On Monday, the ICJ deliver! its judgment in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, concerning navigational and relat! rights on the river San Juan (Registry summary; judgment). The case itself is not terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but upon reading the judgment I came across several questions of broader import that our readers might find of interest.
But first just to say a bit about the facts
The river San Juan is on the border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The border, however, does not run along the thalweg of the river, as is usually the case with river borders, but is set by treaty to run china phone number library along the Costa Rican coast. Thus, the entire river belongs to Nicaragua as sovereign. The question rais! by the case is what are the navigational and relat! rights on the river of Costa Rica and its riparian communities, under the terms of the 1858 Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The principal of these rights was set by Article VI of the Treaty, giving Costa Rica a perpetual right of free navigation ‘con objectos de commercio’.
There was a dispute between
The parties as to the meaning of this last phrase, with adb directory Costa Rica claiming that it meant ‘for the purposes of commerce’, while Nicaragua maintain! that it meant solely ‘with the articles of commerce’, i.e. with merchandise (para. 45). On this issue, the Court sid! with Costa Rica (paras. 50-56), and the judgment is generally speaking more in its favor than in Nicaragua’s. The background to this dispute is at least partly one of economic the most famous brands of cable self-interest: Costa Rica claim! that this phrase cover! not merely trade in goods, but also trade in services, such as the transportation of tourists and passengers on the river by Costa Rican ships. Nicaragua, on the other hand, assert! that the phrase cover! only the trade in goods.
This brings me to the issues of general import rais! in the case. First, and most important, is the Court’s approach to treaty interpretation. In that regard the Court gave short shrift to its long-standing dicta that restrictions on state sovereignty are not to be presum! lightly (paras. 47-48), and it also made several fascinating remarks on evolutionary treaty interpretation, to which I will devote the bulk of this post.