INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING TERRITORIAL
AND MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN
NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS
IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS)
JUDGMENT OF 8 OCTOBER 2007
2007
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DU DIFFEuREND
TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME ENTRE
LE NICARAGUA ET LE HONDURAS
DANS LA MER DES CARABES
(NICARAGUA c. HONDURAS)
ARRE|T DU 8 OCTOBRE 2007
Official citation :
Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras
in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 659
Mode officiel de citation :
Diffrend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras
dans la mer des Carabes (Nicaragua c. Honduras),
arrt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007, p. 659
ISSN 0074-4441
ISBN 978-92-1-071035-0
Sales number
No de vente :
928
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN NICARAGUA
AND HONDURAS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS)
DIFFEuREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME ENTRE LE NICARAGUA
ET LE HONDURAS DANS LA MER DES CARABES
(NICARAGUA c. HONDURAS)
8 OCTOBER 2007
JUDGMENT
8 OCTOBRE 2007
ARRT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
1. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-19
2. GEOGRAPHY 20-32
2.1. Configuration of the Nicaraguan and Honduran coasts 20-30
2.2. Geomorphology of the mouth of the River Coco 31-32
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 33-71
4. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES: A GENERAL OVERVIEW 72-103
4.1. Subject-matter of the dispute 72-73
4.2. Sovereignty over the islands in the area in dispute 74-82
4.3. Maritime delimitation beyond the territorial sea 83-98
4.3.1. Nicaraguas line : bisector method 83-85
4.3.2. Hondurass line : traditional boundary along the parallel
14 59.8 North latitude (the 15th parallel) 86-98
4.4. Starting-point of the maritime boundary 99-101
4.5. Delimitation of the territorial sea 102-103
5. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE NEW CLAIM RELATING TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER
THE ISLANDS IN THE AREA IN DISPUTE 104-116
6. THE CRITICAL DATE 117-131
7. SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS 132-227
7.1. The maritime features in the area in dispute 133-145
7.2. The uti possidetis juris principle and sovereignty over the
islands in dispute 146-167
7.3. Post-colonial effectivits and sovereignty over the disputed
islands 168-208
7.4. Evidentiary value of maps in confirming sovereignty over the
disputed islands 209-219
7.5. Recognition by third States and bilateral treaties ; the 1998
Free Trade Agreement 220-226
7.6. Decision as to sovereignty over the islands 227
8. DELIMITATION OF MARITIME AREAS 228-320
8.1. Traditional maritime boundary line claimed by Honduras 229-258
8.1.1. The principle of uti possidetis juris 229-236
8.1.2. Tacit agreement 237-258
8.2. Determination of the maritime boundary 259-320
8.2.1. Applicable law 261
659
4
TABLE DES MATIRES
Paragraphes
1. QUALITS 1-19
2. LA GOGRAPHIE 20-32
2.1. La configuration des ctes nicaraguayennes et honduriennes 20-30
2.2. La gomorphologie de lembouchure du fleuve Coco 31-32
3. LE CONTEXTE HISTORIQUE 33-71
4. POSITIONS DES PARTIES : APERU GLOBAL 72-103
4.1. Objet du diffrend 72-73
4.2. Souverainet sur les les dans la zone en litige 74-82
4.3. Dlimitation maritime au-del de la mer territoriale 83-98
4.3.1. La ligne propose par le Nicaragua: la mthode de la
bissectrice 83-85
4.3.2. La ligne hondurienne, frontire traditionnelle le long
du parallle 14 59,8 de latitude nord ( le 15e parallle
) 86-98
4.4. Le point de dpart de la frontire maritime 99-101
4.5. Dlimitation de la mer territoriale 102-103
5. RECEVABILIT DE LA NOUVELLE DEMANDE RELATIVE LA SOUVERAINET
SUR LES LES SITUES DANS LA ZONE EN LITIGE 104-116
6. LA DATE CRITIQUE 117-131
7. LA SOUVERAINET SUR LES LES 132-227
7.1. Les formations maritimes de la zone en litige 133-145
7.2. Le principe de luti possidetis juris et la souverainet sur les les
en litige 146-167
7.3. Les effectivits postcoloniales et la souverainet sur les les en
litige 168-208
7.4. Valeur probante des cartes pour confirmer la souverainet sur
les les en litige 209-219
7.5. Reconnaissance par des Etats tiers et traits bilatraux ; laccord
de libre-change de 1998 220-226
7.6. Dcision quant la souverainet sur les les 227
8. LA DLIMITATION DES ZONES MARITIMES 228-320
8.1. La frontire maritime traditionnelle revendique par le Honduras
229-258
8.1.1. Le principe de luti possidetis juris 229-236
8.1.2. Accord tacite 237-258
8.2. Dtermination de la frontire maritime 259-320
8.2.1. Le droit applicable 261
659
4
8.2.2. Areas to be delimited and methodology 262-282
8.2.3. Construction of a bisector line 283-298
8.2.4. Delimitation around the islands 299-305
8.2.5. Starting-point and endpoint of the maritime boundary 306-319
8.2.6. Course of the maritime boundary 320
9. OPERATIVE CLAUSE 321
660
5
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
8.2.2. Zones dlimiter et mthodologie 262-282
8.2.3. Construction dune ligne bissectrice 283-298
8.2.4. Dlimitation autour des les 299-305
8.2.5. Le point de dpart et le point terminal de la frontire
maritime 306-319
8.2.6. Le trac de la frontire maritime 320
9. DISPOSITIF 321
DIFFREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME (ARRT)
660
5
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2007
8 October 2007
CASE CONCERNING TERRITORIAL AND
MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN
NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS IN
THE CARIBBEAN SEA
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS)
JUDGMENT
Present : President HIGGINS ; Vice-President AL-KHASAWNEH; Judges RANJEVA,
SHI, KOROMA, PARRA-ARANGUREN, BUERGENTHAL, OWADA, SIMMA,
TOMKA, ABRAHAM, KEITH, SEPLVEDA-AMOR, BENNOUNA, SKOTNIKOV;
Judges ad hoc TORRES BERNRDEZ, GAJA ; Registrar COUVREUR.
In the case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua
and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea,
between
the Republic of Nicaragua,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Carlos Jos Argello Gmez, Ambassador of the Republic of
Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
H.E. Mr. Samuel Santos, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Nicaragua;
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., member of the English Bar, Chairman
of the United Nations International Law Commission, Emeritus
Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford,
661
2007
8 October
General List
No. 120
6
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
ANNE 2007
8 octobre 2007
AFFAIRE DU DIFFEuREND
TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME ENTRE
LE NICARAGUA ET LE HONDURAS
DANS LA MER DES CARABES
(NICARAGUA c. HONDURAS)
ARRE|T
Prsents : Mme HIGGINS, prsident; M. AL-KHASAWNEH, vice-prsident ;
MM. RANJEVA, SHI, KOROMA, PARRA-ARANGUREN, BUERGENTHAL,
OWADA, SIMMA, TOMKA, ABRAHAM, KEITH, SEPLVEDA-AMOR, BENNOUNA,
SKOTNIKOV, juges ; MM. TORRES BERNRDEZ, GAJA, juges
ad hoc; M. COUVREUR, greffier.
En laffaire du diffrend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras
dans la mer des Carabes,
entre
la Rpublique du Nicaragua,
reprsente par
S. Exc. M. Carlos Jos Argello Gmez, ambassadeur de la Rpublique du
Nicaragua auprs du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent, conseil et avocat;
S. Exc. M. Samuel Santos, ministre des affaires trangres de la Rpublique
du Nicaragua;
M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., membre du barreau dAngleterre,
prsident de la Commission du droit international des Nations Unies, professeur
mrite de droit international public (chaire Chichele) lUniver-
661
2007
8 octobre
Rle gnral
no 120
member of the Institut de droit international, Distinguished Fellow, All
Souls College, Oxford,
Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Research Associate, Netherlands Institute for the
Law of the Sea, Utrecht University,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, member
and former Chairman of the United Nations International Law Commission,
Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotns, Professor of International Law, Universidad
Autnoma, Madrid,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Robin Cleverly, M.A., D.Phil, C.Geol, F.G.S., Law of the Sea Consultant,
Admiralty Consultancy Services,
Mr. Dick Gent, Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty Consultancy Services,
as Scientific and Technical Advisers ;
Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, First Secretary, Embassy of the Republic
of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms Nadine Susani, Doctor of Public Law, Centre de droit international de
Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-Nanterre,
as Assistant Advisers ;
Ms Gina Hodgson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua,
Ms Ana Mogorrn Huerta,
as Assistants,
and
the Republic of Honduras,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Max Velsquez Daz, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras to
the French Republic,
H.E. Mr. Roberto Flores Bermdez, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras
to the United States of America,
as Agents;
H.E. Mr. Julio Rendn Barnica, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law, University
of Paris (Panthon-Assas), and the European University Institute in Florence,
Mr. Luis Ignacio Snchez Rodrguez, Professor of International Law, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid,
Mr. Christopher Greenwood, C.M.G., Q.C., Professor of International Law,
London School of Economics and Political Science,
Mr. Philippe Sands, Q.C., Professor of Law, University College London,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Quneudec, Professor emeritus of International Law at the
University of Paris I (Panthon-Sorbonne),
Mr. David A. Colson, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & MacRae, L.L.P., Washing-
662
7
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
sit dOxford, membre de lInstitut de droit international, Distinguished
Fellow lAll Souls College dOxford,
M. Alex Oude Elferink, Research Associate lInstitut nerlandais du droit
de la mer de lUniversit dUtrecht,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur lUniversit de Paris X-Nanterre, membre et
ancien prsident de la Commission du droit international des
Nations Unies,
M. Antonio Remiro Brotns, professeur de droit international lUniversidad
Autnoma de Madrid,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Robin Cleverly, M.A., D.Phil, C.Geol, F.G.S., consultant en droit de la
mer, Admiralty Consultancy Services,
M. Dick Gent, consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty Consultancy Services,
comme conseillers scientifiques et techniques ;
Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, premier secrtaire de lambassade de la
Rpublique du Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Nadine Susani, docteur en droit public, centre de droit international de
Nanterre (CEDIN), Universit de Paris X-Nanterre,
comme conseillers adjoints ;
Mme Gina Hodgson, ministre des affaires trangres de la Rpublique du
Nicaragua,
Mme Ana Mogorrn Huerta,
comme assistantes,
et
la Rpublique du Honduras,
reprsente par
S. Exc. M. Max Velsquez Daz, ambassadeur de la Rpublique du Honduras
auprs de la Rpublique franaise,
S. Exc. M. Roberto Flores Bermdez, ambassadeur de la Rpublique du
Honduras auprs des Etats-Unis dAmrique,
comme agents ;
S. Exc. M. Julio Rendn Barnica, ambassadeur de la Rpublique du Honduras
auprs du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent;
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit international public lUniversit
de Paris I (Panthon-Assas) et lInstitut universitaire europen de
Florence,
M. Luis Ignacio Snchez Rodrguez, professeur de droit international
lUniversit Complutense de Madrid,
M. Christopher Greenwood, C.M.G., Q.C., professeur de droit international
la London School of Economics and Political Science,
M. Philippe Sands, Q.C., professeur de droit lUniversity College de Londres,
M. Jean-Pierre Quneudec, professeur mrite de droit international lUniversit
de Paris I (Panthon-Sorbonne),
M. David A. Colson, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., WashingDIFFREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME (ARRT)
662
ton, D.C., member of the California State Bar and District of Columbia
Bar,
Mr. Carlos Jimnez Piernas, Professor of International Law, Universidad de
Alcal, Madrid,
Mr. Richard Meese, avocat la Cour dappel de Paris,
as Counsel and Advocates;
H.E. Mr. Milton Jimnez Puerto, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Honduras,
H.E. Mr. Eduardo Enrique Reina Garca, Deputy Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Honduras,
H.E. Mr. Carlos Lpez Contreras, Ambassador, National Counsellor, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras,
H.E. Mr. Roberto Arita Quinez, Ambassador, Director of the Special
Bureau on Sovereignty Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Honduras,
H.E. Mr. Jos Eduardo Martell Meja, Ambassador of the Republic of Honduras
to the Kingdom of Spain,
H.E. Mr. Miguel Tosta Appel, Ambassador, Chairman of the Honduran
Demarcation Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Honduras,
H.E. Ms Patricia Licona Cubero, Ambassador, Adviser for Central American
Integration Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Honduras,
as Advisers ;
Ms Anjolie Singh, Assistant, University College London, member of the
Indian Bar,
Ms Adriana Fabra, Associate Professor of International Law, Universitat
Autnoma de Barcelona,
Mr. Javier Quel Lpez, Professor of International Law, Universidad del Pas
Vasco,
Ms Gabriela Membreo, Assistant Adviser to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Honduras,
Mr. Sergio Acosta, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Honduras
in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Assistant Advisers ;
Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,
Mr. Thomas D. Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,
as Technical Advisers.
THE COURT,
composed as above,
after deliberation,
delivers the following Judgment:
1. On 8 December 1999 the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter Nicaragua)
filed in the Registry of the Court an Application dated the same day,
instituting proceedings against the Republic of Honduras (hereinafter Honduras)
in respect of a dispute relating to the delimitation of the maritime areas
appertaining to each of those States in the Caribbean Sea.
663
8
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
ton, D.C., membre du barreau de lEtat de Californie et du barreau du
district de Columbia,
M. Carlos Jimnez Piernas, professeur de droit international lUniversit
dAlcal (Madrid),
M. Richard Meese, avocat la cour dappel de Paris,
comme conseils et avocats ;
S. Exc. M. Milton Jimnez Puerto, ministre des affaires trangres de la
Rpublique du Honduras,
S. Exc. M. Eduardo Enrique Reina Garca, vice-ministre des affaires trangres
de la Rpublique du Honduras,
S. Exc. M. Carlos Lpez Contreras, ambassadeur, conseiller national au
ministre des affaires trangres de la Rpublique du Honduras,
S. Exc. M. Roberto Arita Quinez, ambassadeur, directeur du bureau spcial
pour les affaires de souverainet du ministre des affaires trangres de
la Rpublique du Honduras,
S. Exc. M. Jos Eduardo Martell Meja, ambassadeur de la Rpublique du
Honduras auprs du Royaume dEspagne,
S. Exc. M. Miguel Tosta Appel, ambassadeur, prsident de la commission
hondurienne de dmarcation du ministre des affaires trangres de la
Rpublique du Honduras,
S. Exc. Mme Patricia Licona Cubero, ambassadeur, conseiller pour les affaires
dintgration dAmrique centrale du ministre des affaires trangres
de la Rpublique du Honduras,
comme conseillers ;
Mme Anjolie Singh, assistante lUniversity College de Londres, membre du
barreau indien,
Mme Adriana Fabra, professeur associ de droit international lUniversit
autonome de Barcelone,
M. Javier Quel Lpez, professeur de droit international lUniversit du
Pays basque,
Mme Gabriela Membreo, conseiller adjoint du ministre des affaires trangres
de la Rpublique du Honduras,
M. Sergio Acosta, ministre conseiller lambassade de la Rpublique du
Honduras au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers adjoints ;
M. Scott Edmonds, cartographe, International Mapping,
M. Thomas D. Frogh, cartographe, International Mapping,
comme conseillers techniques,
LA COUR,
ainsi compose,
aprs dlibr en chambre du conseil,
rend larrt suivant :
1. Le 8 dcembre 1999, la Rpublique du Nicaragua (dnomme ci-aprs le
Nicaragua) a dpos au Greffe de la Cour une requte introductive dinstance
date du mme jour contre la Rpublique du Honduras (dnomme ci-aprs le
Honduras) au sujet dun diffrend relatif la dlimitation des zones maritimes
relevant respectivement du Nicaragua et du Honduras dans la mer des Carabes.
DIFFREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME (ARRT)
663
In its Application, Nicaragua seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on
the provisions of Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement,
officially designated, according to Article LX thereof, as the Pact of Bogot
(hereinafter referred to as such), as well as on the declarations accepting the
jurisdiction of the Court made by the Parties, as provided for in Article 36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Registrar immediately
communicated a certified copy of the Application to the Government of
Honduras; and pursuant to paragraph 3 of that Article, all States entitled to
appear before the Court were notified of the Application.
3. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43 of the Rules of
Court, the Registrar addressed to States parties to the Pact of Bogot the notifications
provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court. In
accordance with the provisions of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court, the Registrar moreover addressed to the Organization of American
States (hereinafter OAS) the notification provided for in Article 34, paragraph
3, of the Statute. The Registrar subsequently transmitted to this organization
copies of the pleadings filed in the case and asked its Secretary-General
to inform him whether or not it intended to present observations in writing
within the meaning of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court. The OAS
indicated that it did not intend to submit any such observations.
4. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43 of the Rules of
Court, the Registrar addressed to States parties to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (hereinafter UNCLOS) the
notifications provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute. In addition,
the Registrar addressed to the European Union, which is also party to
that Convention, the notification provided for in Article 43, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court, as adopted on 29 September 2005, and asked that organization
whether or not it intended to furnish observations under that provision. In
response, the Registrar was informed that the European Union did not intend
to submit observations in the case.
5. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of
either of the Parties, each Party proceeded to exercise its right conferred by
Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the
case. Nicaragua chose Mr. Giorgio Gaja and Honduras first chose Mr. Julio
Gonzlez Campos, who resigned on 17 August 2006, and subsequently Mr. Santiago
Torres Bernrdez.
6. By an Order dated 21 March 2000, the President of the Court fixed
21 March 2001 and 21 March 2002, respectively, as the time-limits for the filing
of the Memorial of Nicaragua and the Counter-Memorial of Honduras; those
pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits so prescribed.
7. At the time of filing of the Counter-Memorial, Honduras also filed two
sets of additional documents which were not produced as annexes thereto, but
were, according to Honduras, provided only for informational purposes. At a
meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the Parties on
5 June 2002 both Parties agreed on the procedure to be followed with regard to
those additional documents. In particular, it was agreed that within three weeks
following that meeting, Honduras would inform the Registry which of the
additional documents it intended to produce as annexes to the said CounterMemorial under Article 50 of the Rules of Court, and that by 13 September
2002 Honduras would file those annexes in the Registry. In accordance
664
9
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
Dans la requte, le Nicaragua affirme que la Cour est comptente pour
connatre du diffrend en vertu de larticle XXXI du trait amricain de rglement
pacifique, dsign officiellement, aux termes de son article LX, par le nom
de pacte de Bogot (et ci-aprs ainsi dnomm), ainsi que des dclarations
des deux Parties acceptant la comptence de la Cour conformment au paragraphe
2 de larticle 36 de son Statut.
2. Conformment au paragraphe 2 de larticle 40 du Statut, une copie certifie
conforme de la requte a immdiatement t communique au Gouvernement
du Honduras par le greffier ; conformment au paragraphe 3 de cet article,
tous les Etats admis ester devant la Cour ont t informs de la requte.
3. Conformment aux instructions donnes par la Cour en vertu de larticle
43 de son Rglement, le greffier a adress les notifications prvues au paragraphe
1 de larticle 63 du Statut de la Cour aux Etats parties au pacte de
Bogot. En application des dispositions du paragraphe 3 de larticle 69 du
Rglement, le greffier a en outre adress la notification prvue au paragraphe 3
de larticle 34 du Statut lOrganisation des Etats amricains (dnomme ciaprs
lOEA). Par la suite, le greffier a transmis des copies des pices de la
procdure crite dposes en laffaire au secrtaire gnral de lOEA, lui demandant
de lui faire savoir si cette organisation entendait prsenter des observations
crites au sens du paragraphe 3 de larticle 69 du Rglement. LOEA a
indiqu quelle navait pas lintention de prsenter de telles observations.
4. Conformment aux instructions donnes par la Cour en vertu de larticle
43 de son Rglement, le greffier a adress les notifications prvues au paragraphe
1 de larticle 63 du Statut aux Etats parties la convention des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer du 10 dcembre 1982 (dnomme ci-aprs
la CNUDM). Le greffier a en outre adress la notification prvue au paragraphe
2 de larticle 43 du Rglement, tel quadopt le 29 septembre 2005,
lUnion europenne, qui est aussi partie ladite convention, en demandant
cette organisation de lui faire savoir si elle entendait prsenter des observations
en vertu de la disposition prcite. En rponse, lUnion europenne a fait savoir
au greffier quelle navait pas lintention de prsenter des observations en
lespce.
5. La Cour ne comptant sur le sige aucun juge de la nationalit des Parties,
chacune delles sest prvalue du droit que lui confre le paragraphe 3 de larticle
31 du Statut de procder la dsignation dun juge ad hoc pour siger en
laffaire. Le Nicaragua a dsign M. Giorgio Gaja et le Honduras a dsign
M. Julio Gonzlez Campos, puis, celui-ci ayant renonc exercer ses fonctions
le 17 aot 2006, M. Santiago Torres Bernrdez.
6. Par ordonnance en date du 21 mars 2000, le prsident de la Cour a fix au
21 mars 2001 et au 21 mars 2002, respectivement, les dates dexpiration des
dlais pour le dpt du mmoire du Nicaragua et du contre-mmoire du Honduras;
ces pices ont t dment dposes dans les dlais ainsi prescrits.
7. Au moment du dpt du contre-mmoire, le Honduras a galement
dpos deux sries de documents additionnels, prsents non en tant quannexes
celui-ci mais, selon le Honduras, uniquement titre dinformation. Au cours
dune runion que le prsident de la Cour a tenue avec leurs agents le 5 juin 2002,
les deux Parties sont convenues de la procdure suivre concernant ces documents
additionnels. En particulier, il a t entendu que, dans un dlai de trois
semaines suivant cette runion, le Honduras indiquerait au greffier le titre des
documents additionnels quil entendait produire en tant quannexes son
contre-mmoire en vertu de larticle 50 du Rglement et que, le 13 septembre
2002 au plus tard, il dposerait au Greffe lesdites annexes. Conformment
DIFFREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME (ARRT)
664
with the agreed procedure, by a letter of 25 June 2002, the Co-Agent of Honduras
provided the Registry with a list indicating which of the additional documents
were to be produced as annexes. Those additional annexes to the CounterMemorial of Honduras were duly filed within the time-limit agreed upon.
8. By an Order of 13 June 2002, the Court authorized the submission of a
Reply by Nicaragua and a Rejoinder by Honduras, and fixed 13 January 2003
and 13 August 2003 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings.
The Reply of Nicaragua and the Rejoinder of Honduras were filed within
the time-limits so prescribed.
9. By letter of 22 May 2001, the Government of Colombia requested to be
furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed thereto. Having
ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the
Rules of Court, the Court decided to grant that request. The Registrar communicated
that decision to the Government of Colombia and to the Parties by
letters of 29 June 2001. By letter of 6 May 2003 the Government of Jamaica
requested to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed
thereto. Having ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to Article 53,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to grant that request.
The Registrar communicated that decision to the Government of Jamaica and
to the Parties by letters of 30 May 2003.
By letter of 31 August 2004, the Government of El Salvador requested to be
furnished with copies of the pleadings and annexed documents in the case.
Having ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1,
of the Rules of Court, the Court decided that it was not appropriate to grant
that request. The Registrar communicated that decision to the Government of
El Salvador and to the Parties by letters dated 20 October 2004.
10. By a joint letter of 9 February 2005, the Agent of Nicaragua and the
Co-Agent of Honduras communicated to the Court a document signed at
Tegucigalpa on 1 February 2005, whereby the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Honduras made
known to the Court the wishes of their respective Heads of State regarding the
scheduling of the hearings in the case.
11. By letter of 8 September 2006, the Government of El Salvador requested
once again to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and annexed documents
in the case. Having ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to Article 53,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided that it was not appropriate
to grant that request. The Registrar communicated that decision to the
Government of El Salvador and to the Parties by letters dated 16 November
2006.
12. On 2 February 2007, the Agent of Nicaragua informed the Court that
his Government wished to produce 12 new documents, namely 11 letters and
one satellite image, in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court. The
Court, having ascertained the views of the Honduran Government, decided
that as one of the documents formed part of the case file as an annex to the
Reply of Nicaragua, it should not be regarded as a new document, and that the
satellite image was part of a publication readily available pursuant to paragraph
4 of Article 56 of the Rules of Court, and as such could be referred to
during the oral proceedings. The Court further decided not to authorize the
production of the remaining documents. The Registrar informed the Parties
accordingly by letters of 26 February 2007.
13. On 15 February 2007, the Co-Agent of Honduras informed the Court
that during the oral proceedings the Honduran Government intended to present
a short video. On 5 March 2007, the Registrar informed the Parties that the
Court had decided not to accede to Hondurass request.
14. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the
Court decided, after ascertaining the views of the Parties, that copies of the
pleadings and documents annexed would be made available to the public as
from the opening of the oral proceedings.
15. Public hearings were held between 5 March and 23 March 2007, at which
the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of :
For Nicaragua : H.E. Mr. Carlos Jos Argello Gmez,
Mr. Alex Oude Elferink,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotns,
Mr. Alain Pellet.
For Honduras: H.E. Mr. Max Velsquez Daz,
Mr. Christopher Greenwood,
Mr. Luis Ignacio Snchez Rodrguez,
Mr. Philippe Sands,
Mr. Carlos Jimnez Piernas,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Quneudec,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. David A. Colson,
H.E. Mr. Roberto Flores Bermdez.
16. At the hearings, questions were put by Members of the Court and replies
given orally and in writing, in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the
Rules of Court. Honduras commented orally on the oral replies given by Nicaragua.
Pursuant to Article 72 of the Rules of Court, each Party presented written
observations on the written replies received from the other.
*
17. In its Application, the following requests were made by Nicaragua:
Accordingly, the Court is asked to determine the course of the single
maritime boundary between the areas of territorial sea, continental shelf
and exclusive economic zone appertaining respectively to Nicaragua and
Honduras, in accordance with equitable principles and relevant circumstances
recognized by general international law as applicable to such a
delimitation of a single maritime boundary.
This request for the determination of a single maritime boundary is subject
to the power of the Court to establish different delimitations, for shelf
rights and fisheries respectively, if, in the light of the evidence, this course
should be necessary in order to achieve an equitable solution.
Whilst the principal purpose of this Application is to obtain a declaration
concerning the determination of the maritime boundary or boundaries,
the Government of Nicaragua reserves the right to claim compensation
for interference with fishing vessels of Nicaraguan nationality or
vessels licensed by Nicaragua, found to the north of the parallel of latitude
666
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
14 59 08 claimed by Honduras to be the course of the delimitation line.
Nicaragua also reserves the right to claim compensation for any natural
resources that may have been extracted or may be extracted in the future
to the south of the line of delimitation that will be fixed by the Judgment
of the Court.
The Government of Nicaragua, further, reserves the right to supplement
or to amend the present Application as well as to request the Court to
indicate provisional measures which might become necessary in order to
preserve the rights of Nicaragua.
18. In the written proceedings, the following submissions were presented by
the Parties :
On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua,
in the Memorial:
Having regard to the considerations set forth in this Memorial and, in
particular, the evidence relating to the relations of the Parties.
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :
The bisector of the lines representing the coastal fronts of the two
parties, as applied and described in paragraphs 22 and 29, Chapter VIII
above, and illustrated on the graphic, constitutes the boundary for the
purposes of the delimitation of the disputed areas of the continental shelf
and exclusive economic zone in the region of the Nicaraguan Rise.
The approximate median line, as described in paragraphs 27 and 29,
Chapter X above, and illustrated on the graphic, constitutes the boundary
for the purpose of the delimitation of the disputed areas of the territorial
sea, extending to the outer limit of the territorial sea, but in the absence of
a sector coterminous with the mouth of the River Coco and with the terminus
of the land boundary;
in the Reply:
In accordance with Article 49, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, the
Government of the Republic of Nicaragua confirms the Submissions previously
made in the Memorial submitted to the Court on 21 March 2001.
On behalf of the Government of Honduras,
in the Counter-Memorial:
Having regard to the considerations set forth in this Counter-Memorial
and, in particular, the evidence put to the Court by the Parties,
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :
1. The boundary for the purpose of the delimitation of the disputed
areas of the territorial sea, and extending to the outer limit of the territorial
sea, is a straight and horizontal line drawn from the current mouth of
the River Coco, as agreed between the Parties, to the 12-mile limit at a
point where it intersects with the 15th parallel (14 59.8 ) ; and
2. The boundary for the purpose of the delimitation of the disputed
areas of the continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone in the region
is a line extending from the above-mentioned point at the 12-mile limit,
667
12
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
eastwards along the 15th parallel (14 59.8 ) until it reaches the longitude
at which the 1986 Honduras/Colombian maritime boundary begins (meridian
82) ; and further or in the alternative ;
3. In the event that the Court decides not to adopt the line indicated
above for the delimitation of the continental shelf and Exclusive Economic
Zone, then the Court should declare a line extending from the 12-mile
limit, eastwards down to the 15th parallel (14 59.8 ) and give due effect to
the islands under Honduran sovereignty which are located immediately to
the north of the 15th parallel ;
in the Rejoinder :
Having regard to the considerations set forth in the Honduran CounterMemorial and this Rejoinder,
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :
1. From the point decided by the Honduras/Nicaragua Mixed Commission
in 1962 at 14 59.8 N latitude, 83 08.9 W longitude to 14 59.8 N
latitude, 83 05.8 W longitude, the demarcation of the fluvial boundary
line and the delimitation of the maritime boundary line which divide the
jurisdictions of Honduras and Nicaragua shall be the subject of negotiation
between the Parties to this case which shall take into account the
changing geographical characteristics of the mouth of the River Coco; and
2. East of 14 59.8 N latitude, 83 05.8 W longitude, the single maritime
boundary which divides the maritime jurisdictions of Honduras and Nicaragua
follows 14 59.8 N latitude until the jurisdiction of a third State is
reached.
19. At the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the
Parties :
On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua,
At the hearing of 20 March 2007:
Having regard to the considerations set forth in the Memorial, Reply
and hearings and, in particular, the evidence relating to the relations of the
Parties.
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :
The bisector of the lines representing the coastal fronts of the two
Parties as described in the pleadings, drawn from a fixed point approximately
3 miles from the river mouth in the position 15 02 00 N and
83 05 26 W, constitutes the single maritime boundary for the purposes of
the delimitation of the disputed areas of the territorial sea, exclusive economic
zone and continental shelf in the region of the Nicaraguan Rise.
The starting-point of the delimitation is the thalweg of the main mouth
of the River Coco such as it may be at any given moment as determined by
the Award of the King of Spain of 1906.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court is requested to decide the
question of sovereignty over the islands and cays within the area in dispute.
668
13
13
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)
On behalf of the Government of Honduras,
At the hearing of 23 March 2007:
Having regard to the pleadings, written and oral, and to the evidence
submitted by the Parties,
May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :
1. The islands Bobel Cay, South Cay, Savanna Cay and Port Royal Cay,
together with all other islands, cays, rocks, banks and reefs claimed by
Nicaragua which lie north of the 15th parallel are under the sovereignty
of the Republic of Honduras.
2. The starting-point of the maritime boundary to be delimited by the
Court shall be a point located at 14 59.8 N latitude, 83 05.8 W longitude.
The boundary from the point determined by the Mixed Commission
in 1962 at 14 59.8 N latitude, 83 08.9 W longitude to the
starting-point of the maritime boundary to be delimited by the Court
shall be agreed between the Parties to this case on the basis of the
Award of the King of Spain of 23 December 1906, which is binding
upon the Parties, and taking into account the changing geographical
characteristics of the mouth of the River Coco (also known as the
River Segovia or Wanks).
3. East of the point at 14 59.8 N latitude, 83 05.8 W longitude, the single
maritime boundary which divides the respective territorial seas,
exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of Honduras and
Nicaragua follows 14 59.8 N latitude, as the existing maritime boundary,
or an adjusted equidistance line, until the jurisdiction of a third
State is reached.
***
109
