^* [All the documents have been reproduced from the text provided to International Legal Materials by the International Court of Justice. The I.C.J. Order with regard to the Declaration of Interventionof El Salvador appears at page 43, together with the separate and dissenting opinions. The I.C.J. Judgment with regard to Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application appears at page 59, followed by the separate and dissenting opinions.

[The U.S. statement of its withdrawal from the proceedings initiated by Nicaragua in theI.C.J, appears at page 246. The U.S. observations on the I.C.J. Judgment appear at page 249.]

^** [E1 Salvador's Declaration was supplemented by a letter of September 10, 1984, reproduced in part at I.L.M. page 48.]

^* [The separate opinion of Judge Nagendra Singh appears at page 45; the separate opinion of Judges Ruda, Mosler, Ago, Sir Robert Jennings and de Lacharrière appears at page 45; that of Judge Oda at page 46 and that of Judge Bedjaoui at page 47. The dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel appears at page 47.]

^* [The separate opinion of Judge Nagendra Singh appears at page 86; the separate opinion of Judge Ruda at page 90; that of Judge Mosler at page 94; that of Judge Oda at page 99; that of Judge Ago at page 120 and that of Judge Sir Robert Jennings at page 129. The dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel appears at page 142.

[The U.S. statement of its withdrawal from the proceedings appears at page 246. The U.S.observations of the I.C.J. Judgment appear at page 249.]

¹ As for the grievances of El Salvador against Nicaragua I would refer, for instance, to the statement made by President Magana to theABC, Madrid, on 22 December 1983, when, replying to a question on how and where the guerrillas obtained their supplies, he said :

and he added :

See also the statements of a similar tenor by President Duarte on 4 June 1984 and 27 July 1984 (United States Counter-Memorial, Anns. 52 and 53). See also the Declaration of Intervention filed on 15 August 1984.

As for the grievances of Costa Rica, I would refer to the notes presented to Nicaragua, reproduced in documents of the Organization of American States where it is said, for example, on 10 September 1983 :

With reference to the grievances of Honduras I would refer to the diplomatic notes, reproduced in documents of the Organization of American States, where it is said, for example, on 1 July 1983 :

¹ Nicaragua later announced on 26 June 1936 that it would withdraw from the League, and this withdrawal became effective as of 26 June 1938 (League of Nations,Official Journal, 17th Year. Nos. 8-9 (J936). p. 923).

¹ The title in the 1946-1947 volume was slightly different.

¹ Ratification was not imposed by the terms of the Optional Clause, but in fact some declarations were made subject to ratification while others (which did not require it) were nevertheless ratified. In No. 1 of the Annual Reports of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the table concerning the Optional Clause in Chapter III (p. 138) had three columns headed “Signatory States — Date of ratification (if any) — Conditions of acceptance”, while another table in Chapter X (p. 359) was headed simply “Signatory States — Date of ratification when required”. In No. 2 of the Annual Reports, the table appeared in Chapter III only, under the headings “States — Date of signature — Conditions — Date of deposit of ratification (if any)”. In No. 3, the headings of the tables in Chapters III and X were identical in that they indicate “States — Date of signature — Conditions — Date of deposit of ratification (if any)” (pp. 83 and 335). After No. 4 of the Annual Reports the list in Chapter III disappeared and the format of the table in Chapter X of No. 3 was retained. However, inReport No. 16 a table in Chapter X is headed “States — Date of signature - Conditions — Date of deposit of ratification”, thus omitting “(if any)” from the heading concerning ratification. I assume that what must have been significant was the date of the deposit of the declaration, no matter whether ratification was required under the internal procedures of some countries. When the table indicates the “Date of deposit of ratification” it might have meant the date of deposit of the declaration itself, whether it was properly ratified under internal procedures (when required), or was simply deposited, in cases where internal ratification was not required.

¹ This English translation was made by the International Court of Justice (see I.C.J. Yearbook 1982-1983, p. 73). It is different from the translation that appeared in the Seventh Annual Report of the Permanent Court of International Justice(P. C.I.J, Series E. No. 7,p. 464).

¹ The date indicated in the table is the date of the signature of the declaration, which is sometimes the same as the date of the deposit of the declaration with the Secretariat of the United Nations. Although it is questionable whether a declaration becomes effective from the date of the signature of the declaration or from the date of the deposit of the declaration with the United Nations, for the sake of convenience I refer only to the date of the signature of the declaration in the table.

¹ Honduras II was for an indefinite period, and that of Togo for an unlimited period.

² Malta II was to replace Malta I but was withdrawn in 1982 in order to return to Maka I.

¹ New Zealand and Norway reserved the right toamend their declarations but only in the special case arising in the light of the resultsof the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in respect of the settlement of disputes.

¹ See note 1 on p.509.

¹ Interesting in this respect is a new type ofreservation initiated in 1959 by India, which had been an adherent to the Optional Clause, to prevent a non-declarant State from suddenly taking advantage as an Applicant of the immediate acceptance of the Optional Clause. This declaration of 14 September 1959 excluded a case in which “the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of a party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than twelve monthsprior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court”(I.C.J. Yearbook 1959-1960, p. 242). This formula was followed by Somalia(25 March 1963), Malta (29 November 1966), Mauritius (4 September 1968) and the United Kingdom (1 January 1969).

¹ In 1937-1940 the Nicaraguan postal administration issued a stamp on which there appeared a boundary which was different from that determined in the Arbitral Award. This fact, together with repeated border incidents, gaverise to high feelings in Honduras and relations between the two countries deteriorated steadily.

¹ I wish also to point out that the present Judgment's theory of the “separability” of an Optional-Clause declaration (without binding force) from its “institutional foundation” (see para. 29) appears refuted by the preclusion of the eventual transfer of a declaration which had created an obligation that lapsed on the dissolution of the permanent court.

¹ See Table on page 55 of theP.C.I.J., Series D, No. 6 : note 2 to the column for

¹ The use in this heading of the phrase “still bound” (“encore liés” in the French version), far from lending support to Nicaragua's reliance on theYearbooks, shows why successive Registrars had doubts whether Nicaragua should have been listed or not.

¹ These introductory remarks signed personally by the Registrar ceased to have the heading “Preface” with the 1961-1962 volume. They are always, however, printed on a separate page immediately following the title-page.

¹ The British Memorial puts the matter precisely :