Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING RIGHTOFPASSAGEOVERI :NDIANTERRITORY
(MERITS)
Judgmentof 12 April1960
The caseconcerning Rightof Passage over IndianTem- Inits JudgmenttheCourtreferredtotheSubmissionsfiled
tory(Portugalv.India)wasreferred totheCourbtyanAppli- by Portugalwhich i.nthe firstplacerequestedthe Court to
cationfiledon 22 December 1955.In that .Applicationt,he adjudgeanddeclarethata rightofpassagewaspossessedby
Governmentof Portugalstatedthat itstemtc~ryintheIndian Porlugaland must be respected by India; this rightwas
Peninsulaincluded twoenclavessurroundedbytheTemtory invokedbyPortugalonlytotheextentnecessaryfortheexer-
of India, Dadra and Nagar-Aveli. Iwt asi.nrespectof the ciseof its sovereigntyover theenclaves,anditwasnotcon-
communicationsbetweenthoseenclavesandthe coastaldis- tendedthatpassagewasaccompaniedbyanyimmunity and
trict of Daman, and betweeneach other, that the question madeclearthatsuch.passage remainedsubjecttotheregula-
arose of a right of passage in favour of'ortugalthrough tion andcontrolof India, which mustbe exercisedin good
Indiantemtory andof a correlativeobligationbindingupon faith,Indiabeingunderanobligationnotto preventthetran-
India. TheApplication statedthatinJuly 1!25the Govern- sitnecessaryforthe exerciseofPortuyuesesovereignty.The
mentofIndiapreventedPortugalfromexercisingthatrightof Court then consideredthe date witk reference towhich it
passageand that Portugalwas thus placed ina positionin mustascertainwhetherthe rightinvc,#edexistedor did not
whichit becameimpossible forittoexerciseits rightsofsov- exist. The questionas to theexistenceof a rightof passage
ereigntyovertheenclaves. havingbeen putto theCourtinrespectof the disputewhich
FollowingupontheApplication,the Cou.rtwasseisedof hadarisenwith regardtoobstacles~1s.-ebyIndiaintheway
six preliminary objectionsraised by the Governmentof of passage,it wasthe eveof thecreationof those obstacles
India.ByaJudgmentgivenon26November1957,theCourt thatmustbe selectedas the standpointfromwhichto ascer-
rejectedthe firstfourobjectionsandjoinedthefifth and sixthtain whetherornot sucha right existed; the selecof that
objectionstotheMerits. datewouldleaveopenthe argumentsof India regardingthe
InitsJudgment,the Court: subsequentlapseoftherightofpassage.
(a) rejectedtheFifth Preliminary Objectioby 13votes Portugal nextaskedthe Courtto adjudgeanddeclare that
to2; Indiahadnotcompliiedwiththe obligationsincumbentupon
itbyvirtueoftherightofpassage. But theCourtpointedout
(b) rejectedtheSixth Preliminary Objectiobny 11votes thatithadnot been tlsked,eitherintheApplicationor inthe
to4; final Submissionsof the Parties,to decide whetheror not
(c) found,by 1l votes to4, thatPortugidhad in1954a India's attitudeowardsthose whohad instigated the over-
rightofpassageoverinterveningIndianterritorybetweenthe throwof Portugueseauthorityat Dadraand Nagar-Aveliin
enclavesofDadra and Nagar-Avea lind thec,oastaldistrictofJuly and August1954constituteda breachofthe obligation,
Damanandbetweentheseenclaves,tothee:xtentnecessary saidtobebindinguponit undergeneralinternationallaw,to
for the exerciseofPortuguese sovereignovertheenclaves adoptsuitablemeasllresto prevent the incursioof subver-
andsubjectto theregulationandcontrolof l:ndia,inrespect siveelementsintothetemtory ofanotherState.
ofprivatepersons,civilofficialsandgoodsingeneral; lhrning then to the future, the Submissionsof Portugal
(6)found,by8 votes to7, that Portugal didnothavein requestedthe Courtto decide that India mustendthe meas-
1954such a right of passage in respect of armed forces, uresbywhichitopposed theexerciseofthe rightof passage
armed policeandarmsandammunition; or, if the Court shouldbe of opinion thatthere shouldbe a
(e) found,by9 votes to6, that Indiahatinotactedcon- temporarysuspensionof the right, toholdthat that suspen-
traryto itsobligationsresultingfromPortugal'srightofpas- sion shouldendas soonas thecourseofeventsdisclosedthat
sageinrespectofprivatepersons, civilffici~alsndgoodsin thejustificationforthesuspensionhaddisappeared.Portugal
general. hadpreviously invitetheCourttoholdthattheargumentsof
The President andJudges Basdevant,Badawi, Kojevni- India concerning its rightto adoptan attitudeof neutrality,
kov andSpiropoulosappendedDeclarations,tothe Judgment theapplicationof theUnited NationsCharterandtheexist-
of the Court. JudgeWellington Kooappendeda Separate ence in the enclavesof a local governmentwere without
Opinion. JudgesWiniarskiand Badawi appended a Joint foundation. The Coort, however,considered thatit wasno
DissentingOpinion. JudgesArmand-Ugon, MorenoQuin- partof itsjudicial functiontodeclareintheoperativepartof
tana and Sir Percy Spender,andJudgesad ~Soc Chagla and itsJudgment that anyofthoseargumentswasorwas not well
Fernandes,appendedDissenting Opinions. founded.
Continued on next page
52 Before proceedingto the considerationof the Merits, the theMarathas.The Court,however, found that the Marathas
Courthadto ascertainwhetherithadjurisdictionto do so, a did not atanytimecastanydoubtupon thevalidityorbinding
jurisdictionwhichIndiahadexpresslycontested. characterof theTreaty.Indiahad furthercontended that the
InitsFifthPreliminaryObje:ctiontheGovelrnmeno t fIndia Treatyandthetwosanads did notoperateto transfersover-
relieduponthe reservationin its Declarationof 28February eigntyover the assignedvillagesto Portugalbut only con-
1940acceptingthejurisdictiolioftheCourt,whichexcluded ferred, with respect to the villages, a revelnuegrant. The
fromthatjurisdictiondisputeswithregardtoq,uestionswhich Court was unable to concludefrom an examinationof the
byinternationallawfallexclusivelywithinthejurisdictionof various texts of the Treaty of 1779 that the language
India. The court pointedoul:that in the courseof the pro. employed thereinwas intendedto transfersovereignty;the
ceedingsbothPartieshadt&m theirstandongroundswhich expressionsusedinthetwosanads, ontheotherhand, estab-
wereon the planeof internationallaw,andhadon occasion lishedthat what was granted to the Portuguesewas only a
expressly saidso. The fiftholhjectioncouldnotthereforeby revenuetenurecalled ajagir or saranjam, and not a single
upheld. instancehadbeenbrought tothe noticeoftheCourtinwhich
TheSixthPreliminaryObjectionlikewiserelatedto a lim- suchagranthadbeenconstruedasamountingtoacessionof
itationintheDeclarationof 28February1940.India, which There be no question any
hadacceptedthejurisdictionoftheCourt "over alldisputes Or right passageforthe purl10se exercis-
arisingafterFebruary5th, 1930,withregardto situationsor ingsove'reigntyover
facts subsequentto the same date", contendledthat the dis- The Court found that the situation underwent achange
putedid not satisfyeitherofdlesetwocondi1:ionsA . sto the withtheadventofthe Britishas sovereignofthatpartof the
firstcondition,the Court poi.ntedout that thedisputecould country in place of the Marathas: Portugue:sesovereignty
not have arisen until all itsnstituentelementshad come overthe villageshad beenrecognizedby the Britishin fact
into existence;amongthese were the obstacleswhichIndia andby implicationandhadsubsequentlybeentacitly recog-
was allegedto have placed inthewayofexerciseofpassage nizedby India. As a consequence the villageshad acquired
byPortugalin 1954;evenif orilythatpartofthedisputerelat- the characterof Portugueseenclaveswithin Indiantemtory
ing to the Portugueseclaim tc:,a rightof passage.wereto be andtherehaddevelopedbetween the'Portugueseandtheter-
considered, certain incidentshad occurred before1954,but ritorial sovereignwith regard to passage to the enclaves a ,
they had not led the Partiesitoadopt clear1:y-definelegal practiceupon whichPortugalreliedforthe purposeofestab-
positionsasagainsteach othe~;accordingly,therevvasnojus- lishing the right of passage claimed by it. It had been
tificationforsayingthat the:isputearosebefore1954.As to objected on behalf of India that no local custom could be
the secondcondition,the PermanentCourtof International establishedbetweenonly twoStates, but the Court found it
Justice had in 1938 drawn a distinction between the situa- difficultto see why the numberof States betweenwhich a
tions or facts which constitoted the source of the rights local custommightbe establishedon thebasisof long prac-
claimed by one of the Parties, and the situationsor facts tice must necessarilybelargerthan two.
whichwere thesourceofthedispute.Only tbelatterwere to wascommongroundbetweenthemies thatduringthe
betaken intoaccountforthelyurposeof applyingtheDec!a- British and post-British periods the passageof privateper-
ration. The dispute submitted to the Court was one with sons and civil officialshad not beensubjectto any resrric-
regardto the situationof theenclaves,which hadgiven rise tions beyondroutineconmi. ~~~~h~~doith ~er than arms
to Portugal'sclaim to a right of passage and*at the same and ammunitionhad also passedfreelysubjectonly, at cer-
time* with regard to the fiicts of lg54 vvhichPortugal tain times, to customsregulationsand such regulationand
advancedasinfringementsofthatright;itwasfromallofthis controlaswerenecessitatedbyconsiderationsof securityor
that the dispute arose, and this whatevermay have revenue.TheCourtthereforeconcludedthat, withregardto
beentheearlieroriginofoneofitsparts, cameintoexistence privateDersons,civilofficialsandgoodsingeneraltherehad
any findingwhatsoeverwithl=gardto the past prior to that existedaconstantanduniformpracticeallowingfreepassage
date; it was therefore of opinion that the sixth objection betweenDamanand the enclaves;it was, in viewof all the
should not be upheld and19consequently9that it had circumstancesof the case, satisfiedthat that practice had
jurisdiction. been acceptedas law by the Partiesandhad givenrise to a
rightandacorrelativeobligation.
As regards armed forces, armed police and arms and
z ammunition,thepositionwasdifferent.
* * It appearedthat, duringthe Britishand post-British peri-
ods, Portuguese armedforces and armed police had not
On the merits, Indiahad contendedin the first placethat passedbetweenDamanandtheenclavesasofright, andthat
the rightof passage claimedby Portugalwastoo vagueand after 18'78suchPassagecouldonlytakeplacewithprevious
contradictorytoenabletheCcvurttopassjudgmentuponitby authorizationby the British and later by India, accorded
theapplicationofthe legalrulesenumerated i.Article38(1) eitherurlderareciprocalarrangementalreadyagreedto, orin
of the Statute.Therewasno Ijoubtthatthed;y-to-day exer- individualcases:it had beenargued that that permissionwas
ciseoftherightmightgiverisetodelicate questionsofappli- alwaysgranted,but therewasnothingin therecordto show
cationbut that wasnot, in the viewof the Court, sufficient thatgralt of permissionwasincumbenton the Britishor on
groundforholdingthattherightwas notsusceptibleofjudi- Indiaasanobligation-
cia1determination. A treatyof 26December 1878betweenGreatBritain and
Portugalhadreliedonthe %eatyof Poonaof 1779andon Portugal hadlaiddownthat the armedforcesofthe twoGov-
sanuds (decrees)issued by tlie Maratharuler in 1783and ernmentsshouldnotentertheIndiandominionsoftheother,
1785,as having conferred on1Portugalsovereigntyoverthe except in specified cases or in consequence of a formal
enclaveswiththerightofpassagetothem;Indiahadobjected request made by the party desiring such entry. Subsequent
thatwhat wasallegedtobethe:Treatyof1779wasnotvalidly correspondenceshowedthat this provision waa spplicableto
entered intoand neverbecarncin lawa treaty bindingupon passagebetweenDamanandtheenclaves:ithadbeenargued
53on behaifof Portugalthaton twenty-three.occasionsarmed sionofthe BritishcbrIndianauthoritiesrendered it unneces-
forces crossed British territory betweenaman and the saryfortheCourt to'determinewhetherornot,intheabsence
enclaveswithoutobtainingpermission;but in1890,theGov- of the practice that actually prevailed, general international
ernmentof Bombayhadforwardedacompllainttotheeffect customor general principlesof lawrecognizedby civilized
thatarmedmeninthe serviceofthe Portugu~eseovernment nations, which had.also been invokedby Portugal, could
wereinthehabitofpassing withoutformallequestthrougha havebeenrelied uponbyPortugalinsupportofitsclaimto a
portionof Britishtemtory en routefrom Damanto Nagar- rightofpassageinrespectofthesecategories.TheCourtwas
Aveli which wouldappear to constitute a breach of the dealingwithaconc:retecasehavingspecialfeatures:histori-
lteaty; on 22 December, the Governor-Generaolf Portu- cally thecase went backto a period when, and relateto a
gueseIndiahadreplied: "PortuguesetroopsnevercrossBrit- regionin which,thlerelationsbetweenneighbouringStates
ish territory without previous permission", and the were not regulatedby precisely formulatedules but were
Secretary-Generalof the Governmentof I'ortugueseIndia governedlargelybypractice:findingapracticeclearlyestab-
stated on 1 May 1891: "On the part of this Government lishedbetweentwo ;States,whichwasacceptedbytheParties
injunctionswillbe givenfor the strictestotbservaof. . . as governing the relationsbetween them, the Courtmust
theTreaty".Therequirementofaformalrequestbeforepas- attribute decisive effectto that practice. The Court was,
sageofarmedforcescouldtakeplacehadbeenrepeatedin an therefore,of the view that no rightof passagein favourof
agreementof 191 3. Withregardto armedpolice, theTreaty Portugalinvolving acorrelativeobligationonIndiahadbeen
of 1878andtheAgreementof 1913hadregu.latedpassageon establishedin respect of armed forces, armed police and
the basisof reciprocity,andan agreementof 1920had pro- armsandammunition.
videdthatarmed policebelowacertainrankshouldnotenter Havingfound thatPortugalhad,in1954,arightofpassage
the-territoryof the otherparty withoutorlsentpreviously inrespectofprivatepersons, civil officiandgoodsingen-
obtained;finally,an agreementof 1940concerningpassage eral, the Courtlastly proceeded toconsiderwhetherIndia
Nagar-Aveli hadprovidedthat,ifthepartydidnotexceedten hadacted contrarytoitsobligationresultingfromPortugal's
in number, intimationof its passageshouldibe givento the rightofpassageinrespectof anyof these categories.Portu-
British authoritieswithin twenty-fourhou~rs,but that, in gal had not contended that Indiahad actedcontraryto that
other cases, "the existingpractice shouIx followedand obligationbeforeJu.ly1954,but it complainedthat passage
concurrenceof the Britishauthoritishouldbe obtainedby was thereafterdenied to Portuguesenationalsof European
priornotice asheretofore." origin,tonativeIndian Portugueseinthe employofthePor-
tugueseGovernmentandtoadelegationthat theGovernorof
Asregards armsandammunition,the Treatyof 1878and Dadra.TheCourt foundthattheeventswhichhadoccurredd
the importation of arms, ammunitionor military stores in Dadraon 21-22July 1954and whichhad resultedin the
from PortugueseIndia and its export to FbrtugueseIndia overthrowofPortugueseauthorityinthatenclavehadcreated
withouta special licence. Subsequent ractice showedthat tensionin the surrolundingIndiandistrict;having regard to
this provision applied to transit betweenaman and the that tension,theoi~rtwasoftheviewthat India's refusaolf
enclaves. passagewascoveredbyitspowerofregulationandcontrolof
therightofpassage d Portugal.
The finding of the Court that the practice established
betweenthe Partieshad requiredfor the pltssageof armed Forthesereasons,theCourtreached the findings indicated
forces,armed policeandarmsandammunitionthepermis- above.
Summary of the Judgment of 12 April 1960