Claims — Defendants — Joint responsibility — Alleged wrongdoing by more than one State — Trusteeship Agreement conferring authority over territory upon three States — Actual administration conducted by one State — Alleged violations of Trusteeship Agreement — Whether three States incurring joint responsibility — Whether liability joint and several — Application to International Court of Justice against one of the three States — Whether application admissible in absence of the other States — Claim for compensation — Waiver — Whether claims waived by claimant State — Whether waiver must be explicit — Whether claims can be waived prior to independence — Lapse of time — When claim will be barred through lapse of time

Environment — Damage to the environment — Duty to rehabilitate lands damaged by mining — Nauru — Phosphate mining — Rehabilitation of lands worked out during period of trusteeship — Liability of former trustees — Nauru Trusteeship Agreement, 1947 — Nauru Island Agreement, 1919 — Effect of transfer of phosphate industry to Nauru on independence

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Contentious cases — Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court — Reservations to declarations under Article 36(2) — Reservation in respect of disputes in which the parties have agreed to other form of dispute settlement — Requirement of agreement between States — Admissibility — Application affecting third States — Monetary Gold rule — Allegation of breach of trusteeship by three States — Application brought against only one State — Whether determination of responsibility of that State would necessarily determine responsibility of the other two States — Article 59 of the Statute of the Court

International organizations — United Nations — Trusteeship — Nature of trusteeship — United Nations Charter, 1945, Article 76 — Termination of trusteeship — Whether former trust territory entitled to bring claim for breach of trusteeship after independence — Whether termination of trusteeship by General Assembly operates as discharge for former administering authority — Nauru — Trusteeship conferred upon three States as joint administering authority — Whether one of those States can be held responsible for alleged breach of trusteeship obligations

State responsibility — Nature of State responsibility — Whether notion of joint and several liability exists in international law — Joint authority for territory — Nauru — Joint authority of three States for Nauru — Alleged violations of international obligations — Whether all three States incurring responsibility — Whether each State responsible for full extent of damage

Territory — Trust territories — Nauru — Administration by Australia on behalf of itself, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — Phosphate mining on Nauru — Responsibility for rehabilitation of worked out lands — Whether Australia incurring responsibility — Whether all three States jointly responsible

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