Intervention
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 11 December 1986, El Salvador and Honduras notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby the Parties requested the Court to form a Chamber — consisting of three Members of the Court and two judges ad hoc — in order to (1) delimit the frontier line in the six sectors not delimited by the 1980 General Treaty of Peace concluded between the two States in 1980 and (2) determine the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf of Fonseca and the maritime spaces within and outside it. That Chamber was constituted by an Order of 8 May 1987. The time-limits for the written proceedings were fixed, but extended several times at the request of the Parties.
In November 1989, Nicaragua addressed to the Court an Application under Article 62 of the Statute for permission to intervene in the case, stating that, while it had no desire to intervene in the dispute concerning the land boundary, it wished to protect its rights in the Gulf of Fonseca (of which the three States are riparians), as well as “in order to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights of Nicaragua which are in issue in the dispute”. Nicaragua further maintained that its request for permission to intervene was a matter exclusively within the procedural mandate of the full Court. The Court, by an Order adopted on 28 February 1990, found that it was for the Chamber formed to deal with the case to decide whether the Application for permission to intervene should be granted. Having heard the Parties and Nicaragua at a series of public sittings, the Chamber delivered its Judgment on 13 September 1990. It found that Nicaragua had shown that it had an interest of a legal nature which might be affected by part of the Judgment of the Chamber on the merits, with regard to the legal régime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca.
The Chamber on the other hand decided that Nicaragua had not shown such an interest which might be affected by any decision it might be required to make concerning the delimitation of those waters, or any decision as to the legal situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf or any decision as to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf. Within the framework thus defined, the Chamber decided that Nicaragua was entitled to intervene in the case. A written statement of Nicaragua and written observations on that statement by El Salvador and Honduras were subsequently filed with the Court. The oral arguments of the Parties and the oral observations of Nicaragua were heard at 50 public sittings, held between April and June 1991. The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 11 September 1992.
The Chamber began by noting the agreement of both Parties that the fundamental principle for determining the land area is the uti possidetis juris, i.e., the principle, generally accepted in Spanish America, that international boundaries follow former colonial administrative boundaries. The Chamber was, moreover, authorized to take into account, where pertinent, a provision of the 1980 Peace Treaty that a basis for delimitation is to be found in documents issued by the Spanish Crown or any other Spanish authority during the colonial period, and indicating the jurisdictions or limits of territories, as well as other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind. Noting that the Parties had invoked the exercise of government powers in the disputed areas and of other forms of effectivités, the Chamber considered that it might have regard to evidence of action of this kind affording indications of the uti possidetis juris boundary. The Chamber then considered successively, from west to east, each of the six disputed sectors of the land boundary, to which some 152 pages were specifically devoted.
With regard to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf, the Chamber considered that, although it had jurisdiction to determine the legal situation of all the islands, a judicial determination was required only for those in dispute, which it found to be El Tigre, Meanguera and Meanguerita. It rejected Honduras’s claim that there was no real dispute as to El Tigre. Noting that in legal theory each island appertained to one of the Gulf States by succession from Spain, which precluded acquisition by occupation, the Chamber observed that effective possession by one of the States could constitute a post-colonial effectivité shedding light on the legal situation. Since Honduras had occupied El Tigre since 1849, the Chamber concluded that the conduct of the Parties accorded with the assumption that El Tigre appertained to it. The Chamber found Meanguerita, which is very small, uninhabited and contiguous to Meanguera, to be a “dependency” of Meanguera. It noted that El Salvador had claimed Meanguera in 1854 and that from the late nineteenth century the presence there of El Salvador had intensified, as substantial documentary evidence of the administration of Meanguera by El Salvador showed. A protest in 1991 by Honduras to El Salvador over Meanguera was considered too late to affect the presumption of acquiescence by Honduras. The Chamber thus found that Meanguera and Meanguerita appertained to El Salvador.
With respect to the maritime spaces within the Gulf, El Salvador claimed that they were subject to a condominium of the three coastal States and that delimitation would hence be inappropriate ; Honduras argued that within the Gulf there was a community of interests necessitating a judicial delimitation. Applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation to the Special Agreement and the Peace Treaty, the Chamber found that it had no jurisdiction to effect a delimitation, whether inside or outside the Gulf. As for the legal situation of the waters of the Gulf, the Chamber noted that, given its characteristics, the Gulf was generally acknowledged to be a historic bay. The Chamber examined the history of the Gulf to discover its “régime”, taking into account the 1917 Judgment of the Central American Court of Justice in a case between El Salvador and Nicaragua concerning the Gulf. In its Judgment, the Central American Court had found inter alia that the Gulf was a historic bay possessing the characteristics of a closed sea. Noting that the coastal States continued to claim the Gulf as a historic bay with the character of a closed sea, a position in which other nations acquiesced, the Chamber observed that its views on the régime of the historic waters of the Gulf coincided with those expressed in the 1917 Judgment. It found that the Gulf waters, other than the three-mile maritime belt, were historic waters and subject to the joint sovereignty of the three coastal States. It noted that there had been no attempt to divide the waters according to the principle of uti possidetis juris. A joint succession of the three States to the maritime area thus seemed to be the logical outcome of the uti possidetis principle. The Chamber accordingly found that Honduras had legal rights in the waters up to the bay closing line, which it considered also to be a baseline.
Regarding the waters outside the Gulf, the Chamber observed that entirely new concepts of law, unthought of when the Central American Court gave its Judgment in 1917, were involved, in particular those regarding the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, and found that, excluding a strip at either extremity corresponding to the maritime belts of El Salvador and Nicaragua, the three joint sovereigns were entitled, outside the closing line, to a territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, but must proceed to a division by mutual agreement. Lastly, as regards the effect of the Judgment on the intervening State, the Chamber found that it was not res judicata for Nicaragua.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
1 June 1988
Available in:
10 February 1989
Available in:
17 November 1989
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
8 January 1990
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
12 January 1990
Available in:
15 January 1990
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
14 March 1991
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 5 June 1990, at 11 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 5 June 1990, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 6 June 1990, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 7 June 1990, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 8 June 1990, at 2 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Reading of the Judgment - Public sitting of the Chamber held on 13 September 1990, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 15 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 16 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 17 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 18 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 19 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 22 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 23 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 24 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 25 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 26 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 1 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 2 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 3 May 1991, 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 3 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 6 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 7 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 8 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 9 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 9 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 10 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 13 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 14 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 14 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 15 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 16 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 17 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 21 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 22 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 23 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 27 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 28 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 28 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 29 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 29 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 30 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 31 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 31 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 3 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 4 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 5 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 5 June 1991, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 6 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 7 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 10 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 10 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 11 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 12 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 13 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 13 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 14 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Reading of the Judgment - Public sitting of the Chamber held on 11 September 1992 at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
5 September 1990
Available in:
Orders
Application for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Written Statement and Written observations
Available in:
Judgments
Application by Nicaragua for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
11 December 1986
El Salvador and Honduras bring a case to the Court
Available in:
11 May 1987
The Court forms a Chamber to deal with the case brought by El Salvador and Honduras
Available in:
15 May 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Composition of the Court
Available in:
3 June 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Judge José Sette-Camara elected President of the Chamber formed to deal with the case - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
2 November 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Chamber to hold first public sitting
Available in:
10 November 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Inaugural public Sitting of the Chamber
Available in:
1 June 1988
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Filing of Memorials
Available in:
15 January 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Filing of the Replies
Available in:
6 March 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Application for permission to intervene - Decision of the Court
Available in:
30 May 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Hearings to open on Tuesday 5 June 1990 on Nicaragua's Application for permission to intervene in the case
Available in:
11 June 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
5 September 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Chamber to deliver a Judgment on Thursday, 13 September 1990 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
13 September 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
2 October 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of additional written pleadings
Available in:
18 June 1991
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Conclusion of the hearings
Available in:
17 August 1992
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Judgment to be delivered on Friday 11 September 1992 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
11 September 1992
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 9 April 1984 Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America, together with a Request for the indication of provisional measures concerning a dispute relating to responsibility for military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. On 10 May 1984 the Court made an Order indicating provisional measures. One of these measures required the United States immediately to cease and refrain from any action restricting access to Nicaraguan ports, and, in particular, the laying of mines. The Court also indicated that the right to sovereignty and to political independence possessed by Nicaragua, like any other State, should be fully respected and should not be jeopardized by activities contrary to the principle prohibiting the threat or use of force and to the principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. The Court also decided in the aforementioned Order that the proceedings would first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the Nicaraguan Application. Just before the closure of the written proceedings in this phase, El Salvador filed a declaration of intervention in the case under Article 63 of the Statute, requesting permission to claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application. In its Order dated 4 October 1984, the Court decided that El Salvador’s declaration of intervention was inadmissible inasmuch as it related to the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings.
After hearing argument from both Parties in the course of public hearings held from 8 to 18 October 1984, on 26 November 1984 the Court delivered a Judgment stating that it possessed jurisdiction to deal with the case and that Nicaragua’s Application was admissible. In particular, it held that the Nicaraguan declaration of 1929 was valid and that Nicaragua was therefore entitled to invoke the United States declaration of 1946 as a basis of the Court’s jurisdiction (Article 36, paragraphs 2 and 5, of the Statute). The subsequent proceedings took place in the absence of the United States, which announced on 18 January 1985 that it “intends not to participate in any further proceedings in connection with this case”. From 12 to 20 September 1985, the Court heard oral argument by Nicaragua and the testimony of the five witnesses it had called. On 27 June 1986, the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits. The findings included a rejection of the justification of collective self‑defence advanced by the United States concerning the military or paramilitary activities in or against Nicaragua, and a statement that the United States had violated the obligations imposed by customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State, not to use force against another State, not to infringe the sovereignty of another State, and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. The Court also found that the United States had violated certain obligations arising from a bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956, and that it had committed acts such to deprive that treaty of its object and purpose.
It decided that the United States was under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all acts constituting breaches of its legal obligations, and that it must make reparation for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law and the 1956 Treaty, the amount of that reparation to be fixed in subsequent proceedings if the Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Court subsequently fixed, by an Order, time‑limits for the filing of written pleadings by the Parties on the matter of the form and amount of reparation, and the Memorial of Nicaragua was filed on 29 March 1988, while the United States maintained its refusal to take part in the case. In September 1991, Nicaragua informed the Court, inter alia, that it did not wish to continue the proceedings. The United States told the Court that it welcomed the discontinuance and, by an Order of the President dated 26 September 1991, the case was removed from the Court’s List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
9 April 1984
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
30 June 1984
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
15 August 1984
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
17 August 1984
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
10 September 1984
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 25 and 27 April and 10 May 1984, President Elias presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 8 to 18 October and 26 November 1984, President Elias presiding
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Oral Arguments on the Merits - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 12 to 20 September 1985 and on 27 June 1986, President Nagendra Singh presiding
Available in:
Other documents
8 October 1984
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
13 September 1985
Available in:
15 October 1985
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of Provisional Measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Jurisdiction and Admissibility)
Available in:
Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Merits)
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Reparation)
Available in:
Judgments
Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Merits
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 April 1984
Nicaragua Institutes Proceedings against the United States of America
Available in:
13 April 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Appointment of Agents by Nicaragua and the United States of America
Available in:
16 April 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - The President of the Court appeals to both Parties
Available in:
18 April 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Public hearing to be held on Wednesday 25 April 1984 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
28 April 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Conclusion of the public hearings
Available in:
7 May 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Request for the indication of interim measures of protection - Court to give its decision on Thursday 10 May 1984 at 12 noon
Available in:
10 May 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - The International Court of Justice indicates provisional measures
Available in:
15 May 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Jurisdiction of the Court - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
2 July 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Filing of the Counter-Memorial of the United States of America
Available in:
16 August 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - El Salvador requests permission to intervene
Available in:
17 August 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - The United States has filed its Counter-Memorial
Available in:
27 September 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Hearing to open on 8 October 1984
Available in:
5 October 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Declaration of Intervention of El Salvador
Available in:
8 October 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Opening of the public hearings
Available in:
10 October 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Hearing in Progress
Available in:
18 October 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Closure of hearing
Available in:
19 November 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Judgment to be delivered on Monday, 26 November at 10 a.m.
Available in:
26 November 1984
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
23 January 1985
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Proceedings on the merits
Available in:
26 June 1985
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Hearing to open on the merits
Available in:
10 September 1985
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Hearing to open on the merits
Available in:
18 September 1985
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Progress of Public Hearings
Available in:
23 September 1985
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
13 June 1986
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Judgment on the merits to be delivered on Friday, 27 June at 9.30 a.m.
Available in:
27 June 1986
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
20 November 1987
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Reparation - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
30 March 1988
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Filing of the Memorial of Nicaragua
Available in:
1 August 1988
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Filing of a Counter-Memorial by the United States of America
Available in:
29 June 1990
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Postponement of oral proceedings on compensation
Available in:
27 September 1991
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) - Removal of the case of the Court's list
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case, which was submitted to the Court in 1982 by Special Agreement between Libya and Malta, related to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of these two States. In support of its argument, Libya relied on the principle of natural prolongation and the concept of proportionality. Malta maintained that States’ rights over areas of continental shelf were now governed by the concept of distance from the coast, which was held to confer a primacy on the equidistance method of defining boundaries between areas of continental shelf, particularly when these appertained to States lying directly opposite each other, as in the case of Malta and Libya. The Court found that, in view of developments in the law relating to the rights of States over areas of continental shelf, there was no reason to assign a role to geographical or geophysical factors when the distance between the two States was less than 400 miles (as in the instant case). It also considered that the equidistance method did not have to be used and was not the only appropriate delimitation technique. The Court defined a number of equitable principles and applied them in its Judgment of 3 June 1985, in the light of the relevant circumstances. It took account of the main features of the coasts, the difference in their lengths and the distance between them. It took care to avoid any excessive disproportion between the continental shelf appertaining to a State and the length of its coastline, and adopted the solution of a median line transposed northwards over a certain distance. In the course of the proceedings, Italy applied for permission to intervene, claiming that it had an interest of a legal nature under Article 62 of the Statute. The Court found that the intervention requested by Italy fell, by virtue of its object, into a category which — on Italy’s own showing — was one which could not be accepted, and the Application was accordingly refused.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
24 October 1983
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
5 December 1983
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 25 to 30 January and 21 March 1984, President Elias presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 26 November to 3 December 1984, President Elias presiding
Available in:
Oral Arguments (concluded) - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 6 to 14 December 1984, from 4 to 22 February 1985 and on 3 June 1985, President Elias presiding
Available in:
Other documents
6 February 1984
Available in:
6 February 1984
Available in:
12 July 1984
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Application by Italy for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
27 July 1982
A new case is submitted to the Court - Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)
Available in:
9 May 1983
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Filing of Memorials and Fixing of Time-limit for Counter-Memorials
Available in:
11 October 1983
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Solemn Declaration by two judges ad hoc
Available in:
25 October 1983
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Application by the Government of Italy for permission to intervene
Available in:
19 January 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Hearing to open on Wednesday 25 January 1984 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
1 February 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - (Request by Italy for permission to intervene) - Closure of oral proceedings
Available in:
15 March 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Court to give its Judgment on Wednesday 21 March 1984 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
19 November 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Hearing to open on 26 November 1984 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
4 December 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - First stage of the oral proceedings
Available in:
14 December 1984
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Hearing in progress
Available in:
28 January 1985
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - The Court resumes the oral proceedings
Available in:
22 February 1985
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
21 May 1985
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Court to give its Judgment on 3 June 1985
Available in:
3 June 1985
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
By a Special Agreement notified to the Court in 1978, it was asked to determine what principles and rules of international law were applicable to the delimitation as between Tunisia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of the respective areas of continental shelf appertaining to each. After considering arguments as well as evidence based on geology, physiography and bathymetry on the basis of which each party sought to support its claims to particular areas of the sea-bed as the natural prolongation of its land territory, the Court concluded, in a Judgment of 24 February 1982, that the two countries abutted on a common continental shelf and that physical criteria were therefore of no assistance for the purpose of delimitation. Hence it had to be guided by “equitable principles” (as to which it emphasized that this term cannot be interpreted in the abstract, but only as referring to the principles and rules which may be appropriate in order to achieve an equitable result) and by certain factors such as the necessity of ensuring a reasonable degree of proportionality between the areas allotted and the lengths of the coastlines concerned.
The Court found that the application of the equidistance method could not, in the particular circumstances of the case, lead to an equitable result. With respect to the course to be taken by the delimitation line, it distinguished two sectors : near the shore, it considered, having taken note of some evidence of historical agreement as to the maritime boundary, that the delimitation (beginning at the boundary point of Ras Adjir) should run in a north-easterly direction at an angle of approximately 26° ; further seawards, it considered that the line of delimitation should veer eastwards at a bearing of 52° to take into account the change of direction of the Tunisian coast to the north of the Gulf of Gabes and the existence of the Kerkennah Islands, to which a “half-effect” was attributed.
During the course of the proceedings, Malta requested permission to intervene, claiming an interest of a legal nature under Article 62 of the Court’s Statute. In view of the very character of the intervention for which permission was sought, the Court considered that the interest of a legal nature which Malta had invoked could not be affected by the decision in the case and that the request was not one to which, under Article 62, the Court might accede. It therefore rejected it.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
30 January 1981
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
2 February 1981
Available in:
25 February 1981
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments on the Application for Permission to Intervene - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 19 to 23 March and on 14 April 1981, President Sir Humphrey Waldock, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 25 September 1981, Acting President Elias presiding
Available in:
Oral Arguments (Concluded) - Minutes of the Public Sittings held from 29 September to 21 October 1981 and on 24 February 1982, Acting President Elias presiding
Available in:
Other documents
14 March 1981
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
30 September 1981
Available in:
21 October 1981
Available in:
21 October 1981
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Application by Malta for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
1 December 1978
Tunisia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya bring a case before the Court
Available in:
20 February 1979
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Time-limit for the filing of the Memorials
Available in:
10 June 1980
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Filing of Memorials and fixing of time-limits for Counter-Memorials
Available in:
9 February 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Filing of Counter-Memorials by the Parties, and of an Application by the Government of Malta for permission to intervene
Available in:
13 March 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Hearings to open on Thursday 19 March 1981 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
24 March 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - (Request by Malta for permission to intervene) - Closure of oral proceedings
Available in:
11 April 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Court to give its decision on Tuesday 14 April 1981
Available in:
14 April 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
22 April 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Time-Limits fixed for the filing of Replies
Available in:
10 September 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Hearing to open on Wednesday 16 September 1981 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
25 September 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Progress of the hearing
Available in:
9 October 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Progress of the hearing
Available in:
21 October 1981
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Closure of the hearing
Available in:
18 February 1982
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Court to give its Judgment on Wednesday 24 February 1982
Available in:
24 February 1982
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 9 May 1973, Australia and New Zealand each instituted proceedings against France concerning tests of nuclear weapons which France proposed to carry out in the atmosphere in the South Pacific region. France stated that it considered the Court manifestly to lack jurisdiction and refrained from appearing at the public hearings or filing any pleadings. By two Orders of 22 June 1973, the Court, at the request of Australia and New Zealand, indicated provisional measures to the effect, inter alia, that pending judgment France should avoid nuclear tests causing radioactive fall-out on Australian or New Zealand territory. By two Judgments delivered on 20 December 1974, the Court found that the Applications of Australia and New Zealand no longer had any object and that it was therefore not called upon to give any decision thereon. In so doing the Court based itself on the conclusion that the objective of Australia and New Zealand had been achieved inasmuch as France, in various public statements, had announced its intention of carrying out no further atmospheric nuclear tests on the completion of the 1974 series.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
14 May 1973
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
18 May 1973
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
29 October 1973
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Pease Palace, The Hague, on 24 and 25 May 1973, President Lachs presiding, and on 22 June 1973, Vice-President Ammoun presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 10 and 11 July and 20 December 1974, President Lachs presiding
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Other documents
1 June 1973
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of measures of protection and fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Application by Fiji for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Application by Fiji for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Judgments
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
14 May 1973
Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle-Zélande c. France) - La Nouvelle-Zélande demande à la Cour d'indiquer des mesures conservatoires (French version only)
Available in:
17 May 1973
Essais nucléaires - La France n'accepte pas la juridiction de la Cour (French version only)
Available in:
17 May 1973
Essais nucléaires - Les audiences s'ouvriront le lundi 21 mai à 15 heures (French version only)
Available in:
18 May 1973
Essais nucléaires - Composition des délégations (French version only)
Available in:
25 May 1973
Essais nucléaires - Audiences du 21 au 25 mai 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
20 June 1973
Essais nucléaires - Le rendu des décisions de la Cour sur les demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires aura lieu le vendredi 22 juin 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
22 June 1973
Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle Zélande c. France) - La Cour internationale de Justice indique des mesures conservatoires (French version only)
Available in:
12 July 1973
Essais nucléaires - Requêtes à fin d'intervention (French version only)
Available in:
8 August 1973
Essais nucléaires - Déclarations publiées dans la presse (French version only)
Available in:
7 September 1973
Suite de la procédure dans l'affaire des Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle Zélande c. France) (French version only)
Available in:
24 June 1974
Essais nucléaires - Début des audiences le jeudi 4 juillet 1974 (French version only)
Available in:
9 July 1974
Essais nucléaires - Composition des délégations (French version only)
Available in:
11 July 1974
Essais nucléaires - Audiences des 10 et 11 juillet 1974 (French version only)
Available in:
16 December 1974
La Cour rendra ses arrêts dans les deux affaires des Essais nucléaires le vendredi 20 décembre 1974 à 15 heures (French version only)
Available in:
20 December 1974
Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France) - Arrêt de la Cour (French version only)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case, a sequel to the earlier proceedings, was instituted by Colombia by means of a fresh Application. Immediately after the Judgment of 20 November 1950, Peru had called upon Colombia to surrender Mr. Haya de la Torre. Colombia refused to do so, maintaining that neither the applicable legal provisions nor the Court’s Judgment placed it under an obligation to surrender the refugee to the Peruvian authorities. The Court confirmed this view in its Judgment of 13 June 1951. It declared that the question was a new one, and that although the Havana Convention expressly prescribed the surrender of common criminals to the local authorities, no obligation of the kind existed in regard to political offenders. While confirming that diplomatic asylum had been irregularly granted and that on this ground Peru was entitled to demand its termination, the Court declared that Colombia was not bound to surrender the refugee ; these two conclusions, it stated, were not contradictory because there were other ways in which the asylum could be terminated besides the surrender of the refugee.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.