Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING THE ARBI"X'RA ALWARD OF31 JULY 1989
(GUINEA-BISSA VU.SENEGAL)
Orderof 2 March 1990
In an Order issued inthe case concerningthe Arbitral betweenthe Republicof Guinea-BissauandtheRepublic
Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissauv. Senegal), the ofSenegal?
Courtdismissed,byfourteenvotestoone,the requestofthe "(2) Intheeventofanegativeanswerto thefirstques-
Republicof Guinea-Bissauforthe indicationof provisional tion,whatisthecourseofthe linedelimitingthemaritime
measures. territoriese~tainingto the Republicof Guinea-Bissau
The Courtwascomposedasfollows: andthe RepublicofSenegalrespectively?"
. PresidentRuda; Vice-PresidentMbaye; JudgesLachs, andArticle9 of whichprovided that the decisof the Tri-
Elias,Oda, Ago, Schwebel, Sir Robeln Jennings, Ni, bunal "shall include the drawiof theboundarylineon a
Evensen,Tarassov,Guillaume,Shahabuddeenand Pathak; map".
JudgeadhocThierry. On31July 1989theArbitration Tribunalpronouncedb ,y
Judges Evensen and Shahabuddeenajbpendedseparate two votes(includin~hatof the Presidentof the'kibunal)to
opinionsto the Orderof the Court; Judgt! hocThierry one, anawardofwhichtheoperativeclausewasasfollows:
appendedadissentingopinion. "For the reasonsa*d above,theTribunaldecide. ..
In its Order the Courtrecalls that on 23 August 1989 to replyasfollowstothe first question forminArti-
Guinea-Bissau instituted proceedingsgiiinst Senegal in cle 2 of theArbitrationAgreement:The Agreementcon-
respectof a disputeconcerningtheexistenceandvalidityof cludedby an exchangeof letterson 26 April 1960,and
thearbitralaward deliveredon 31 July 1989bythe Arbitra- elatingto themaritime boundary, has the fef law in
tionllibunal forthe Determinationof the Maritime Bound- the relationsbetweenthe Republicof Guinea-Bissau and
arybetweenthetwoStates. the Republicof Senegalwith regard solely to theeas
On 18 January 1990 Guinea-Bissau,on the groundof mentionedin tha.tAgreement,namelythe territorial sea,
actionsstatedtohavebeentakenbythe SenegaleseNavyina thecontiguouszoneandthecontinentalshelf. Thestraight
maritimearea whichGuinea-Bissauregard.sas an area dis- lindrawn at240"isaloxodromicline."
putedbetweentheParties,requested thellrttoindicatethe In that awardthe=burial alsostateditsconclusionthat "itis
followingprovisionalmeasures: notcalleduponto ply tothesecondquestion", andthat"in
"Inorder tosafeguard therightsofeachof theParties,viewofitsdecision ithasnotthoughtitnecessarytoappenda
they shall abstain in the disputedaream any act or mapshowingthe cosursoftheboundaryline"; thePresident
actionof anykind whatever,duringtheholedurationof of the Arbitration'Tkibunlppendeda declarationto the
the proceedingsuntilthe decisionisgiver1bytheCourt." award.
Guinea-Bissauccwtendsin its Applicationto the Court
that"A newdispute!then cameintoexistence,relatingtothe
applicabilityof the text issuedby wayof awardon 31 July
1989";andrequeststheCourt, in respectof the decisionof
theArbitrationmblmal, toadjudgeanddeclare:
TheCourt furtherrecallstheeventseadingtothe present "-that thatsalcalleddecisionis inexistentin view of
. proceedings:on26April1960anAgreementbyexchangeof the fact that one of the two arbitratorsmaking up the
letterswas concludedbetweenFranceand Pbrtugalfor the appearanceof a majority in favour of the text of the
purposeof definingthe maritimeboundart~tweenSenegal 'award',has, byrrdeclaration appentoit, expresseda
(at that tian autonomousStatewithinthe Cornmumutt!) viewin contradictionwiththeone appmntly adoptedby
andthePbrtugueseProvinceofGuinea;after the accessito tie vote;
independenceof SenegalandGuinea-Bissaua disputearose "- subsidiarily, that that so-called dsnull and
between themconcerningthedelimitationof their maritime void, astheTribunaldid notgiveacompleteanswertothe
territories; in 1985 the Parties concludedan Arbitration two-fold question raisbytheAgreementandsodid not
Agreementfor submissionof that disputetc~an Arbitration arriveatasingled.elimitatlineduly recordedonmap,
Tribunal, Articl2 of which provided that the following andasit hasnotgiven the reasonsfortherestrictionsthus
questionsshouldbeputtothe'kibunal: improperlyplacedluponitsjurisdiction;
"(1) Does theagreement concluded'byan exchange "-that theGovernmentof Senegalisthus notjustified
ofletterson26April 1960,and whichrelatestothemari- inseekingto requimtheGovernmentofGuinea-Bissau to
time boundary,have the force of law :inthe relations applytheso-called awardof31July1989;"
Continued on next page The Court observesthat Guinea-Bissauexplains in its disputeorasecondarydispute,onthesoleconditionthat the
requestfor the indicationof provisionalsuresthat that decisionbytheCourtonthequestionsofsubstancewhichare
requestwas promptedby submittedto it bea necessaryprerequisiteforthesettlement
"acts of sovereigntyby Senegalwhichrejudgeboththe in thepresentcaseGuinea-Bissauclaims that thebasicdis-that
judgment onthe meritsto be givenby the:Courtandthe puteconcernstheconflictingclaimsofthePartiestocontrol,
maritimedelimitationtobeeffectedsubsequentlbetween explorationandexploitationof maritimeareas,andthatthe
theStates;" purposeofthemeasuresrequestedistopreservethe integrity
It then summarizesthe incidentswhich tookplace and of the maritimearea concerned, and that therequiredrela-
whichinvolvedactionsbybothPartieswithregardltoforeign tionship between the provisionalmeasures requestedby
fishingvessels. Guinea-Bissau andthecasebefore the Court is present.
The Court observesthat the Applicationinstitutingpro-
ceedings asks the Court to declare the 1989award to be
"inexistent"or,subsidiarily."null andvoid", andtodeclare
"that theGovernmentofSenegalisthusnotjustifiedinseek-
ingto quire the GovernmentofGuinea-Bissautoapplythe
Onthe questionof itsjuri:rdictiontheCocWsubsequently so-calbd awardof 31July 1989";thatthe Applicationthus
considersthat,whereasonarequestforprovisionalmeasures askstheCourttopassuponthe existenceand validityof the
itneednot, beforedecidingwhetherornotto indicatethem, awardbutdoesnotasktheCourttopassupontherespective
finallysatisfyitselfthat ithasjurisdictiononthemeritsoftrightsofthePartiesinthemaritimeareasinquestion;itfinds
case, yet it ought notto indicatesuch measures unless ththataccordinglytheallegedrightssoughttobemadethesub-
provisionsinvokedbythe Al~plicanatppear,primnfacie, to ject of provisional measuresare not the subjectof the pro-
affordabasisonwhichthe j~nrisdictnfthe:Courtmight be ceedingsbeforethe Courtonthe meritsof the case;andthat
founded;and findsthat theodeclarationsmadebythe Par- any such measures could no,tbe subsumedby the Court's
tiesunderArticle36,paragniph2, oftheStatuteand invoked judgmentonthemerits.
by theApplicantdoappear,primafacie,to afforda basisof Moreover,adecisionoftheCourtthattheaward isinexist-
jurisdiction. entor null and voidwould innowayentailanydecisionthat
Itobservesthatthatdecisioinnowayprejudgestheques- the Applicant's claimsin respectof the disputed maritime
tionofthejurisdictionofthe:Courttodeal withhemeritsof delimitationre wellfounded,in wholeor in part;and that
thecase. the disputeover thoseclaimswillthereforenotbe resolved
bythe Court'sjudgment.
OPERATIV PARAGRAPH
Accordingly,
Guinea-Bissau hasrequested the Court toexercisein the THE C', URT,
present proceedingsthepowerconferreduponit by Article byfourteenvotes toone,
41 oftheStatuteoftheCould"to indicate,ifitconsidersthat Dismissesthe requestof the Republicof Guinea-Bissau,
circumstancesso require,;myprovisionalmeasureswhich filedintheRegistryon 18January1990,forthe indicationof
oughtto be takento preserve the respective rightsof eithprovisionalmeasures."
party".
The Court observes that thepurpose of ext:rcisingthis SU~~MAR OYOPINION APPENDED
poweristoprotect "rightswhicharethesubjectofdisputein ToTHE ORDER OFTHE COURT
judicialproceedings"AegeanSeaContinental Shelf,IC.J.
Reports 1976, p. 9, para.2:s;Diplomatic ConsularStafl SeparateOpinion ofJudgeEvensen
inTehran, I.C.J.Reports 1979,p. 19,para. 36);that such Th" circumstancesof the presentcase do not seem to
decision" (Article41, pm,,wph 2, of thestat~); andthat Rx~u~ theexerciseoftheCourt'spower underArticle41of
therefore theyareto be nleasuressuch fhat ,,heywill no the Statuteof the InternationalCourtof Justiceto indicate
longerbe requiredassuchlancethedispute:overthoserights measures-
hasbeenresolvedby theC:ourt'sjudgmenton themeritsof ButtheCourtdoesnotneedfinallyto establishthatit has
thecase. jurisdictiononthemeritsofthecasebeforedecidingwhether
ornot toindicateinterim measures. The absence at thsitsage
wer notesthat~~i~~:~-~i~~~~ inits~~~li- of anychallengetotheCourt'sjurisdictionisrelevantinthis
cationthatthedisputeofwhichit hasseiwd cour s not contexts
Ahintion 'Ifibunal,buta "new dispute,,o.~lating tothee Theavoidanceofimparable damageshouldnot beacon-
applicabilityof the text islsuedby way of awd of 31July ditionforthe stipulationofinterim measures. Ner rticle
1989"; that howeverit habeen argued]byGuinea-Bissau 41 of theStatuteof theCourtnorArticle73ofthe Rulesof
thatprovisionalmeasuresrrlayberequested,inrhecontextof Courtcontainany referenceto "imparable damage". The
judicialpmdings onasubsidiarydispute,toprotectrights Court'sdiscretionarypowersshouldnot be limitedinsucha
in issueintheunderlyingdispute;thattheonlylinkessential n~anner.
fortheadmissibilitofmeasuresisthelinkbetweenthemeas- In the presentcaseguidancemaybe foundin the United
ures contemplated andthe conflictof interestsunderlying Nations Convention ontheLawof the Seaof 10December
the questionor questions putto the Court-that conflictof1982,especiallyin PartVontheExclusiveEkonomicZone
interestsinthepresentcasebeingtheconl?ictovermaritime and in PartVIon the Continental Shelf.Both the Govern-
delimitation-and thatthisis sowhetherhe Courtis seised mentofGuinea-Bissau andtheGovernmentofSenegalhave
of a maindisputeor of a subsidiarydisputa.fundamental signedandratifiedthisConvention.
211 Article74, paragraph1,of the 1982Cc~nventiond,ealing partywould be atlibertyto actwithinthe limitsallowedby
withthedelimitatiooftheexclusiveeconomic zone between internationallaw. Thislibertyof action, resulfromsuch
neighbouringcoastalStatesprovidesthatthe delimitation of a decision in Guiinea-Bissau'sfavour, would be actually
the zone"shallbe eflectedby agreement".Identicalprovi- inconsistentwith thesituationcreatedby an indication of
sionsarefoundinArticle83oftheConventiononthe &lim- provisional measuresrestrainingbothpartiesfromcarrying
itationofthecontinentalshe&The Convc:ntionhas notyet outanyactivitiesinsteadofbeingconsistentwithitasin the
enteredintoforce. normalcase. Consequently, Judge Shahabuddeen doen sot
consider that the approach suggestedby Guinea-Bissau
Butthese articlesgive expressionto governingprinciples could leadto a decisiondifferentfromthat reachedby the
of internationallaw inthis field. Theyrntailthat coastal court.
Statesshould conclude agreements,whms necessary, con-
cerningthe.allowablecatchoffishstocks,thedistributionof Dissenting Opinio@nJudgeadhocThierry
thiscatchtweentheStatesconcerned,theissuanceoffish-
eries licenses,the characterand modesof'fishinggear, the Inhisdissentingopinion,JudgeThierrygivesthereasons
protectionofspawninggrounds,the maintenanceofthenec- which have unfortunately preventedhim from associating
essary contacts between the relevant national fisheries himself withtheCourt's decision.Indeed,hetakestheview
authoritiestogetherwith other means for the rational and that:
peacefulexploitationofthesevitalresowas oftheoceans. 1. The incidents set forthin the Orderwere suchas to
requirethe indicationof provisionalmeasureswhich ought,
Separate OpinioonfJudgeShahal'iuddeen for that reason,tohave been indicatedin accordancewith
Areicle41of theStatuteandArticle75, paragraph2, of the
Inhisseparateopinion,it appearstoJudgeShahabuddeen RulesofCourt.
that Guinea-Bissauhas beencontending fora more liberal 2. There was, in this case, no legal impedimentto the
view thanthatadopted bytheCourtofthekindoflinkwhich exercise,by the Ccturt, ofits poweto indicate provisional
' shouldexistbetweenrightssoughttobeprr:servedbyprovi- measures,sincethefindingthat itiscalledupontoreachwith
sional measuresand rights soughtto be adjudicatedin the regard tothe merits (i.e., on the validity of the Arbiaral
case. But, in his view, such an approach Is limitedby the Awardof 31July 1989)is bound toaffectthe rightsofthe
reflectionthatthesituationcreatedbyanindicationofprovi- Partiesinthe disputed maritiarea.
sionalmeasuresshould beconsistentwiththeeffectofapos-
sibledecisioninthemaincase infavourofthe Stateapplying 3. TheCourtoughttohave enjoinedthePartiesto nego-
forsuchmeasures.Inthiscase,ifGuinea-Bissauweretosuc- tiateon the basisof the assurances givenby Senegalin that
ceedinobtainingadeclaration thatthe awa-dwasinexistent regard,inorder toforestallanyaggravationofthedisputefor
or invalid,theoriginaldisputewould be reopenedandeach thetimebeing.
Summary of the Order of 2 March 1990