国际判例
CASE CONCERNING TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN
NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS)
NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS)
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
8 October 2007
THE COURT,
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.
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.
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 Bogotá” (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.
Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, officially designated, according to
Article LX thereof, as the “Pact of Bogotá” (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.
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 Bogotá the notifications provided for in
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court. In accordance with the provisions of
Registrar addressed to States parties to the Pact of Bogotá 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.
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 González Campos, who resigned on 17 August 2006, and
subsequently Mr. Santiago Torres Bernárdez.
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 González Campos, who resigned on 17 August 2006, and
subsequently Mr. Santiago Torres Bernárdez.
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.
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 Counter-Memorial under Article 50 of the Rules of Court, and that
by 13 September 2002 Honduras would file those annexes in the Registry. In accordance 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 Counter-Memorial of Honduras were duly filed within the time-limit
agreed upon.
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 Counter-Memorial under Article 50 of the Rules of Court, and that
by 13 September 2002 Honduras would file those annexes in the Registry. In accordance 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 Counter-Memorial 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Honduras’s request.
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 Honduras’s 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.
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 José Argüello Gómez,
Mr. Alex Oude Elferink,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns,
Mr. Alain Pellet.
Mr. Alex Oude Elferink,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns,
Mr. Alain Pellet.
For Honduras:
H.E. Mr. Max Velásquez Díaz,
Mr. Christopher Greenwood,
Mr. Luis Ignacio Sánchez Rodríguez,
Mr. Philippe Sands,
Mr. Carlos Jiménez Piernas,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Quéneudec,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. David A. Colson,
H.E. Mr. Roberto Flores Bermúdez.
Mr. Christopher Greenwood,
Mr. Luis Ignacio Sánchez Rodríguez,
Mr. Philippe Sands,
Mr. Carlos Jiménez Piernas,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Quéneudec,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. David A. Colson,
H.E. Mr. Roberto Flores Bermúdez.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 14o 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.”
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.
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.
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”;
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.”
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,
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
(14o 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, eastwards along the 15th parallel
(14o 59.8,) until it reaches the longitude at which the 1986 Honduras/Colombian
maritime boundary begins (meridian 82); and further or in the alternative;
continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone in the region is a line extending from
the above-mentioned point at the 12-mile limit, eastwards along the 15th parallel
(14o 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 (14o 59.8,) and give due effect to the islands under Honduran sovereignty
which are located immediately to the north of the 15th parallel”;
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 (14o 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
Counter-Memorial and this Rejoinder,
Counter-Memorial 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 14o 59.8, N latitude, 83o 08.9, W longitude to 14o 59.8, N latitude, 83o05.8, 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
1962 at 14o 59.8, N latitude, 83o 08.9, W longitude to 14o 59.8, N latitude, 83o05.8, 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 14o 59.8, N latitude, 83o 05.8, W longitude, the single maritime
boundary which divides the maritime jurisdictions of Honduras and Nicaragua follows
14o 59.8, N latitude until the jurisdiction of a third State is reached.”
boundary which divides the maritime jurisdictions of Honduras and Nicaragua follows
14o 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.
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 15o 02, 00" N and 83o 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.
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.”
of sovereignty over the islands and cays within the area in dispute.”
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,
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.
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).
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.”
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.”
*
* *
2. Geography
2.1. Configuration of the Nicaraguan and Honduran coasts
20. The area within which the delimitation sought in the present case is to be carried out lies
in the basin of the Atlantic Ocean between 9° to 22° N and 89° to 60° W, commonly known as the
Caribbean Sea (for the general geography of the area, see sketch-map No. 1). The Caribbean Sea
embraces an area of approximately 2,754,000 sq km (1,063,000 square miles) and is located
between the landmasses of North and South America. The Caribbean Sea is an arm of the Atlantic
Ocean partially enclosed to the north and east by the islands of the West Indies, and bounded to the
south and west by South and Central America.
in the basin of the Atlantic Ocean between 9° to 22° N and 89° to 60° W, commonly known as the
Caribbean Sea (for the general geography of the area, see sketch-map No. 1). The Caribbean Sea
embraces an area of approximately 2,754,000 sq km (1,063,000 square miles) and is located
between the landmasses of North and South America. The Caribbean Sea is an arm of the Atlantic
Ocean partially enclosed to the north and east by the islands of the West Indies, and bounded to the
south and west by South and Central America.
21. The continental coasts of Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama bound the Caribbean Sea to
the south and Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatán Peninsula of
Mexico bound it to the west. To the north and east it is bounded by the Greater Antilles islands of
Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico and by the Lesser Antilles, consisting of the island arc
that extends from the Virgin Islands in the north-east to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago, off the
Venezuelan coast, in the south-east.
the south and Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatán Peninsula of
Mexico bound it to the west. To the north and east it is bounded by the Greater Antilles islands of
Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico and by the Lesser Antilles, consisting of the island arc
that extends from the Virgin Islands in the north-east to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago, off the
Venezuelan coast, in the south-east.
22. The Caribbean Sea is divided into four main submarine basins that are separated from
one another by submerged ridges and rises. These are the Yucatán, Cayman, Colombian and
Venezuelan basins. The northernmost Yucatán Basin is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by the
Yucatán Channel, which runs between the island of Cuba and the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.
The Cayman Basin, which is located further south, is partially separated from the Yucatán Basin by
the Cayman Ridge that extends from the southern part of Cuba toward the Central American State
of Guatemala and, midway, rises to the surface to form the Cayman Islands.
one another by submerged ridges and rises. These are the Yucatán, Cayman, Colombian and
Venezuelan basins. The northernmost Yucatán Basin is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by the
Yucatán Channel, which runs between the island of Cuba and the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.
The Cayman Basin, which is located further south, is partially separated from the Yucatán Basin by
the Cayman Ridge that extends from the southern part of Cuba toward the Central American State
of Guatemala and, midway, rises to the surface to form the Cayman Islands.
23. Nicaragua and Honduras are located in the south-western part of the Caribbean Sea. To
the south of Nicaragua lie Costa Rica and Panama and to the east Nicaragua faces the mainland
coast of Colombia. To the north-west of Honduras lie Guatemala, Belize and Mexico and to the
north Honduras faces Cuba and the Cayman Islands. Finally, Jamaica is situated to the north-east
of Nicaragua and Honduras. The south-western tip of the island of Jamaica is about 340 nautical
miles distant from the mouth of the River Coco where the land boundary between Nicaragua and
Honduras terminates on the Caribbean coast.
the south of Nicaragua lie Costa Rica and Panama and to the east Nicaragua faces the mainland
coast of Colombia. To the north-west of Honduras lie Guatemala, Belize and Mexico and to the
north Honduras faces Cuba and the Cayman Islands. Finally, Jamaica is situated to the north-east
of Nicaragua and Honduras. The south-western tip of the island of Jamaica is about 340 nautical
miles distant from the mouth of the River Coco where the land boundary between Nicaragua and
Honduras terminates on the Caribbean coast.
24. The Nicaraguan coastal front on the Caribbean Sea spans around 480 km. The coast runs
slightly west of south after Cape Gracias a Dios all the way to the Nicaraguan border with
Costa Rica except for the eastward protrusion at Punta Gorda (14o 19, N latitude).
slightly west of south after Cape Gracias a Dios all the way to the Nicaraguan border with
Costa Rica except for the eastward protrusion at Punta Gorda (14o 19, N latitude).
25. Honduras, for its part, has a Caribbean coastal front of approximately 640 km that runs
generally in an east-west direction between the parallels 15o to 16o of north latitude. The Honduran
segment of the Central American coast along the Caribbean continues its northward extension
generally in an east-west direction between the parallels 15o to 16o of north latitude. The Honduran
segment of the Central American coast along the Caribbean continues its northward extension
beyond Cape Gracias a Dios to Cape Falso (15° 14, N latitude) where it begins to swing towards
the west. At Cape Camarón (15° 59, N latitude) the coast turns more sharply so that it runs almost
due west all the way to the Honduran border with Guatemala.
26. The two coastlines roughly form a right angle that juts out to sea. The convexity of the
coast is compounded by the cape formed at the mouth of the River Coco, which generally runs east
as it nears the coast and meets the sea at the eastern tip of Cape Gracias a Dios.
Cape Gracias a Dios marks the point of convergence of both States’ coastlines. It abuts a concave
coastline on its sides and has two points, one on each side of the margin of the River Coco
separated by a few hundred metres.
coast is compounded by the cape formed at the mouth of the River Coco, which generally runs east
as it nears the coast and meets the sea at the eastern tip of Cape Gracias a Dios.
Cape Gracias a Dios marks the point of convergence of both States’ coastlines. It abuts a concave
coastline on its sides and has two points, one on each side of the margin of the River Coco
separated by a few hundred metres.
27. The continental margin off the east coast of Nicaragua and Honduras is generally termed
the “Nicaraguan Rise”. It takes the form of a relatively flat triangular shaped platform, with depths
around 20 m. Approximately mid way between the coast of those countries and the coast of
Jamaica, the Nicaraguan Rise terminates by deepening abruptly to depths of over 1,500 m. Before
descending to these greater depths the Rise is broken into several large banks, such as Thunder
Knoll Bank and Rosalind Bank (also known as Rosalinda Bank) that are separated from the main
platform by deeper channels of over 200 m. In the shallow area of the ridge close to the mainland
of Nicaragua and Honduras there are numerous reefs, some of which reach above the water surface
in the form of cays.
the “Nicaraguan Rise”. It takes the form of a relatively flat triangular shaped platform, with depths
around 20 m. Approximately mid way between the coast of those countries and the coast of
Jamaica, the Nicaraguan Rise terminates by deepening abruptly to depths of over 1,500 m. Before
descending to these greater depths the Rise is broken into several large banks, such as Thunder
Knoll Bank and Rosalind Bank (also known as Rosalinda Bank) that are separated from the main
platform by deeper channels of over 200 m. In the shallow area of the ridge close to the mainland
of Nicaragua and Honduras there are numerous reefs, some of which reach above the water surface
in the form of cays.
28. Cays are small, low islands composed largely of sand derived from the physical
breakdown of coral reefs by wave action and subsequent reworking by wind. Larger cays can
accumulate enough sediment to allow for colonization and fixation by vegetation. The tropical
shallow-water conditions of the western Caribbean are conducive for coral reef growth. Cays, and
especially the smaller ones, are extremely vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes which occur
frequently in the Caribbean.
breakdown of coral reefs by wave action and subsequent reworking by wind. Larger cays can
accumulate enough sediment to allow for colonization and fixation by vegetation. The tropical
shallow-water conditions of the western Caribbean are conducive for coral reef growth. Cays, and
especially the smaller ones, are extremely vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes which occur
frequently in the Caribbean.
29. The insular features present on the continental shelf in front of Cape Gracias a Dios, to
the north of the 15th parallel, include Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay,
located between 30 and 40 nautical miles east of the mouth of the River Coco.
the north of the 15th parallel, include Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay,
located between 30 and 40 nautical miles east of the mouth of the River Coco.
In this Judgment, the names of the maritime features which appear in both the English and
the French text and sketch-maps are those most commonly used, whether Spanish or English.
the French text and sketch-maps are those most commonly used, whether Spanish or English.
30. The area to the north-east of Cape Gracias a Dios also includes a number of important
fishing banks located between 60 and 170 nautical miles from the mouth of the River Coco. Of
particular importance are Middle Bank, Thunder Knoll Bank, Rosalind Bank and Gorda Bank.
fishing banks located between 60 and 170 nautical miles from the mouth of the River Coco. Of
particular importance are Middle Bank, Thunder Knoll Bank, Rosalind Bank and Gorda Bank.
2.2. Geomorphology of the mouth of the River Coco
31. The land area abutting upon the maritime areas in dispute, which is known as the Miskito
or Mosquito Coast, is one of deltas, sandbars, and lagoons. It is a coast where extensive and rapid
morphological changes have occurred. As a result the coast north and south of
or Mosquito Coast, is one of deltas, sandbars, and lagoons. It is a coast where extensive and rapid
morphological changes have occurred. As a result the coast north and south of
Cape Gracias a Dios is of a typical accumulative type: the shoreline is formed by long stretching
sandy barrier islands or spits. Many of those islands and spits migrate constantly and slowly
enclose lagoons which eventually will be filled with fine sediment and become dry land. A
collection of coastal lagoons extends from Cape Camarón in Honduras to Bluefields, a town in the
south of the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast. This chain of lagoons is separated from the sea by thin
sand barriers. These lagoons are more in the nature of shallow pools formed by the rivers at their
mouths than inroads from the sea. Continuous sediments are deposited in them and sand barriers
obstruct their entrance. The most notable effect is the rapid accretion and inevitable advance of the
coastal front due to the constant deposition of terrigenous sediments carried by the rivers to the sea.
The strong erosion of the mountains in the interior, the abundant rain and the considerable flow on
the rivers that drain the Caribbean slope of the region cause this deposition.
32. The River Coco is the longest river of the Central American isthmus and bears one of the
largest volumes of water. From a geomorphological point of view the mouth of the River Coco is a
typical delta which forms a protrusion of the coastline forming a cape: Cape Gracias a Dios. All
deltas are by definition geographical accidents of an unstable nature and suffer changes in size and
form in relatively short periods of time. The River Coco has been progressively projecting
Cape Gracias a Dios towards the sea carrying with it huge quantities of alluvium. The sediments
deposited by the River Coco are dispersed by a network of diverging and shifting river channels, a
process which gives rise to a deltaic plain. The hierarchy of the river channels changes rapidly:
the main channels may quickly become secondary channels and vice versa. The accumulated delta
sediments are subsequently transported and redeposited along the Honduran coast by the Caribbean
Current and along the Nicaraguan coast by the Colombia-Panama Gyre (a circular current running
anticlockwise along the Nicaraguan coast). In sum, both the delta of the River Coco and even the
coastline north and south of it show a very active morpho-dynamism. The result is that the river
mouth is constantly changing its shape, and unstable islands and shoals form in the mouth where
the river deposits much of its sediment.
largest volumes of water. From a geomorphological point of view the mouth of the River Coco is a
typical delta which forms a protrusion of the coastline forming a cape: Cape Gracias a Dios. All
deltas are by definition geographical accidents of an unstable nature and suffer changes in size and
form in relatively short periods of time. The River Coco has been progressively projecting
Cape Gracias a Dios towards the sea carrying with it huge quantities of alluvium. The sediments
deposited by the River Coco are dispersed by a network of diverging and shifting river channels, a
process which gives rise to a deltaic plain. The hierarchy of the river channels changes rapidly:
the main channels may quickly become secondary channels and vice versa. The accumulated delta
sediments are subsequently transported and redeposited along the Honduran coast by the Caribbean
Current and along the Nicaraguan coast by the Colombia-Panama Gyre (a circular current running
anticlockwise along the Nicaraguan coast). In sum, both the delta of the River Coco and even the
coastline north and south of it show a very active morpho-dynamism. The result is that the river
mouth is constantly changing its shape, and unstable islands and shoals form in the mouth where
the river deposits much of its sediment.
* *
3. Historical background
33. Both Nicaragua and Honduras, which had been under the rule of Spain, became
independent States in 1821. Thereafter, Nicaragua and Honduras, together with Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Costa Rica, formed the Federal Republic of Central America, also known as the
United Provinces of Central America, which existed from 1823 to 1840. In 1838 Nicaragua and
Honduras seceded from the Federation, each maintaining the territory it had before. The
Federation disintegrated in the period between 1838 and 1840.
independent States in 1821. Thereafter, Nicaragua and Honduras, together with Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Costa Rica, formed the Federal Republic of Central America, also known as the
United Provinces of Central America, which existed from 1823 to 1840. In 1838 Nicaragua and
Honduras seceded from the Federation, each maintaining the territory it had before. The
Federation disintegrated in the period between 1838 and 1840.
34. On 25 July 1850, the Republic of Nicaragua and the Queen of Spain signed a treaty
recognizing Nicaragua’s independence from Spain. According to the terms of this Treaty the
Queen of Spain recognized as “free, sovereign and independent the Republic of Nicaragua with all
its territories that now belong to it from sea to sea, or that will later belong to it” (Art. II). The
Treaty also stated that the Queen of Spain relinquished
recognizing Nicaragua’s independence from Spain. According to the terms of this Treaty the
Queen of Spain recognized as “free, sovereign and independent the Republic of Nicaragua with all
its territories that now belong to it from sea to sea, or that will later belong to it” (Art. II). The
Treaty also stated that the Queen of Spain relinquished
“the sovereignty, rights and actions she holds over the American territory located
between the Atlantic and the Pacific sea, with its adjacent islands, known before by
the name of the province of Nicaragua, now Republic of the same name, and over the
remainder of the territories that have incorporated into said Republic” (Art. I).
The names of the adjacent islands pertaining to Nicaragua were not specified in the Treaty.
35. On 15 March 1866, the Republic of Honduras and the Queen of Spain signed a treaty
recognizing Honduras’s independence from Spain. According to the terms of this Treaty the
Queen of Spain recognized the Republic of Honduras “as a free, sovereign and independent state,
which comprises the entire territory that was the province of that name during the period of Spanish
domination, this territory being bounded in the East, Southeast and South by the Republic of
Nicaragua” (Art. I). The Treaty also stated that the Queen renounced “the sovereignty, rights and
claims that she has in respect of the territory of the said Republic”. The Treaty recognized
Honduran territory as comprising “the adjacent islands that lie along its coasts in both oceans”
without identifying these islands by name.
recognizing Honduras’s independence from Spain. According to the terms of this Treaty the
Queen of Spain recognized the Republic of Honduras “as a free, sovereign and independent state,
which comprises the entire territory that was the province of that name during the period of Spanish
domination, this territory being bounded in the East, Southeast and South by the Republic of
Nicaragua” (Art. I). The Treaty also stated that the Queen renounced “the sovereignty, rights and
claims that she has in respect of the territory of the said Republic”. The Treaty recognized
Honduran territory as comprising “the adjacent islands that lie along its coasts in both oceans”
without identifying these islands by name.
36. Nicaragua and Honduras later attempted to delimit their boundary by signing the
Ferrer-Medina Treaty in 1869 and the Ferrer-Uriarte Treaty in 1870, but neither treaty entered into
force.
Ferrer-Medina Treaty in 1869 and the Ferrer-Uriarte Treaty in 1870, but neither treaty entered into
force.
37. On 7 October 1894 Nicaragua and Honduras successfully concluded a general boundary
treaty known as the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty which entered into force on 26 December 1896 (I.C.J.
Reports 1960, pp. 199-202). Article II of the Treaty, according to the principle of uti possidetis
juris, provided that “each Republic is owner of the territory which at the date of independence
constituted respectively, the provinces of Honduras and Nicaragua”. Article I of the Treaty further
provided for the establishment of a Mixed Boundary Commission to demarcate the boundary
between Nicaragua and Honduras:
treaty known as the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty which entered into force on 26 December 1896 (I.C.J.
Reports 1960, pp. 199-202). Article II of the Treaty, according to the principle of uti possidetis
juris, provided that “each Republic is owner of the territory which at the date of independence
constituted respectively, the provinces of Honduras and Nicaragua”. Article I of the Treaty further
provided for the establishment of a Mixed Boundary Commission to demarcate the boundary
between Nicaragua and Honduras:
“The Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua shall appoint representatives
who, duly authorized, shall organize a Mixed Boundary Commission, whose duty it
shall be to settle in a friendly manner all pending doubts and differences, and to
demarcate on the spot the dividing line which is to constitute the boundary between
the two Republics.”
who, duly authorized, shall organize a Mixed Boundary Commission, whose duty it
shall be to settle in a friendly manner all pending doubts and differences, and to
demarcate on the spot the dividing line which is to constitute the boundary between
the two Republics.”
38. The Commission, which met from 1900 to 1904, fixed the boundary from the Pacific
Ocean at the Gulf of Fonseca to the Portillo de Teotecacinte, which is located approximately one
third of the way across the land territory, but it was unable to determine the boundary from that
point to the Atlantic coast. Pursuant to the terms of Article III of the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty,
Nicaragua and Honduras subsequently submitted their dispute over the remaining portion of the
boundary to the King of Spain as sole arbitrator. King Alfonso XIII of Spain handed down an
Arbitral Award on 23 December 1906, which drew a boundary from the mouth of the River Coco
at Cape Gracias a Dios to Portillo de Teotecacinte. The operative part of the Award stated that:
Ocean at the Gulf of Fonseca to the Portillo de Teotecacinte, which is located approximately one
third of the way across the land territory, but it was unable to determine the boundary from that
point to the Atlantic coast. Pursuant to the terms of Article III of the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty,
Nicaragua and Honduras subsequently submitted their dispute over the remaining portion of the
boundary to the King of Spain as sole arbitrator. King Alfonso XIII of Spain handed down an
Arbitral Award on 23 December 1906, which drew a boundary from the mouth of the River Coco
at Cape Gracias a Dios to Portillo de Teotecacinte. The operative part of the Award stated that:
“The extreme common boundary point on the coast of the Atlantic will be the
mouth of the River Coco, Segovia or Wanks, where it flows out in the sea close to
Cape Gracias a Dios, taking as the mouth of the river that of its principal arm between
mouth of the River Coco, Segovia or Wanks, where it flows out in the sea close to
Cape Gracias a Dios, taking as the mouth of the river that of its principal arm between
Hara and the Island of San Pío where said Cape is situated, leaving to Honduras the
islets and shoals existing within said principal arm before reaching the harbour bar,
and retaining for Nicaragua the southern shore of the said principal mouth with the
said Island of San Pío, and also the bay and town of Cape Gracias a Dios and the arm
or estuary called Gracias which flows to Gracias a Dios Bay, between the mainland
and said Island of San Pío.
Starting from the mouth of the Segovia or Coco, the frontier line will follow the
vaguada or thalweg of this river upstream without interruption until it reaches the
place of its confluence with the Poteca or Bodega, and thence said frontier line will
depart from the River Segovia, continuing along the thalweg of the said Poteca or
Bodega upstream until it joins the River Guineo or Namaslí.
vaguada or thalweg of this river upstream without interruption until it reaches the
place of its confluence with the Poteca or Bodega, and thence said frontier line will
depart from the River Segovia, continuing along the thalweg of the said Poteca or
Bodega upstream until it joins the River Guineo or Namaslí.
From this junction the line will follow the direction which corresponds to the
demarcation of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation made in
1720 to terminate at the Portillo de Teotecacinte in such a manner that said Sitio
remains wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua.” (Arbitral Award Made by the
King of Spain on 23 December 1906, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1960, pp. 202-203.)
demarcation of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation made in
1720 to terminate at the Portillo de Teotecacinte in such a manner that said Sitio
remains wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua.” (Arbitral Award Made by the
King of Spain on 23 December 1906, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1960, pp. 202-203.)
39. Nicaragua subsequently challenged the validity and binding character of the Arbitral
Award in a Note dated 19 March 1912. After several failed attempts to settle this dispute and a
number of boundary incidents in 1957, the Council of the OAS took up the issue that same year.
Through the mediation of an ad hoc Committee established by the Council of the OAS, Nicaragua
and Honduras agreed to submit their dispute to the International Court of Justice.
Award in a Note dated 19 March 1912. After several failed attempts to settle this dispute and a
number of boundary incidents in 1957, the Council of the OAS took up the issue that same year.
Through the mediation of an ad hoc Committee established by the Council of the OAS, Nicaragua
and Honduras agreed to submit their dispute to the International Court of Justice.
40. In its Application instituting proceedings, filed on 1 July 1958, Honduras requested the
Court to adjudge and declare that the failure by Nicaragua to give effect to the Arbitral Award
“constitut[ed] a breach of an international obligation” (ibid., p. 195) and that Nicaragua was under
an obligation to give effect to the Award. Nicaragua, for its part, requested the Court to adjudge
and declare that the decision rendered by the King of Spain did not “possess the character of a
binding arbitral award”, that in any event it was “incapable of execution by reason of its omissions,
contradictions and obscurities” and that Nicaragua and Honduras were “in respect of their frontier
in the same legal situation as before 23 December 1906” (ibid., pp. 198 and 199), the date of the
Award.
Court to adjudge and declare that the failure by Nicaragua to give effect to the Arbitral Award
“constitut[ed] a breach of an international obligation” (ibid., p. 195) and that Nicaragua was under
an obligation to give effect to the Award. Nicaragua, for its part, requested the Court to adjudge
and declare that the decision rendered by the King of Spain did not “possess the character of a
binding arbitral award”, that in any event it was “incapable of execution by reason of its omissions,
contradictions and obscurities” and that Nicaragua and Honduras were “in respect of their frontier
in the same legal situation as before 23 December 1906” (ibid., pp. 198 and 199), the date of the
Award.
41. In its Judgment, having considered the arguments of the Parties and evidence in the case
file, the Court first found that “the Parties [had] followed the procedure that had been agreed upon
for submitting their respective cases” to an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the
Gámez-Bonilla Treaty. Thus the designation of King Alfonso XIII as arbitrator entrusted with the
task of ruling on the boundary dispute between the two Parties was valid. The Court then
examined Nicaragua’s contention that the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty had lapsed before the King of
Spain had agreed to act as arbitrator and found that “the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty was in force till
24 December 1906, and that the King’s acceptance on 17 October 1904 of his designation as
arbitrator was well within the currency of the Treaty”.
file, the Court first found that “the Parties [had] followed the procedure that had been agreed upon
for submitting their respective cases” to an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the
Gámez-Bonilla Treaty. Thus the designation of King Alfonso XIII as arbitrator entrusted with the
task of ruling on the boundary dispute between the two Parties was valid. The Court then
examined Nicaragua’s contention that the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty had lapsed before the King of
Spain had agreed to act as arbitrator and found that “the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty was in force till
24 December 1906, and that the King’s acceptance on 17 October 1904 of his designation as
arbitrator was well within the currency of the Treaty”.
42. The Court further considered that,
“having regard to the fact that the designation of the King of Spain as arbitrator was
freely agreed to by Nicaragua, that no objection was taken by Nicaragua to the
jurisdiction of the King of Spain as arbitrator either on the ground of irregularity in his
designation as arbitrator or on the ground that the Gámez-Bonilla Treaty had lapsed
even before the King of Spain had signified his acceptance of the office of arbitrator,
and that Nicaragua fully participated in the arbitral proceedings before the King, it is
no longer open to Nicaragua to rely on either of these contentions as furnishing a
ground for the nullity of the Award” (ibid., p. 209).
43. The Court then turned to Nicaragua’s allegation that the Award was “a nullity” on the
grounds that it had been vitiated by (a) “excess of jurisdiction”, (b) “essential error” and (c) “lack
or inadequacy of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by the Arbitrator”.
grounds that it had been vitiated by (a) “excess of jurisdiction”, (b) “essential error” and (c) “lack
or inadequacy of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by the Arbitrator”.
44. The Court stated that Nicaragua “by express declaration and by conduct, recognized the
Award as valid and it [was] no longer open to Nicaragua to go back upon that recognition and to
challenge the validity of the Award”. Even in the absence of such recognition “the Award would,
in the judgment of the Court, still have to be recognized as valid” for the following reasons. First,
the Court was unable to uphold the claim that the King of Spain had gone beyond the authority
conferred upon him. Second, the Court added that it had not been able to discover in the arguments
of Nicaragua any precise indication of “essential error” which would have had the effect, as alleged
by Nicaragua, “of rendering the Award a nullity”. In this regard, the Court observed that “[t]he
instances of ‘essential error’ that Nicaragua [had] brought to the notice of the Court amount[ed] to
no more than the evaluation of documents and of other evidence submitted to the arbitrator”.
Third, the Court rejected the last ground of nullity raised by Nicaragua by concluding that “an
examination of the Award show[ed] that it deal[t] in logical order and in some detail with all
relevant considerations and that it contain[ed] ample reasoning and explanations in support of the
conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator” (ibid., pp. 215 and 216).
Award as valid and it [was] no longer open to Nicaragua to go back upon that recognition and to
challenge the validity of the Award”. Even in the absence of such recognition “the Award would,
in the judgment of the Court, still have to be recognized as valid” for the following reasons. First,
the Court was unable to uphold the claim that the King of Spain had gone beyond the authority
conferred upon him. Second, the Court added that it had not been able to discover in the arguments
of Nicaragua any precise indication of “essential error” which would have had the effect, as alleged
by Nicaragua, “of rendering the Award a nullity”. In this regard, the Court observed that “[t]he
instances of ‘essential error’ that Nicaragua [had] brought to the notice of the Court amount[ed] to
no more than the evaluation of documents and of other evidence submitted to the arbitrator”.
Third, the Court rejected the last ground of nullity raised by Nicaragua by concluding that “an
examination of the Award show[ed] that it deal[t] in logical order and in some detail with all
relevant considerations and that it contain[ed] ample reasoning and explanations in support of the
conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator” (ibid., pp. 215 and 216).
45. The Court finally dealt with the argument by Nicaragua that the Award was not capable
of execution by reason of its “omissions, contradictions and obscurities”. In this regard, the Court
noted that
of execution by reason of its “omissions, contradictions and obscurities”. In this regard, the Court
noted that
“In view of the clear directive in the operative clause [fixing the common
boundary point on the coast of the Atlantic as the mouth of the river Segovia or Coco,
where it flows out into the sea] and the explanations in support of it in the Award, the
Court [did] not consider that the Award [was] incapable of execution by reason of any
omissions, contradictions or obscurities.”
boundary point on the coast of the Atlantic as the mouth of the river Segovia or Coco,
where it flows out into the sea] and the explanations in support of it in the Award, the
Court [did] not consider that the Award [was] incapable of execution by reason of any
omissions, contradictions or obscurities.”
46. In the operative part of its Judgment, the Court found that the Award made by the King
of Spain on 23 December 1906 was valid and binding and that Nicaragua was under an obligation
to give effect to it (ibid., p. 217).
of Spain on 23 December 1906 was valid and binding and that Nicaragua was under an obligation
to give effect to it (ibid., p. 217).
47. As Nicaragua and Honduras could not thereafter agree on how to implement the
1906 Arbitral Award, Nicaragua requested the intervention of the Inter-American Peace
Committee. The Committee subsequently established a Mixed Commission which completed the
1906 Arbitral Award, Nicaragua requested the intervention of the Inter-American Peace
Committee. The Committee subsequently established a Mixed Commission which completed the
demarcation of the boundary line with the placement of boundary markers in 1962. The Mixed
Commission determined that the land boundary would begin at the mouth of the River Coco, at
14° 59.8, N latitude and 83° 08.9, W longitude.
48. From 1963 to 1979, Honduras and Nicaragua generally enjoyed friendly relations. The
first efforts at bilateral negotiations between the Parties on matters relating to the maritime
boundary in the Caribbean were initiated at the request of Nicaragua, by means of a diplomatic
Note dated 11 May 1977. In this communication addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Honduras, the Ambassador of Nicaragua to Honduras noted that his “Government wish[ed] to
initiate conversations leading to the determination of the definitive marine and sub-marine
delimitation in the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea zone”. By a diplomatic Note of 20 May 1977 the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Honduras replied that his “Government accept[ed] with pleasure the
opening of negotiations” on the maritime delimitation. However these negotiations made no
progress consequent upon the Sandinista revolution that toppled the Somoza Government in
July 1979. In the period that followed until 1990 (when the new Nicaraguan Government of
Violeta Chamorro was sworn into office), relations between Nicaragua and Honduras deteriorated.
first efforts at bilateral negotiations between the Parties on matters relating to the maritime
boundary in the Caribbean were initiated at the request of Nicaragua, by means of a diplomatic
Note dated 11 May 1977. In this communication addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Honduras, the Ambassador of Nicaragua to Honduras noted that his “Government wish[ed] to
initiate conversations leading to the determination of the definitive marine and sub-marine
delimitation in the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea zone”. By a diplomatic Note of 20 May 1977 the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Honduras replied that his “Government accept[ed] with pleasure the
opening of negotiations” on the maritime delimitation. However these negotiations made no
progress consequent upon the Sandinista revolution that toppled the Somoza Government in
July 1979. In the period that followed until 1990 (when the new Nicaraguan Government of
Violeta Chamorro was sworn into office), relations between Nicaragua and Honduras deteriorated.
49. On 21 September 1979, Honduras sent a diplomatic Note to Nicaragua stating that a
Honduran fishing vessel had been attacked by Nicaragua 8 miles north of the 15th parallel, which,
according to the Honduran Note, served “as the limit between Honduras and Nicaragua”. On
24 September 1979, Nicaragua sent a diplomatic Note in reply offering assurance that an urgent
investigation would be carried out regarding the “capture [of a] Honduran motor fishing vessel . . .
and crew by [a] Honduran fishing vessel . . ., being used by Nicaraguan regular forces”. The
Nicaraguan Note made no mention of the assertion by Honduras that the 15th parallel served as the
boundary line between the two countries.
Honduran fishing vessel had been attacked by Nicaragua 8 miles north of the 15th parallel, which,
according to the Honduran Note, served “as the limit between Honduras and Nicaragua”. On
24 September 1979, Nicaragua sent a diplomatic Note in reply offering assurance that an urgent
investigation would be carried out regarding the “capture [of a] Honduran motor fishing vessel . . .
and crew by [a] Honduran fishing vessel . . ., being used by Nicaraguan regular forces”. The
Nicaraguan Note made no mention of the assertion by Honduras that the 15th parallel served as the
boundary line between the two countries.
50. Nicaragua, on 19 December 1979, enacted the Continental Shelf and Adjacent Sea Act.
The Preamble to that Act stated that prior to 1979, “foreign intervention [had] not permit[ted] the
full exercise by the People of Nicaragua of [the nation’s] rights over the Continental Shelf and
Adjacent Sea . rights which correspond[ed] to the Nicaraguan Nation by history, geography and
International Law”. Article 2 of the Act provided that “[t]he sovereignty and jurisdiction of
Nicaragua extends over the sea adjacent to its seacoasts for 200 nautical miles”. The official map
of the continental shelf of Nicaragua of 1980, and the official map of the Republic dated 1982, both
included a box comprising Rosalind, Serranilla and adjacent areas up to parallel 17°.
The Preamble to that Act stated that prior to 1979, “foreign intervention [had] not permit[ted] the
full exercise by the People of Nicaragua of [the nation’s] rights over the Continental Shelf and
Adjacent Sea . rights which correspond[ed] to the Nicaraguan Nation by history, geography and
International Law”. Article 2 of the Act provided that “[t]he sovereignty and jurisdiction of
Nicaragua extends over the sea adjacent to its seacoasts for 200 nautical miles”. The official map
of the continental shelf of Nicaragua of 1980, and the official map of the Republic dated 1982, both
included a box comprising Rosalind, Serranilla and adjacent areas up to parallel 17°.
51. Honduras promulgated a new Constitution on 11 January 1982, which provided in
Article 10 that, among others, the cays of Palo de Campeche and Media Luna and the banks of
Salmedina, Providencia, De Coral, Rosalind and Serranilla “and all others located in the Atlantic
that historically, geographically and juridically belong to it” were Honduran. Article 11 of the
1982 Honduran Constitution further declared an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles.
Article 10 that, among others, the cays of Palo de Campeche and Media Luna and the banks of
Salmedina, Providencia, De Coral, Rosalind and Serranilla “and all others located in the Atlantic
that historically, geographically and juridically belong to it” were Honduran. Article 11 of the
1982 Honduran Constitution further declared an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles.
52. On 23 March 1982, Honduras sent a diplomatic Note to Nicaragua with regard to an
incident on 21 March 1982, involving the capture of four Honduran fishing vessels to the north of
the 15th parallel by two Nicaraguan coastguard vessels, which had subsequently towed the
incident on 21 March 1982, involving the capture of four Honduran fishing vessels to the north of
the 15th parallel by two Nicaraguan coastguard vessels, which had subsequently towed the
Honduran fishing vessels to a Nicaraguan port, Puerto Cabezas, lying at approximately
14° N latitude. In the Note, Honduras affirmed that the 15th parallel had been traditionally
recognized as the boundary line:
“On Sunday the 21st of this month, two coastguard launches of the Sandinista
Navy penetrated as far as Bobel and Media Luna Cays, 16 miles to the North of
Parallel 15, which has been traditionally recognised by both countries to be the
dividing line in the Atlantic Ocean. In flagrant violation of our sovereignty in waters
under Honduran jurisdiction, they proceeded to capture four Honduran fishing
launches and their crews, all of Honduran nationality towing them toward
Puerto Cabezas, in Nicaragua.”
Navy penetrated as far as Bobel and Media Luna Cays, 16 miles to the North of
Parallel 15, which has been traditionally recognised by both countries to be the
dividing line in the Atlantic Ocean. In flagrant violation of our sovereignty in waters
under Honduran jurisdiction, they proceeded to capture four Honduran fishing
launches and their crews, all of Honduran nationality towing them toward
Puerto Cabezas, in Nicaragua.”
53. On 14 April 1982, Nicaragua sent a diplomatic Note in response to Honduras asserting
that Nicaragua had never recognized any maritime boundary with Honduras in the Caribbean Sea:
that Nicaragua had never recognized any maritime boundary with Honduras in the Caribbean Sea:
“Your Excellency refers in your Note that on Sunday, March 21st, two of our
Coastguard ships ‘penetrated as far as Bobel and Media Luna Cays, 16 miles North of
Parallel 15. This has been traditionally recognized by both countries to be the
dividing line in the Atlantic.’ This affirmation, to the least, surprises us, since
Nicaragua has not recognized any maritime frontier with Honduras in the Caribbean
Sea, being undefined until today the maritime boundary between Honduras and
Nicaragua in said sea. Nicaragua understands that in Honduras there is a criterion that
aspires to establish said Parallel as the boundary line. At no time has Nicaragua
recognized it as such since that would imply an attempt against the territorial integrity
and national sovereignty of Nicaragua. According to the established rules of
international law, territorial matters must be necessarily resolve[d] in treaties validly
celebrated and in conformity with the internal dispositions of the contracting States,
not having effected to date, any agreement in this regard. Therefore, Nicaragua rejects
Your Excellency’s affirmation in the sense that it claims to establish Parallel 15 as the
boundary line between our two countries in the Caribbean Sea.”
Coastguard ships ‘penetrated as far as Bobel and Media Luna Cays, 16 miles North of
Parallel 15. This has been traditionally recognized by both countries to be the
dividing line in the Atlantic.’ This affirmation, to the least, surprises us, since
Nicaragua has not recognized any maritime frontier with Honduras in the Caribbean
Sea, being undefined until today the maritime boundary between Honduras and
Nicaragua in said sea. Nicaragua understands that in Honduras there is a criterion that
aspires to establish said Parallel as the boundary line. At no time has Nicaragua
recognized it as such since that would imply an attempt against the territorial integrity
and national sovereignty of Nicaragua. According to the established rules of
international law, territorial matters must be necessarily resolve[d] in treaties validly
celebrated and in conformity with the internal dispositions of the contracting States,
not having effected to date, any agreement in this regard. Therefore, Nicaragua rejects
Your Excellency’s affirmation in the sense that it claims to establish Parallel 15 as the
boundary line between our two countries in the Caribbean Sea.”
In the Note, Nicaragua further stated that it considered that negotiations on the delimitation in the
Caribbean Sea “should be undertaken through mixed commissions” but that “[i]n the interest of
avoiding frictions between [the] two countries” such discussions should be “postponed, in order to
wait the adequate moment to proceed with negotiations”.
Caribbean Sea “should be undertaken through mixed commissions” but that “[i]n the interest of
avoiding frictions between [the] two countries” such discussions should be “postponed, in order to
wait the adequate moment to proceed with negotiations”.
54. By a diplomatic Note dated 3 May 1982, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Honduras
continued the exchange by proposing that, pending a resolution of the problem, a temporary line or
zone be created which would be without prejudice to the maritime rights that either State might
claim in the future in the Caribbean Sea:
continued the exchange by proposing that, pending a resolution of the problem, a temporary line or
zone be created which would be without prejudice to the maritime rights that either State might
claim in the future in the Caribbean Sea:
“I agree with Your Excellency when you affirm that the maritime border
between Honduras and Nicaragua has not been legally delimited. Despite this, it
cannot be denied that there exists, or at least that there used to exist, a traditionally
accepted line, which is that which corresponds to the Parallel which crosses
Cape Gracias a Dios. There is no other way of explaining why it is only since a few
months ago that there have occurred, with worrying frequency, border incidents
between our two countries.
between Honduras and Nicaragua has not been legally delimited. Despite this, it
cannot be denied that there exists, or at least that there used to exist, a traditionally
accepted line, which is that which corresponds to the Parallel which crosses
Cape Gracias a Dios. There is no other way of explaining why it is only since a few
months ago that there have occurred, with worrying frequency, border incidents
between our two countries.
However, I coincide with Your Excellency that this is not the appropriate
moment at which to open a discussion on maritime borders . . .
From what both Your Excellency and my Government have expressed, it is
clear that our two countries desire the maintenance of peace, and will abstain from
introducing new points of controversy in the current circumstances. To this end,
however, I consider it necessary to adopt some sort of criterion, albeit informal and
transitional, in order to prevent incidents such as that which concerns us now. The
temporary establishment of a line or zone might be considered which, without
prejudice to the rights that the two States might claim in the future, could serve as a
momentary indicator of their respective areas of jurisdiction. I am sure through the
frank and cordial dialogue we have already started, we will be able to find a
satisfactory solution for both Parties.”
clear that our two countries desire the maintenance of peace, and will abstain from
introducing new points of controversy in the current circumstances. To this end,
however, I consider it necessary to adopt some sort of criterion, albeit informal and
transitional, in order to prevent incidents such as that which concerns us now. The
temporary establishment of a line or zone might be considered which, without
prejudice to the rights that the two States might claim in the future, could serve as a
momentary indicator of their respective areas of jurisdiction. I am sure through the
frank and cordial dialogue we have already started, we will be able to find a
satisfactory solution for both Parties.”
55. On 18 September 1982, Honduras sent a diplomatic Note to Nicaragua protesting an
attack alleged to have been initiated by Nicaragua on that day against a Honduran fishing boat near
Bobel and Media Luna cays, north of the 15th parallel.
attack alleged to have been initiated by Nicaragua on that day against a Honduran fishing boat near
Bobel and Media Luna cays, north of the 15th parallel.
56. By a diplomatic Note of 19 September 1982, Nicaragua rejected the Honduran proposal
to create a temporary line or zone as set out in the Honduran Foreign Minister’s diplomatic Note of
3 May 1982 and further contested Honduras’s version of the facts concerning the attack on a
fishing vessel alleged by Honduras in its Note of 18 September 1982. In particular, Nicaragua
noted that
to create a temporary line or zone as set out in the Honduran Foreign Minister’s diplomatic Note of
3 May 1982 and further contested Honduras’s version of the facts concerning the attack on a
fishing vessel alleged by Honduras in its Note of 18 September 1982. In particular, Nicaragua
noted that
“the Government of Nicaragua manifests its deep astonishment at certain affirmations
stated by Your Excellency in your Note [of 18 September 1982], in relation to the
jurisdictional zone in the Caribbean Sea. As we have pointed
stated by Your Excellency in your Note [of 18 September 1982], in relation to the
jurisdictional zone in the Caribbean Sea. As we have pointed