Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:30:57.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Case Concerning The Land, Island And Maritime Frontier Dispute (el Salvador/honduras)

International Court of Justice.  08 May 1987 ; 13 December 1989 ; 28 February 1990 ; 13 September 1990 ; 11 September 1992 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

International Court of Justice — Chamber — Ad hoc chamber — Dispute submitted to ad hoc chamber by special agreement — Composition of chamber — Statute of the Court, Article 26 — Views of the parties regarding selection of judges for the chamber — Rules of Court, Article 17 — 1972 amendment of rules — Whether allowing parties too great an influence over the composition of the chamber — Whether system for establishing ad hoc chambers ultra vires the Statute — Whether inconsistent with judicial character of the Court — Effect on State seeking to intervene in case before ad hoc chamber — Whether State applying to intervene must take composition of chamber as it finds it

International Court of Justice — Intervention — Jurisdiction to determine application to intervene — Case before chamber of the Court — Whether application to intervene to be considered by chamber or full Court — Influence of original parties in determining composition of chamber — Grounds for intervention — Statute of the Court, Article 62 — Requirement that State seeking to intervene show interest of a legal nature — What constitutes interest of a legal nature — General interest in interpretation and application of rules insufficient — Dispute regarding legal regime of waters of the Gulf of Fonseca — Dispute between two out of three riparian States — Legal interest of third State — Whether legal interest extending to possible maritime delimitation — Object of intervention — Jurisdiction — Whether intervening State must establish jurisdictional link with parties — Effects of intervention — Whether intervening State a party to the case — Standing to be heard — Procedure for intervention — Degree of precision required in application to intervene — Whether intervening State bound by decision — Whether decision res judicata for intervening State

International Court of Justice — Judges — Appointment — Judges ad hoc — Whether appointed by party or by Court — Death of ad hoc judge — Party nominating successor — Whether order of Court required — Chamber — Composition — Three judges and two ad hoc judges — Selection of judges — Member of chamber continuing to sit after term of office expired

International tribunals — In general — Doctrine of res judicata — Disputed decision — Central American Court of Justice — Decision of 1917 in case between El Salvador and Nicaragua — Decision contested by Nicaragua — Whether res judicata between El Salvador and Nicaragua — Effect of decision on third State — Honduras — Effect of decision on subsequent proceedings in International Court of Justice

Rivers — Boundaries — Change in course of river — Avulsion — Effect on boundary — Whether avulsion has occurred — Presumption where contemporary course of river radically different from original course

Sea — Historic waters — Gulf of Fonseca — Status as closed sea — Riparian States all successors to Spain — Joint sovereignty over waters of Gulf — Nature of joint sovereignty — Whether divisible by delimitation — Nature of legal regime of joint sovereignty — Whether waters of Gulf internal waters — Three mile belt adjacent to coast not subject to joint sovereignty — Whether territorial waters — Rights of passage through Gulf — Decision of Central American Court of Justice in 1917 — Effect of legal status of Gulf waters on rights in waters outside Gulf

Sea — Bays — Historic bays — Concept of “pluri-State bay” — Gulf of Fonseca — Closing line — Status — Closing line acting as baseline for claims to maritime spaces to seaward of closing line

Sea — Territorial waters — Nature of territorial waters — Three mile belt inside Gulf of Fonseca — Whether territorial waters — Status of waters outside three mile belt — Whether possessing characteristics of internal waters — Effect on legal status of waters within three mile belt — Rights of passage

State succession — Territory — Principle of uti possidetis juris — Nature and application of principle — Spanish Empire in Central America — Successor States inheriting boundaries of administrative divisions of Spanish Empire — Location of boundaries — Islands — Maritime spaces in Gulf of Fonseca — Effect of succession to Spain on rights in waters of the Gulf

Territory — Boundaries — Principles of delimitation — Dispute between States formerly parts of the same colonial empire — Principle of uti possidetis juris — Application — Spanish Empire in Central America — Successor States — Location of boundaries in colonial times — Proof of location of boundaries — Effect of titles to land granted to Indian communities and private individuals — Colonial effectivités — Conduct of States since independence — Relevance in establishing location of uti possidetis juris line — Acquiescence, recognition and estoppel — Principles to be followed in delimitation where location of uti possidetis juris line cannot be discovered — Relevance of arguments relating to settlement of territory — Relevance of equitable considerations — Disparity between population density and natural resources of adjoining States

Territory — Islands — Sovereignty over islands — Whether in dispute — Nature of dispute — States claiming islands by virtue of succession to single colonial empire — Attribution of islands to administrative divisions of former colonial empire unclear — Application of principle uti possidetis juris — Effect of conduct of States since independence — Small island — Whether capable of acquisition — Whether dependency of larger island

Territory — Sovereignty — Principle of uti possidetis juris — Conclusion that no land in area had status of terra nullius — General principles of sovereignty over territory

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles of interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 31 and 32 — Emphasis on interpretation in good faith in accordance with ordinary meaning of terms — Context — Recourse to travaux préparatoires — Subsequent practice of parties

War and armed conflict — Peace treaty — General Treaty of Peace between El Salvador and Honduras, 1980 — Interpretation — Boundary provisions — Recourse to Chamber of International Court of Justice

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)