Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCIEIWING THEARBITRAL AWARD MADEBY
THEKINIG OFSPAINON23DECEMBER 1906
Jiudg~meo nft18November 1960
Theproceedingsinthecast:concerningtht:ArbitralAward InitsJudgment,theCourtfoundthatHor~durasndNica-
madebytheKingof Spainon23December1906,regarding raguahadon 7October1894concludeda tseaty,referred to
thedeterminationofthe frontierbetween Hondurasand Nicas theGhez-Bonilla Treaty, underwhiahMixedBound-
aragua,wereinstitutedbyHonduras againstNicaraguabyan aryCommissionwasentrustedwiththedutyofdemarcating
to adjudgeanddeclare thatI'Jicarwasunderan obliga-ouring, in sodoing,to certain rules(Article11).Thepoints not
tiontogiveeffecttotheAwlud;Nicaraguaasked itto adjudge settledbytheCommissionweretobesubmitted toanarbitral
anddeclarethat thedecision givenbytheKingof Spain didtribunalcomposedof one representativeof dacthe two
not possessthe characterofndingarbitralawtud andthat countries, and of one member of the DiiplomaticCorps
it wasinanycaseincapableofexecution.Byfourteen votes accreditedtoGuatemalatobeelectedbythefirsttwo(Article
toone, theCourtheldthattileAward wasvalidandbinding 111).ncasethe diplomaticrepresentashoulddeclinethe
and thatNicaraguawasunderan obligationiveeffecttoit. appointment, another electionwas to take place;whenthe
membershipof the DiplomaticCorps was exhausted, any
declaration; JudgeSir Percy Spenderappendeda separateforeignorCentralAmericanpublic figuremightbe elected,
opinionandM. Unutia Holguin,Judgeadhot,n dissenting and, shouldthat not be possible,the pointsin controversy
opinion. weretobe submittedto theGovernmentof Spainor, failing
that, to any South American governmtArticle). The
arbitraldecisionwastobeheldasaperfect,bindingand per-
petualtreaty,notsubjectto appeal(ArticleVII). Finally,the
Treaty was to be submitted toconstitutional ratifications
Continued on next page(ArticleVIII)andtoremain inforceforapxiod of tenyears holdthat thedesigtlationof the Kingof Spainas arbitrator
(ArticleXI). was invalid.
TheMixed Commission succeedeidnfixiingthe boundary In the secondplace, Nicaragua*ad contendedthat the
from the PacificCoastto the It,rtillo de Teotecacintebut,GAmez-Bonilla Treatyhad lapsed beforethe Kingof Spain
with regard to the frontierfrom that pointto the Atlantic agreedto act as arbitrator(17 October1904);it arguedthat
Coast, it could only record its disagreement(1900-1901). theTreatyhadcomleinto effecton the date onwhichit was
Withregardtothatlattersectionofthebounlbry,theKingof signed(7 October 1194)andthat by virtue of ArticleXI it
Spainon23December 1906handed down ;tnarbitralaward had lapsed on 7October 1904.The replyof Honduraswas
the operative clauseof whichfixed thecolmmonboundary thattheTreatyhadnotcome intoeffectuntil theexchangeof
pointontheAtlanticCoastasthemouthoftheprincipal arm ratifications(24 D4:cember1896) and that it had conse-
oftheRiverSegoviaorCoco,betweenHaraandtheislandof quentlyexpiredon 21D4ecember1906.Therewasnoexpress
San Ho whereCape Graciasa Dios is situated; fromthat provisionintheTreaty withregardtothedateofitsentryinto
point,thefrontierwastofollowthethalwegdthe Segoviaor forcebut,takingintoconsiderationitsprovisionswithregard
Coco upstream untilit reachedthe placeof its confluence to the exchangeof ratifications, the.Courtwas of the view
withthe Potecaor Bodegacontinuingalongthe thalwegof that the intentionof thepartieshad beenthatit shouldcome
the hteca or Bodega until the latter joined the Guineo intoforceonthedateofexchangeofratifications.It foundit
or Namaslito terminate at theIt,rtillode l2otecacinte.thedifficultto believe thatthe partieshadhad inmindninter-
sitio of the samename remaining withinthejurisdictionof pretationof the Treaty accordingto which it was due to
Nicaragua. expirefivedaysafteragreementwas reached onthedesigna-
The ForeignMinisterof Nicaragua,in a Note dated 19 tionof the Kingof Spainas arbitrator(2 October 1904).If
March1912,hadchallengedthevalidityandbindingcharac- thisWerenottheCase,whenconfrontedwith theS~ggeStion
terofthe ward. Thishadgivenrisetoadisputebetweenthe of the Spanish Ministerto Central America on21 and 24
parties. Afterunsuccessfulattempts at settlementby directOctober 1904 that the period of the Treaty might be
negotiation or mediation, the Organizaticlnof American extended, the two Governmentswould either have taken
StateshadbeenledtodealwiththedisputewhichHonduras immediateapproprilltemeaSUref Soritsrene~al~rextension.
and Nicaraguahadundertakento submitto the Courtunder or they would have terminatedall further proceedingsin
anagreementreachedatWashingtonon 21July1957. respectofthearbitration.TheCourtthereforeconcludedthat
the King's acceptarlceof his designationas a*bitratorhad
* beenwell within thecurrencyoftheIteaty.
* * Finally,the Courtconsideredthat, having regardtothe
fact that the designationof the King of Spain was freely
agreedtobyNicaragua, that noobjectionwastakenbyNica-
Hondurasalleged thattherewas a presunlptionin favour raguato hisjurisdic~:ione,itheronthegroundof irregularity
of the bindingcharacterof the ward as it presentedall theinhisdesignationoronthegroundthat theTreath yadlapsed,
outwardappearancesof regularityandhadIxen madeafter andthatNicaraguahadfullyparticipatedinthearbitridPro-
thepartieshadhadeveryopportunitytoputtheirrespective ceedings,itwasnolongeropentoNicaraguatorelyoneither
casesbeforethe arbitrator;it contendedthatthe burdenlay theAward.ntentionsasfurnishinga groundforthenullityof
upon Nicaragua to rebut that presumptionby furnishing
proofthat theAwardwasinvalid.Nicaraguacontendedthat,
asHondurasreliedupontheAward,it wasunderanobliga- *
tionto prove thatthe person givingthe decisionhad been * *
investedwiththepowersof an arbitrator, andit argued that
theKingofSpainhadnotbeensoinvested.
in the firstplace, Nicaraguahadarguedthat therequire- hardicawas a nulliv and FIonduraShad answeredthat thehe
mentsof ArticlesI11and VoftheGhnez-BonillaTreatyhad conductandattitudeofNicaragua showedthaittacceptedthe
not been compliedwith in the &signation of the King of Awardasbindingandthat inconsequenceofthatacceptance
Spainasarbitrator.Therecordshowedthatthetwonational andofitsfailuretoraiseanyobjectionforan~mberofyears.
arbitratorhad designatedtheMexicanChmg~d1affaiEsin itwasnolongeroperltoNicaraguatoquestionthevalidityof
CentralAmkca (1899),and laterthe MexicanMinistetto theAward.
CentralAmerica (1902),asthethirdmemberof the arbitral
tribunalbutthatthesetwohadin turn left Guatemala. There- TheCourtrecalledinthefirstplacethat, on 25 December
after,on2October 1904,thetwonational&itfators had met 1906,theResident of Nicaraguahadsenta telegramto the
appointed "tobe thechairmanof a meeting;preliminaryto ingwonthedayandobservedthattheirksomeatequestionofthe
thearbitration",and, "by commonconsent imdtherequire- delimitationofthefrontierhad beenresolvedinasatisfactory
ments of ArticlesI11and IV of the GAmez-Bonilla Treaty manner. NicaraguahadurgedthatthePresidentwasnotthen
havingpreviously been complied with", the:Kingof Spain awareoftheactualtermsoftheAward,buttheCourtpointed
hadbeendesignatedasarbitrator.The Courtconcludedthat out that, from a telegramof the Ministerof Nicaragua in
therequirementsoftheGhez-Bonilla Treatyasinterpreted Madridof 24 Decetnber 1906, he had learned the course
bythetwo nationalarbitratorshad beencompliedwith. Sub- whichtheboundary linewastofollow.Inanyevent, thefull
sequently the Presidents of Honduras andlof Nicaragua termsoftheAward nlusthavebecomeavailableto theNica-
expressedtheirsatisfactionat thedesignationoftheKingof raguanGovernment fairly soon since theAwardwas pub-
Spain(6 and 7October 1904).the acceptanceof the latter lished initsOfficialetteon28January 1907.Eventhere-
was communicatedto thetwocountrieson1'7October 1904 after, the attitudeof Nicaragua towards the Award had
and the Foreign Ministerof Nicaraguaexpressed hisgrati- continuedtobeoneofacceptance,subjecttoa&sire toseek
tudetothe SpanishMinisterof Stateina Noteof21Decem- clarificationofcertainpoints whichwouldfacilitatethear-
ber 1904. In these circumstancesthe Courtwas unableto rying intoeffectofthe Award(themessageofthe President
56of Nicaragua to the NationralLegislative Assembly of arbitratorhadgonebeyondtheauthorityconferred uponhim.
1 December 1907, the Foreign Minister's reprt to the NicaraguahadalsocontendedthattheAwardwasanullityby
NationalLegislativeAssembllyof 26 December1907, the reasonof essential error,but theCourt heldthat the evalua-
decreeof the NationalLegislativeAssemblyof 14January tion of documents andof other evidence appertainedto the
1908,etc.). Norequestforclalificationhadinfact'beensub- discretionarypower ofthe arbitratorand.was not open to
mittedto the Kingof Spain,end itwasnot trntil19 March question.Thelastgroundofnullityreliedupon hadbeenthe
1912thattheForeignMinisterofNicaraguafor thefirst time alleged lackorinadequacy ofreasonsin support ofthecon-
statedthat therbitralAwardwas not "aclear,redly valid, clusionsarrived atbythe arbitratorbut,intheopinionofthe
effectiveand compulsoryAwzrrd" . Court,thatgroundwaswithoutfoundation.
InthejudgmentoftheCow:, Nicaragua,byexpressdecla- It had furtherbeen arguedby Nicaraguathat the Award
rationandbyconductin confir~rmitw yithArticleVIIof the was not in anycase capableof executionby reasonof its
Ghez-Bonilla Treaty,hadrecognizedtheAward asbinding omissions, contradictions.and obscurities:Nicaragua had
and itwasnolongeropen to Nicaragua to golbackuponthat contendedthat themouth ofariverwasnota fixed point and
recognition. Nicaragua's failurto raise any questionwith couldnot serve asa common boundary betweetnwo States
regard to thevalidityof the A.wardfor severallyeas after itand than vital questions of navigation rights would be
had become knownto it confirmedthat conclusion.How- involved;it had furtherarguedthat the delimitationin the
ever, eveniftherehadnotbeenrepeatedactsofrecognition operativeclauseleftagapofafewkilometres from the junc-
and evenif its complaintshailbeen put forwardin proper tion of tlietecaorBodegawiththeGuineoor Namasliup
time, theAwardwouldstillhave tobe recoginizedas valid. tothehrtillo de Eotecacinte.Inviewof theclear directive
Nicaragua's firstomplaintwasthat the Kingof Spainhad in the operative clauseandthe explanationin supportof it,
exceeded hisjurisdictiobyreasonofnon-observanceofthe theCou-tdid notconsider that theAwardwas incapableof
ruleslaiddown inArticle11oftheGhez-Boiiilla Treatybut execution.
the Court, having carefully considered theallegationsof ForthesereasonstheCourtarrived attheconclusionstated
Nicaragua,was unable to arriveat the conclusion that the above.
Summary of the Judgment of 18 November 1960