“Case concerning land, island and maritime frontier dispute.El Salvador vs Honduras Nicaragua intervening” (1992).

1. ASSIGNMENT
OF
Public International Law
ROLL NO. 506 & 507
LAW 7th Semester.
UAJ&K.

2. Case Title:
“Case concerning land, island
and maritime frontier dispute.
El Salvador vs Honduras
Nicaragua intervening” (1992).

3. Parties of case El Salvador vs Honduras ( Nicaragua
intervening but not a party)
Issues Land boundary, legal status of islands
and legal situation of the maritime
spaces within and outside the closing
line of gulf of Fonseca.
Forum ICJ
Date of Decision 11 September 1992.
Published ICJ: Reports of judgements, Advisory
opinion and Orders 1992, pp 351-761.

4. MAP describing geographical locationof three
states:

5. Geographical location on world map

6. Terminologies related to case
Gulf a deep inlet of the sea almost surrounded
by land, with a narrow mouth.
Bay a broad inlet of the sea where the land
curves inwards.
Maritime spaces relating to marine shipping or navigation.
Or
bordering on the sea.

7. FACTS:
• On December 1986 by joint notification Honduras and El
Salvador filed with registry of ICJ by giving the copy of special
agreement signed on MAY24,1986 between them for
submission of dispute to ICJ.
• Right after one year on 7 may 1987 court formed a chamber
to deal with the case.
• 17 November 1989 Nicaragua filed an application to
intervene.
• September 1990 Nicaragua was allowed by court to
intervene but not as a party. Just only to decide the status of
waters of gulf of Fonseca.

8. • Chamber of court noticed three main elements in the
dispute
1- Dispute over the land boundary
2- Dispute over the legal situation of islands
3- Dispute over the legal situation of maritime spaces.
• Maritime spaces referred were both inside gulf of Fonseca
and outside of it in pacific ocean too.
• Another dispute was whether role of court included the
delimitation of the waters between the parties ???

9. Background how these states came into being
• These three states were founded in result of the disintegration of the
Spanish empire in central America. And their territories correspond to
the administrative sub-divisions of that state.
• It was decided that new boundaries were to be determined by the
generally accepted principle of UTI POSSEDITIS Latin word meaning
as you possess.
• . Uti possidetis is a principle in international law that territory and
other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict,
unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty does not
include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory
taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail.
• Whereby states were to follow colonial administered boundaries.

10. •Now the problem aroused as how to determine where
those boundaries actually were ???????
•Independence of central America was proclaimed on
15 September 1821. and until 1839 Honduras and El
Salvador made up together with costa rica ,
Guatemala and Nicaragua , the federal republic of
central America. Upon its disintegration Honduras and
El Salvador accompanied by other component states
became separate states and remained as a separate
state since then.

11. Important Developments:
• As islands of gulf of Fonseca were a part and under control of
Spanish empire soon disputes aroused and firstly;
• In 1884 an attempt was made to delimit the waters of gulf
between El Salvador and Honduras in a boundary convention
which was not ratified by Honduras.
• Then in 1900 a delimitation agreement on waters of gulf was
made between Nicaragua and Honduras.
• 1916 proceedings were brought to central American court of
justice by El Salvador against Nicaragua raising the issue of
waters of gulf.

12. • Subsequently as the law of sea developed both parties carried out
legislation as to lay claim on the waters outside gulf.
• Number of negotiations were carried out between the parties over
several conferences the last of which was in 1962 as an attempt to
solve the problem of delimitation.
• Again a mediation process started in 1978 and resulted in GENERAL
TREATY OF PEACE signed and ratified in 1980 by both Honduras and El
Salvador.
• This treaty was basically a mandate for the formation of the frontier
commission formed in 1980 to determine the legal status of maritime
spaces.
• Commission worked from 1980 to 1985 but did not succeed to achieve
its mandate within the time limit set out in the treaty.

13. • On failure on this commission the dispute was then referred
to ICJ in accordance with the provisions laid down in treaty
earlier on.
• In addition to this an agreement was made between the
parties in 1986 . In which the parties agreed to:
1- Accept and act upon the decision of ICJ as it will be in good
faith for both of them.
2- Established a Demarcation Commission which was to begin
the demarcation of the frontier line to be fixed as per
judgement not later than the 3 months from the date of
judgement.

14. ISSUES
Part(A): questions before the court
(i)-El Salvador asked the court to
determine that:
• The court had no jurisdiction to effect any delimitation of
maritime spaces;
• The legal situation of maritime spaces within gulf of Fonseca
correspond to legal position established by judgement of
central American court of justice of 9 march 1917;

15. •According to El Salvador over maritime
spaces outside gulf of Fonseca,
(a) Honduras had no sovereignty or
jurisdiction in or over them.
(b) The only states to have sovereignty
in or over them were those which
having coasts that directly front with
pacific ocean and El Salvador being one
of them.

16. (ii) Honduras asked the court to adjudge and
declare that :
•The community of interests existing between El
Salvador and Honduras are same being coastal states
bordering the historical bay between them producing
perfect equality of rights between them which has
never been transformed by both states into a
condominium. (the joint control of a state‘s affairs by
other states).

17. • Relevant circumstances to arrive at an equitable solution
should consist of the line equidistant from low water to main
land and island.
• As bordering gulf and maritime spaces it implies an equal
right that both states can exercise their jurisdiction over
maritime spaces beyond the closing line of gulf.
• For the sake of maritime spaces outside gulf, an equitable
solution is a line starting 3 nautical miles from coastal area of
El Salvador and extending up to 200 nautical miles.

18. (iii) Nicaragua in its written statement presented that there
never existed the community of interests in case of gulf of
Fonseca. Legal consideration to support this were:
• The issues presented by both states were under law of sea
except the concept of condominium.
• According to Nicaragua the delimitation of maritime spaces
could not be displaced by unjustified concept of “ the
perfect equality of states”.
• The constant practice of riparian states of gulf showed that
there was no legal regime over it but its just a historic bay.
• Contentions(debate) designed by Honduras cant result in an
equitable principle for delimitation of maritime spaces and
forming part of general international law.

19. • In oral proceedings Nicaragua also submitted that:
• Claim of Honduras affected the legal interest of Nicaragua as
it curtailed its inherent rights.
• The legal entitlements of the coastal states remained same
whether waters of gulf were classified as internal waters of
territorial sea.
• No regime of condominium existed in gulf as it was directly
opposed by Nicaragua against the 1917 judgement of
American central court of justice.
• International Law didn’t accept the concept of community of
interests in a form that it overrode the application of
principles of sea.

20. ARGUMENTS
(i) El Salvador:
• About Nicaragua’s written statement:
It expressed reservations on Nicaragua’s intervention in delimitation
within gulf later on it stated that it had no objection on how the court
has accorded Nicaragua to intervene.
• Delimitation of maritime boundary:
It stated that court had no jurisdiction to effect any delimitation of
maritime spaces and no such dispute even existed and court therefore
couldn’t adjudicate non-existent dispute.
• Legal situation of waters of gulf:
It strongly approved the concept of condominium given by court of C.A
in 1917 and it couldn’t be changed without its consent.

21. (ii) Honduras :
•Nicaragua’s written statement:
Honduras complained Nicaragua had no right to give
statements over legal regime of water as it was taken
up by the court already.
•Delimitation of maritime boundary:
Honduras asked for the delimitation of maritime
boundary inside and outside the Gulf of Fonseca by
means of a line determined by the chamber of the
court.

22. • Legal situation of waters of gulf:
Honduras opposed the concept of condominium as established in 1917
judgement and also called into question the correctness of this part of
the judgement.
It also maintained that as it was not a party to the case therefore was
not bound to it and also argued that condominium can only be
established by agreement.
An alternative idea was given by Honduras that was community of
interest giving as already decided in the judgement of PCIJ in the case
of “Territorial jurisdiction of the international commission of the River
1929”
In that ruling each state remained master in area of its own jurisdiction.

23. •Thus as delimitation was not compatible with
the existence of a condominium community of
interest presupposed delimitation. Infact each of
the coastal state’s had an equal right to have
defined maritime spaces attributed to it over
which it can exercise its powers as laid down in
International Law.

24. Reasoning of the court
• Nicaragua’s written statement:
The chamber considered the intervention of Nicaragua within
the limit of intervention provided to it.
It only took the relevant arguments of Nicaragua regarding the
regime of the waters of gulf of Fonseca.
• Delimitation of the maritime boundary:
The chamber noted that in the text of special agreement no
reference was made for delimitation of the waters of gulf. For
chamber to carry out any such delimitation there must a
mandate to do so and it cant be derived any how from among
the text of the special agreement.

25. • Legal situation of the waters of the gulf:
The chamber noticed that according to the geographical dimensions
and proportions of the gulf were such that it could be considered a
juridical(relating to law) bay under Article 7 of the Geneva convention
on territorial sea. Although neither party to the case was part of it, the
above given provision was just a customary law.
According to the convention the word bay was referred to those bays
coast of which belong to a single state.
The gulf of Fonseca manifestly not a bay defined according to that
convention.
Furthermore the parties and intervening state agreed that it was a
historic bay.

26. Now the chamber proceeded to investigate the particular history of the
bay to determine the regime of its waters.
The gulf was originally a single-state bay under Spanish domain until
the three riparian states got their independence in 1921 as mentioned
earlier.
From 1921 to 1939 the bay was under the jurisdiction of the federal
republic of C.A of which these three coastal states were member
states.
The rights in the gulf of present coastal states were acquired by
succession from Spain.

27. • Under the principle of USI POSSEDITIS it was necessary to establish
what was the status of the waters of the gulf at the time of succession.
• This question has been analysed by the central American court of
justice in its judgement of 1917. Concluding that gulf was an historic
bay with the character of enclosed sea.
• The court reached to the conclusion that the legal status of the gulf was
that it was a property belonging to three coastal states as a community
of interest or co-ownership.
• The maritime belts of 1 marine league (3 nautical miles) from the coast
were considered to be in exclusive jurisdiction of the state.
• Further an outer zone of 9 nautical miles was indicated as a zone of
rights of inspection and use of police powers and for national security.

28. • In response to Honduras that condominium can only be established
by agreement the court pointed put the possibility of existence of
joint sovereignty arising as a juridical result of state succession.
• 1917 judgement described the condominium, the legal result where
three states jointly inherit by succession, waters which for nearly 3
centuries had been under single jurisdiction of a state from which
they were heirs.
• The existence of a community was also evidenced by the continuous
and peaceful use of waters by all three states after independence.
• Thus the chamber of the court decided to take into account the 1917
judgement as a relevant precedent of a competent court.

29. • It thus concluded that gulf was a historic bay and its waters other
than a 3 mile maritime belt were historical and subjected to joint
sovereignty.
• The court decided the closing line to be as recognized by the three
coastal states in practice and as referred in the judgement of 1917.
• Other than the 3 miles maritime belt, the zone was subjected to the
joint sovereignty of the states and safe passage to the vessels of any
3rd state coming to any of the port of the three states.
• It was decided that the closing line of the gulf was the baseline which
also constituted the coast. So following that there was a tri-partite
presence at the closing line of the gulf and Honduras was not locked
to the use of ocean water outside the bay. Unless the delimitation
into three separate divisions is carried out as an internal matter of
three states.

30. •As Nicaragua was not a party to the case so the
judgement was not a binding force on it.

31. Judgement
• Judgement was rendered on 11th of September 1992.
• The chamber unanimously decided on the boundary line between El
Salvador and Honduras on the common frontier between them.
• The court also decided on the legal situation of the islands but only
those which were referred to the court.
• The islands in dispute were:
• El tigre
• Meanguera
• Meanguerita

32. • The court unanimously decided that the island of El tigre was part of
the sovereign state of Honduras.
• The court unanimously decided that island of meanguera was a part
of sovereign state of El Salvador.
• The court also decided by four votes to one that island of
meanguerita was a part of sovereign state of El Salvador.
• The court decided four votes to one upon the decision that the
waters were jointly held by three states outside the exclusive three
miles and the territorial sea boundary started where the closing line
of the bay ended.
• It also decided in the judgement that any delimitation of the relevant
maritime areas is to be affected by agreement on the basis of
International Law.

33. THE END 