Costa Rica and Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice: Trying to Work Out the Complicated Relationship between Law and the Environment

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-370
Author(s):  
Britta Sjöstedt
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

scholarly journals Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Rudall
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
First Time

Should trees have standing? The decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) in its Question of Compensation (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) case of February 2, 2018 provides a pioneering example of damage to the environment being litigated before an international tribunal. The judgment is the first time that the ICJ has adjudicated compensation for environmental damage, and it is only the third time the ICJ has awarded compensation at all. Nevertheless, the ICJ boldly asserted in this case that “damage to the environment, and the consequent impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, is compensable under international law” (para. 42). That said, the reasoning employed by the Court leaves much to be desired. Given the increasing number of cases involving the environment, it is unfortunate that international courts and tribunals will garner only limited guidance from the methodology adopted by the ICJ in valuing environmental damage.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE,CASE CONCERNING THE DISPUTE REGARDING NAVIGATIONAL AND RELATED RIGHTS (COSTA RICA V NICARAGUA)JUDGMENT OF 13 JULY 2009

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 271-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirik Bjorge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Over Time

The technique of ‘evolutive interpretation’ is well known in public international law.2It is particularly associated with treaty regimes like that of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).3The currency of this technique of interpretation has, however, been less evident ingeneralpublic international law. It is not insignificant therefore that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case about navigational and related rights has now made unambiguously clear that, where the parties have used generic terms in a treaty, aware that the meaning of the terms was likely to evolve over time, and where the treaty is one of continuing duration, the parties as a general rule must be presumed to have intended those terms to have an ‘evolving meaning’.4

Revocation and Modification of Provisional Measures Orders in the International Court of Justice: The Court’s Order Regarding Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the Case Concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River Joint Proceedings

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Sarmiento Lamus
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
San Juan ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Border Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
San Juan River

Abstract This article seeks to analyse the revocation and modification of provisional measures, as indicated by the International Court of Justice, in light of the Court’s recent order in the joint proceedings of Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the case concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River. The request presented before the Court, by both parties, constitutes the first instance in which a request of this type has ever been submitted. Consequently, the order rendered by the Court, with regard to the procedural and substantive aspects concerning the indication of provisional measures, contains some points that are open to further analysis.

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area

2020 ◽  
Vol 187 ◽  
pp. 1-543
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Main Claim ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
San Juan River

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Requirements for the indication of provisional measures — Prima facie jurisdiction — Jurisdiction under American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 (Pact of Bogotá) — Plausibility of rights claimed — Whether rights claimed by Costa Rica plausible — Irreparable damage — Whether rights claimed by Costa Rica at imminent risk of irreparable prejudiceInternational Court of Justice — Procedure — Control of proceedings — Joinder of proceedings — Counter-claims — Admissibility of counter-claims — Whether counter-claims of Nicaragua having direct connection with main claim of Costa Rica — Conditions for establishing whether a counter-claim connected in fact and in law with main claimInternational Court of Justice — Evidence — Weight to be given — Expert evidence — Burden and standard of proof — CompensationTerritory — Sovereignty — Disputed territory — Costa Rica’s claim that Nicaragua carried out activities in territory under sovereignty of Costa Rica — Extent of disputed territory — Treaty of Limits, 1858 — Cleveland Award, 1888 — Alexander Awards, 1897 — Whether “first channel met” was the caño dredged by Nicaragua starting in 2010 — Whether disputed territory falling under sovereignty of NicaraguaEnvironment — Procedural obligations — Substantive obligations — Nicaragua’s alleged breaches of international environmental law — Whether Nicaragua having to provide Costa Rica with environmental impact assessment relating to activities in disputed territory — Whether Nicaragua breaching its obligations to notify and consult with Costa Rica — Whether Nicaragua breaching its obligation not to cause transboundary harm — Costa Rica’s alleged breaches of international environmental law — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligation to provide Nicaragua with environmental impact assessment relating to construction of Road 1856 along San Juan River — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligations to notify and consult with Nicaragua — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligations under Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligation not to cause 2transboundary harm — Whether Costa Rica breaching Nicaragua’s territorial integrityRivers — Right of navigation — Whether Nicaragua breaching Costa Rica’s right of navigation on San Juan River under Treaty of Limits, 1858 — PollutionState responsibility — Breach of provisional measures — Whether evidence showing that Nicaragua breached provisional measures — Assessing compliance with provisional measures at merits stage — Costs — Whether Costa Rica to be awarded costs as a result of Nicaragua’s breach of provisional measures — Breach of territorial integrity — Presence of Nicaragua’s military camp in disputed territory — Declaration that territorial integrity had been breached — Reparation — Compensation to be determined by Parties through negotiation within a year — Whether Court to be requested to determine amount of compensation by either Party after one year had elapsedDamages — Environmental damage — Consequences of responsibility for environmental damage — Request by Costa Rica to determine amount of compensation — Obligation to make full reparation — Hierarchy of means of reparation — Punitive or exemplary damages — Three-step approach to awarding compensation — Establishment of unlawful act — Causal link between unlawful act and injury suffered — Quantification — Compensation for environmental damage — Compensation for expenses incurred by Costa Rica — Methodology to quantify amount due — Parties disagreeing on appropriate methodology — Expenses by Costa Rica as a result of unlawful activities in disputed territory — Expenses by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s breach of provisional measures — Expenses by Costa Rica for construction and monitoring of a dyke — Costa Rica’s claim for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest — Whether pre-judgment interest necessary to ensure full reparation — Date by which compensation to be paid by Nicaragua

scholarly journals Geographic maps as evidence in practice of the international court of justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-111
Author(s):  
Marko Novakovic
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Border Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
San Juan River ◽  
The Will

The paper deals with the use of geographic maps as evidence in the practice of the International Court of Justice with a view to the latest cases in which the Court in its judgments elaborated maps as evidence: the case Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). The analysis comprehends the evidentiary value of geographic maps throughout the International Court of Justice's jurisprudence and even in the case-law of its predecessors. The author emphasizes that the substantial element that affects whether a geographic map will be accepted as direct evidence before the International Court of Justice is the consent of the parties to the dispute, as well as the fact, that the map stands as an expression of the will of the state. The author concludes that the map properties-such as details, quality and consistency-have no impact on the acceptance of the map as direct evidence, but only on whether the geographic map is to be accepted as an indirect proof.

The Effect of the Passage of Time on the Interpretation of Treaties: Some Reflections on Costa Rica v. Nicaragua

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN DAWIDOWICZ
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Full Account ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Provision ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Proper Interpretation

AbstractThis article examines the reasoning and findings of the International Court of Justice in its judgment in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua on issues relating to the effect of the passage of time on the interpretation of treaties. In arriving at the proper interpretation of the disputed phrase ‘for purposes of commerce’ in a Treaty of Limits between the parties, which entered into force in 1858, the ICJ followed a number of interpretative steps based on Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which led the Court to conclude that the meaning of this phrase must be presumed to have evolved over time. The means and methods of interpretation employed by the ICJ to determine the effect of the passage of time on treaties are examined. More specifically, the question is raised whether the ICJ's approach to determining the evolutionary character of a treaty provision, based on an interpretative presumption, may not be considered unsatisfactory insofar as it does not appear to take full account of the actual common intention of the parties – the main task of interpretation.

Temporal Elements in the Valuation of Environmental Damage: Reflections on the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua Compensation Case before the International Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-291
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
First Time

Abstract In the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua judgment of 2 February 2018, the International Court of Justice (icj), for the first time in its jurisprudence, explicitly accepted the compensability of environmental damage. Nonetheless, the valuation of environmental damage is less easy. Since conditions concerning the environment and its natural resources may change with the passage of time, there is a need to take the dynamics and variability of the environment into account in the valuation of environmental damage. In this regard, considerations of temporal elements, including the time necessary for recovery of the environment and ecosystem, are key. Thus this article aims to consider the issues of the valuation of environmental damage in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua Compensation case focusing particularly on temporal elements. In particular, this article critically analyses the icj’s methodology for the valuation of environmental damage. This article also examines the issues of climate change and use of experts in the valuation of environmental damage.

The 2009 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Katz Cogan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

The International Court of Justice issued three judgments in 2009: a final decision, of January 19, in Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States); a final decision on the merits, of February 3, in Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine); and a final decision on the merits, of July 13, in Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). In addition, the Court, on May 28, rejected a request by Belgium for the indication of provisional measures directed at Senegal in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). The Court also issued orders fixing the time limits in several other pending cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document