Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNING THELAND, ISLAND AND MARI'lrl[M ERONTIER DISPUTE
(ELSALVADOR/HONDURA(lA PP) PLICATION FORPERMISSION TO INTERVENE)
Judgmentof13September 1990
Land, Islandand MaritimeFrontierDispute (El Salvador1 "For thesereasons,
Honduras), deliveredits Judgmenton the Applicationfor "THECHAMBER,
permission to intervene in that case filed by NicaraguaUnanimously,
underArticle62of tStatuteIt found,un!animouslyt,hat "1. Find tsathe Republicof Nicaragua has shown
Nicaraguahad shownthatithasaninterestof a legal natureatithasaninterestofalegalnaturewhichmaybeaffected
whichmaybe affectedbypartofthe JudgmentoftheCham- bypartoftheJudgmentoftheChamberonthmeri nsthe
ber on themeritsinthecaseand decided:Nicaraguawas presentcase,namelyitsdecision on thelegaldame ofthe
accordingly permittedto intervene in the case in certainrsof theGulfof Fonseca,buthasnot shownanch
respects. interestwhimay be affectedby anydecisionwhichthe
tion ofthose waters,oranydecisionastothelegalsituation
ofthemaritimespiis outsidetheGulf,oranydecasion
tothe legalsituofthe islandsintheGulf;
"2. Decide ascordinglythatthe Republicof Nicara-
guaispermittedto interveneinthecase,pursuanttoArti-
The compositionof the Chamberwas as follows:i- cle62of the Statute,to theextent,in themanner andfor
dent, JudgeSette-Camara;JudgesOdaand SirRobertJen- the purposes setout in thepresent Judgmenfur-t not
nings;JudgesdhocValticosandTorresBennkdez. therorotherwise."
Thecomplete text oftheoperativegra,phof theJudg- JudgeOdaa~~endda SPBfBteopiniototheJudgment.
mentreadsasfollows: Inthisopinion the Judge concstatedandexplained
Continued onnext pagethepositionhe adoptedinn:gardto certainpointsdealtwith ElSalvadoraskstheChamber tofindthat"El Salvadorhas
in theJudgment. andhad sovereigntyoverall the islandsin theGulf ofFon-
seca, with the exceptionof the Island of Zacate Grande
which canbeconsideredas formingpartofthecoastofHon-
duras". Hondurasforitspart invitestheChambertofindthat
the islands of Meanguera and Meangueritaare the only
I. Proceedings andsubmissions bythehrties islandsindisputebetweentheParties,sothatthe Chamberis
(paras.1-22) not, accordingtoHonduras,calledupontodeterminesover-
eigntyoveranyoftheotherislands,andtodeclarethe sover-
1. Byajointnotificatio,lated 11December1986,filed eigntyofHondurasoverMeanguera andMeanguerita.
in theRegistryof the Court the sameday,the Ministersfor TheChamberconsidersthatthedetailedhistory ofthedis-
FomignAffairsoftheRepublicofHondurasandthe Repub- puteis nothereto the purpose,butthat two events concern-
licofElSalvadortransmittedtothe Regismuacertified copy ing themaritimeareasmustbe mentioned.First, thewaters
of a SpecialAgreementin.Spanish, signad in the City of withiritheGulfofFonsecabetweenHonduras andNicaragua
Esquipulas,Republicof Guatemala,on 24 May 1986.Its were to an importantextent delimitedin 1900by a Mixed
preamblerefers to the conclusionon 30 October 1980,in Commissionestablished pursuant to a 'Ikeatyconcluded
Lima, Peru, of a General Peace lleaty 'betweenthe two betweenthe two Stateson7October1894,butthe delimita-
States,whereby,interalia,theydelimitedcertainsectionof tion line does notextend so far as to meet a closing line
theircommon landfrontier;andit recordsthat110direct set- betweenPuntaAmapala and Punta Cosigiiina.
tlementhad beenachievedin respectof the remainingland The secondevent to be mentionedis the following.In
maritimespaces".rds "thelegal situationof the islandsand 1916El Salvadorbrought proceedingsagainstNicaraguain
the CentralAmericanCourt of Justice, claiminginteralia
Article2oftheSpecialAgreement,which definesthesub- that the Bryan-ChamorroTreatyconcludedby Nicaragua
ject of the dispute,reads,a translationby the Registryof withtheUnitedStatesof America,forthe constmctionof a
theCourt, navalbase,"ignored and violatedtherightsofco-ownership
"The Mes requestdieChamber: possessedbyElSalvadorintheGulfofFonseca" .
" 1. Todelimitthefrontierlineintheareasorsections Nicaraguaresisted theclaimcontending(interalia)that
not describedinArticle16oftheGeneralPeaceTreatyof the lack of demarcationof frontiers between the riparian
30 October1980. Stater;did"not resultincommonownership".TheDecision
"2. Todeterminethc:legal situationofthe islandsand oftheCentralAmericanCourtofJusticedated9March 1917
maritimespaces." records the unanimousview of the judges that the inter-
On17November1989lrlicaraguafileda request forper- nationalstatusof the Gulfof Fonsecawas that it was "an
missiontointerveneunderArticle62 of ?heStatuteof the historic bay possessed of the characteristicsof a closed
Courtintheproceedings institutedbythe~~otificatioonf the sea", andin its "Examinationof factsand law", the Court
SpocialAgreement. foundl:
TheCourt,inanOrder di~te28Februmj 1990,foundthat "Whereas:The legalstatusoftheGulfofFonseca hav-
itwas fortheChamberformedtodealwiththepiesentcaseto ingbeenrecognizedby this Court to tk thatof a historic
decide whetherNicaragua's requessthouldbegranted. bay possessed ofthe characteristicsof a closed sea, the
threeriparianStatesofElSalvador,Honduras andNicara-
II. Natureandextentoftik dispute gui~are, therefore,recognizedas co-ownersof itswaters,
@aras.23-33) except asto thelittoralmarineleaguewhichis the exclu-
sivepropertyofeach, .. .**
TheChamberobservesthat the dispute betweenElSalva- ItisclaimedbyElSalvadorinitsMemorialinthepresent
dorand Honduraswhichisthe subjectoftlheSpecialAgree- casethat:
mentconcernsseveraldistinctthoughin some respectsinter-
mlatedmatters.TheChamberisaskedfirsttodelimittheland "Onthebasis of the1917judgementanobjectivelegal
fiontierlinebetweenthe two Statesin theareasor sections dgime has beenestablishedin the Gulf. Even ifinitially
not describedinArticle16ofthe General:PeaceTreatycon- thejudgementwas binding onlyin respectof the direct
tointervenein this aspect43ftheproceedimgs.lle Chamber parties to the litigation,Nicaragua and El Salvad,he
isalso to"determinethelegalsituationof the islands", and thecourseoftime[;]itseffectsextendtothirdStates,and,n
thatof the "maritime spaces".Thegeogriaphicaclontextof in]particulart,heyextendtoHonduras";;
the islandand maritimeaspectsofthedispate,andthenature
and extentofthe disputearappearsfromthePtuties'claims andfurtherthat thejuridical situatof theGulf "does not
beforetheChamber*isasfollows. permitthedividingupofthewatersheld incondominium",
withtheexceptionof "a territorialseawithintheGulf *,rec-
The Gulf of Fonsecalies on the Pacific:coast of Centralognizedby the CentralAmericanCourt ofJustice. Itthere-
direction.Thenorth-westcoastof the Gulfis ihelandterri- foreaskstheChamber to adjudgeanddeclarethat:
tory of El Salvador,andthesouth-eastCOiBtthatof Nicara- "The juridicalpositionof the maritimespaceswithin
gua; thelandterritoryofHondurasliesbefiveenthetwo,with the:Gulfof Fonsecacorrespondsto the juridicalposition
a substantialcoaston theinnerpm oftheGulf.Theentryto establishedby the Judgementof the CentralAmerican
the Gulf, between Punta Amapala in El Salvadorto the CourtofJusticerenderedMarch 9th1917,asacceptedand
north-west,andPuntaCor;igliinainNicaraguato the south- appliedthereafter."
east, issome19nautical ntlileswide.The penetrationof the Italsocontendsthat
Gulf fioma linedrawnbevweenthesepoiiltsvariesbetween "So farasthemaritimespacesareconcerned,the Ru-
30 and32nauticalmiles.VfithintheGulfofFonseca,thereis ties have not askedthe Chambereitherto tracea lineof
aconsiderablenumberof islandsandislets;. &:limitationortodefinethe Rules anhinciples ofPublic InternationalLawapplicableto adelimitationofmaritime cle 81, paragraph2, of the Rules of Court, tothe alleged
spaces, eitherinsideoroutsidetheGulfof Fonseca." "untimeliness" of the Applicationin viewof requestscon-
Hondurasrejects theviewthat the 1917Judgementpro- tainedinitwhich wouldbedisruptiveatthepresentadvanced
ducedorreflectedanobjectivelegaldgime, contendingthat stageof thepraceedings, andto the absenceof negotiations
inthecaseof priortothefilingofthe Application.
"a judgmentor arbitralaward layingdowna delimitation
as betweenthe partiesto a dispute,the:solution therein (a) Interestofa legalnature
adoptedcanonlybeopposedtotheparties". (paras.37and!52-84)
Italsoobservesthat
NicaraguastatesinitsApplication that: "Ascanbeappre-
"it is not the 1917Judgemenwt hichconfers sovereignty ciatedinArticle2of theSpecialAgreement .. ., theGov-
seca. Thatsovereigntyantecedes considerablythat judg- ernmentofNicaragua hasaninterestof alegalnaturewhich
mentbetween tworiparianStates,sinceitdatesbacktothe mustinevitablybe affectedby a decisionof theChamber."
creationofthe threeStatesconcerned." (Para. 2.)Itthenprsaceedstoenumeratethe "particular con-
siderationssupportingthisopinion". TheChamberobserves
Honduras's contention asto the legalsituationof the mari- thatastheCourtha:;madeclearinpreviouscases,inorderto
time spaces, to be examinedfurther below, involves their obtain permissiont,ointerveneunderArticle62of the Stat-
delimitationbetweenthe Parties. Itonsidelsthat theCham- ute, a Statehas to!showan interestof a legal nature which
ber hasjurisdictionunderthe SpecialAgreementto effect maybeaffectedbytheCourt's decision inthecase,orthatun
such delimitation,and has indicatedwhat, in the view of int&t d'ordrejuri~iiqueestpourlui en cause-the criterion
Honduras,shouldbethecourseofthe delim~itatioine. statedinArticle62.
As regards maritimespaces situated outside the closing Inthepresentcase,Nicaraguahasgone further:citing the
lineoftheGulf,Hondurasasksthe Chambertofindthatthe case concerningMonetaryGold Removedfiom Rome in
"communityof interests"betweenEl Salvr~dorndHondu- 1943(I.C.J.Reports1954,p. 19).ithas arguedthatitsinter-
ras ascoastalStatesofthe Gulfimpliesthatlheyeachhavean estsaresomuchpartofthesubject-matterofthecasethatthe
equal rightto exercisejurisdiction over suchspace. nthis Chambercouldnot]properly exercise itsjurisdictionwithout
basis,it asks the Chamber tdeterminealineofdelimitation the participation of Nicaragua. The Chambertherefore
extending200 milesseaward,to delimit the territorialsea, examines theway inwhichthe interestsof Albaniawould
twoParties.ElSalvadorhowevercontendsntinthattheChambere haveformed"the verysubject-matterofthe decision"inthe
does not,underthe SpecialAgreement,havejurisdictionto case concerningMonetaryGold Removedfiom Rome in
delimitmaritime areasoutsidetheclosinglineoftheGulf.El 1943, andexplainsithattheCourt'sfindingin thatcasewas
Salvador deniesthat Honduras hasany legitimate claimto that, whilethe presencein the Statuteof Article62 might
anypartof thecontinentalshelforexclusive:economiczone impliedlyauthorize continuanceof the praceedingsin the
in the Pdcific,outside the Gulf; it is however preparedto absenceof a Statewhose"interestsofa legalnature" might
acceptthat thisquestionbedecided bythe C:hamber. be "affected", this did not justifycontinuanceof proceed-
ingsintheabsenceofaStatewhoseinternationalresponsibil-
111. Requirements for interventionunderArticle62of the ity would be "the very subject-matterof the decision".
StatuteandArticle81ofthe RulesofCourt havebeen had Albaniaappliedfor permission tointervene
(paras.35-101) under Article 62. The Chamber concludesthat, if in the
presentcasethelegalinterestsofNicaraguawould formpart
InitsApplicationforpermissionto intervene,filedon 17 of "the verysubject-matterof the decision", asNicaragua
November1989,Nicaraguastated that theApplicationwas has suggested,this woulddoubtlessjustify an intervention
madebyvirtueofArticle36, paragraph 1,andArticle62of by Nicaragua underArticle 62 of the Statute, which lays
the Statute.An applicationunderArticle6:!is requiredby down a less stringent criterion. The questionwould then
Article81,paragraph1,oftheRulesof Courttobe filed "as arise, however, whethersuch interventionunderArticle62
soonas possible,and notlaterthantheclosmsofthe written of theStatutewouldenablethe Chamber to pronounce upon
proceedings".TheApplicationofNicaraguawasfiled inthe thelegalinterestsofNicaraguawhichitissuggestedbyNica-
Registryofthe Courttwo months beforethe.time-limitfixed ragua wouldform the verysubject-matterof the decision.
forthefilingofthe Parties'Replies. TheChamberwill tht:reforefirstconsiderwhetherNicaragua
ByArticle81, paragraph2, of theRulesof Courta State has shownthe existenceof an "interest of a legal nature
seekingtointerveneisrequiredtospecifythecasetowhichit whichmaybe affectedby thedecision", so astojustify an
relatesandto set out: intervention;and if such is the case, will thenconsider
"(a) the interest of a legal nature which the State whetherthat interestmay in fact form "the very subject-
applyingto intervene considersmay be ifiected by the matterof the decision" asdidthe interestsof Albaniainthe
decisioninthatcase; case concerningMonetaryGold Removedfiom Rome in
"(b) thepreciseobjectofthe intervention; 1943.
"(c) anybasisofjurisdictionwhichisclaimedtoexist TheChamberfurtherobservesthatArticle62of the Stat-
as betweenthe Stateapplying tointerveneandthepar- utecontemplatesinterventiononthebasisofan interestof a
tiestothecase". legal nature"which maybe affectedby the decisionin the
The Chamber firstexamines argumentsof El Salvador case". Inthepresent,case,however,whatisrequestedof the
which were putforwardasgroundsfortheChamber toreject ChamberbytheSpeciialAgreementisnotadecisiononasin-
the Applicationof Nicaragua inlimine,withouttherebeing gle circumscribedissue, but several decisionson various
any needforfurtherexaminationofitscompliancewithArti- aspectsoftheoveralldisputebetweentheParties.TheCham-
cle62ofthe StatuteoftheCourt.These argu:mentsn, oneof ber has to consider the possible effecton legal interests
which were upheldby the Chamber,relatedlto the formal assertedby Nicaraguaof itseventualdecisiononeachof the
complianceofthe ApplicationwiththerequimmentsofArti- differentissueswhichmightfalltobedetermined,inordertodefinethe scopeof anyinte~ventionwhichmaybe foundto maybe affectedby a decisionon the legal situationof the
bejustified underArticle62oftheStatute.I[fa Statecansat- watersoftheGulf.
isfytheCourt thatit hasan interestof a legalnahm which
maybe affectedbythedecisioninthecase, it maybepermit- 2. LegalsituationofthewaterswithintheGulf
tedto interveneinrespectc~tfhat interest.]Butthatdoesnot (paras.67-79)
meanthattheintervening Stateisthenalsopermittedtomake
excursionsintootheraspects ofthecase;thisisillfactrecog- (i) Therbgimeofthewaters
nizedby Nicaragua.Since dhescopeof anypermittedinter- ItisElSalvador's casethat, asetweenElSalvador,Hon-
vention has tobe determined,theChamberhas to consider durasandNicaragua, thereexists"a regimeof community,
the mattersof theislands,the situationof1.hewaterswithin co-ownershiporjoint sovereignty" oversuchof the waters
the Gulf, the possibledelinnitationof the waterswithinthe of theGulfof Fonseca "aslie outsidethe area of exclusive
Gulf, the situationof the watersoutsidethe Gulf, and the jurisdiction", an"objectivelegal regime" onthebasisofthe
possibledelimitationofthewatersoutsidethe Gulf. 1917Judgementof the Central AmericanCourtof Justice.
Whetherallofthesemamrs are indeedraisedI>ytheword- Onthat basis,El Salvadorconsiders that thjuridicalsitua-
ing of Article2, paragraph2, of the SpecialA.greementis tionoftheGulfdoesnotpermit thedividingup ofthewaters
itself disputedbetweenthe l'artiesto thecase. Accordingly, held in condominium. ElSalvadoralso contends that the
the listof mattersto beconsideredmust inthisphaseof the SpecialAgreementdoesnotconferjurisdictiontoeffectany
proceedingsbe entirelywithoutprejudiceto themeaningof such delimitation.Hondurason the other hand contends,
Article2, paragraph2, asa whole,orof anyof thetermsas interalia, that "the Gulf's specific geographicalsituation
used inthat Article.The Clhamberclearlycani~ottake any createsaspecial situationbetweenthe riparian Stateswhich
standinthe present proceedings on thdeisputesbetweenthe generatesacommunityof interests"whichinturn"callsfor
Partiesconcerningtheproper meaningoftheSpecialAgree- a special legalr6gimeto determine theirmutualrelations";
ment:it mustdeterminethe questionsraised byNicaragua's thatthe communityof interests "doesnot meanintegration
Applicationwhile leavingthese questionsof interpretation and the abolitionof boundaries"but, on the contrary, "the
entirely open. clear definitionof thoseboundaries asa conditionof effec-
tive co-operation";andthateachof thethreeriparianStates
Burdenofproof "has imequalrightto aportionofthe internalwaters".
(paras.6143) TheChamberconsidersthat quite apartfrom thequestion
There was some argument beforethe Charnberon the ofthelegalstatusofthe 191 7Judgement,however, thefactis
questionofthe extentofthe:burdenofproofona Stateseek- that El Salvadornowclaims thatthe watersof theGulf are
ingto intervene.In theChirmber'sopinion^ it, is clear, firstsubject to a condominiumof the coastal States, and has
thatit is for aState seekingto interveneto demonstrate con- indeedsuggested thatthatr6gime"would in any casehave
vincinglywhat it asserts, ;andthus to bear the burden of been applicableto t!!e Gulf under custonlaryinternational
proof;and, second, thatit hasonly to shawthat its interest law". Nicaragua has referred to the fact that Nicaragua
"may" beaffected,notthatit willormust Ix affected.What plainlyhas rightsin the Gulfof Fonseca, the existenceof
needstobe shownbyaStateseeking permissiontointervene whichisundisputed,andcontendsthat
can only be judgedinconcretoandinrelationto all the cir- "The condominium,if it is declaredto be applicable,
cumstancesof aparticularcase. It isfor thetateseekingto wouldby its very nature involve threriparians,and not
interveneto identify the interestof a legal naturewhich it onlythepartiestothe SpecialAgreement."
considersmaybeaffectedbythe decisioninthecase,andto In theopinionoftheChamber,thisisasufficientdemonstra-
showin whatwaythat intelestmay beaffected;it is notfor tionbyNicaraguathatithasaninterestofalegalnatureinthe
theCourtitself- orinthepresentcasetheChamber - to sub- determinationwhetherornotthisisthe rbgimegoverningthe
stituteitselffor the Stateirithat respect.'I'heChamberalso waters of the Gulf: the verydefinitionof a condominium
recallsin this connectionheproblemthat theIWes to the points tothis conclusion. Furthermore,a decisioninfavour
case areindisputeaboutthc:interpretationofthevery provi- of solmeof the Hondurantheseswouldequallybe suchas
sionoftheSpecialAgreementinvokedinNicaragua's Appli- may'affectlegal interestsof Nicaragua.The "communityof
cation.TheChambernotesthe reliancebyNicaraguaonthe interests" which is the starting-pointof the argumentsof
principleofrecognition,oronestoppel, butdoesnotaccept Honduras isa community which,like the condominium
Nicaragua's contentionisnthisrespect. claimedby El Salvador, embracesNicaraguaas one of the
The Chamber thenturns to considerationof the several three riparianStates,andNicaraguamustthereforebe inter-
specificissues in the casewhichmay call for decision, as ested also in that question. TheChambe~rt,herefore, finds
indicated above,in order 1:odeterminewhetherit hasbeen thatNicaragua has shownto the Chamber's satisfaction the
shownthat suchdecision lnayaffectaNicarag~~ainnterestof existence of an interest of a legal naturewhich may be
a legalnature. affectedbyitsdecisiononthesequestions.
Ontheotherhand,whiletheChamber is thus satisfietdhat
1. Legalsituationoftheislands Nicaragua hasa legal interestwhichmaybeaffectedbythe
(paras.65-66) decisionof theChamber onthe questionwhetheror notthe
SofarasthedecisionreqpestedoftheChamberbythe Par- watersof theGulfof Fonseca are subjectto a condominium
ties is to determinethe legalsituationof the islands, the or a "communityof interests"ofthe three riparianStates,it
Chamberconcludes thatit:shouldnot grant permissionfor cannotacceptthecontentionofNicaraguathatthelegalinter-
interventionbyNicaragua,intheabsenceofanyNicaraguan estofNicaragua"wouldformtheverysubject-matterofthe
interest liableto be directlyaffectedba decisionon that decision", inthesensein whichthatphrase wasusedinthe
issue.Anypossibleeffectsoftheislandsa:srelevantcircum- case concerning MonetaryGold Removed fromRome in
stancesfordelimitationofmaritimespacer;falltobeconsid- 1943todescribethe interestsof Albania. It follows that the
ered inthe contextofthequestionwhether Nicaragua should questionwhetherthe Chamberwouldhavepowerto take a
bepermitted tointerveneonthebasisofalegalinterestwhich decision onthesequestions,withouttheparticipationofNic-araguainthe proceedings, doesnotarise;butthatthe condi- exclusiveeconomiczonespertainingto Honduras and El
tions for an interventionby Nicaraguain this aspectof the Salvadorrespectively"
case areneverthelessclearlyfulfilled. and asks the Chamber to endorse the delimitation line
advancedby Hondurasfor the watersoutside the Gulfas
(ii) tbssible delimitationofthewaters "productiveofanequitablesolution".ElSalvadorinterpre!ts
the SpecialAgreementas not authorizing theChamber to
IftheChamber werenotsatisfiedthatthereisacondomin- effectanydelimitation.BothPartiescontendthatNicaragua
iumover the watersof the Gulfof suchakindasto exclude hasnolegalinterestwhichmaybeaffectedbythedecisionon
anydelimitation,itmightthen becalledupon,ifitweresatis- the "legal situation"ofthemaritimespacesoutsidethe Gulf
fiedthat it hasjurisdictionto do so, toecta delimitation. and bothPartiesdenythatthecarryingoutbythe Chamberof
TheChamberhasthereforetoconsider whetheradecisionas theirrespectiveintzrpretationsofArticle2couldaffectNica-
todelimitationofthewatersoftheGulf mightaffectaninter- ragua's legal interests.
est of a legalnatureappertainingto Nicaxgua, in orderto The Chamber n.otesHonduras*demonstrationof'a pro-
determinewhether Nicaragua should be permittedto inter- posedschemeofdelimitationdesignedtoavoidanyimpinge-
vene in respectof this aspectof the case also. Itdoesnot, mentuponwatersoutsidetheGulfwhich mightconceivably
however, havetoconsiderthepossibleeffectonNicaragua's be claimedby Nicaragua,uponwhichthe Chambercannot
interests of every possible delimitationwhich might be pass in these incidental proceedings,and beforehearing
arrivedat;itisfortheStateseekingto intervenetoshowthat argumentonthe mtsrits.Thatdemonstrationdidcallforsome
itsinterestsmightbeaffectedbya particulsudelimitation,or indicationin response,bythe State seekingto intervene,of
bydelimitationingeneral.Honduras has &readyindicatedin howthose proposalswouldaffecta specificinterestof that
its pleadings how,in its view, the delimitationshouldbe State, orwhatother possible delimitationwouldaffect that
effected.El Salvador,consistentlywithitsposition,hasnot interest. Theharte:dpropositionofHondurasthusgave Nic-
indicateditsviews on possiblelinesofdelimitation.Nicara- araguatheopportunitytoindicatehowtheHonduranpropos-
gua, foritspart, has not givenanyindicationof anyspecific alsmightaffect"to asignificantextent"anypossibleNicara-
lineof delimitationwhichitconsiderswouldaffectitsinter- guan legal interesti:n waters west of that Honduranline.
ests. Nicaraguafailed to indicatehow this delimitation,or any
TheChamberexaminesargumentsput fc~rwardintheNic- other delimitationregardedby it as a possibleone, would
araguan Application as considerations supportinits asser- affectan actualNicaraguaninterestof a legal nature.The
tionofalegalinterest;itdoesnotconsiderthataninterestofa Chamber therefore cannotgrant Nicaragua permissionto
thirdStateinthegenerallegalrulesandprincipleslikelytobe interveneoverthedelimitationofthe watersoutsidetheGulf
appliedbythedecisioncanjustifyanintervention,orthatthe closingline.
taking intoaccountofallthecoastsandcoastal relationship
withinthe Gulfas a geographicalfactfor the purposesof a (b) Objectoftheintervention
delimitationbetween ElSalvadorand Honduras meansthat (paras.85-92)
the interestof a third riparian State, Nicaragua, may be
affected. TheChamberobservesthat the essentialdifficulty TheChamberturnstothequestionoftheobjectofNicara-
in whichtheChamberfindsitself,onthismiitterofapossible gua'sApplicationforpermissionto interveneinthe case.A
delimitationwithin the watersof theGulf, :isthatNicaragua statement of the "precise object of the intervention" is
did not in its Applicationindicateany maritimespaces in required by Article 81, paragraph2 (b), of the Rules of
saidtobeaffectedbyapossibledelimitationlinebetweenEl Court.
SalvadorandHonduras. Nicaragua's indication,in its Applicationfor permission
to intervene,of the objectof its interventionin the present
AccordinglytheChamberisnot satisfiedthatadecisionin case, isasfollows:
thepresentcaseeitherastothelawapplicableto adelimita- "The interventionfor which permissionis quested
tion, or effectinga delimitation,betweenlionduras and El hasthe followingobjects:
Salvador,of the watersof the Gulf (exceptas regardsthe "First, generally to protect the legal rightsof the
alleged "community of interests"), wou11d affect Nicara- RepublicofNicaraguaintheGulfof Fonsecaand theadja-
gua's interests. The Chamber therefore considers that centmaritimeareasbyall legalmeansavailable.
althoughNicaragua hq, for purposesof Article 62 of the "Secondly,to intervenein the proceedingsin orderto
Statute, shownan interestof a legalnature whichmay be informtheCourt dthe natureof.thelegalrightsofNicara-
affectedby the Chamber'sdecisionon the questionof the gua whichare in issue in the dispute. This forof inter-
existenceor natureofa r6gimeof condominiumorcommu- ventionwouldhavetheconservativepurposeofseekingto
nityofinterestswithintheGulfofFonseca,ithasnot shown ensure that the tleterminationof the Chamberdid not
suchan interestwhichmightbe affectedby the Chamber's henchuponthelegalrightsandinterestsoftheRepublicof
Thisfindingalsodisposesofthequestion,referredtoabove,lf. Nicaragua. .."
ofthepossiblerelevanceofadecisioninthe islanddispute. Atthehearings, theAgentofNicaragua emphasized itswill-
ingnesstoadjusttotinyprocedureindicatedbytheChamber.
Ithasbeencontended,inparticularbyElSalvador,thatNic-
3. Legalsituationofwatersoutsidethe{Gulf aragua's statedobjecitsnotaproperobject.
(pa. 80-&4)
The Chambernow turns to the questionof the possible So far as the objectof Nicaragua'sinterventionis "to
effectonNicaragua's legal interestsfitsfuturedecisionon informtheCourtofthe natureofthelegalrightsofNicaragua
thewatersoutsidetheGulf. Honduras claimsthatbytheSpe- which areinissueinthedispute", it cannotbe saidthatthis
cialAgreement objectis notaproperone:itseemsindeedtoaccord withthe
functionof intervention. Theuse in anApplicationto inter-
"the Parties have necessarilyendowed the Court with vene of a perhaps somewhatmore forceful expression
competenceto delimitthe zonesof territorialseaandthe ("trench uponthe legalrights and interests")is immaterial,providedthe objectactualllyaimed atis a properone. Sec- ofthepa:rtiesisnecessaryforthat.If anintervenerwereheld
ondly, itdoesnotseemtotheChamberthatforaState toseek tobecomeapartytoacasemerelyasaconsequenceofbeing
by intervention"to protect its claimsby all lqal means" permittedtointerveneinit,thiswouldbeaveryconsiderable
necessarilyinvolvesthein~clusioinn suchmeansof "that of depa~Zurferomthe principleof consensualjurisdiction.It is
claims. The"legal means ;availablewustbethoseaffordedn a case, does not, by reason onlyof being an intervener,n
bytheinstitutionof interventionforthe protectionof a thirdbecomealsoapartytothecase.
State'slegalinterests.Soumnderstoodt,altobjtxt cannotbe
regardedasimproper. It thus followsfrom thejuridicalnature and fromthepur-
posesofinterventionthattheexistenceofavalidlinkofjuris-
dictionbetweenthewould-beintervenerandthepartiesisnot
(c) Basisofjurisdiction:Validlinkofjurisdiction a requirementforthesuccessoftheapplication.Onthecon-
(paras.93-101) trarythe procedureof interventionis to ensure thata State
TheChamberhasnowfiurthertoconsiderthe argumentof withpossibly affectedinterestsmay be permitted to inter-
ElSalvadorthatforNicaraguatointerveneit mustinaddition vene eventhoughthereis nojurisdictional linkandit there-
showa "valid linkofjurisdiction" between Nicaragua and fore cannotbecome a party. The Chambertherefore con-
theParties.In itsApplicati.sn,Nicaraguadoesnotassertthe cludes that the absence of a jurisdictional linkbetween
existenceof anybasis ofjiauisdictionotherthanthe Statute Nicaragua andthe Partiestothiscaseisnobartopermission
itself,andexpressestheviewthat Article62doesnotrequire being:givenforintervention.
a separatetitleofjurisdiction.
The questionis whether theexistenceof a validlink of IV. ProceduralrightsofStatepermittedtointervene
jurisdictionwith thepartilesto the case--in the senseof a (paras. 102-104)
basisofjurisdictionwhichcouldbeinvoked,byaStateseek-
ing to intervene, in order to institute proceedings againswhicha Statewillhavebeen accorded permission to inter-
eitherorbothoftheparties;--isanessentiatlconditionforthe veneunderArticle62oftheStatute,itappearsappropriateto
grantingof permission tointerveneunderArticle62 of the give someindicationof the extentof the proceduralrights
Statute.Inordertodecide thepointthe Chamt~rmustcon- acquiredby the interveningState asa resultof thatpermis-
sider the general principleofonsensualjurisdictionin its sion.Inthe firstplace, ashasbeenexplainedabove,theinter-
relationwiththeinstitutioilofintervention;. veningStatedoesnotbecomeparty to the proceedings,and
Therecan be nodoubt of the importariceaPthis general doesnot acquirethe rights,orbecomesubjecttothe obliga-
principle. The pattern of international judicial settlementions,which amch tothe statusof aparty, undertheStatute
under the Statuteis that twoor more Stateagree that the and]Rulesof Court, or the general principlesof procedural
Court shallhear and detemine a partia~lardispute. Such law. Nicaragua, asanintervener,hasof coursea rightto be
agreementmay be givenId hoc, by SpecialAgreementor heardbytheChamber.ThatrightisregulatedbyArticle85of
otherwise,ormayresult fmm the invocation,in relationto theRulesofCourt,whichprovidesforsubmissionofa writ-
the particulardispute,ofcompromissoryclauseofa treaty tenstatement,andparticipationinthehearings.
or of the mechanismof Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
Court'sStatute.Those States arethe "parties" to the pro- The scope of the interventionin this particularcase, in
ceedings, and arebound by the Court's eventual decision relation to the scope of the case as a whole, necessarily
becausethey have agreed toconferjurisdictiononthe Court involveslimitationsoftherightoftheintervenertobeheard.
todecidethe case,the decisionof theCourthavingbinding adhss argumenttotheChamberonthe interpretationofthervenerto
forceasprovidedforinArticle59ofthe Statute.Normally, SpecialAgreementconcludedbetweenthePartieson24May
therefore,no other Stateay involveitselfin the proceed- 1986,because theSpecialAgreementis, forNicaragua, res
ings withoutthe consentof the originalparties. Neverthe- interaliosacta;and Nicaragua has disclaimednyintention
less,proceduresfora "thild"Statetointe:rveneia caseare of involving itselfinthedisputeoverthe landboundary.The
providedin Articles62 and 63 of the Court's Statute. The Chamberthensummarizestheaspectsof thecaseinrespect
competenceofthe Court i:nthismatterofi~nterventisnot, ofwhichNicaragua has shown theexistenceofaninterestof
likeitscompetencetohearanddeterminethedisputereferred a legalnatureandthoseinrespectof whichit hasnot, with
to it, derivedfrom thecorlsentofthe partiesto thecase, butthe consequentlimitationson the scopeof the intervention
from the consentgivenby them, in becomingpartiesto the pemlitted.
Court's Statute.to the C~~urtsxercise.ofits Dowerscon-
ferredby thestatute. Thu:stheCourthasthecdmpetenceto SUMMAR YFTHESEPARAT C~PINION
permitan interventioneventhoughit be opposed byoneor OF JUDG E DA
bothofthe partiestotheCiaseT. henatureofthecompetence
thuscreatedbyArticle62oftheStatuteisdefinablebyrefer- Whileagreeingstronglywiththe Chamberin permitting
ence totheobjectandpurposeofintervention,cithisappears NicaraguatointerveneinthecasebroughttotheCourtpursu-
fromArticle62oftheStaltute. anttothe SpecialAgreementof24May 1.986 between Hon-
InterventionunderArticle62of theStatuteisfor thepur- durn and El Salvador,Judge Oda exprt:ssesthe view that
poseof protectinga State's "interestoelegd nature" that Nicaragua'sinterventionshould not havebeenrestrictedto
might beaffectedby a dtscisionin an existing casealready thesolequestionofthelegalr6gimeofthewaters within the
establishedbetweenother States, namely thepartiestothe Gulf.Inhisview,onceit had,ifonlyinvery generalterms,
case.Itisnotintendedto enableathirdStatetotackonanew shownthatithadaninterestofalegal naturewhichmightbe
case,tobecomeanewparty,andsohaveitsownclaimsadju- affectedbythe decisioninthecase,then(i)Nicaragua, hav-
dicatedbytheCourt. Interventioncannohtavebeenintended ing nowbeenpermittedto intervenein respectof the legal
to be employedas a substitute forcontentious;proceedings. dgirne withinthe watersof theGulf, shouldnot have been
Acceptanceof the Statutebya Statedoesnotof itselfcreate excluded fromexpressingits views in due course on any
jurisdictiontoentertainaparticularcase:thespecificconsent delirmitatibetweenEl Salvador and HonduraswithintheGulf whichmay fall to be effectedby ihe Chamber;and, dielimitatiwhic:hmayfalltobeeffected outsidetheGulf in
moreover, (ii) Nicaragua should not hiwe been excluded theevent thatonletitlemayhavebeenestablishedinfavour
fromexpressingits viewsin due course'withrespectto any dHonduras.
Summary of the Judgment of 13 September 1990