Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T21:45:22.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Court of Justice: Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Nienke Grossman
Nienke Grossman*
Affiliation:
University of Baltimore School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 1180 - 1222
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

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.)

References

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Court of Justice official website: (visited October 1, 2009) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/133/15321.pdf=

1 Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicar.) (Judgment of July 13, 2009), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=37&case=133&code=coni&p3=4 [hereinafter Judgment].

2 Treaty of Territorial Limits, Costa Rica – Nicar., art. VI, Apr. 15, 1858. Nicaragua argued that the phrase means ‘‘‘with articles of trade,’’ while Costa Rica asserted it means ‘‘‘for the purposes of commerce.’’ See Judgment, ¶ 45.

3 Validity of the Treaty of Limits (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), reprinted in 28 R.I.A.A. 189 (2006) (Decision of Mar. 22, 1888).

4 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, reprinted in 11 Am. J. Int’l L. 181 (Cent. Am. Court of Justice 1917).

5 Judgment, ¶ 28.

6 Id. ¶ 48 (emphasis added).

7 Id. ¶ 64.

8 Id. ¶ 66.

9 Id. ¶ 87.

10 ‘‘. . . the interests which are to be protected through regulation in the public interest may well have changed [since 1858] in ways that could never have been anticipated by the Parties at the time: protecting the environment is a notable example.’’ Id. ¶ 89.

11 Id. ¶ 97.

12 Id. ¶ 101.

13 Id.

14 Id. ¶ 36.

15 Id. ¶ 35.

16 Id. ¶¶ 141-44.

17 Id. ¶ 148.

18 Id. ¶ 149.

19 Id. ¶ 150.

20 Nicaragua’s Agent, Carlos Arguello Gómez, declared in a phone interview with a Nicaraguan newspaper: ‘‘Estamos muy contentos con el resultado. Creo que toda Nicaragua debe estar igualmente contenta.’’ See Mauricio Miranda, Diferentes Opticas Sobre Fallo CIJ, El Nuevo Diario, July 14, 2009, available at http://impreso.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2009/07/14/nacionales/105496. Costa Rica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs declared the Judgment a ‘‘triunfo diplomático.’’ See Álvaro Murillo & Joanna Nelson, Para Stagno, s un ‘Triunfo Diplomático’, La Nación, July 14, 2009, available at http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/julio/14/mundo2026266.html.