File #2267: "2018_Book_NicaraguaBeforeTheInternationa.pdf"
Testo
1|Editors Note and Acknowledgements|5
1|Chronological List of Cases of Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice|7
2|1958: Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)|7
3|Judges Ad Hoc Ago, Urrutia Holguin|7
2|1984: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)|7
3|Judge Ad Hoc Colliard|7
4|Provisional Measures|8
4|Questions of Jurisdiction and/or Admissibility|8
4|Declaration of Intervention|8
4|Merits|8
4|Reparation|8
2|1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)|8
2|1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)|9
2|1986: Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening)|9
3|Judges Ad Hoc Valticos, Torres Bernrdez|9
2|1999: Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)|10
3|Judges Ad Hoc Torres Bernndez, Gaja|10
2|2001: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)|10
3|Judges Ad Hoc Mensah, Cot|10
2|2005: Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|11
3|Judge Ad Hoc Guillaume|11
2|2010: Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|11
3|Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard|11
2|2011: Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)|12
3|Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard|12
3|PENDING CASES BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.|13
2|2013: Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the ...|13
3|Judges Ad Hoc Skotnikov, Brower|13
2|2013: Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)|13
3|Judges Ad Hoc Daudet, Caron|13
2|2014: Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|14
3|Judges Ad Hoc Simma, Al-Khasawneh|14
2|2017: Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|14
3|Judges Ad Hoc Simma, Al-Khasawneh|14
1|Contents|15
1|Contributors|17
1|List of Abbreviations|19
1|Part I: Introduction|22
2|Introduction from the Bench|23
2|Introduction from the Podium|35
3|1 Introduction|36
3|2 The ICJ as an Element of Nicaragua´s `politique juridique extérieure´ (Foreign Legal Policy)|39
4|2.1 The `Big Case´, a Winning Bet|40
4|2.2 The Other Cases Building on the Momentum of the `Big Case´|45
3|3 Nicaragua´s Judicial Strategy Before the ICJ|51
4|3.1 Continuity and Renewal in the Composition of the Nicaraguan Team|51
4|3.2 Working Methods and Judicial Strategy|55
3|References|58
1|Part II: Evidentiary Matters|60
2|Nicaragua v. United States and Matters of Evidence Before the International Court of Justice|61
3|1 Evidence and Fact Finding in the Nicaragua v. United States case|62
3|2 Nicaragua v. United States as Precedent on Matters of Evidence|69
3|3 Conclusions|73
3|References|73
1|Part III: The Nicaraguan Sagas Before the International Court of Justice (Overviews)|75
2|The Nicaragua v. United States Case: An Overview of the Epochal Judgments|76
3|1 Introduction|76
3|2 Jurisdictional Controversies|79
4|2.1 Rulings on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the 1984 and 1986 Judgments|79
5|2.1.1 Objections to the Court´s Jurisdiction Under the Optional Clause|79
5|2.1.2 Objections to the Court´s Jurisdiction Under the 1956 Treaty|82
5|2.1.3 Objections Concerning the Admissibility of Nicaragua´s Claims|83
4|2.2 The 1984 Judgment´s Legacy|84
3|3 The Merits of the `Big Case´|88
4|3.1 An Overview of the 1986 Judgment|88
4|3.2 The 1986 Judgment´s Legacy|93
3|4 The Aftermath of the 1986 Judgment|96
4|4.1 Reparation Proceedings and Attempts of Enforcement|96
4|4.2 The Cases against Costa Rica and Honduras|97
3|5 Concluding Remarks|99
3|References|99
2|The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica|101
3|1 Introduction|102
3|2 The Early Proceedings Concerning the 1858 Treaty|106
4|2.1 The Validity of the 1858 Treaty and the Scope of the Navigational Rights: The 1888 Cleveland Award|106
4|2.2 The Course of the Land Boundary Along the San Juan River Under the 1858 Treaty: The Awards Rendered by General Alexander|110
4|2.3 The 1914 Chamorro-Bryan Treaty and Nicaragua´s Obligations Under the 1858 Treaty: The 1916 Judgment of the Central America...|115
3|3 The 1858 Treaty Before the International Court of Justice|117
4|3.1 The Issue of the Navigation Regime: The 2009 Judgment in the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights|118
5|3.1.1 The Scope of Costa Rica´s Right of Free Navigation: The Interpretation of the Expression `con objetos de comercio´|119
5|3.1.2 Nicaragua´s Regulatory Powers in Respect of the San Juan River|123
4|3.2 The Renewal of the Question of the Course of the Land Boundary: The 2015 Judgment|124
2|The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and Its Implications for Future Maritime Delimitations in the Car...|129
3|1 Introduction|130
3|2 The Geographical Circumstances|133
3|3 The Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary|135
4|3.1 Determining Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area|135
4|3.2 The Application of Delimitation Methodology|139
5|3.2.1 Construction of the Provisional Median Line|143
5|3.2.2 Consideration of the Relevant Circumstances|144
6|3.2.2.1 Disparity in the Lengths of the Relevant Coasts|146
6|3.2.2.2 The Cut-Off Effect|147
6|3.2.2.3 Other Circumstances|147
5|3.2.3 Adjustment of the Provisional Median Line in Light of the Relevant Circumstances|149
5|3.2.4 Conducting a Disproportionality Test|153
3|4 Conclusions|154
3|References|155
1|Part IV: Jurisdictional Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|156
2|The Pact of Bogot in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice|157
3|1 The Pact of Bogot and the International Court of Justice: The Pioneering Role of Nicaragua|158
3|2 Basis and Characterization of the Jurisdiction of the Court Under the Pact|162
4|2.1 Article XXXI and Declarations Under the Optional Clause|163
4|2.2 Article XXXI and Prior Procedures Under Article XXXII|168
3|3 Grounds Excluding the Jurisdiction of the Court|170
4|3.1 Article VI: Pacta Sunt Servanda|170
4|3.2 Meaning of Article XXXIV|173
3|4 Causes of Inadmissibility of Claims|176
4|4.1 Article II and Diplomatic Negotiations|177
4|4.2 Article IV and Ongoing Procedures|182
3|5 The Denunciation of the Pact|183
4|5.1 Article LVI and the Rejection of Immediate Effects|184
4|5.2 Meaning of the Second Paragraph of Article LVI|186
3|6 The Interpretation and Application of the Pact in Review|189
3|Further Reading|191
2|Nicaragua´s Impacts on Optional Clause Practice|193
3|1 Introduction|194
3|2 History and Features of the Optional Clause|195
3|3 Treatment of the Optional Clause in Nicaragua v. United States|196
4|3.1 The Principle of Good Faith|196
4|3.2 Reciprocity|199
4|3.3 The Character of Specific Reservations|200
4|3.4 Formal Deposit|203
3|4 A Systemic Appraisal of the Nicaraguan Cases|205
4|4.1 The Optional Clause in Theory|205
5|4.1.1 Analogy with the Law of Treaties|205
5|4.1.2 Tensions with the Law of Treaties|208
4|4.2 Legacy in Subsequent Decisions|212
5|4.2.1 Precedent Before the Court|212
6|4.2.1.1 Land and Maritime Boundary|212
6|4.2.1.2 Fisheries Jurisdiction|214
5|4.2.2 Cross-Fertilization in Other Fora|215
4|4.3 Influence on State Practice|216
3|5 Unresolved and Emerging Questions|218
3|6 Nicaragua and the `Dream´ of Compulsory Jurisdiction|221
3|References|223
1|Part V: Substantive Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|226
2|Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice and the Law of Treaties|227
3|1 Introduction|228
3|2 Treaty Interpretation|229
4|2.1 The Effect of the Passage of Time: Intertemporal v. Evolutionary Treaty Interpretation|230
4|2.2 The In Dubio Mitius Principle: State Sovereignty and Treaty Interpretation|235
4|2.3 The Principle of Effectiveness: Application and Limits|240
4|2.4 On Elements of the General Rule in Article 31 VCLT|243
4|2.5 Conclusion on Interpretation|247
3|3 The Interplay Between Treaty and Customary Law|248
3|4 Conclusion|255
3|References|256
2|Customary Law, General Principles, Unilateral Acts|258
3|1 Introduction|259
3|2 Customary International Law in the 1984 and 1986 Nicaragua Judgments|259
4|2.1 The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases and Customary International Law|260
4|2.2 The Nicaragua Case and Customary International Law|262
5|2.2.1 The Identification of Customary International Law|262
5|2.2.2 The Regime of Customary International Law|269
4|2.3 Concluding Remarks|270
3|3 General Principles of Law|271
3|4 Unilateral Acts|274
4|4.1 The 1984 Judgment and Unilateral Acts of States|274
4|4.2 The 1986 Judgment and Unilateral Acts of States|274
3|5 Conclusions|276
3|References|277
2|Customary Principle of Sovereignty of States in the Nicaragua Case|279
3|1 The Uncertain Meaning of `Sovereignty´|280
3|2 Exposition of `Sovereignty´|282
3|3 The Nicaragua Cases: Sovereignty as Juridical Equality|283
3|4 The Nicaragua Cases: Sovereignty as Respect for the `Personality´ of a State|284
3|5 Concluding Remarks|288
3|References|289
2|The Law of State Responsibility in the Nicaraguan Cases|290
3|1 Introduction|291
3|2 Attribution of Conduct to a State|292
4|2.1 Conduct of De Facto Organs of a State: The Complete Dependence Test|292
4|2.2 Conduct Directed or Controlled by a State: The Effective Control Test|294
4|2.3 Alternative Approaches of Attribution|300
3|3 Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness|302
4|3.1 Self-Defence|302
4|3.2 Consent|303
4|3.3 Counter-Measures|304
4|3.4 Other Justifications|306
3|4 Reparation|307
4|4.1 Compensation|307
4|4.2 Satisfaction|309
3|5 Conclusion|310
3|References|311
2|The Use of Force in the Nicaraguan Cases|313
3|1 Introduction|314
3|2 Use of Force Issues in the Case Against the United States|316
4|2.1 Provisional Measures Order of 10 May 1984|316
4|2.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment of 26 November 1984|318
4|2.3 Judgment on the Merits of 27 June 1986|319
3|3 Customary International Law and the Use of Force|320
3|4 Individual and Collective Self-Defence|322
3|5 Subsequent Case Law of the Court and the Judgment in Military and Paramilitary Activities|325
3|6 Influence on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|329
3|7 Concluding Remarks|331
3|References|332
2|International Law of the Sea and the Nicaraguan Cases|334
3|1 Introduction|335
3|2 The Nicaraguan Cases and the Law of the Sea|337
4|2.1 Characterisation of Maritime Features|337
4|2.2 Low-Tide Elevations|339
4|2.3 Historic Bays|341
4|2.4 Internal Waters|343
4|2.5 Regime of Islands|345
4|2.6 Maritime Boundary Delimitation|346
3|3 Concluding Remarks|351
3|References|353
2|Environmental Law and Freshwater Ecosystems|354
3|1 Introduction|355
3|2 The Case Concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the Case Concerning Construction of a...|357
4|2.1 The Certain Activities Case|358
4|2.2 The Road Case|360
3|3 The Judgment and Environmental Law|361
4|3.1 Procedural Obligations|361
5|3.1.1 The Customary Obligation of Environmental Impact Assessment|361
5|3.1.2 When to Conduct an EIA: Lessons Learnt from the Certain Activities and Road Cases|362
5|3.1.3 Is There an Emergency Exemption to the Obligation to Carry Out an EIA?|366
5|3.1.4 Notification and Consultation|367
4|3.2 Substantive Obligations|369
3|4 Conclusion|374
1|Part VI: Procedural Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|375
2|Intervention|376
3|1 Introduction|377
3|2 Trial and Error in Establishing Statutory Jurisdiction Over Intervention|381
4|2.1 Intervention as an Incidental Proceeding|381
4|2.2 Jurisdiction on Intervention and the Principle of Consent|382
4|2.3 The Court´s Margin of Discretion for Appreciating the Admissibility of a Request for Intervention|385
3|3 The Substantive Conditions for the Admissibility of Intervention|389
4|3.1 The Strategy of Avoidance in Defining the Concept of `Interest of a Legal Nature Which May Be Affected´|389
5|3.1.1 The Court´s Refusal to Positively Define the Interest of a Legal Nature|390
5|3.1.2 A Sophistic Appreciation of the Risk of Being Affected|393
4|3.2 Conditions as to the Object of Intervention|395
5|3.2.1 Intervention Must Not Introduce a New Dispute|396
5|3.2.2 Intervention Must Not Seek to Adjudge Claims of the Intervener|397
3|4 The Effect of the Judgment on the Merits and the Status of the Intervener|398
3|References|401
2|Provisional Measures|402
3|1 Introduction|403
3|2 The Court´s Power to Act Proprio Motu|404
3|3 The Effect of Provisional Measures|406
3|4 Relationship Between Measures Requested and Rights Claimed|409
3|5 Plausible `Rights´|411
3|6 Irreparable Prejudice|412
3|7 Impact of Measures on Third Parties|413
3|8 Modification of Provisional Measures|414
3|9 Indications Falling Short of Measures|415
3|References|416
3|Further Reading|416
2|Joinder of Cases: Strengthening the Sound Administration of Justice and the Judicial Economy|418
3|1 Introduction|419
3|2 Procedural Background|419
3|3 Rules of the Court|421
3|4 Previous Practice of the ICJ|422
3|5 Article 47 and the Jurisprudence of the Court|423
3|6 Opposite Positions of the Parties|427
3|7 Conclusions|429
3|References|430
1|Part VII: Conclusions|431
2|Conclusions|432
1|Index|436
1|Chronological List of Cases of Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice|7
2|1958: Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)|7
3|Judges Ad Hoc Ago, Urrutia Holguin|7
2|1984: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)|7
3|Judge Ad Hoc Colliard|7
4|Provisional Measures|8
4|Questions of Jurisdiction and/or Admissibility|8
4|Declaration of Intervention|8
4|Merits|8
4|Reparation|8
2|1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)|8
2|1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)|9
2|1986: Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening)|9
3|Judges Ad Hoc Valticos, Torres Bernrdez|9
2|1999: Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)|10
3|Judges Ad Hoc Torres Bernndez, Gaja|10
2|2001: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)|10
3|Judges Ad Hoc Mensah, Cot|10
2|2005: Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|11
3|Judge Ad Hoc Guillaume|11
2|2010: Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|11
3|Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard|11
2|2011: Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)|12
3|Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard|12
3|PENDING CASES BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.|13
2|2013: Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the ...|13
3|Judges Ad Hoc Skotnikov, Brower|13
2|2013: Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)|13
3|Judges Ad Hoc Daudet, Caron|13
2|2014: Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|14
3|Judges Ad Hoc Simma, Al-Khasawneh|14
2|2017: Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)|14
3|Judges Ad Hoc Simma, Al-Khasawneh|14
1|Contents|15
1|Contributors|17
1|List of Abbreviations|19
1|Part I: Introduction|22
2|Introduction from the Bench|23
2|Introduction from the Podium|35
3|1 Introduction|36
3|2 The ICJ as an Element of Nicaragua´s `politique juridique extérieure´ (Foreign Legal Policy)|39
4|2.1 The `Big Case´, a Winning Bet|40
4|2.2 The Other Cases Building on the Momentum of the `Big Case´|45
3|3 Nicaragua´s Judicial Strategy Before the ICJ|51
4|3.1 Continuity and Renewal in the Composition of the Nicaraguan Team|51
4|3.2 Working Methods and Judicial Strategy|55
3|References|58
1|Part II: Evidentiary Matters|60
2|Nicaragua v. United States and Matters of Evidence Before the International Court of Justice|61
3|1 Evidence and Fact Finding in the Nicaragua v. United States case|62
3|2 Nicaragua v. United States as Precedent on Matters of Evidence|69
3|3 Conclusions|73
3|References|73
1|Part III: The Nicaraguan Sagas Before the International Court of Justice (Overviews)|75
2|The Nicaragua v. United States Case: An Overview of the Epochal Judgments|76
3|1 Introduction|76
3|2 Jurisdictional Controversies|79
4|2.1 Rulings on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the 1984 and 1986 Judgments|79
5|2.1.1 Objections to the Court´s Jurisdiction Under the Optional Clause|79
5|2.1.2 Objections to the Court´s Jurisdiction Under the 1956 Treaty|82
5|2.1.3 Objections Concerning the Admissibility of Nicaragua´s Claims|83
4|2.2 The 1984 Judgment´s Legacy|84
3|3 The Merits of the `Big Case´|88
4|3.1 An Overview of the 1986 Judgment|88
4|3.2 The 1986 Judgment´s Legacy|93
3|4 The Aftermath of the 1986 Judgment|96
4|4.1 Reparation Proceedings and Attempts of Enforcement|96
4|4.2 The Cases against Costa Rica and Honduras|97
3|5 Concluding Remarks|99
3|References|99
2|The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica|101
3|1 Introduction|102
3|2 The Early Proceedings Concerning the 1858 Treaty|106
4|2.1 The Validity of the 1858 Treaty and the Scope of the Navigational Rights: The 1888 Cleveland Award|106
4|2.2 The Course of the Land Boundary Along the San Juan River Under the 1858 Treaty: The Awards Rendered by General Alexander|110
4|2.3 The 1914 Chamorro-Bryan Treaty and Nicaragua´s Obligations Under the 1858 Treaty: The 1916 Judgment of the Central America...|115
3|3 The 1858 Treaty Before the International Court of Justice|117
4|3.1 The Issue of the Navigation Regime: The 2009 Judgment in the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights|118
5|3.1.1 The Scope of Costa Rica´s Right of Free Navigation: The Interpretation of the Expression `con objetos de comercio´|119
5|3.1.2 Nicaragua´s Regulatory Powers in Respect of the San Juan River|123
4|3.2 The Renewal of the Question of the Course of the Land Boundary: The 2015 Judgment|124
2|The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and Its Implications for Future Maritime Delimitations in the Car...|129
3|1 Introduction|130
3|2 The Geographical Circumstances|133
3|3 The Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary|135
4|3.1 Determining Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area|135
4|3.2 The Application of Delimitation Methodology|139
5|3.2.1 Construction of the Provisional Median Line|143
5|3.2.2 Consideration of the Relevant Circumstances|144
6|3.2.2.1 Disparity in the Lengths of the Relevant Coasts|146
6|3.2.2.2 The Cut-Off Effect|147
6|3.2.2.3 Other Circumstances|147
5|3.2.3 Adjustment of the Provisional Median Line in Light of the Relevant Circumstances|149
5|3.2.4 Conducting a Disproportionality Test|153
3|4 Conclusions|154
3|References|155
1|Part IV: Jurisdictional Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|156
2|The Pact of Bogot in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice|157
3|1 The Pact of Bogot and the International Court of Justice: The Pioneering Role of Nicaragua|158
3|2 Basis and Characterization of the Jurisdiction of the Court Under the Pact|162
4|2.1 Article XXXI and Declarations Under the Optional Clause|163
4|2.2 Article XXXI and Prior Procedures Under Article XXXII|168
3|3 Grounds Excluding the Jurisdiction of the Court|170
4|3.1 Article VI: Pacta Sunt Servanda|170
4|3.2 Meaning of Article XXXIV|173
3|4 Causes of Inadmissibility of Claims|176
4|4.1 Article II and Diplomatic Negotiations|177
4|4.2 Article IV and Ongoing Procedures|182
3|5 The Denunciation of the Pact|183
4|5.1 Article LVI and the Rejection of Immediate Effects|184
4|5.2 Meaning of the Second Paragraph of Article LVI|186
3|6 The Interpretation and Application of the Pact in Review|189
3|Further Reading|191
2|Nicaragua´s Impacts on Optional Clause Practice|193
3|1 Introduction|194
3|2 History and Features of the Optional Clause|195
3|3 Treatment of the Optional Clause in Nicaragua v. United States|196
4|3.1 The Principle of Good Faith|196
4|3.2 Reciprocity|199
4|3.3 The Character of Specific Reservations|200
4|3.4 Formal Deposit|203
3|4 A Systemic Appraisal of the Nicaraguan Cases|205
4|4.1 The Optional Clause in Theory|205
5|4.1.1 Analogy with the Law of Treaties|205
5|4.1.2 Tensions with the Law of Treaties|208
4|4.2 Legacy in Subsequent Decisions|212
5|4.2.1 Precedent Before the Court|212
6|4.2.1.1 Land and Maritime Boundary|212
6|4.2.1.2 Fisheries Jurisdiction|214
5|4.2.2 Cross-Fertilization in Other Fora|215
4|4.3 Influence on State Practice|216
3|5 Unresolved and Emerging Questions|218
3|6 Nicaragua and the `Dream´ of Compulsory Jurisdiction|221
3|References|223
1|Part V: Substantive Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|226
2|Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice and the Law of Treaties|227
3|1 Introduction|228
3|2 Treaty Interpretation|229
4|2.1 The Effect of the Passage of Time: Intertemporal v. Evolutionary Treaty Interpretation|230
4|2.2 The In Dubio Mitius Principle: State Sovereignty and Treaty Interpretation|235
4|2.3 The Principle of Effectiveness: Application and Limits|240
4|2.4 On Elements of the General Rule in Article 31 VCLT|243
4|2.5 Conclusion on Interpretation|247
3|3 The Interplay Between Treaty and Customary Law|248
3|4 Conclusion|255
3|References|256
2|Customary Law, General Principles, Unilateral Acts|258
3|1 Introduction|259
3|2 Customary International Law in the 1984 and 1986 Nicaragua Judgments|259
4|2.1 The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases and Customary International Law|260
4|2.2 The Nicaragua Case and Customary International Law|262
5|2.2.1 The Identification of Customary International Law|262
5|2.2.2 The Regime of Customary International Law|269
4|2.3 Concluding Remarks|270
3|3 General Principles of Law|271
3|4 Unilateral Acts|274
4|4.1 The 1984 Judgment and Unilateral Acts of States|274
4|4.2 The 1986 Judgment and Unilateral Acts of States|274
3|5 Conclusions|276
3|References|277
2|Customary Principle of Sovereignty of States in the Nicaragua Case|279
3|1 The Uncertain Meaning of `Sovereignty´|280
3|2 Exposition of `Sovereignty´|282
3|3 The Nicaragua Cases: Sovereignty as Juridical Equality|283
3|4 The Nicaragua Cases: Sovereignty as Respect for the `Personality´ of a State|284
3|5 Concluding Remarks|288
3|References|289
2|The Law of State Responsibility in the Nicaraguan Cases|290
3|1 Introduction|291
3|2 Attribution of Conduct to a State|292
4|2.1 Conduct of De Facto Organs of a State: The Complete Dependence Test|292
4|2.2 Conduct Directed or Controlled by a State: The Effective Control Test|294
4|2.3 Alternative Approaches of Attribution|300
3|3 Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness|302
4|3.1 Self-Defence|302
4|3.2 Consent|303
4|3.3 Counter-Measures|304
4|3.4 Other Justifications|306
3|4 Reparation|307
4|4.1 Compensation|307
4|4.2 Satisfaction|309
3|5 Conclusion|310
3|References|311
2|The Use of Force in the Nicaraguan Cases|313
3|1 Introduction|314
3|2 Use of Force Issues in the Case Against the United States|316
4|2.1 Provisional Measures Order of 10 May 1984|316
4|2.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment of 26 November 1984|318
4|2.3 Judgment on the Merits of 27 June 1986|319
3|3 Customary International Law and the Use of Force|320
3|4 Individual and Collective Self-Defence|322
3|5 Subsequent Case Law of the Court and the Judgment in Military and Paramilitary Activities|325
3|6 Influence on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|329
3|7 Concluding Remarks|331
3|References|332
2|International Law of the Sea and the Nicaraguan Cases|334
3|1 Introduction|335
3|2 The Nicaraguan Cases and the Law of the Sea|337
4|2.1 Characterisation of Maritime Features|337
4|2.2 Low-Tide Elevations|339
4|2.3 Historic Bays|341
4|2.4 Internal Waters|343
4|2.5 Regime of Islands|345
4|2.6 Maritime Boundary Delimitation|346
3|3 Concluding Remarks|351
3|References|353
2|Environmental Law and Freshwater Ecosystems|354
3|1 Introduction|355
3|2 The Case Concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the Case Concerning Construction of a...|357
4|2.1 The Certain Activities Case|358
4|2.2 The Road Case|360
3|3 The Judgment and Environmental Law|361
4|3.1 Procedural Obligations|361
5|3.1.1 The Customary Obligation of Environmental Impact Assessment|361
5|3.1.2 When to Conduct an EIA: Lessons Learnt from the Certain Activities and Road Cases|362
5|3.1.3 Is There an Emergency Exemption to the Obligation to Carry Out an EIA?|366
5|3.1.4 Notification and Consultation|367
4|3.2 Substantive Obligations|369
3|4 Conclusion|374
1|Part VI: Procedural Issues in the Nicaraguan Cases|375
2|Intervention|376
3|1 Introduction|377
3|2 Trial and Error in Establishing Statutory Jurisdiction Over Intervention|381
4|2.1 Intervention as an Incidental Proceeding|381
4|2.2 Jurisdiction on Intervention and the Principle of Consent|382
4|2.3 The Court´s Margin of Discretion for Appreciating the Admissibility of a Request for Intervention|385
3|3 The Substantive Conditions for the Admissibility of Intervention|389
4|3.1 The Strategy of Avoidance in Defining the Concept of `Interest of a Legal Nature Which May Be Affected´|389
5|3.1.1 The Court´s Refusal to Positively Define the Interest of a Legal Nature|390
5|3.1.2 A Sophistic Appreciation of the Risk of Being Affected|393
4|3.2 Conditions as to the Object of Intervention|395
5|3.2.1 Intervention Must Not Introduce a New Dispute|396
5|3.2.2 Intervention Must Not Seek to Adjudge Claims of the Intervener|397
3|4 The Effect of the Judgment on the Merits and the Status of the Intervener|398
3|References|401
2|Provisional Measures|402
3|1 Introduction|403
3|2 The Court´s Power to Act Proprio Motu|404
3|3 The Effect of Provisional Measures|406
3|4 Relationship Between Measures Requested and Rights Claimed|409
3|5 Plausible `Rights´|411
3|6 Irreparable Prejudice|412
3|7 Impact of Measures on Third Parties|413
3|8 Modification of Provisional Measures|414
3|9 Indications Falling Short of Measures|415
3|References|416
3|Further Reading|416
2|Joinder of Cases: Strengthening the Sound Administration of Justice and the Judicial Economy|418
3|1 Introduction|419
3|2 Procedural Background|419
3|3 Rules of the Court|421
3|4 Previous Practice of the ICJ|422
3|5 Article 47 and the Jurisprudence of the Court|423
3|6 Opposite Positions of the Parties|427
3|7 Conclusions|429
3|References|430
1|Part VII: Conclusions|431
2|Conclusions|432
1|Index|436