Culminated
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 28 July 1986, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica and Honduras, respectively, alleging various violations of international law for which the two States bore legal responsibility, particularly on account of certain military activities directed against the Nicaraguan authorities by the contras operating from their territory.
Honduras informed the Court that in its view the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and, after a meeting with the President, the Parties agreed that the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility would be dealt with at a preliminary stage of the proceedings. Once the Parties had filed their written pleadings and taken part in hearings devoted to those questions, the Court delivered its Judgment in the case on 20 December 1988. Nicaragua had relied, as the basis of the jurisdiction of the Court, both on Article XXXI of the Inter American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (known as the “Pact of Bogotá”) of 1948 and on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the Parties under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. The Court found that the Pact of Bogotá conferred jurisdiction upon it. It dismissed the two arguments asserted successively by Honduras in that regard, namely that Article XXXI of the Pact had to be supplemented by a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction or that it could be so supplemented but need not be. The Court found that the first argument was incompatible with the actual terms of Article XXXI. With regard to the second argument, the Court had to consider the divergent interpretations of Article XXXI that were proposed by the Parties, and set aside the interpretation of Honduras according to which, inter alia, effect should be given to the reservations to Honduras’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court that had been introduced into its declaration of 1986. On that point, the Court found that the commitment in Article XXXI of the Pact was independent of the declarations of acceptance of its jurisdiction.
The Court moreover rejected the four objections raised by Honduras to the admissibility of the Application, of which two had a general character and two were derived from the Pact of Bogotá. Subsequently, and after the proceedings on the merits had been initiated and Nicaragua had filed its Memorial, and after the Court, at the request of the Parties, had postponed the date for the fixing of the time limit for the presentation of the Counter Memorial of Honduras, the Agent of Nicaragua, in May 1992, informed the Court that the Parties had reached an out of court agreement and did not wish to go on with the proceedings. On 27 May 1992, the Court made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the General List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
23 February 1987
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
22 June 1987
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
21 March 1988
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments on the Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 6 to 15 June and on 20 December 1988, President Ruda presiding
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Other documents
13 August 1987
Available in:
8 July 1988
Available in:
19 July 1988
Available in:
27 July 1988
Available in:
Orders
Fixing of time-limit: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Jurisdiction and Admissibility)
Available in:
Withdrawal of Request for the indication of Provisional Measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Judgments
Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
29 July 1986
Two new cases are brought to the Court: Nicaragua institutes proceedings against Costa Rica and against Honduras
Available in:
3 September 1986
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Costa Rica appoints an Agent
Available in:
24 October 1986
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
24 February 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Jurisdiction and admissibility - Filing of the Memorial of Honduras
Available in:
26 June 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Filing of the Counter-Memorial of Honduras
Available in:
14 August 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Parties request postponement of the opening of oral proceedings
Available in:
22 March 1988
Nicaragua requests provisional measures in its case against Honduras
Available in:
31 March 1988
Nicaragua withdraws request for provisional measures in its case against Honduras
Available in:
4 May 1988
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Hearing to open on Monday 6 June 1988
Available in:
20 December 1988
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
6 September 1989
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Extension of time-limit for Memorial
Available in:
15 December 1989
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Postponement of fixing of time-limit for Counter-Memorial
Available in:
27 May 1992
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - Removal of the case from the Court's list
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
On 28 July 1986, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica and Honduras, respectively, alleging various violations of international law for which the two States bore legal responsibility, particularly on account of certain military activities directed against the Nicaraguan authorities by the contras operating from their territory.
In this case, Nicaragua proceeded to file its Memorial on the merits on 10 August 1987. Subsequently, by a communication dated 12 August 1987, Nicaragua, referring to an agreement signed on 7 August 1987 at Guatemala City by the Presidents of the five States of Central America (the “Esquipulas II” Agreement), declared that it was discontinuing the judicial proceedings instituted against Costa Rica. Costa Rica did not object to the discontinuance, and the case was removed from the General List by an Order of the President dated 19 August 1987.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
Orders
Press releases
3 September 1986
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Costa Rica appoints an Agent
Available in:
24 October 1986
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings
Available in:
22 July 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Extension of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
12 August 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Request for discontinuance
Available in:
19 August 1987
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Removal of the case from 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 14 October 1983 Burkina Faso (then known as Upper Volta) and Mali notified to the Court a Special Agreement referring to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of part of the land frontier between the two States. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 3 April 1985. Following grave incidents between the armed forces of the two countries at the very end of 1985, both Parties submitted parallel requests to the Chamber for the indication of interim measures of protection. The Chamber indicated such measures by an Order of 10 January 1986.
In its Judgment delivered on 22 December 1986, the Chamber began by ascertaining the source of the rights claimed by the Parties. It noted that, in that case, the principles that ought to be applied were the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization and the principle of uti possidetis juris, which accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and whose primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time when independence was achieved. The Chamber specified that, when those boundaries were no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign, the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris resulted in their being transformed into international frontiers, as in the instant case.
It also indicated that it would have regard to equity infra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law and which is based on law. The Parties also relied upon various types of evidence to give support to their arguments, including French legislative and regulative texts or administrative documents, maps and “colonial effectivités” or, in other words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period. Having considered those various kinds of evidence, the Chamber defined the course of the boundary between the Parties in the disputed area. The Chamber likewise took the opportunity to point out, with respect to the tripoint Niger-Mali-Burkina Faso, that its jurisdiction was not restricted simply because the endpoint of the frontier lay on the frontier of a third State not a party to the proceedings. It further pointed out that the rights of Niger were in any event safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the Statute of the Court.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
30 December 1985
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 9 and 10 January 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 26 June and on 22 December 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of Provisional Measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
25 October 1983
Upper Volta and Mali bring a case before the Court
Available in:
10 April 1985
The Court forms a Chamber to deal with the case submitted by Burkina Faso and Mali
Available in:
22 April 1985
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Chamber to hold first public sitting
Available in:
1 May 1985
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judge Mohamed Bedjaoui elected President of the Chamber formed to deal with the case - Solemn declarations of Judges ad hoc François Luchaire and Georges Michel Abi-Saab
Available in:
6 January 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Chamber of Court to hear Burkina Faso and Mali on possible indication of provisional measures
Available in:
10 January 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali)
Available in:
3 April 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Filing of Counter-Memorials by the Parties
Available in:
5 June 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Hearing to open on Monday 16 June 1986
Available in:
30 June 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
12 December 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judgment to be delivered in Frontier Dispute case between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali
Available in:
22 December 1986
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
16 January 1987
Reactions to the Judgment of 22 December 1986 in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 25 November 1981, Canada and the United States notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby they referred to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of the maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and fisheries zones of the two Parties in the Gulf of Maine area. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 20 January 1982, and it was the first time that a case had been heard by an ad hoc Chamber of the Court.
The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 12 October 1984. Having established its jurisdiction and defined the area to be delimited, it reviewed the origin and development of the dispute and laid down the principles and rules of international law governing the issue. It indicated that the delimitation was to be effected by the application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographical configuration of the area and the other relevant circumstances, an equitable result. It rejected the delimitation lines proposed by the Parties, and defined the criteria and methods which it considered to be applicable to the single delimitation line which it was asked to draw. It applied criteria of a primarily geographical nature, and used geometrical methods appropriate both for the delimitation of the sea-bed and for that of the superjacent waters. As for the plotting of the delimitation line, the Chamber distinguished between three segments, the first two lying within the Gulf of Maine and the third outside it. In the case of the first segment, it considered that there was no special circumstance precluding the division into equal parts of the overlapping of the maritime projections of the two States’ coasts. The delimitation line runs from the starting-point agreed between the Parties, and is the bisector of the angle formed by the perpendicular to the coastal line running from Cape Elizabeth to the existing boundary terminus and the perpendicular to the coastal line running from that boundary terminus to Cape Sable. For the second segment, the Chamber considered that, in view of the quasi-parallelism between the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, a median line should be drawn approximately parallel to the two opposite coasts, and should then be corrected to take account of (a) the difference in length between the coasts of the two States abutting on the delimitation area and (b) the presence of Seal Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. The delimitation line corresponds to the corrected median line from its intersection with the above-mentioned bisector to the point where it reaches the closing line of the Gulf. The third segment is situated in the open ocean, and consists of a perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf from the point at which the corrected median line intersects with that line. The terminus of this final segment lies within the triangle defined by the Parties and coincides with the last point of overlapping of the respective 200-mile zones claimed by the two States. The co-ordinates of the line drawn by the Chamber are given in the operative part of the Judgment.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 29 January 1982 and from 2 to 19 April 1984, President of the Chamber, Judge Ago, presiding
Available in:
Oral Arguments (Concluded) - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 3 to 11 May and on 12 October 1984, President of the Chamber, Judge Ago, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
27 February 1984
Available in:
5 May 1984
Available in:
Orders
Constitution of Chamber
Available in:
Judgments
Judgment of 12 October 1984 given by the Chamber constituted by the order made by the Court on 20 January 1982
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
26 November 1981
Canada and the United States bring a case before the Court
Available in:
26 January 1982
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - The Court forms a chamber to deal with the case submitted by Canada and the United States
Available in:
27 January 1982
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - The Chamber formed to deal with the case is to hold an opening meeting at 11 a.m. on Friday, 29 January 1982
Available in:
3 February 1982
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Judge Roberto Ago elected President of the Chamber formed to deal with the case - Fixing of time-limit for the filing of Memorials
Available in:
11 November 1982
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Time-Limit Fixed for the Filing of Counter-Memorials
Available in:
28 June 1983
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Filing of Counter-Memorials
Available in:
29 July 1983
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Time-Limit Fixed for the Filing of Replies
Available in:
14 December 1983
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Filing of Replies
Available in:
5 March 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Opening of oral proceedings
Available in:
28 March 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Hearing to open on Monday 2 April 1984 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
10 April 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Hearing in Progress
Available in:
19 April 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Hearing in Progress
Available in:
14 May 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Closure of hearing
Available in:
5 October 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Judgment to be delivered on Friday 12 October 1984
Available in:
10 October 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Judgment to be delivered on Friday 12 October 1984 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
12 October 1984
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
These cases concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf of the North Sea as between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany, and as between the Netherlands and the Federal Republic, and were submitted to the Court by Special Agreement. The Parties asked the Court to state the principles and rules of international law applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the delimitations on that basis. By an Order of 26 April 1968 the Court, having found Denmark and the Netherlands to be in the same interest, joined the proceedings in the two cases. In its Judgment, delivered on 20 February 1969, the Court found that the boundary lines in question were to be drawn by agreement between the Parties and in accordance with equitable principles in such a way as to leave to each Party those areas of the continental shelf which constituted the natural prolongation of its land territory under the sea, and it indicated certain factors to be taken into consideration for that purpose. The Court rejected the contention that the delimitations in question had to be carried out in accordance with the principle of equidistance as defined in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Court took account of the fact that the Federal Republic had not ratified that Convention, and held that the equidistance principle was not inherent in the basic concept of continental shelf rights, and that this principle was not a rule of customary international law.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
21 August 1967
Available in:
20 February 1968
Available in:
30 August 1968
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 23 October to 11 November 1968 and on 20 February 1969, the President, M. Bustamante y Rivero, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
2 October 1968
Available in:
5 November 1968
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 March 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Désignation des agents (French version only)
Available in:
23 March 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Fixation des dates d'expiration des délais pour le dépôt des pièces de procédure écrite (French version only)
Available in:
21 August 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (République fédérale d'Allemagne/Pays-Bas) - Dépôt du mémoire de l'Allemagne (French version only)
Available in:
12 March 1968
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Fixation des dates d'expiration des délais pour le dépôt des pièces de procédure écrite (French version only)
Available in:
3 May 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Ordonnance sur la cause commune (French version only)
Available in:
2 October 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Début des audiences publiques le 23 octobre 1968 (French version only)
Available in:
21 October 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Déclaration solennelle des juges ad hoc (French version only)
Available in:
5 November 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark c. République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas c. République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Audiences publiques (French version only)
Available in:
12 November 1968
Clôture de la procédure orale dans les affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark c. République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas c. République fédérale d'Allemagne)(French version only)
Available in:
15 February 1969
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (République fédérale d'Allemagne/Danemark; République fédérale d'Allemagne/Pays-Bas) - Rendu de la décision de la Cour (French version only)
Available in:
20 February 1969
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord - Rendu de l'arrêt (French version only)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
These cases concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf of the North Sea as between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany, and as between the Netherlands and the Federal Republic, and were submitted to the Court by Special Agreement. The Parties asked the Court to state the principles and rules of international law applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the delimitations on that basis. By an Order of 26 April 1968 the Court, having found Denmark and the Netherlands to be in the same interest, joined the proceedings in the two cases. In its Judgment, delivered on 20 February 1969, the Court found that the boundary lines in question were to be drawn by agreement between the Parties and in accordance with equitable principles in such a way as to leave to each Party those areas of the continental shelf which constituted the natural prolongation of its land territory under the sea, and it indicated certain factors to be taken into consideration for that purpose. The Court rejected the contention that the delimitations in question had to be carried out in accordance with the principle of equidistance as defined in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Court took account of the fact that the Federal Republic had not ratified that Convention, and held that the equidistance principle was not inherent in the basic concept of continental shelf rights, and that this principle was not a rule of customary international law.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
21 August 1967
Available in:
20 February 1968
Available in:
30 August 1968
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 23 October to 11 November 1968 and on 20 February 1969, the President, M. Bustamante y Rivero, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
2 October 1968
Available in:
5 November 1968
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 March 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Désignation des agents (French version only)
Available in:
23 March 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Fixation des dates d'expiration des délais pour le dépôt des pièces de procédure écrite (French version only)
Available in:
21 August 1967
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Dépôt du mémoire de l'Allemagne (French version only)
Available in:
12 March 1968
Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Fixation des dates d'expiration des délais pour le dépôt des pièces de procédure écrite (French version only)
Available in:
3 May 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Ordonnance sur la cause commune (French version only)
Available in:
2 October 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Début des audiences publiques le 23 octobre 1968 (French version only)
Available in:
21 October 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark/République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas/République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Déclaration solennelle des juges ad hoc (French version only)
Available in:
5 November 1968
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark c. République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas c. République fédérale d'Allemagne) - Audiences publiques (French version only)
Available in:
12 November 1968
Clôture de la procédure orale dans les affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (Danemark c. République fédérale d'Allemagne; Pays-Bas c. République fédérale d'Allemagne) (French version only)
Available in:
15 February 1969
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (République fédérale d'Allemagne/Danemark; République fédérale d'Allemagne/Pays-Bas) - Rendu de la décision de la Cour (French version only)
Available in:
20 February 1969
Affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord - Rendu de l'arrêt (French version only)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 10 August 1976, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in a dispute over the Aegean Sea continental shelf. It asked the Court in particular to declare that the Greek islands in the area were entitled to their lawful portion of continental shelf and to delimit the respective parts of that shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey. At the same time, it requested provisional measures indicating that, pending the Court’s judgment, neither State should, without the other’s consent, engage in exploration or research with respect to the shelf in question. On 11 September 1976, the Court found that the indication of such measures was not required and, as Turkey had denied that the Court was competent, ordered that the proceedings should first concern the question of jurisdiction. In a Judgment delivered on 19 December 1978, the Court found that jurisdiction to deal with the case was not conferred upon it by either of the two instruments relied upon by Greece : the application of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva, 1928) — whether or not it was in force — was excluded by the effect of a reservation made by Greece upon accession, while the Greco-Turkish press communiqué of 31 May 1975 did not contain an agreement binding upon either State to accept the unilateral referral of the dispute to the Court.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.