoneand thecontinentalshelf,budt~snothave the
forceof law withrespect tothe watersof theexclusive economiczoneor the fishery zone.The "straightline delimitation,andthledisputerelatingtotheAwardrendered
bytheTribunal, and that onlythe latterdispute,whicharose
after the Senegalesedeclaration,is the subjectof the pro-
negative replydngs beforetheCourt.Guinea-Bissaualsotooktheposi-
tion, whichSenegal!accepted,that those proceedings were
notintendedby way ofappealfromtheAwardorasanappli-
cationforrevisionofit. Thus,both Fartiesrecognizethatno
aspectof the substantivedelimitationdisputwas involved.
On this basis, Senegaldid not disputethat theCourt had
jurisdictionto entertain the application underArticle 36,
paragraph2, of the Statute.Inthecircumstancesofthecase
theCourtregardeditsjurisdictionasestablishedandempha-
sized that,s the Parties were bothagreed, theproceedings
allege theinexistenc:and nullityof the Awardrenderedby
theTribunalandwen:notby wayofappealfromitorapplica-
tionforrevisionofit.
The Courtthen considersa contentionby Senegal that
Guinea-Bissau'sapplicationis inadmissiblein so far as it
soughtto use the declarationof PresidentBarberisfor the
purposeofcastingdoubton thevalidityoftheAward.Sene-
galarguesinparticul.arthatthatdeclarationis notpartofthe
Award, andthereforethat any attemptby Guinea-Bissauto
makeuse ofitforthatpurpose "mustberegardedasanabuse
ofprocessaimedatdeprivingSenegaloftherightsbelonging
to itundertheAward".
The CourtconsidersthatGuinea-Bissau's applicationhas
beenproperly presentedintheframeworkof itsrighttohave
recourse to the Court in the circumstancesof the case.
Accordinglyit does not accept Senegal's contentionthat
Guinea-Bissau'sapplication,or the argumentsusedin sup-
portof it, amountstoanabuseofprocess.
Guinea-Bissaucontendsthat theabsenceofMr.Grosfrom
the meetingof the Tribunalat which the Awardwas pro-
nounced amountedto a recognitionthat the Tribunalhad
failed to resolve the dispute,that this was a particularly
importantmeetingoftheTribunalandthattheabsenceofMr.
Groslessened the Tribunal's authority.he Courtnotes that
it is not disputedthat Mr. Gros participatedin the voting
whentheAwardwasadopted.TheabsenceofMr.Grosfrom
thatmeetingcouldnotaffectthe validityoftheAwardwhich
hadalreadybeenadopted.
/> III. (paras.30-34) inexistenceofthe~~~~d
. enegal's
In supportof its principalcontention thatthe Awardis
inexistent,Guinea-Bissauclaimsthat theAwardis not sup-
portedbya real majority.It doesnotdisputethefactthatthe
Awardwas expressedto have been adoptedby thevotesof
PresidentBarberisand Mr. Gros; it contendshowever that
PresidentBarberis'sdeclarationcontradicteand invalidated
hisvote,thusleavingrheAwardunsupportedbyarealmajor-
ify.InthisregardGuinea-Bissaudrewattentiontotheterms
ofthe operativeclauseofthe Award(seePa4 above)andon
the languageadvocawdbyPresidentBarberisin hisdeclara-
tion(ibid.1.
TheCourtconsidersthat,in putting forward thisformula-
tion, whatPresidentBarberishad inmindwasthattheTribu-
nal's answerto the first question "could have been more
precise"-to usehisownwords-, not thatithadtobemore
preciseinthe senseindicatedinhisformulation,whichwas,
in his view, a preferable one,not a necessaryone. In the
opinionoftheCourt,theformulationdisclosesnocontradic-
tion withthatof theAward.
Guinea-Bissaualso drew attention tothe fact thatPresi-
dent Barberisexpressedthe viewthat his own formulation
"wouXdhave enabled theTribunalto dealin itsAwardwith

222 bunal.Tilelatterwas,accordingtoArticle 9,to "inform the
the secondquestion putby theArbitration Agreement"and twoGovernmentsof itsdecisionregarding thequestionsset
that theTribunalwouldinconsequence"have:been compe- forthinArticle2". Consequently,theCourtconsidersthatit
the fisheryzone betweenthe twocountries", in addition to wouldhave been normalto includein the operative partof
theotherareas. The Courtconsidertshat theviewexpressed theAwardboththe answer giventothe firstquestionandthe
by PresidentBarberis,that the reply whichh~ewouldhave decision notto answerthe second. Itis toe regretted that
giventothefirstquestionwouldhaveenabledtheTribunalto thiscoursewasnotfollowed.NeverthelesstheCourtisofthe
deal with the secondquestio~nr,epresentedinota position opinion that theTribunal,whenit adoptedthe Award,was
takenby himas to whatthen-ibunalwas requiredto dobut not only approvingthecontentofparagraph88,but wasalso
only anindicationof whathe consideredwou'ldhavebeena doingsofor thereasonsalready statedin theAwardand, in
bettercourse.Hispositionthereforecould notberegardedas particular,in paragraph7. It is clearfromthat paragraph,
standingin contradictionwith the position adoptedby the takenin its context,andalsofromthe declarationof Presi-
Award. dent Barberis, that the Tribunal decidedby two votesto
Furthemore, eveniftherehadbeenanycontradiction,for one that, as it hadgivenan affirmativeanswer tothe first
question, itdid not have to answer thesecond. The Court
betweenthe viewexpressedt,y PresidentBru:beri:a-;ndthat observes that, bySO doing, the Tribunal did take a deci-
statedin theAward,theCourtnotesthatsuck,contradiction sion:namely,notto answerthesecond questionputto it. It
couldnotprevailoverthepositionwhichPresidentBarberis conclu&s that the Awardis not flawedby any failure to
had taken when voting for the Award.In agreeingto the decide.
Award, he definitively agreedto the decisions, which it
incorporated,astotheextentofthe maritimeareasgoverned awardmust,inaccordancewithgeneralinternationallaw,rabe
by the 1960 Agreement,and as to the Tribunal not being areasonedone.Moreover,according toArticle9oftheArbi-
requiredtoanswerthe secondquestionin viewof itsanswer trationAgreement,the Partieshad specifically agreed that
to the first. The Court addsthat as the practiceof inter- "the Awardshall state in full the reasons on which it is
nationaltribunalsshows,itsolmetimes happensthat amem- based". Yet,accordingtoGuinea-Bissau,the Txibunalinthis
berof a tribunalvotesinfavourof a decisionofthetribunal casedid not give any reasoningin supportof its refusalto
eventhoughhemight individtcdlyhavebeeninclinedtopre- replytothe secondquestion pubtythePartiesor,atthe very
fer another solution. Thevalidityof his voteiiinsunaf- least, gave "wholly insufficient" reasoningT. he Court
fectedbytheexpressionofany suchdifferencme isadeclara- observer;that in paragraph87 of the Award, referred to
tionorseparateopinionofthe memberconcerned,whichare above,theTribunal,"bearinginmindthe . ..conclusions"
thereforewithoutconsequencefor thedecisionof thetribu- thatithadreached,togetherwith"the wordingofArticle2of
nal. the Arbitration Agreement", took thveiewthat it was not
Accordingly,inthe opinionoftheCourt, thecontentionof calleduimntoreplytothesecondquestionPuttoit.Therea-
Guinea-Bissauthat the ward was inexistentfor lack of a soningit;brief,andcoulddoubtlesshavebeendevelopedfur-
realmajoritycannotbeaccept.ed. ther. Butthereferenceisnparagraph87totheTribunal'scon-
clusionsandto the wordingof Article2 of the Arbitration
IV. QuestionofthenullityoftheAward Agreementmakeitpossibletodetermine,withoutdifficulty,
(paras.3545) thereasonswhytheTribunal decided notto answerthesec-
ond question. The Court observes that,by aefemngto the
Subsidiarily,Guinea-Bissaumaintainsthaltthe Awardis, wordingo;fArticle2oftheArbitrationAgreement,theTribu-
asawhole,nullandvoid,onthegroundsof ~JCC~ Sepouvoir nalwasnotingthat, accordingto thatArticle,it wasasked,
and of insufficiencyof reasoning.Guinea-B,iSsa~ol serves first, whetherth1960 Apment had "the forceof lawin
that the Tribunal did norteplyto the secondques1:put in the relations" between Guinea-Bissauand Senegal, and
Article2oftheArbitrationAg:reementa .nddidnotappendto then, "in theeventofa negative answertothefirstquestion,
theAwardthe map providedfor in Article 9 of thatAgree- whatishe courseofthelinedelimitingthemaritimete~to-
ment.It iscontended thatthesetwoomissioilscoinstitutean ries" of the two counGes.BY referringto theconclusions
excksdepouvoir.Furthermore,no reasons,it is said, were that it had alreadyreached,the Tribunalwas notingthat it
givenby the Tribunalfor itsdecisionnot to proceedto the had, in paragraphs80et seq. of the Award,foundthat the
secondquestion,fornotproducingaSinglede:limitationline, 1960 Agreement,in respectof whichit had alreadydeter-
andforrefusingtodrawthatlineon a map. minedthe scopeof its substantive validity,was "valid and
canbe opposedto Senegalandto Guinea-Bissau". Having
1. Absenceofa replytothesecondquestiorz givenan affirmative answertothefirstquestion,and basing
Guinea-Bissausugge'ststhat what the aibunal did itselfontheactualtextoftheArbitrationAgreement,theTri-
wasnottodecidenottoanswerthe secondqtlestionput to it; bunalfoundasa consequencethatitdidnothavetorep]yto
it simplyomitted, forlackoffa thesecondquestion.The Courtobservesthatthatstatement
decision at all on theissue. In this respect Guinea-Bissau ofreasoning, succinct,is clearandprecise,andcon-
stressesthat whatis referredto inthefirstsentenceof para- cludesthatthesecondcontentionof Guinea-Hissaumustalso
graph87oftheAwardasan"opinionofthe'Iiibu~ial" onthe bedismissed.
pointappearsinthestatementofreasoning,r~otintheopera- (c) Thirdly,Guinea-Bissau challengesthe validityofthe
tiveclauseof the~ ~ ~ d ;thatthe~~~d doesnotspecifythe reasoning thus adoptebythe Tribunalon theissuewhether
majoritybywhichthat paragraphwouldhaw:beenadopted; itWasr4:quiretoanswerthe secondquestion:
and that onlyMr. Groscouldhave votedin favourof this (i) Guinea-Bissau firstargues that the Arbitration
paragraph.Inthelightof the declaration madebyPresident Agreement,onitstrueconstruction,requiredtheTi-
Barberis, Guinea-Bissauquestionswhether any votewas bunaltoanswerthesecondquestion whatevem r ight
takenon paragraph87.TheCourtrecognizesthatthestruc- havebeenitsreplytothe first.Inthisconnection,the
tureoftheAwardis, inthatrespect,opentoc14ticir;mA.rticle Courtwould first recall thatin the absenceof any
2of theArbitration Agreemenp tuttwoquestionstothe'ki- agreementto the contrary an internationaltribunal

223 hasthe rightto decide asto itsownjurisdictionand cf themaritimeareasappertaining tooneortheother
hasthepowertointerpretforthis purposetheinstru- State.As, for the reasons givenby the Tribunal, its
mentswhichgovern thatjurisdiction.In the present answer to the firstquestion put in the Arbitration
case, theArbitration Agreemenh tadconfirmed that Agreementcouldnot leadtoacomprehensivedelim-
the Tribunalhad the power to determine its own itation,it followed,in Guinea-Bissau's view,that.
jurisdictionand to interpret thereementfor that notwithstandingthe prefatorywordsto the second
purpose.TheCourtobservesthatbyitsargumentset question, theTribunalwas requiredto answerthat
out above, Guinea-Bissauis in fact criticizingthe questionandto leffecttheoveralldelimitationdesired
f interpretationin the Awardof the provisionsof the bybothParties.
Arbitration Agreemenw t hichdeterminethe Tribu- After recalli~nthe circumstancesin which the
nal'sjurisdiction, andproposinganothtxinterpreta- Arbitration Agreement was drawn up, the Court
tion. However,the Court doesnot haveto enquire notesthat thetwoquestionshadacompletelydiffer-
whetheror not the Arbitration Agreementcould, ent subject-maler. The first concerned the issue
withregard tothe Tribunal'scompetence,be inter- whetheran internationalagreementhadtheforceof
preted in a numberof ways, andif so to consider law in the relationsbetween the Parties; the second
whichwouldhavebeenpreferable.Tht:Courtis of wasdirectedto a maritimedelimitationinthe event
theopinionthatby proceedingin that wayit would that that agreementdidnothave suchforce. Senegal
be treating the requestas an appeal and not as a was counting an an affirmative answerto the first
recoursen nullitb.The Court couldnot act in that question, andc~oncluded that the straight lineon a
way in the presentcase. The Court has simplyto bearingof 240".adoptedby the 1960 Agreement,
ascertainwhetherby renderingthe disputedAward wouldconstitutethe singleline separatinthe whole
the Tribunal actedin manifest breachof'thecompe- of the maritimeareasof the twocountries.Guinea-
tenceconferredon itbythe ArbitrationAgreement, Bissauwascountingonanegativeanswertothefirst
eitherbydecidinginexcessof, orbyfailingtoexer- questionandconcludedthatasingledividinglinefor
cise, its jurisdiction. Such manifest breach might thewholeofthemaritimeareasofthetwocountries
result from,forexample, the failureofrheTribunal wouldbefixed enn:ovobytheTribunalinreplytothe
properly to applythe relevant rulesofn.terpretation secondquestion. Thetwo Statesintended toobtaina
totheprovisionsofthe Arbitration Agreemenw thich delimitationofthewholeoftheirmaritimeareasbya
governits competence.The Court observesthatan single line.ButSenegalwas couritingon achieving
arbitration agreement is an agreement between Phisresultthroughan affirmativeanswerto the first
Stateswhich must be interpretedinacco.rdancewith question, and Guinea-Bissau througha negative
thegeneral rulesof internationallawgoverning the answer to that question. The Court notes thatno
interpretationoftreaties.Itthenrecallstheprinciples agreementhad beenreached betweenthe Partiesas
of interpretation laid down by its case-law and to whatshould happenintheeventofanaffirmative
cles3v1and32oftheViennaConventionontheLawin Arti- answerleadingonly toa partial delimitation, andas
of 'Iteaties,whichmay inmanyrespectsbe consid- to what might bethe task of the Tribunalin such
eredasa codificationofexistingcustom;uyinterna- case,andthatthe:travauxpr6paratoiresaccordingly
tional law onthe point. The Court also notes that confirm theordinary meaning of Article 2. The
whenStatessignan arbitrationagreement,they are Courtconsidersthatthisconclusioinsnotatvariance
concludinganagreementwitha veryspecificobject withthecircumstancethattheTribunaladopted asits
and purpose: toentrustan arbitration tribunalwith title "Arbitration. Tribunaflor the Determinationof
the taskof settlinga disputein accordancewiththe the MaritimeBoundary:Guinea-Bissau/Senegal",
terms agreedby the parties. In the performanceof orwithits definition,inparagraph27oftheAward,
thetaskentrusted to it, thembunalmustconformto ofthe"sole objectofthedispute"asbeingonerelat-
thoseterms. ingto "the determinationof themaritimeboundary
betweenthe RepublicofSenegalandtheRepublic of
TheCourtobservesthat,inthepresentcase,Arti- Guinea-Bissau,aquestionwhich theyhave notbeen
cle2 of the Arbitration Agreement presenteadfirst ableto settleby meansof negotiation ..." .In the
questionconcerningthe 1960Agreement,and thena opinionoftheCourt,thattitleandthat &finitionare
secondquestionrelating todelimitation.Areplyhad tobe read in the lightof the Tribunal's conclusion,
negativeanswersetothe firstquestion". The Court mandatedidCincladethemakingof a delimitationofal's
notes that those last words,which wereoriginally all the maritimeareasof the Parties, thisfell to be
proposedbyGuinea-Bissauitself,arecategorical.It done only underthe second questionand "in the
goesontoexaminesituationsinwhichinremational eventofa negativeanswertothefirstquestion".The
judicial bodieswere asked to answer :successive Court notes, in short, that althoughthe two States
questionsmadeconditionaloneachotherornot.The hadexpressedin generaltermsinthePreambleofthe
Courtnotesthatinfactinthepresentcasethe Parties ArbitrationAgreementtheir desireto reacha settle-
couldhaveusedsomesuchexpressionasthatthe Tri- mentof theirdispute,their consent theretohadonly
bunal should answer the second question "taking beengivenintheterms laiddownbyArticle 2ofthe
intoaccount"thereply giventothefirst,buttheydid Arbitration Agreement.The Court concludes that
not do so; they directed thatthe second question consequentlythe Tribunal did notact in manifest
shouldbeanswered only"in theeventof .negative breachof itscompetencetodetermine itsownjuris-
answer" to that firstquestion. Relyingon various dictionbydecidingthat itwasnotrequiredto answer
elementsof the textof the ArbitrationA,greement, the secondquestionexceptintheeventofa negative
Guinea-Bissauneverthelessconsidersthatthe Tribu- answer tothe first,andthatthe first argument must
nalwasrequired todelimitbyasingleline thewhole berejected. (ii) Guinea-Bissau thenarguesthat the answer in fact timeareasappertainingrespectiveltoGuinea-Bissauand to
gilenbytheTribunaltcth~efist questionwnsapar- Senegal.It wouldhoweverobservethatthat resultis dueto
tiallynegativeanswer andthat thissufficedtosatisfythewordingofArticle2oftheArbitrationAgreement.
theprescribedconditiorlfor enteringintotht:second The Court has moreover taken noteof the fact thaton
question.Accordingly,and as was to beshownby 12March 1991Guinea-Bissau filedin the Registryof the
the declaration ofPresidentBarberis, theribunal Courta second ApplicationrequestingtheCourtto adjudge
was,it issaid,bothentitledand boundtoanswerthe and declare:
secondquestion. "What shouldbe, on thebasisof the internationallaw
The Court observes thatGuinea-Bissaucannot of the sea and of all the relevant elementsof the case,
base its argumentsupon a form of words(that of including thefuturedecisionof theCourtinthe case con-
PresidentBarberis)which wasnotinfactadoptedby cerningthearbitralaward'of31July 1989,the line(tobe
theTribunal.TheTribunalfound,inreplytothefirst drawnon the map)delimitingall the maritimetemtories
question, that the96(11greementhatlthe forceof appertainingrespectivelto Guinea-BissauandSenegal."
law in the relationsbetweenthe Parties,and at the Ithasalsotaken noteofthedeclarationmadebythe Agent
same time it definedthe substantive scopeof that of Senegalin the present proceedings, accordito which
Agreement. Suchan answer did not permit of a onesolution
delimitationofthewhole ofthemaritimeareasofthe "woultibetonegotiatewithSenegal,whichhasnoobjec-
twoStates,anda completesettlement 'ofthedispute tion tothis, a boundaryfor the exclusive economiczone
betweenthem. It achievedapartialdelimitation.But or, should it prove impossibto reachan agreement,to
thatanswerwasnonethelessbotha completeandan bringthematter beforetheCourt".
affirmativeanswertothefirstquestion. TheTribunal
could thus find,without manifest breof its com- Havingregard to that Application andthat declaration,
petence,thatitsanswerto the firstquestionwasnota and atthe closeof a long anddifficultarbitralprocedureand
negativeone,andthat it.wasthereforenotcompetent oftheseproceedings beforetheCourt,theCourtconsidersit
toanswerthesecond question.TheCourt concludes highlydesirablethattheelementsofthedisputethatwere not
that in this respectalso, the contentionof Guinea-settledbythe ArbitralAward of31July 1989beresolvedas
Bissau that the entire Award is a nullity must be soonaspossible, asbothPartiesdesire.
rejected.
SUMMAR YFDECLARATIO A NS OPINIONS
2. Absenceofamap AIPPENDEDTOTHE JUDGEMEN OTTHE COURT
Finally Guinea-Bissaurecalllsthat, accordingtoArticle9,
paragraph2, of the Arbitration Agreement,the decisionof DeclarationbyJudgeTarassov
the Tribunalwas to "include the drawingof the Imundary Judge Tarassovbegins his declarationby stating thathe
lineon a map", andthatno suchmap wasproducedbythe votedfortheJudgment bearinginmindthat itssolepurpose
Tribunal.Guinea-BissaucontendsthattheTribunalalsodid is to solve the dispute between the Republic of Guinea-
notgive sufficientreasonsfor itsdecisiononthatpoint.It isBissauandtheRepublicofSenegalrelatingtothevalidity or
contendedthattheAward shonld,forthese reasons,becon- nullityof the ArbitralAwardof 31 July 1989,and that the
sideredwhollynull andvoid. Courtditinotexamine-and was notaskedbythe Partiesto
TheCourt considersthat thereasoningof theTribunalon examine- anyofthecircumstancesandevidencerelatingto
thispointis, onceagain,briefbutsufficienttoenlightenthe the determinationof the maritime boundaryitself. From a
PartiesandtheCourt astothe reasonsthatguidedtheTribu- procedural pointof view, he agrees with the analysis and
nal. Itfoundthattheboundary'linefixedbythe1960Agree- conclusionsoftheCourtthatthe submissionsandarguments
mentwasa loxodromiclinedrawn at240'from thepointof of Guinea-Bissauagainst the existenceor validity of the
intersectionof the prolongati(!nof the landfinntie!randthAwardarenotconvincing.
low-waterline, representedlor that purpose by the Cape He thenpointsout thatthe Awardcontainssomeserious
Roxolighthouse. Sinceit didnotreplyto tht:secc~nques- deficienc:is hichcallforstrongcriticisms.Inhisview, the
tion, itdid not haveto define;myotherline. It thusconsid-Arbitration Tribunal did not accomplish the main task
eredthattherewasnoneedtoclrawonamapalinewhichwas entrustetito it by the Parties,inasmuchas it did not defini-
common knowledge, and the definitivech~uacte:ristsfo tively settlethe disputeaboutthe delimitationofall adjacent
whichithadspecified. maritimetemtories appertainingto eachof the States. The
In view ofthewording of Axticles2 and9 ofthe Arbitra- Tribunalshouldhave informetdhePartiesofitsdecisionwith
tion Agreement,andthe positi.onstakenbythePartiesbefore respecttothe twoquestionsput inArticle2, anditsnten-
the 'ltibunal, the Court notes that it is open to argumentioninparagraph87oftheAwardthatitwasnotcalledupon
whether,intheabsenceofa xply tothe secondquestion,the toreplytothesecondquestionbecauseof "the actualword-
Tribunal was underan obligarionto producetheniapenvis- ingof Article2of the Arbitration Agreementdoesnot suf-
agedbytheArbitration Agreement. The Cowtdoe!$nothow- ficeto substantiatethe decisiontakenon suchan important
ever considerit necessary toterintosucha.discussion.In issue.
thecircumstancesofthecase,theabsenceof amapcannotin The Ribunal also did notstate whetherthe straightline
anyeventconstitutesuchanirregularityaswouldrenderthe drawn at 240' providedby the 1960Agreement mightor
Awardinvalid.TheCourtconcludes thatthelist argumentof mightnotbeusedforthe delimitationoftheeconomiczone.
Guinea-Bissauisthereforealsonotaccepted. Judge Tarassovconsiders thatall these omissions, together
withtheTribunal'srefusalto appenda map (incontradiction
V. Finalobservations withArticle9 oftheArbitrationAgreement),didnothelpto
(paras.66-68) solve the whole dispute between theParties and merely
TheCourt nonethelesstakesnoteofthefactthattheAward pavedthewayto the newApplicationby Guinea-Bissauto
has not brought abouta completedelimitationof theari- theCourt. DeclarationbyJudgeMbayt? SepamteOpinionofJudgeLachs

In hisDeclarationJudgeMbayeexpresses seriousdoubts JudgeLachs, in his separate opinion, stresses thatwhile
over thejurisdictionof the Court to entertain,on the sole notactingasacourtofappeal,theCourtwasnotbarred from
basisoftheprovisionsofArticle 36,paragraph 2, of its Stat- deliberations,hich1ehas shownseriousflaws.The declara-s
ute, an application contesting thevalidity of an atbitral tion of the Preside:ntof the Tribunal created a serious
award.Thisiswhyheispleased thatthe Court,takingnoteof dilemma anda challenge.He finds theway the reply was
the positionof the Parties,considereditsj~lrisdictionto be framedopen to seriousobjections. Itis not only too brief
establishedonlyinviewof "the circumstances"ofthecase, but inadequate.The:absenceof a chart did not constitute
thusavoidingaprecedentthatcouldbinditinfuture. "suchanirregularityaswouldrendertheAwardinvalid"but
elementary courtesy required that thematterbe dealt with
Separate Opinion ofVice-PresidenOt da in a differentway.He regretsthat theTribunaldid not suc-
ceedin producinga decisionwiththecogencyto command
In hisseparateopinion,Vice-PresidentOdaexpressesthe respect.
viewthatthesubmissionsofGuinea-Bissau could havb eeen
rejectedon simplergroundsthanthose set forthat lengthin Separate Opinion ofJudgeNi
theJudgment.Inthefirstplace, Guinea-Bissau's contention
that theAwardwas inexistentbecausethe £'residentof the JudgeNi statesinhisseparateopinionthatheagreesgen-
Tribunal,inhisdeclaration,"expresseda vie:wincontradic- erallywiththelineofreasoningintheJudgmentbuthefeels
tionwiththeoneapparentljladoptedbythe vote"wasunten- that certain aspects call for elaborati. e thinksthat the
thedecisionvoted uponin paragraph88 of the Award, andof questionof the exclusiveeconomiczone constituted nopart
anydifferenceof viewdisclosedby it relatedsolelyto para- ofthe objectof thearbitrationand thatr.Barberis's decla-
graph 87. Secondly,Guinea-Bissau'sallegationof nullity, rationattachedtotheAwarddid notoverrideorinvalidatehis
basedonthefactsthat theTribunad lidnotanswerthesecond votefortheAward.JudgeNithinks thatareplybytheArbi-
questionput toit,andneitherdelimitedthemaritimeareaasa trationTribunal to the secondquestionin Article 2, para-
wholenorrecordedasinglelineuponamap, simplyreflected graph 2,oftheArbitrationAgreementwouldhavebeen man-
thefact that theArbitration Agreementadnot beendrafted datory onlyif the first questionhad been answeredin the
intermswhichGuinea-Bissau found tobeinits interest.The negative. Thisis not only clearly statedin the Arbitration
allegationcouldnot be sustained,becausethe'ltibunalhad Agreement,but also confirmedby the negotiationswhich
givenafullyaffirmativeanswertothefirst qulestionputto it, precededtheconclusionoftheArbitrationAgreement.Since
aswas shownbytheveryfactthat President Barberishad had the firstquestionwasansweredintheaffirmative,no exnovo
to rephrase thatanswerin orderto suggest thatit couldbe delimitationbya singlelineofallthemaritimespaceswasto
seen as partially negative.Henceno answerto the second consequentlyno mapcouldhavebeen appended.All thesend
questionhadbeenrequired. areinterlinkedandthe reasoningin theArbitralAwardisto
beviewed initsentirety.
Vice-President Odacontinued by analysing the back-
Agreement, pointing outthatthetwoStateshadhadoppositeion
reasonsfor highlightingthe questionof the .validityof the Separate Opinion ofJudge Shahabuddeen
1960Agreement whileelichintending to achieve adelimita- In his separate opinion, JudgeShahabuddeenobserved
tionfortheirexclusiveeconomic zonesaswellasothermari- that,onthemainissueastowhethertheTribunalshouldhave
time areas. The Arbitration Agreementhad not however answered the secondquestionput to it by the Arbitration
beendraftedinsucha wayastoguaranteethatresult,a defi- Agreement, the Court sustained theAwardon the ground
ciencyfor whichthe Tribunal couldnot be blamed.It was that, in holdingthat it was not competentto reply tothat
rathertherepresentativesof the two countries;whohaddis- question,theTribunalinterpretedtheAgreementina way in
played insufficientraspofthepremisesoftheir negotiation whichitcouldhavebeeninterpretedwithout manifest breach
inthe light,particularly,ofthe interrelationheexclusive ofconnpetence.He notedthattheCourtdid notgoontocon-
economiczoneandthecontinentalshelf. siderwhethertheTribunal'sinterpretationonthat pointwas
indeedcorrect. ThiswasbecausetheCourt,inrelianceonthe
Vice-PresidentOdafurtherdoubtswhetherthe introduc- distinctionbetween nullity andappeal,tooktheviewthatit
tionofproceedingsintheCourthadany meaningfulobject, was beyonditsauthoritytodoso. JudgeShahabuddeencon-
sincethe positionsof theMies in relation t the principal sidered,first,that that distinctiondidnotprecludethe Court
object of their dispute-namely, the delimitationof their from pronouncingon whetherthe Tribunal's interpretation
exclusive economic zones-would havereimainedunaf- wascorrect,providedthat iddoingsotheCourttookaccount
null and void. The present issue between the two States of considerationsof securityofthe arbitralprocesswithref-
shouldbethedelimitationofthose zonesinasituationwhere erenceto the finalityOawards;and, second, thatthe Tribu-
the existenceofa loxodromiclineat 240'fortliecontinental nal's interpretatiwasindeed correct.
shelf hasbeenconfirmed.Accordingly, andvvithoutpreju-
dicetotheinterpretationofthenewApplicatio~p ~resentedto Joint1)issentingOpinionof
the Court,Vice-PresidentOdapointsout, finally, thatinany JudgesAguilarMawdsleyand Ranjeva
furthernegotiation thetwoStatesmustproceedononeoftwo JudgesAguilarMavvdsleyand Ranjeva have appended a
assumptions,eitherthatseparaterkgimesforthecontinental jointdissentingopinionthatprimarilycentresuponanepiste-
shelfandexclusiveeconomic zonemayco-exist,orthatthey mologicalcriticismof the approachadoptedbythe Arbitra-
intend toarriveatasinglelineofdelimitationforboth;inthe tion Tribunal. Theproblemof thenullitylvalidityor invalid-
latter case, however, therewould be room far negotiation ity ofan arbitralawmd involvesmore than anassessment
onlyon the assumption that thenowestablishedcontinental restingexclusivelyon theaxiomaticfoundationsoflaw. The
shelf boundarymaybesubjecttoalterationoradjustment. authorityof resjudicatawithwhich anyjudicial decisionisvested performsitsfunctionfilllywhenthatdecisionis sub- referredto the Tribunalfor determinationwas one integral
scribedto bytheconvictiojuris. questionrelatingto theentiremaritimeboundary.Thismade
Confining themselves to the Court'sjurisdictioto exer- it imperativefortheTribunal toaddress Question2 without
cise control over arbitralaw~uulonce they have become entitledtodecidenottoaddressQuestion2andthedecision
final, JudgesAguilar Mawdsley and Ranjeva refrain from notto do soconstitutedanexc2sdepouvoi-,thereby render-
substitutingtheirownwayof thinkingandinterpretationfor ingtheAwardanullity.
those of the ArbitrationTribrnnalbut take exceptionto its
method-which is, moreover*recognizedby the Court as Furthermore, the interlinked nature of the boundaries
being opentocriticism.How,indeed,canonejustify theTri- determiriedby the Awardand thoseleft undeterminedwas
bunal'scompletefailuretoexplaintheabsenceofacomplete likelytocauseseriousprejudicetoGuinea-Bissauinafuture
delimitationresulting,ontheonehand,from the affirmative determi~~atioonf theremaining zonesso longas thebound-
reply givento the firstquestionand, on theother,from the ariesofthetemtorialsea,thecontiguouszoneandtheconti-
decisiontorefusetoanswer thesecond?Contrarytotheopin- nental shelf remainedfixedby the presentAward.Conse-
ionof theCourt,the authorsof thejoint dissentingopinion determinationsmadeinanswer toQuestion1. also to the
give an answer to the second question has committedanto
exchdepouvoirinfrapetitaorthroughomission-.a hypoth-
esis hardly ever encounteredin the international jurispru- DissentingOpinionofJudgeThierry
dence.The Tribunal should have simultaneously.takeninto Judgead hocThierry setsoutthe reasons forwhichhe is
account the three constitutive elementsof the Arbitration unable to concur with the Court's decision. His dissent
Agreement,namely,the letter,theobjectandthepurpose,in focusesonthelegal consequencesofthefact,recognizedby
ordertointerpretthat ArbitratiAgreementwhenit cameto theCourt,thatthe ArbitralAwardof31July 1989:
restructurethe dispute.ecoulwsto a techniqueofargument "hasnotbroughtaboutacompletedelimitationofthemar-
by logical conclusionasa basisfor thereasoning leading to itime areas appertainingrespectively to Guinea-Bissau
thedismissal,firstly,of anapplicationaimedattherecogni- andtoSenegal"(para.66oftheCourt'sJudgment).
tionofarightand,subsequently,ofarequestforthecompila- IntheopinionofJudge Thierry,the ArbitrationTribunal,
tion of a map constitutes,in the view of Judge:sAguilar establisl~ebythe Arbitration Agreemenotf 12March1985,
Mawdsley andRanjeva,an e.xct?d sepouvoir,in as muchas didnotsettlethedispute, concerningthedeterminationofthe
thelogical conclusionisconceivableonlyif therelationsof maritime boundarybetweenthe twoStates,thatwassubmit-
causality between the two propositionsareineluctablein ted toit.
nature, whichis manifestlynot the case withthe contested
Award,giventhe declarationof Mr.Barberis,thePresident AsprovidedinthePreamble andArticles2, paragraph2,
ofthe Tribunal,andthedisseintingopinionof'one arbitrator, and9 of thatAgreement,theTribunalwasto determinethe
Mr. Bedjaoui. aryrline" tobedrawn onamaptobeincludedinthe Award.und-
In the judgmentof the authorsof the jointopinion,since
the Courtwasnotacting asa courtofappeallorofcassation, Asit didnotperformthesetasks,the Arbitration Tribunal
it wasundera dutyto becriticalof anyarbib:alawardswith failedto accomplishitsjurisdictional mission. This defect
whichitmightdeal.Amongthetaskscomprisingthemission should haveled the Courtto declare theAwardof 31July
oftheprincipaljudicialorganoftheinternationalcommunity 1989nullandvoid.
is that of guaranteeingboth respect for the rightsof parties Inthe:viewofJudgeThierry,theTribunal'sfailurteocarry
and a certain qualityof reasoning by other international outitsmissioncouldnotbejustifiedbythetermsofArticle2,
courtsandtribunals.Themembersofthe internationalcom- paragraph2, of the Arbitration Agreement.This provision
munity are indeedentitledto benefit froma soundadminis- setsout twoquestionsputtothe'kibunalbytheParties. The
trationof internationaljustice:. first,concerning the applicabilityof the Franco-Portuguese
Agreementof 1960,received an affirmative repl, ut, rely-
DissentingOpinionofJudgeWeeramantry ingon the phrase"In the eventof a negativeanswer to the
first question",atthebeginningof the secondquestion,the
JudgeWeeramantry,in his dissentingopinion,expressed 'Ikibunalimplicitly decided not to answer this question,
his full agreement withthe Court's rejectionof Guinea- whichconcerned the courseof the boundaryline, thereby
Bissau'splea of inexistenceof the Award andof Senegal's thedelimitationoftheexclusiveeconomiczone.pute,including
contentionsoflackof jurisdic:rtnnd abuseoflegalprocess.
However,he disagreedwiththe majorityof the Courton JudgeThierryis of the opinion that the Tribunal should
theinterpretationof theArbitrationAwardandon the ques- haveinterpretedArticle 2 in thelightof theobjectand pur-
tionof itsnullity. Whileit isimportanttopreservethe integ- pose of the ArbitrationAgreement, consistentlywith the
rityof arbitralawards,he strlessedthatit war;alsoimportant rulesof internationallaw applicableto the interpretationof
toensurethat theawardcoml>lied withthe termsofthecom- treaties, and should have answered the second question
promis.Wheretherewasa seriousdiscrepar~cy betweenthe accordingly,seeing thatthe reply to the fituestion could
award and the compromist ,h.aprincipleofcompttencedela notbyitselfbringaboutthesettlementofthe dispute,which
compttencedidnotprotecttheaward. wasthe'kibunal'sprimarytask anditsraisond'etre.
Inhis view, the Awardirathis casedepartedmaterially JudgeThierry neverthelessconcursinthe pointsmadein
from the termsof the compromisin that it did not answer paragraphs66to 68of the Court'sJudgmentwitha viewto
Question 2 and left the work d the Tribunalsulbstantially the settlementof "the elementsof thedisputethatwere not
incompleteby notdetermining the boundarieo sf the exclu- settledbythe ArbitralAward of 31July 1989".Whatis nec-
siveeconomiczoneandthe fisheryzone.An.interpretation of essaryis, inhisopinion,tobring aboutanequitabledetermi-
the comproinis in thelightof'its contextandits objectsand nationof the maritime boundarybetweenthe two Statesin
purposes led necessarily to the conclusionthat what was conformitywiththeprinciplesandrulesofinternationallaw.

Document file FR

6864.pdf

Document Long Title

Summary of the Judgment of 12 November 1991