Contentious

Code

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

By an Application dated 17 May 1989, the Islamic Republic of Iran instituted proceedings before the Court against the United States of America, further to the destruction in the air by the USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States armed forces operating in the Persian Gulf, of an Iran Air Airbus A-300B, causing the deaths of its 290 passengers and crew. According to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, by its destruction of that aircraft occasioning fatal casualties, by refusing to compensate Iran for the damage caused and by its continuous interference in aviation in the Persian Gulf, had violated certain provisions of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The Islamic Republic of Iran likewise asserted that the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had erred in a decision of 17 March 1989 concerning the incident. Within the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, the United States of America raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Subsequently, by a letter dated 8 August 1994, the Agents of the two Parties jointly informed the Court that their Governments had “entered into negotiations that may lead to a full and final settlement of [the] case” and requested the Court “[to postpone] sine die the opening of the oral proceedings” on the preliminary objections, for which it had fixed the date of 12 September 1994. By a letter dated 22 February 1996 and filed in the Registry on the same day, the Agents of the two Parties jointly notified the Court that their Governments had agreed to discontinue the case because they had entered into “an agreement in full and final settlement”. Accordingly, the President of the Court, also on 22 February 1996, made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

17 May 1989

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran

24 July 1990

Available in:

English

Preliminary Objections submitted by the United States of America

4 March 1991

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Observations and Submissions of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Preliminary Objections

9 September 1992

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Orders

Order of 13 December 1989

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge Schwebel

English French Bilingual

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 16 August 1988, the Government of Denmark filed in the Registry an Application instituting proceedings against Norway, by which it seised the Court of a dispute concerning the delimitation of Denmark’s and Norway’s fishing zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between the east coast of Greenland and the Norwegian island of Jan Mayen, where both Parties laid claim to an area of some 72,000 square kilometres. On 14 June 1993, the Court delivered its Judgment. Denmark had asked the Court to draw a single line of delimitation of those areas at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenland’s baseline, or, if the Court did not find it possible to draw such a line, in accordance with international law. Norway, for its part, had asked the Court to find that the median line constituted the two lines of separation for the purpose of the delimitation of the two relevant areas, on the understanding that those lines would then coincide, but that the delimitations would remain conceptually distinct. A principal contention of Norway was that a delimitation had already been established between Jan Mayen and Greenland, by the effect of treaties in force between the Parties — a bilateral Agreement of 1965 and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf — as both instruments provide for the drawing of a median line.

The Court noted, in the first place, that the 1965 Agreement covered areas different from the continental shelf between the two countries, and that that Agreement did not place on record any intention of the Parties to undertake to apply the median line for any of the subsequent delimitations of that continental shelf. The Court then found that the force of Norway’s argument relating to the 1958 Convention depended in the circumstances of the case upon the existence of “special circumstances” as envisaged by the Convention. It subsequently rejected the argument of Norway according to which the Parties, by their “conjoint conduct” had long recognized the applicability of a median line delimitation in their mutual relations. The Court examined separately the two strands of the applicable law : the effect of Article 6 of the 1958 Convention, applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf boundary, and then the effect of the customary law which governed the fishery zone. After examining the case law in this field and the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Court noted that the statement (in those provisions) of an “equitable solution” as the aim of any delimitation process reflected the requirements of customary law as regards the delimitation both of the continental shelf and of exclusive economic zones. It appeared to the Court that, both for the continental shelf and for the fishery zones in the instant case, it was proper to begin the process of delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn, and it then observed that it was called upon to examine every particular factor in the case which might suggest an adjustment or shifting of the median line provisionally drawn. The 1958 Convention required the investigation of any “special circumstances” ; the customary law based upon equitable principles for its part required the investigation of the “relevant circumstances”.

The Court found that, although it was a matter of categories which were different in origin and in name, there was inevitably a tendency towards assimilation between the two types of circumstances. The Court then turned to the question whether the circumstances of the instant case required adjustment or shifting of the median line. To that end it considered a number of factors. With regard to the disparity or disproportion between the lengths of the “relevant coasts”, alleged by Denmark, the Court concluded that the striking difference in lengths of the relevant coasts constituted a special circumstance within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the 1958 Convention. Similarly, as regards the fishery zones, the Court was of the opinion that the application of the median line led to manifestly inequitable results. The Court concluded therefrom that the median line should be adjusted or shifted in such a way as to effect a delimitation closer to the coast of Jan Mayen.

The Court then considered certain circumstances that might also affect the position of the boundary line, i.e., access to resources, essentially fishery resources (capelin), particularly with regard to the presence of ice ; population and economy ; questions of security ; conduct of the Parties. Among those factors, the Court only retained the one relating to access to resources, considering that the median line was too far to the west for Denmark to be assured of equitable access to the capelin stock. It concluded that, for that reason also, the median line had to be adjusted or shifted eastwards. Lastly, the Court proceeded to define the single line of delimitation as being the line M-N-O-A marked on the sketch-map reproduced on page 80 of the Judgment.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

16 August 1988

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Orders

Order of 14 October 1988

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 21 June 1990

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Summary of the Judgment of 14 June 1993

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 11 December 1986, El Salvador and Honduras notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby the Parties requested the Court to form a Chamber — consisting of three Members of the Court and two judges ad hoc — in order to (1) delimit the frontier line in the six sectors not delimited by the 1980 General Treaty of Peace concluded between the two States in 1980 and (2) determine the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf of Fonseca and the maritime spaces within and outside it. That Chamber was constituted by an Order of 8 May 1987. The time-limits for the written proceedings were fixed, but extended several times at the request of the Parties.

In November 1989, Nicaragua addressed to the Court an Application under Article 62 of the Statute for permission to intervene in the case, stating that, while it had no desire to intervene in the dispute concerning the land boundary, it wished to protect its rights in the Gulf of Fonseca (of which the three States are riparians), as well as “in order to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights of Nicaragua which are in issue in the dispute”. Nicaragua further maintained that its request for permission to intervene was a matter exclusively within the procedural mandate of the full Court. The Court, by an Order adopted on 28 February 1990, found that it was for the Chamber formed to deal with the case to decide whether the Application for permission to intervene should be granted. Having heard the Parties and Nicaragua at a series of public sittings, the Chamber delivered its Judgment on 13 September 1990. It found that Nicaragua had shown that it had an interest of a legal nature which might be affected by part of the Judgment of the Chamber on the merits, with regard to the legal régime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca.

The Chamber on the other hand decided that Nicaragua had not shown such an interest which might be affected by any decision it might be required to make concerning the delimitation of those waters, or any decision as to the legal situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf or any decision as to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf. Within the framework thus defined, the Chamber decided that Nicaragua was entitled to intervene in the case. A written statement of Nicaragua and written observations on that statement by El Salvador and Honduras were subsequently filed with the Court. The oral arguments of the Parties and the oral observations of Nicaragua were heard at 50 public sittings, held between April and June 1991. The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 11 September 1992.

The Chamber began by noting the agreement of both Parties that the fundamental principle for determining the land area is the uti possidetis juris, i.e., the principle, generally accepted in Spanish America, that international boundaries follow former colonial administrative boundaries. The Chamber was, moreover, authorized to take into account, where pertinent, a provision of the 1980 Peace Treaty that a basis for delimitation is to be found in documents issued by the Spanish Crown or any other Spanish authority during the colonial period, and indicating the jurisdictions or limits of territories, as well as other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind. Noting that the Parties had invoked the exercise of government powers in the disputed areas and of other forms of effectivités, the Chamber considered that it might have regard to evidence of action of this kind affording indications of the uti possidetis juris boundary. The Chamber then considered successively, from west to east, each of the six disputed sectors of the land boundary, to which some 152 pages were specifically devoted.

With regard to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf, the Chamber considered that, although it had jurisdiction to determine the legal situation of all the islands, a judicial determination was required only for those in dispute, which it found to be El Tigre, Meanguera and Meanguerita. It rejected Honduras’s claim that there was no real dispute as to El Tigre. Noting that in legal theory each island appertained to one of the Gulf States by succession from Spain, which precluded acquisition by occupation, the Chamber observed that effective possession by one of the States could constitute a post-colonial effectivité shedding light on the legal situation. Since Honduras had occupied El Tigre since 1849, the Chamber concluded that the conduct of the Parties accorded with the assumption that El Tigre appertained to it. The Chamber found Meanguerita, which is very small, uninhabited and contiguous to Meanguera, to be a “dependency” of Meanguera. It noted that El Salvador had claimed Meanguera in 1854 and that from the late nineteenth century the presence there of El Salvador had intensified, as substantial documentary evidence of the administration of Meanguera by El Salvador showed. A protest in 1991 by Honduras to El Salvador over Meanguera was considered too late to affect the presumption of acquiescence by Honduras. The Chamber thus found that Meanguera and Meanguerita appertained to El Salvador.

With respect to the maritime spaces within the Gulf, El Salvador claimed that they were subject to a condominium of the three coastal States and that delimitation would hence be inappropriate ; Honduras argued that within the Gulf there was a community of interests necessitating a judicial delimitation. Applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation to the Special Agreement and the Peace Treaty, the Chamber found that it had no jurisdiction to effect a delimitation, whether inside or outside the Gulf. As for the legal situation of the waters of the Gulf, the Chamber noted that, given its characteristics, the Gulf was generally acknowledged to be a historic bay. The Chamber examined the history of the Gulf to discover its “régime”, taking into account the 1917 Judgment of the Central American Court of Justice in a case between El Salvador and Nicaragua concerning the Gulf. In its Judgment, the Central American Court had found inter alia that the Gulf was a historic bay possessing the characteristics of a closed sea. Noting that the coastal States continued to claim the Gulf as a historic bay with the character of a closed sea, a position in which other nations acquiesced, the Chamber observed that its views on the régime of the historic waters of the Gulf coincided with those expressed in the 1917 Judgment. It found that the Gulf waters, other than the three-mile maritime belt, were historic waters and subject to the joint sovereignty of the three coastal States. It noted that there had been no attempt to divide the waters according to the principle of uti possidetis juris. A joint succession of the three States to the maritime area thus seemed to be the logical outcome of the uti possidetis principle. The Chamber accordingly found that Honduras had legal rights in the waters up to the bay closing line, which it considered also to be a baseline.

Regarding the waters outside the Gulf, the Chamber observed that entirely new concepts of law, unthought of when the Central American Court gave its Judgment in 1917, were involved, in particular those regarding the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, and found that, excluding a strip at either extremity corresponding to the maritime belts of El Salvador and Nicaragua, the three joint sovereigns were entitled, outside the closing line, to a territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, but must proceed to a division by mutual agreement. Lastly, as regards the effect of the Judgment on the intervening State, the Chamber found that it was not res judicata for Nicaragua.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

11 December 1986

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

English French

Reply of the Republic of El Salvador

15 December 1989

Available in:

English

Observations of the Government of the Republic of El Salvador

8 January 1990

Oral proceedings

Separate opinion Judge Shahabuddeen

English French Bilingual

Order of 28 February 1990

Application for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Oda

Summary of the Judgment of 13 September 1990

Available in:

English French

Summary 1992/4

Summary of the Judgment of 11 September 1992

Available in:

English French

Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

This application was submitted to the Court by Tunisia, which took the view that the 1982 Judgment gave rise to certain problems of implementation. Although the Court had already had to deal with several requests for interpretation, this was the first time an application for revision had come before it. The Statute of the Court states that a judgment may only be revised if there has been a discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor. Libya opposed Tunisia’s twofold application, denying that there had been any problems of implementation of the kind invoked by Tunisia, and arguing that Tunisia’s request for interpretation was merely an application for revision, in another guise.

In its Judgment of 10 December 1985, rendered unanimously, the Court rejected the application for revision as inadmissible. It found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the first sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that the submission of Tunisia relating to that sector could not be upheld ; it found moreover that the request made by Tunisia for the correction of an error was without object, and that there was no call for it to give a decision thereon. The Court also found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes in the second sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that it could not uphold the submission made by Tunisia relating to that sector. In conclusion, the Court found that no cause had arisen for it to order an expert survey for the purpose of ascertaining the precise co-ordinates of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

27 July 1984

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Observations of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the Application submitted by Tunisia for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982

15 October 1984

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1985 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 13 to 18 June 1985 and on 10 December 1985, President Nagendra Singh presiding

Summary of the Judgment of 10 December 1985

Available in:

English French

Press releases

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 6 February 1987, the United States instituted proceedings against Italy in respect of a dispute arising out of the requisition by the Government of Italy of the plant and related assets of Raytheon-Elsi S.p.A., an Italian company producing electronic components and previously known as Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), which was stated to have been 100 per cent owned by two United States corporations. The Court, by an Order dated 2 March 1987, formed a Chamber of five judges to deal with the case, as requested by the Parties. Italy, in its Counter-Memorial, raised an objection to the admissibility of the Application on the grounds of a failure to exhaust local remedies, and the Parties agreed that that objection should “be heard and determined within the framework of the merits”. On 20 July 1989, the Chamber delivered a Judgment in which it rejected the objection raised by Italy and said that the latter had not committed any of the breaches alleged by the United States of the bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1948, or of the Agreement Supplementing that Treaty. The United States principally reproached the Respondent (a) with having effected an unlawful requisition of the ELSI plant, thus depriving the shareholders of their direct right to proceed to the liquidation of the company’s assets under normal conditions ; (b) with having been incapable of preventing the occupation of the plant by the employees ; (c) with having failed to reach any decision as to the legality of the requisition during a period of sixteen months ; and (d) with having intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings, with the result that it had purchased ELSI at a price well below its true market value. After a detailed consideration of the facts alleged and the relevant conventional provisions, the Chamber found that the Respondent had not breached the 1948 Treaty and the Agreement supplementing that Treaty in the manner claimed by the Applicant, and rejected the claim for reparation made by the United States.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

6 February 1987

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1987 (bilingual version)

Oral arguments - Minutes of the Public sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 27 November 1987, President of the Chamber, President Nagendra Singh, presiding, and from 13 February to 20 July 1989, President of the Chamber, President Ruda, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 28 July 1986, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica and Honduras, respectively, alleging various violations of international law for which the two States bore legal responsibility, particularly on account of certain military activities directed against the Nicaraguan authorities by the contras operating from their territory.

Honduras informed the Court that in its view the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and, after a meeting with the President, the Parties agreed that the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility would be dealt with at a preliminary stage of the proceedings. Once the Parties had filed their written pleadings and taken part in hearings devoted to those questions, the Court delivered its Judgment in the case on 20 December 1988. Nicaragua had relied, as the basis of the jurisdiction of the Court, both on Article XXXI of the Inter American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (known as the “Pact of Bogotá”) of 1948 and on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the Parties under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. The Court found that the Pact of Bogotá conferred jurisdiction upon it. It dismissed the two arguments asserted successively by Honduras in that regard, namely that Article XXXI of the Pact had to be supplemented by a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction or that it could be so supplemented but need not be. The Court found that the first argument was incompatible with the actual terms of Article XXXI. With regard to the second argument, the Court had to consider the divergent interpretations of Article XXXI that were proposed by the Parties, and set aside the interpretation of Honduras according to which, inter alia, effect should be given to the reservations to Honduras’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court that had been introduced into its declaration of 1986. On that point, the Court found that the commitment in Article XXXI of the Pact was independent of the declarations of acceptance of its jurisdiction.

The Court moreover rejected the four objections raised by Honduras to the admissibility of the Application, of which two had a general character and two were derived from the Pact of Bogotá. Subsequently, and after the proceedings on the merits had been initiated and Nicaragua had filed its Memorial, and after the Court, at the request of the Parties, had postponed the date for the fixing of the time limit for the presentation of the Counter Memorial of Honduras, the Agent of Nicaragua, in May 1992, informed the Court that the Parties had reached an out of court agreement and did not wish to go on with the proceedings. On 27 May 1992, the Court made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the General List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

28 July 1986

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

English French Bilingual

Order of 31 March 1988

Withdrawal of Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

Judgments

Judgment of 20 December 1988

Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1988

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 9 April 1984 Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America, together with a Request for the indication of provisional measures concerning a dispute relating to responsibility for military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. On 10 May 1984 the Court made an Order indicating provisional measures. One of these measures required the United States immediately to cease and refrain from any action restricting access to Nicaraguan ports, and, in particular, the laying of mines. The Court also indicated that the right to sovereignty and to political independence possessed by Nicaragua, like any other State, should be fully respected and should not be jeopardized by activities contrary to the principle prohibiting the threat or use of force and to the principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. The Court also decided in the aforementioned Order that the proceedings would first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the Nicaraguan Application. Just before the closure of the written proceedings in this phase, El Salvador filed a declaration of intervention in the case under Article 63 of the Statute, requesting permission to claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application. In its Order dated 4 October 1984, the Court decided that El Salvador’s declaration of intervention was inadmissible inasmuch as it related to the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings.

After hearing argument from both Parties in the course of public hearings held from 8 to 18 October 1984, on 26 November 1984 the Court delivered a Judgment stating that it possessed jurisdiction to deal with the case and that Nicaragua’s Application was admissible. In particular, it held that the Nicaraguan declaration of 1929 was valid and that Nicaragua was therefore entitled to invoke the United States declaration of 1946 as a basis of the Court’s jurisdiction (Article 36, paragraphs 2 and 5, of the Statute). The subsequent proceedings took place in the absence of the United States, which announced on 18 January 1985 that it “intends not to participate in any further proceedings in connection with this case”. From 12 to 20 September 1985, the Court heard oral argument by Nicaragua and the testimony of the five witnesses it had called. On 27 June 1986, the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits. The findings included a rejection of the justification of collective self‑defence advanced by the United States concerning the military or paramilitary activities in or against Nicaragua, and a statement that the United States had violated the obligations imposed by customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State, not to use force against another State, not to infringe the sovereignty of another State, and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. The Court also found that the United States had violated certain obligations arising from a bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956, and that it had committed acts such to deprive that treaty of its object and purpose.

It decided that the United States was under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all acts constituting breaches of its legal obligations, and that it must make reparation for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law and the 1956 Treaty, the amount of that reparation to be fixed in subsequent proceedings if the Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Court subsequently fixed, by an Order, time‑limits for the filing of written pleadings by the Parties on the matter of the form and amount of reparation, and the Memorial of Nicaragua was filed on 29 March 1988, while the United States maintained its refusal to take part in the case. In September 1991, Nicaragua informed the Court, inter alia, that it did not wish to continue the proceedings. The United States told the Court that it welcomed the discontinuance and, by an Order of the President dated 26 September 1991, the case was removed from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

9 April 1984

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

29 March 1988

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 25 and 27 April and 10 May 1984, President Elias presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 8 to 18 October and 26 November 1984, President Elias presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1985/17 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Merits - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 12 to 20 September 1985 and on 27 June 1986, President Nagendra Singh presiding

Order of 14 May 1984

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Jurisdiction and Admissibility)

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 4 October 1984

Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador

Procedure(s):Intervention

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 27 June 1986

Merits

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

In this case, Nicaragua proceeded to file its Memorial on the merits on 10 August 1987. Subsequently, by a communication dated 12 August 1987, Nicaragua, referring to an agreement signed on 7 August 1987 at Guatemala City by the Presidents of the five States of Central America (the “Esquipulas II” Agreement), declared that it was discontinuing the judicial proceedings instituted against Costa Rica. Costa Rica did not object to the discontinuance, and the case was removed from the General List by an Order of the President dated 19 August 1987.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

28 July 1986

Available in:

English

Written proceedings

Memorial of Nicaragua

10 August 1987

Available in:

English

Orders

English French Bilingual

Press releases

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

This case, which was submitted to the Court in 1982 by Special Agreement between Libya and Malta, related to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of these two States. In support of its argument, Libya relied on the principle of natural prolongation and the concept of proportionality. Malta maintained that States’ rights over areas of continental shelf were now governed by the concept of distance from the coast, which was held to confer a primacy on the equidistance method of defining boundaries between areas of continental shelf, particularly when these appertained to States lying directly opposite each other, as in the case of Malta and Libya. The Court found that, in view of developments in the law relating to the rights of States over areas of continental shelf, there was no reason to assign a role to geographical or geophysical factors when the distance between the two States was less than 400 miles (as in the instant case). It also considered that the equidistance method did not have to be used and was not the only appropriate delimitation technique. The Court defined a number of equitable principles and applied them in its Judgment of 3 June 1985, in the light of the relevant circumstances. It took account of the main features of the coasts, the difference in their lengths and the distance between them. It took care to avoid any excessive disproportion between the continental shelf appertaining to a State and the length of its coastline, and adopted the solution of a median line transposed northwards over a certain distance. In the course of the proceedings, Italy applied for permission to intervene, claiming that it had an interest of a legal nature under Article 62 of the Statute. The Court found that the intervention requested by Italy fell, by virtue of its object, into a category which — on Italy’s own showing — was one which could not be accepted, and the Application was accordingly refused.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

26 July 1982

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

French

Counter-Memorial of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

26 October 1983

Available in:

English

Counter-Memorial of Malta

26 October 1983

Available in:

English

Written Observations on the Application for Permission to Intervene (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malta)

5 December 1983

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English

Reply of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

12 July 1984

Available in:

English

Reply of the Republic of Malta

12 July 1984

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1984/10 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 25 to 30 January and 21 March 1984, President Elias presiding

Judgments

Judgment of 21 March 1984

Application by Italy for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Summary 1984/1

Summary of the Judgment of 21 March 1984

Available in:

English French

Summary 1985/1

Summary of the Judgment of 3 June 1985

Available in:

English French

Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

By a Special Agreement notified to the Court in 1978, it was asked to determine what principles and rules of international law were applicable to the delimitation as between Tunisia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of the respective areas of continental shelf appertaining to each. After considering arguments as well as evidence based on geology, physiography and bathymetry on the basis of which each party sought to support its claims to particular areas of the sea-bed as the natural prolongation of its land territory, the Court concluded, in a Judgment of 24 February 1982, that the two countries abutted on a common continental shelf and that physical criteria were therefore of no assistance for the purpose of delimitation. Hence it had to be guided by “equitable principles” (as to which it emphasized that this term cannot be interpreted in the abstract, but only as referring to the principles and rules which may be appropriate in order to achieve an equitable result) and by certain factors such as the necessity of ensuring a reasonable degree of proportionality between the areas allotted and the lengths of the coastlines concerned.

The Court found that the application of the equidistance method could not, in the particular circumstances of the case, lead to an equitable result. With respect to the course to be taken by the delimitation line, it distinguished two sectors : near the shore, it considered, having taken note of some evidence of historical agreement as to the maritime boundary, that the delimitation (beginning at the boundary point of Ras Adjir) should run in a north-easterly direction at an angle of approximately 26° ; further seawards, it considered that the line of delimitation should veer eastwards at a bearing of 52° to take into account the change of direction of the Tunisian coast to the north of the Gulf of Gabes and the existence of the Kerkennah Islands, to which a “half-effect” was attributed.

During the course of the proceedings, Malta requested permission to intervene, claiming an interest of a legal nature under Article 62 of the Court’s Statute. In view of the very character of the intervention for which permission was sought, the Court considered that the interest of a legal nature which Malta had invoked could not be affected by the decision in the case and that the request was not one to which, under Article 62, the Court might accede. It therefore rejected it.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

1 December 1978

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Available in:

English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1981 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Application for Permission to Intervene - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 19 to 23 March and on 14 April 1981, President Sir Humphrey Waldock, presiding

Judgments

Judgment of 14 April 1981

Application by Malta for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1981/1

Summary of the Judgment of 14 April 1981

Available in:

English French

Summary 1982/2

Summary of the Judgment of 24 February 1982

Available in:

English French

Press release 1982/5

﻿Contentious

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

17 May 1989

Available in:

Written proceedings

24 July 1990

Available in:

4 March 1991

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

9 September 1992

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Other documents

4 December 1992

Available in:

9 February 1996

Available in:

Orders

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

Declaration by Judge Oda

Separate Opinion by Judge Schwebel

Separate Opinion by Judge Shahabuddeen

Extension of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement

Available in:

Extension of time-limit: Written Statement

Available in:

Extension of time-limit: Written Statement

Available in:

Removal from list

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections,Discontinuance

Available in:

Press releases

15 June 1990

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings

Available in:

24 July 1990

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Filing of Iran's Memorial

Available in:

5 March 1991

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Filing of preliminary objections by the United States of America

Available in:

5 April 1991

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - The following information is communicated to the Press by the Registry of the International Court of Justice

Available in:

11 April 1991

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Fixing of the time-limit for the filing, by Iran, of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America - Solemn declaration of Judge ad hoc Mohsen Aghahosseini

Available in:

18 December 1991

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limit

Available in:

17 June 1992

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limit

Available in:

14 March 1994

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Hearings to open on 12 September 1994

Available in:

11 August 1994

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Postponement of the hearings

Available in:

23 February 1996

Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Discontinuance

Available in:

Correspondence

26 September 1989

Correspondence

Available in:

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

16 August 1988

Available in:

Written proceedings

31 July 1989

Available in:

11 May 1990

Available in:

Contentious