El Salvador vs Honduras

7/29/2019 El Salvador vs Honduras

1/30

CASE CONCERNING LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE(EL SALVADOIUHONDURAS: NICARAGUA INTERVENING)Judgment of 11 September 1992

The Chamber constituted by the Court in the case con- land sections between El Salvador and Honduras. It thencerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute be- ruled on the legal status of the islands of the Gulf of Fon-tween El Salvador and Hondu ras, Nicaragua intervening, seca, as well as .on the legal situation of the maritimefirst adopted the course of the boundary line in the disputed spaces within and outside the closing line of that Gulf.

Continued on next page

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of JusticeNot an official document


2/30

The Chamber was composed as follows: Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber; President Sir RobertJennings; Vice-President Oda; Judges ad hoc Valticos,T o m s Bernhrdez.

The full text of the operative part of the Judgment is a sfollows:"425. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular para graphs 6 8 to 103 thereof,

TH ECHAMBER,Unanimously,Decides that the boundary line between the R epublicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thefirst sector of their common frontier not clescribed inarticle 16 of the Ge neral Treaty of Peace signed by theParties on 30 October 1980 is as follows:From the international tripoint known as El Trifinioon the summit of the C erro Montecristo (point A on MapNo. I ann exe d; coo rdinat es: 14'25'10" N, 89"2 1'20" W),the boundary runs in a generally easterly direction along

the watershed betw een the rivers Frio or St:secapa andDel Rosario as f ar as the junction of this watershed withthe watershed of the basin of the qttebrada de Pomola(poin t B on Ma p No. I annexed ; coordinates: 14'25'05" N,89'20'41" W); there after in a north-easterly directio nalong the watershed of the basin of the quebrada dePomola until the junction of this watershed with thewatershed between the quebrada de Cipresales and thequebrada del Cedrbn, Peiia Dorada and Pornola proper(poin t C on Map No. I anne xed; coo rdina tes: 14'25'09" N,89'20'30" W); from that point, along the last-namedwatershed as far as the intersection of the centre-linesof the quebradas of Ci~presales nd Pomola (point Don Ma p No. I anne xed; coordin ates: 14"24'42" N,89" 18'1 9" W); ther eafte r, downstrea m alo ng the centre-line of the quebrada de Pomola, until the point on thatcentre-line which is closest to the boundary marker ofPomola at El Talquezalar; and from that point in astraight line as far as that marker (point E on Map No. Ianne xed; c oord inates : 14"24'5 1" N , 89 " 17'54" W );from there in a straight line in a south-easterly directionto the boundary marker of the Ceno Pied.ra Menuda(poin t F on Map No. I annexed; coordinates: 14'24'02'' N,89'16'40" W), and thenc e in a straight line to the bound-ary marker of the C en o Zapotal (point G on: Map No. Iannexed ; coo rdina tes: 14'23'26" N, 89'1 4'43" W); forthe purposes of illustra.tion, the line is indicated onMap No. I annexed.

426. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragraphs 104 to 127 thereof,'THECHAMBER,

'Unanimously,Decides that the boundary line between the Republicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thesecond sector of their common frontier not described inarticle 16 of the General Treaty of Peace signed by theParties o n 30 October 1980 is as follows:From the Peiia de Cayaguanca (point A on MapNo. I1 annex ed; coo rdinates: 14'21'54" N, 89c'10'1 1" W),the boundary runs in a straight line som ew t~a t outh ofeast to the Loma de L os Encinos (point B on Map No. I1

anne xed; coor dinates: 14'2 1'08" N, 89'08'54" W), andfrom there in a straight line to the hill known as El Burroor Piedra Rajada (point C on Map No. I1 annexed;coo rdi nat es: 14'22'46'' N, 89'07'32'' W ); from the rethe boundary runs in a straight line to the head of thequebrada Copantillo, and follows the middle of thequebrada Copantillo downstream to its confluence withthe river Sumpul (point D on Map No. I1 annexed;coordina tes: 14'24'12" N, 89'06'07" W) , and then fol-lows the middle of the river Sumpul downstream to itsconfluence with the quebrada Chiquita or Oscura (point Eon M ap No. I1 anne xed; coor dinate s: 14'20'25'' N,89'04'57'' W); for the purpose s of illustration, the lineis indicated on Map No. I1 annexed.427. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragraphs 128 to 185 thereof,THECHAMBER,Unanimously,Decides that the boundary line between the Republicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thethird sector of their common frontier not described inarticle 16 of the General Tr eaty of Peace signed by theParties on 30 October 1980 is as follows:From the Pacacio boundary m arker (point A on MapNo. 111 annexed ; coordin ates: 14'06'28" N, 88'49'18" W)along the rio Pacacio upstream to a point (point B onM ap No . 111 an ne xe d; coo rdi nate s: 14'06'38" N,88'48'47'' W) west of the Cerro Tecola te or Los Teco-lates; from there up the quebrada to the crest of the CerroTecolate or Los Tecolates (point C on Map No. 111anne xed; coo rdina tes: 14'06'33" N, 88'48'18" W), andalong the watershed of this hill as far as a ridge approxi-mately 1 kilometre to the north-east (p oint D on MapNo. 111 annex ed; coord inates: 14'06'48" N, 88'47'52" W);from there in an easterly direction to the neighbouringhill above the source of the T orrente La Puerta (point Eon Map No. 111 annex ed; coordina tes: 14'06'48" N,88'47'3 1" W ) and down that stream to where it meetsthe river Gualsinga (point F on Map No. 111 annexed;coordinate s: 14'06'19" N, 88'47'01" W); from the re theboundary runs along the middle of the river Gualsingadownstream to its confluence with the river Sazalapa(point G on Map No. 111 annexed; coordinates:14'06'12" N, 88'46'58" W) , and thenc e upstream alongthe middle of the river S azalapa to the confluence of thequebrada Llano Negro with that river (point H on MapNo. 111 annexed ; coo rdinates: 14'07'11" N, 88'4421" W);from there south-eastwards to the top of the hill (point Ion Map No. 111 ann exe d; coo rdina tes: 14'07'01" N,88'44'07" W), and thence south-eastward s to the crestof the h i l l marked on the map as a spot height of1,017 metres (point J on Map No. 111 annexed; coordi-nates: 14'06'45" N, 88'43'45" W ); fro m the re theboundary, inclining still more to the sou th, runs throughthe triangulation point known a s La Caiiada (point Kon M ap No. 111 anne xed; coord inates : 14'06'00" N,88'43'52" W) to the ridge joining t he hills indicated onthe map as Ce no El Caracol and Cerro El Sapo (throughpoint L on Map No. 111 annexed; coordinates: 14'05'23" N,88'43'47" W) and from there to the feature marked onthe map as the Portillo El Chupa Miel (point M on M apNo . 111 annexed; coordin ates: 14'04'35" N, 88'44'10" W);from there, following the ridge, to the Cerro El Cajete(point N on Map No. 111 annexed; coordinates:14'03'55" N, 88'44'20" W) , and the nce to the point


3/30

where the present-day road from A rcatao to Nombre deJestis passes between the Cerro El O cotillo and the CerroLagunetas (point 0 on Map No. I11 annexed; coordi-nates: 14'03'18" N, 88'44'16" W); from there south -eastwards to the crest of a hill marked on the map as aspot height of 848 metres (point P on Map No. 111anne xed; coord inates : 14'02'58" N , 88'43'56" W );from there slightly south of eastw ards to a quebrada an ddown the bed of the quebrada to its junction with theGualcuquin river (point Q on Map No. I11 annexed;coordinates: 14'02'42" N, 88'42'34" W); the boun darythen follows the middle of the Gualcuquin river down-stream to the Poza del Cajon (point R on Map No. I11ann exe d; coo rdi nat es: 14'01'28" N, 88'4 1'10" W );for purposes of illustration, thi s line is shown on M apNo. I11 annexed.

428. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragraph s 186 to 267 thereof,THECH A M BER,By four votes to one,Decides that the boundary line between the Republicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thefourth sector of their common frontier not described inarticle 16 of the General Treaty o f Peace signed by theParties on 30 October 1980 is as follows:From the source of the Orilla stream (point A on MapNo. IV annexe d; coo rdinates: 13'53'46" N, 88'20'36" W),the boundary runs through the pass of El Jobo to thesource of the Cueva Hedionda stream (point B on MapNo. IV; coo rdinat es: 13'53'39" N, 88'20'20" W) , andthence down the m iddle of that stream to its confluencewith the river Las Caiias (point C on Map No. IVannexed; coordina tes: 13'53'1 9" N, 88' 19'00" W), andthence following the m iddle of the river upstream as faras a point (point D on Map No. IV annexed; coordinates:13'56'14" N, 88'15'33" W) nea r th e set tlem ent ofLas Piletas; from there e astwards over a col indicated a spoint E on Map No. IV annexed (coordinates: 13'56'19" N,88'14'12" W), to a hill indicate d as point F on MapNo. IV ann exed (coord inates: 13'56'1 1" N, 88' 13'40" W),and then north-eastwards to a point on the river Negroor Pichigual (marked G on Map No. IV annexed; coor-dinates: 13057'12" N, 88'13'11" W); downs tream alongthe middle o f the river Negro o r Pichigual to its conflu-ence with the river Negro-Quiagara (point H on MapNo. IV; coordinate s: 13'59'37" N, 88'14'18" W); thenupstream along the m iddle of the river Negro-Quiagaraas far as the Las Pilas boundary m arker (point I on MapNo. IV; coordinates: 14'00'02" N, 88'06'29" W) , andfrom there in a straight line to the Malpaso de Sim ilat6n(point J on Map No. IV; coordinates: 13'59'28" N,88'04'22" W); for the purp oses of illustration, the lineis indicated on M ap No. IV annexed.IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sir Robert Jennin gs; Vice-PresidentOda; Judge ad hoc Torres Bernirdez;AGAINST:udge ad hoc Valticos.429. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular pa ragraphs 268 to 305 thereof,THECHAMBER,Unanimously,Decides that the boundary line between the Republicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thefifth sector of their common frontier not described in

article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace signed by theParties on 30 Octob er 1980 is as follows:From the confluence with the river Torola of thestream identified in the General Treaty of Peace as thequebrada de Mansupucagua (point A on Map No. Vann exe d; coord inates: 13'53'59" N, 87'54'30" W), theboundary runs upstream along the middle of the riverTorola as far as its confluence with a stream known asthe qr~ebrada el Arena1 or quebrada de Aceituno (point Bon Ma p No. V anne xed; coor dinate s: 13'53'50'' N,87'50'40" W) ; thence up the cour se of that stream as far

as a jpoint at or near its source (point C on Map No. Vannexed; coordinates: 13'54'30" N, 87'50'20" W), andthence in a straight line somewhat north of east to a hillsome: 1,100 metres high (point D on Map No. V annexed;coortlinates: 13'55'03'' N, 87'49'50" W); thence in astraight line to a hill near the river Unire (point E on MapNo. \/ annexed; coord inates: 13'55'1 6" N, 87'48'20" W),and thence to the nearest point on the river Unire; down-stream along the middle of that river to the point knownas the Paso de Unire (point F on Map No. V annexed;coor tlinate s: 13'52'07" N, 87'46'01" W); for th e pu r-poses of illustration, the line is indicated on Map No. Vannexed.430. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragraphs 306 to 322 thereof,Unanimously,Decides that the boundary line between the Republicof El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras in thesixth sector of their common frontier not described inarticle 16 of the Gene ral Treaty of Peace signed by theParties on 30 Octob er 1980 is as follows:From the point on the r iver Goasco rin known asLos Amates (point A on Map No. VI annexed; coordi-nates : 13'26'28" N, 87'43'25" W), the boun dary fol-lows the course of the river downstream, in the middleof the bed, to the point where it em erges in the waters of

the Bahia La Uni6n, Gulf of Fonseca, passing to thenorth-west of the Islas Ramaditas, the coord inates of theend-poin t in the bay being 13'24'26" N, 87'49'05" W;for the purposes o f illustration, the line is indicated o nMap No. VI annexed.43 1. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragraph s 323 to 368 thereof,1. By four votes to one,Decides that the Parties, by requesting the Chamber,in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement of24 May 1986, 'to determine the legal situation of theislands . . ',have conferred upon the C hamber jurisdic-

tion to determine, a s between the Parties, the legal situ-ation of all the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca; but thatsuch jurisdiction should only be exercised in respect ofthose islands which have been shown to be the subjectof a dispute;IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice-PresidentOda; Judge ad hoc Valticos;AGAINST:udge ad hoc Torres Bernirdez;2. Decides that the islands shown to be in disputebetween the Parties are:(i) by four votes to one, EI Tigre;


4/30

IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President S-irRobert Jennings; Vice-PresidentOda; Judge ad hoc Valticos;AGAINST:udge ad' hoc Torres Bernhrtlez;(ii) unanimously, Meangrlera and Meanguerita;3. Unanimously,Decides that the island of El Tigre is part of thesovereign territory of the Republic of Ho-nduras;4. Unanimously,Decides that the island of Meanguera is part of thesovereign territory of the Republic of El Salvador;5. By four votes to one,Decides that the island of Meanguerite~ s part of thesovereign territory of the Republic of El !Salvador.IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sir Robert Jennings; Vicc-PresidentOda; Judge ad hoc Va.lticos;AGAINST:udge ad hoc Torres Bcrnhrclez.432. For the reasons set out in the present Judgment,in particular paragrapl~s 69 to 420 thereof,1. By four votes to one,Decides that the legal situation of the waters of theGulf of Fonseca is as .Follows: the Gulf of Fonseca is anhistoric bay the waters whereof, having previously to1821 been under the single control of Spain, and from1821 to 1839 of the Federal Rcpublic of Central America,were thereafter succeeded to and held in sovereignty by-the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of I-londuras,and the Rcpublic of Nicaragua, jointly, and continue tobe so held, as defined in the present Judgment, butexcluding a belt, as a.t present established, extending

3 miles (1 marine league) from the littoral of each of thethree States, such belt being under the exclusive sover-eignty ofthe coastal State, and subject to the delimitationbetween Honduras and Nicaragua effected in June 1900,and to the existing rights of innocent passage through the:3-mile belt and the waters held in sovert:ignty jointly;the waters at the central portion of the closing line of theGulf, that is to say, between a point on that line 3 miles(1 marinc league) from Punta Amapala and a point onthat line 3 milcs (1 marine league) from Puilta Cosigiiina,;ire subject to the joint entitlement of all three States ofthe Gulf unless and u11til a delimitation of the relevantmaritime area be effected;

IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sir Robert Jennings; Judge ad hoc'Valticos; Judge ad hoc Torres Bernhrdez;AGAINST: ice-president Oda;2. By four votes to one,Decides that the Parties, by requesting the Chamber,in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreementof 24 May 1986, 'to detcrmine the legal situation ofthe . . . maritime spaces', have not conferred upon theChamber jurisdiction to effect any delimitation of thosemaritime spaces, whether within or outside the Gulf;IN FAVOUR:udge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sii: Robert Jennings; Vice-PresidentOda; Judge ad hoc Vallticos;AGAINST:udge ad hoc Torres Bernhrdaz;3. By four votes to one,~ e c i d e shat the legal situation of the waters outsidethe Gulf is that, the Gulf of Fonseca being an historicbay with three coastal !states, the closing line of the Gulf

constitutes the baseline of the territorial sea; the territo-rial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zoneof El Salvador and those of Nicaragua off the coasts ofthose two States are also to be measured outwards froma section of the closing line extending 3 miles (1 marineleague) along that line from Punta Amapala (in El Sal-vador) and 3 miles (1 marine league) from PuntaCosigiiina (in Nicaragua) respectively; but entitlementto territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive eco-nomic zone seaward of the central portion of the closingline appertains to the three States of the Gulf, El Salva-dor, Honduras and Nicaragua; and that any delimitationof the relevant maritime areas is to be effected by agree-ment on the basis of international law.

IN FAVOUR: Judge Sette-Camara, President of theChamber; President Sir Robert Jennings; Judge ad hocValticos; Judge ad hoc Torres Bernhrdez;AGAINST: ice-President Oda."

Vice-President Oda appended a declaration to the Judg-ment; Judges ad hoc Valticos and Torres Bernhrdezappended separate opinions; Vice-President Oda appendeda dissenting opinion.

I. Qualitis(paras. 1-26)The Chamber recapitulates the successive phases ofthe proceedings, namely: notification to the Registrar, on11 December 1986, of the Special Agreement signed on

24 May 1986 (in force on 1 October 1986) for the submis-sion to a Chamber of the Court of a dispute between thetwo States; formation by the Court, on 8 May 1987, ofthe Chamber to deal with the case; filing by Nicaragua, on17 November 1989, of an Application for permission tointervene in the case; Order by the Court, of 28 February1990, on the question whether Nicaragua's Application forpermission to intervene was a matter within the compe-tence of the full Court or of the Chamber; Judgment of theChamber of 13 September 1990 acceding to Nicaragua'sapplication for permission to intervene (but solely in respectof the question of the status of the waters of the Gulf ofFonseca); and holding of oral proceedings.Article 2 of the Special Agreement, which defines the

subject of the dispute, reads, in an agreed English trans-lation:"The Parties request the Chamber:

1. To delimit the frontier line in the areas or sectionsnot described in article 16 of the General Peace Treatyof 30 October 1980.2. To determine the legal situation of the islands andmaritime spaces."

The Judgment then quotes the submissions of the Par-ties, and the "conclusions" of the intervening State, asformulated at the various stages of the proceedings.


5/30

11. Ge ne ral introduc tion The Parties have indicated to which co lonial administra-(paras. 27-39) tive clivisions (provinces) they claim to have succeeded.The problem is to identify the areas, and the boundaries,The dispute before the Chamber has three elements: a which corresponded to these provinces, which in 1821dispute over the land boundary; a dispute over the legal became respectively El Salvador and Honduras. No legis-situation of island s (in the Gulf of Fonseca); an d a dispute lative or similar material indicating this has been produced,over the legal situation of maritime spaces (within and out- but the parties have submitted, inter alia, documentsside the Gulf of Fonseca). to collectively as "titles" (titulos), concerning grants ofThe two Parties (and the intervening State) came into land 'by the Spanish Crown in the disputed areas, frombeing with the break-up of the Spanish Empire in Central which, it is claimed, the provincial boundaries can beAmerica; their territories correspond to administrative sub- deduced.divisions of that Empire. It was from the outset accepted The ch am be r then analyses the various meanings of thethat the new international boundaries should, in accordance term -title-. lt concludes that, reserving, for the present,with the principle generally applied in Spanish Am erica of the special status El Salvador attributes to "formal titlethe uti possidetis juris, follow the colonial administrative deeds to commons^^, none of the titles produced recordingboundaries. grants; of land to individuals or Indian comm unities can beAfter the independence of Central America from Spain considered as "titles" in the same sense as, for example, awas proclaimed on 15 September 182 1, Honduras and Spanish Royal D ecree attributing certain areas to a particu-El Salvador first made up, together with Costa Rica, Gua- lar aclministrative unit; they are rather comparable totemala and Nicaragua, the Federal Republic of Central "colonial effectivitks" as defined in a previou s case, i.e.,America, corresponding to the former Captaincy-General "the conduct of the adm inistrative authorities as proof ofof Guatemala or Kingdom of Guatemala. On the disinte- the effective exercise o f territorial jurisdiction in the regiongration of that Republic in 1839, El Salvador and Hondu- during the colonial period" (1.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 586,ras, along with the other component States, became sepa- para. 63). In some cases the grant of a title was not per-rate States. fected., but the record, particularly of a survey, remains a~h~ Chamber outlines the development of the three ele- ''~o lon ial effectivitk" which may serve as evidence of thements o f the dispute, beginning with the genesis of the position a provincialisland dispute in 1854 and of the land dispute in 1861. Bor- Refem ng to the seven sectors of the boundary agreed inder incidents led to tension and subsequently to armed con- the General Treaty of Peace, the Chamb er assumes that theflict in 1 969, but in 1972 El Salvador and Honduras were agreeti boundary was amved at applying principles andable to agree on the major part of their land boundary, processes similar to those urged upon the Chambe r for thewhich had not yet been delimited, leaving, however, six non-agreed sectors. Observing the predominance. of localsectors to be settled. A mediation process begun in 1978 features, particularly rivers, in the definition of the agreedled to a General Treaty of Peace, signed and ratified in sectors, the Chamber has taken some account of the suit-1980 by the two P arties, which defined the ag reed sections ability of certain topographical features to provide an iden-of the boundary. tifiable and conve nient boundary. The Cham ber is hereThe Treaty further provided that a Joint Frontier Corn- appealing not so much to any concept of "natural fron-mission should delimit the frontier in the remaining six tiers":, but rather to a presumption underlying the bound-

sectors and "determine the legal situation of the islands aries on which the uti possidetis ju ris Operates.and the maritime spaces". It provided that if within five Under article 5 of the Special Agreement, the Chamberyears total agreement was not reached, the Parties would, is to take into accou nt the rules o f international law appli-within six months, negotiate and conclude a special agree- cable between the Parties, "including, where pertinent, thement to submit any existing controversy to the Interna- provisions o f ' the Treaty. This presumably means that thetional Court o f Justice. Chamber should also apply, where pertinent, even thosethe Commission did not accomplish its task within articles which in the Treaty are addressed specifically tothe time fixed, the Parties negotiated and concluded on the Joint Frontier C ~ m m i ~ ~ i ~ n .ne of these is article 2624 May 1986 the Special Agreement mentioned above. of the Treaty, to the effect that the Commission shall takeas a basis for delimitation the documents issued by the

111. The la nd boun dary: introdu ction Spanish Crown or any other Spanish authority, secular or(paras. 40-67) ecclesiastical, during the colonial period, and indicatingthe jurisdictions or limits of territories or settlements, asThe Parties agree that the fundam ental principle for de- well as other evidence and argum ents of a legal, historical,termining the land frontier is the uti possidetis juris. The human or any other kind, brought before it by the PartiesChamber notes that the essence of the agreed principle is and aclmitted under international law.its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial Drawing attention to the difference between its task andboundaries at the time of independence, and its application that of the ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ihich had merely to propose ahas resulted in colonial administrative boundaries being frontier line, the cha m be r observes that article 26 is not antransformed into international frontiers. applicable law clause, but rather a provision about evi-In S panish Central America there were administrative dence. In this light, the Cha mbe r comm ents on one particu-boundaries of different kinds or degrees, an d the jurisdic- lar class of titles, referred to a s the "formal title-deeds totions of general administrative bodies did not necessarily commons", for which El Salvador has claimed a particularcoincide territorially with those of bodies possessing par- status in Spanish colonial law, that of acts of the Spanishticular or special jurisdiction. In addition to the various Crown directly determ ining the extent of the territorialcivil jurisdictions there we re ecclesiastical ones, which the jurisdiction of an adm inistrative division. These titles, themain administrative units had to follow in principle. so-called titulos ejidales, are, according to El Salvador, the

20


6/30

blest possible evidence In relation to the application of theu,ri possidetis jzrris principle.The Chamber does not accept any interpretation of arti-cle 26 a s signifying than the Parties have by treaty adopteda special rule or method of determination of the zrti pos-sidetis juris boundaries, on the basis of divisions betweenIrrdian poblaciones. It was the administrative boundariesbetween Spanish colo ~lia l administrative units, not theboundaries between Indian settlements as such, that weretransformed into international boundaries in 182 1.El Salvador contends that the commons whose formaltitle-deeds it relies on were not private pmperties but be-longed .to the municipal councils of the correspondingpoblaciones. Control over thos e communal lands being ex.-ercised by the municipal authorities, and over and abovethem by those of the colonial province to which the c o mmons had been declared to belong, El Salvador maintainsthat if such a grant of commons to a community in onc:province extende d to lands situated within a.nother, he ad..ministrative control of the province to which the commu-nity belonged was determinative for the application of the:uti possidetis juris, i.e., that, on independence, the whole:area of th e com mons appertained to the State within which1the comm unity was s ituated. The Chamber, which is facedlwith a situation of this kind in three of six disputed sectors,.has, however, been able to resolve the issue without having:to determine this particular question of Spanish coloniallaw, and therefore sees ]no reason to attemp t to do so.In the absence of legislative instruments formally defin-ing provincial boundaries, not only land grants to Indiancommunities but also grants to private individuals affordsome evidence as to the llocation of boundaries. There mus tbe a presumption that such grants would normally avoidstraddling a boundary between different administrativeauthorities, and where the provincial boundary locationwas doubtful the common boundaries of two gran ts by dif-ferent provincial authorities could well have become theprovincial boundary. The Chamber therefore considers theevidence o f each of thes,e grants on its merits and in rela-tion to other arguments, but without treating them as nec-esriarily conclusive.With regard to the land that had not been the subject ofgrants of various kinds by the Spanish Crown, referred to

the principle of uti possidetis juris could be adjusted sub-sequently (except by agreement) on the ground of unequalpopulation density. The Cham ber will not lose sight of thisdimension of the matter, which is, however, without directlegal incidence.El Salvador also relies on the alleged occupation of dis-puted areas by Salvadorians, their ownership of land inthose areas, the supply by it of public services there and itsexercise in the areas of government powers, and claims,

inter alia, that the practice of effective adm inistrative con-trol has demonstrated an "animus" to possess the territo-ries. Honduras rejects any argumen t of "effective control",suggesting that the concept refers only to administrativecontrol prior to independence. It considers that, at leastsince 1884, no acts of so vereignty in the disputed areas canbe relied on in view of the duty to respect the status quoin a disputed area. It has, however, presented co nsiderablematerial to show that Hond uras can also rely on argumentsof a human kind.The Cham ber considers that it may have regard, in certaininstances, to documentary evidence of post-independenceeffectivitb affording indications o f the 182 1 uti possidetisjuris boundary, provided a relationship exists between theeffectivitks and the determination of that boundary.El Salvador drew attention to difficulties in collectingevidence in certain areas owing to interference with gov-ernmental activities du e to acts of violence. The Chambe r,while appreciating these difficulties, cannot apply a pre-sumption that evidence which is unavailable would, if pro-duced, have supported a particular Party's case, still less apresumption of the existence of evidence not produced. Inview of these difficulties, El Salvador requested the Cham -ber to consider exercising its functions under Article 66 ofthe Rules of Court to obtain evidence in situ. The Partieswere, however, informed that the Chamber did not con-sider it necessary to exercise the functions in question, norto exercise its power, under Article 50 of the Statute, toarrange for an inquiry or expert opinion in the case, as

El Salvador had also requested it to do.

as crown lands, tierras iealengbs, the Parties agree that Th e Chamber will examine, in respect of each disputedsuch land was not unattributed but appertaiiied to the one sector, the evidence of post~colon~alffctivitiss.Evenprovince or the other and accordingly passed, on in&- when claims of effectivit6 are given their due weight, itpemdence, into the sovere ignty of the on e Sta~ :e r the other. may occur in some areas that, following the delimitationWith regard to post-independence grants or titles, the so- of the disputed sector, nationals of one Party will findcalled "republican titles", the Chamber considers that they themselves in the- erritory of the other. The Chamber hasmalY we ll provide som e evidence of the ~ o! ;iti on n 1821 every confidence that the necessary measures to take accountand both Parties have offered them as such. of this will be taken by the Parties.El Salvador, while adm itting that the uti possidetis juris 1 connection with the concept of th e date", theis primary eltXnent for determining the land boundary, Chamber observes that there seems to be no reason whyalso puts forward, in reliance on the second palt of article 26, acquiescence or recognition shou ld not operate where therearE:uments referred to a:s either "arguments of a huma n is sufficient evidence to show that the Parties have in effectnature" or arguments based on effectivitks. Ilonduras also accepted a variation or an interpretation of the utirecognizes a certain conifirmatory role for ejyectivitis an d possidetis juris position.has; submitted evidence of acts o f administration of its o wnfor that purpose. IV. First sector of the land boundary131 Salvador has first advanced arguments and material (paras. 6 8- 103)relating to demographic -pressures n El Salvador creatinga need fo r territory, a!r com pared with l.he relative ly The first disputed sector of the land boundary runs fromsparsely populated Honduras, and to the superior natural the agreed tripoint where the fron tiers of El Salvador, Guate-resources said to be enjoyed by Honduras. El Salvador, mala and H onduras converge (Cerro M ontecristo) to the sum-however, does not appear to claim that a frontier based on mit of the Cerro Zapotal (see sketch-map A on page 35).2 1


7/30

Both Parties recognize that most of the area between thelines they put forward corresponds to the land that was thesubject of a titlrlo ejidal over the mountain of Tepangiiisir,granted in 1776 to the Indian community of San Franciscode Citala, which was situated in, and under the jurisdictionof, the province of San Salvador. El Salvador contendsthat on independence the lands so granted became part ofEl Salvador, so that in 182 1 the boundary of the two prov-inces was defined by the north-eastern boundary of theCitala ejido. Honduras, on the other hand, points out thatwhen the 1776 title was granted, those lands included in itwere specifically stated to be in the Honduran province ofGracias a Dios, so that the lands became on independencepart of Honduras.

The Chamber considers that it is not required to resolvethis question. All negotiations prior to 1972 over the dis-pute as to the location of the frontier in this sector wereconducted on the basis, accepted by both sides, that it wasthe boundary between the ejidos of Citali and Ocotepequethat defined the frontier. The frontier corresponding toHonduras's current interpretation of the legal effect of the1776 Citala title was first put forward in negotiations heldin 1972. Moreover, a title granted by Honduras in 19 14,and the position taken by Honduras in the course of tripar-tite negotiations held between El Salvador, Guatemala andHonduras in 1934- 1935, confirmed the agreement betweenthe Parties that the boundary between Citali andOcotepeque defined the frontier between them. After re-calling that the effect of the uti possidetis juris principlewas not to freeze for all time the provincial boundaries, theChamber finds that Honduras's conduct from 1881 to 1972may be regarded as acquiescence in a boundary corre-sponding to that between the Tepangiiisir lands of Citalaand those of Ocotepeque.

The Chamber then turns to the question of a triangulararea where, according to Honduras, the 1818 title ofOcotepeque penetrated the north-eastern boundary ofCitala, and to the disagreement between the Parties as tothe interpretation of the Citala survey as regards the north-western area.With regard to the triangular area, the Chamber does notconsider that such an overlapping would have been con-sciously made, and that it should only be concluded thatan overlap came about by mistake if there is no doubt thatthe two titles are not compatible. The identification of thevarious relevant geographical locations cannot, however,be achieved with sufficient certainty to demonstrate anoverlap.

With respect to the disagreement on the boundary of theCitali title, the Chamber concludes that on this point theHonduran interpretation of the relevant survey record is tobe preferred.The Chamber then turns to the part of the disputed arealying between the lands comprised in the Citala title andthe international tripoint. Honduras contends that since,according to the survey, the land in this area was crownland (tierras realengas), and the survey was being effectedin the province of Gracias a Dios, these must have beentierras realengas of that province and hence are now partof Honduras.El Salvador, however, claims this area on the basis of

municipality. El Salvador also relies on a report by a Hon-duran Ambassador stating that the lands of the disputedarea belonged to inhabitants of the municipality of Citalain El Salvador. The Chamber, however, does not regardthis as sufficient since to constitute an effectiviti relevantto the delimitation of the frontier at least some recognitionor evidence was required of the effective administration ofthe municipality of Citala in the area, which, it notes, hasnot been proved.El Salvador also contends that ownership of land by Sal-vadorians in the disputed area less than 40 kilometres fromthe line: Honduras claims as the frontier shows that the areawas not part of Honduras, as under the Constitution ofHonduras land within 40 kilometres of the frontier mayonly be acquired or possessed by native Hondurans. TheChamber rejects this contention since at the very leastsome rc:cognition by Honduras of the ownership of land bySalvadorians would have to be shown, which is not thecase.The Chamber observes that in the course of the 1934-1935negotiations agreement was reached on a particular frontierline in this area. The agreement by the representatives ofEl Salvador was only ad rejkrendum, but the Chambernotes that while the Government of El Salvador did notratify the terms agreed upon a d referendum, neither did itdenounce them; nor did Honduras retract its consent.The Chamber considers that it can adopt the 1935 line,primarily since for the most part it follows the watersheds,which provide a clear and unambiguous boundary; it re-iterates its view that the suitability of topographical fea-tures to provide a readily identifiable and convenientboundary. is the material aspect where no conclusion un-ambiguously pointing to another boundary emerges fromthe docmmentary material.As regards material put forward by Honduras concern-ing the settlement of Hondurans in the disputed areas andthe exercise there of government functions by Honduras,the Chamber finds this material insufficient to affect the

decision by way of effectivitis.The Chamber's conclusion regarding the first disputedsector of the land frontier is as follows:'"It begins at the tripoint with Guatemala, the 'pointknown as El Trifinio on the summit of the CerroMontecristo' . . . From this point, the frontier betweenEl Salvador and Honduras runs in a generally easterlydirection, following the direct line of watersheds, inaccordance with the agreement reached in 1935, andaccepted adreferendum by the representatives of El Salva-dor,. . . In accordance with the 1935 agreement. . . , hefrontier runs 'along the watershed between the riversFrio or Sesecapa and Del Rosario as far as the junctionof this watershed with the watershed of the basin of thequehrada de Pomola' . . .; thereafter in a north-easterlydirection along the watershed of the basin of the que-brada de Pomola until the junction of this watershedwith the watershed between the quebrada de Cipresalesand the quebrada del Cedrbn, Peiia Dorada and Pomolaproper' . . . ; from that point, along the last-namedwatershed as far as the intersection of the centre-linesof the quebradas of Cipresales and Pomola' . . . ;'thereafter, downstream along the centre-line of theeffectivitis, and points to a number of villages or hamlets --se e sketch-map A on page 35; for the identification letters andbelonging to the municipality of Citala within the area. The coo,dinates of the defined points, see the operative clauseChamber notes, however, the absence of evidence that the of the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps availablearea or its inhabitants were under the administration of that for inspection in the Registry.


8/30

quebrada de Pomola, until the point on that centre-linewhich is closest to the boundary markel- of Pomola atEl Talquezalar; and from that point in a straight lineas far as that marker' . . . From the bountlary marker ofEl Talquezalar, the frontier continues in a straight linein a south-easterly direction to the boundary marker ofthe Cerro Piedra Menuda . . . , nd thence in a straightline to the boundary rnarker of the Cerro Zapotal . . . "V. Second sector of the land boundaty

(paras. 104- 127)The second disputed sector of the land boundary liesbetween the Peiia de Cayaguanca, and the confluence of'the stream of Chiquita or Oscura with the rivar Sumpul (seesketch-map B on page 36). Honduras bases its claim chieflyon the 1742 title of Jul)ula, issued in the context of thelomg-standing dispute between the Indians of Ocotepeque,in the province of Gracias a Dios, and those of Citalh, inthe province of San Salvador. The principal outcome wasthe confirmation and agreement of the boundaries of thelands of Jupula, over which the Indians of Ocotepequeclaimcd to have rights and which were attributed to theIndians of Citala. It was, however, recorded that the inhabi-tants of Ocotepcque, having recognized the entitlement of'the inhabitants of Citala to the land surveyed, also re-quested,"that there be left free for them a mountain calledCayaguanca which is a.bove the Jupula river, which iscrown land", and this request was acceded ::o.

The Chamber finds that the Jupula title was evidence thatin 1742 the mountain of Cayaguanca was tiel~rasealengasand since the community of Ocotepeque, in the provinceof Gracias a Dios, was to cultivate it, it concludes that themountain was tierras re~!lengasf that province, for whichreason the mountain must on independence have formedpart of Honduras on the basis of the uti possidetis juris.The Chamber then turns to the location and extent ofthe mountain, which, according to Hondcras, extendedover the whole of the disputed area in this sector, a claimdisputed by El Salvador. In addition to arguments basedon the wording of the 1742 title, El Salvadclr refers to the18 18 title of Ocotepeque, issued to the community ofOcotepeque to re-establish the boundary rnarkers of itslands, contending that the mountain of Cayaguanca wouldnecessarily have been included in that title if it had trulybccn awarded to the inhabitants of 0cotep:que in 1742.The Chamber does not accept this argument; it finds thatin 1821 the Indians of Ocotepeque, in the province ofGracias a Dios, were entitled to the land resurveyed in1818, and also to rights of usage over the mountain ofCayaguanca somewhere to the east, and that the area sub-ject to these rights, being tierras realengas of the provinceof Gracias a Dios, becanie Honduran upon independence.'The problem remains, however, of determining the ex-

tent of the mountain of Cayaguanca. The Chamber sees noevidence of its boundaries, and in particular none to sup-port the Honduran claim that the area so referred to in 1742extended as far east as the river Sumpul, as claimed byHonduras.'The Chamber next considers what light might be thrownon the matter by the republican title invoked by El Salva-dor, referred to as that of Dulce Nombre de la Palma,granted in 1833 to the community of La Palma in El Sal-vador. The Chamber considers this title significant in thatit showcd how the uti possidetis juris position was under-stood when it was granted, i.e., very shortly after inde-

pendence. The Chamber examines in detail the Parties'conflicting interpretation of the title; it does not acceptEl Salvador's interpretation whereby it would extend as farwest as the Peiia de Cayaguanca, and as coterminous withthe land surveyed in 1742 for the Jupula title, and con-cludes that there was an intervening area not covered byeither title. On this basis the Chamber determines thecourse of the north-western boundary of the title of DulceNombre de la Palma; the eastern boundary, as recognizedby both Parties, is the river Sumpul.The Chamber then examines three Honduran republicantitles in the disputed area, concluding that they do not con-flict with the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title so as to throwdoubt on its interpretation.The Chamber goes on to examine the effectivitksclaimedby each Party to ascertain whether they support the con-clusion based on the latter title. The Chamber concludesthat there is no reason to alter its findings as to the positionof the boundary in this region.The Chamber next turns to the claim by El Salvador toa triangular strip along and outside the north-west bound-ary of the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title, which El Sal-vador claims to be totally occupied by Salvadorians and

administered by Salvadorian authorities. No evidence tothat effect has, however, been laid before the Chamber.Nor does it consider that a passage in the Reply of Hondu-ras regarded by El Salvador as an admission of the exist-ence of Salvadorian effectivitks in this area can be so read.There being no other evidence to support El Salvador'sclaim to the strip in question, the Chamber holds that itappertains to Honduras, having formed part of the "moun-tain of Cayaguanca" attributed to the community ofOcotepeque in 1742.The Chamber turns finally to the part of the boundarybetween the Peiia de Cayaguanca and the western boundaryof the area covered by the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title.It finds that El Salvador has not made good any claim to

any area further west than the Loma de 10s Encinos or"Santa Rosa hillock", the most westerly point of the DulceNombre de la Palma title. Noting that Honduras has onlyasserted a claim, on the basis of the rights of Ocotepequeto the "mountain of Cayaguanca", so far south as a straightline joining the Peiia de Cayaguanca to the beginning ofthe next agreed sector, the Chamber considers that neitherthe principle ne ultra petita, nor any suggested acquies-cence by Honduras in the boundary asserted by it, debarsthe Chamber from enquiring whether the "mountain ofCayaguanca" might have extended further south, so as tobe coterminous with the eastern boundary of the Jupulatitle. In view of the reference in the latter to Cayaguancaas lying east of the most easterly landmark of Jupula, theChamber considers that the area between the Jupula andthe la Palma lands belongs to Honduras, and that in theabsence of any other criteria for determining the south-ward extent of that area, the boundary between the Pefia deCayaguanca and the Loma de 10s Encinos should be astraight line.

The Chamber's conclusion regarding the course of thefrontier in the second disputed sector is as follow^:^*se e sketch-map B on page 36; for the identific ation letters andcoordinates of the various defined points, se e the operative clauseof the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps availablefor inspection in the Registry.


9/30

"From . . . he Peiia de Cayaguanca, the frontier runs ina straight line somewhat south of east to the Loma deLos Encinos . . . , and from there in a straight line on abearing of N 48' E, to the hill shown on the map pro-duced by El S alvado r as El Burro (and on the Hondu ranmaps and the United States Defense Mapping Agencymaps as Piedra Rajada) . . .The frontier then takes theshortest course to the head of the quebrada del Copan-tillo, and follows the qzrebrada del Copantillo down-stream to its con fluence with the river Sumpul . . , andfollows the river Sumpul in turn downstream until itsconfluence with the quebrada Chiquita or Oscura . . . "

VI. Third sector of the land boundary(paras. 128-18 5 )The third sector of the land boundary in dispute liesbetween the boundary marker of the Pacacio, on the riverof that name, and the boundary marker Poza del Cajbn, onthe river known as El Amatillo or Gualcuquin (see sketch-map C on page 37).In terms of the grounds asserted for the claims of theParties the Chamber divides the disputed area into threeparts.

the proviince of Gracias a D ios and that of San Salvador inthe area under co nsideration and thu s the irti possid etis jurisline, which the Chamber describes.With regard to the third part of the sector, the Cham berconsiders that on the basis o f the reconstructed 1742 titleof Nomb re de Jesus and the 1766 and 1786 surveys of SanJuan de Arcatao, it is established that the uti possid etisjuris line corresponded to the boundary b etween those twoproperties, which line the Chamber describes. In order todefine the line more precisely the Chamber considers itlegitimate to have regard to the repub lican titles granted byHonduras in the region, the line found by the Chamberbeing consistent with what it regards as the correct geo-graphical location of those titles.Having completed its survey of the uti possidetis jurisposition, the Chamber examines the claims made in thewhole of the third sector on the basis of effectivitks.Regarding the claims made by El Salvador on suchgrounds, the Chamber is unable to regard the relevantmaterial as sufficient to affect its conclusion as to theposition of the boundary. The Chamber reaches the sameconclusion as regards the evidence o f effectivitks submittedby Honduras.In the first part, the north-westem area, Honduras in- The Chamber's conclusion regarding the course of the

vokes the uti possid etis juris of 1821 on the basis of land boundary in the third sector is as follows:3titles granted between 17 19 and 1779. El Salvador, on thecontrary, claims the major part of the area on the basis of "Frorn the Pacacio boundary marker . . . along the riopost-independence effeectivitis or arguments of a human Pacacio upstream to a point . . . west Of the Cerronature. It does, however, claim a portion of the area as part TecO1ateOr Tecolates; from there th e quebradaof the lands o f the 1724 title of Arcatao. to the crest of the Cerro Tecolate or Los Tecolates . . ,and along the watershed of this hill as far as a ridgeIn the second p art, the essential question is the validity, approximately 1 kilom etre to the north-east . . . ; romextent and relationship to each other of the Arcatao title there in an easterly direction to the neighbouring hillrelied on by El S alvador and eighteenth-century titles invoked above the sou rce of the Torren te La Puerta . .and downby H onduras. that stream to where it meets the river Gualsinga . . . ;In the third part, the south-east section, there is a similar from there the runs the th econflict between the A~~~~~~itle and a lost title, that of river (iualsinga downstream to its confluence with theNombre de Jesus in the province of Sari Salvador, on the S az al a~ a . and thence up stream th e ofone hand, and the Honduran titles of San Juan de Arcatao, the river Sazalapa to the confluence with the river

Sazalapa of the quebrada Llano Negro . . . ; rom therethe Honduran of La Virtud south-eastwards to the hill indicated . , nd thence toand San Sebastihn del Palo Verde. El Salvador claims a th e of th e hill marked on maps as being an elevationfurther area, outside the asserted limits of the Arcatao and of ,017metres . ; rom there the boundary, nclining stillNombre de Jesus titles, on the basis of effectivitks an d more to the south, runs throug h the triangulation pointhuman arguments. known as La Caiiada . . . o the ridge joining the hillsThe Chamber first surveys the uti possid etis juris posi- indicated on the El Salvad or map as Cerro El Caracoltion on the basis of the various titles produced. and Cerro El Sapo . . . , and from there to the featureWith regard to the first part of the third sector, the marked on the maps as the POrtil10 C h u ~ a iel . . . ;Chamber upholds Honduras's contention in principle that there the ridge the Cajete . . .and thence to the poin t where the present-day road fromthe position of the pre-independence provincial boundary Arcatao to Nombre de Jesus passes between the Cerrois defined by two eighteenth-century Hon duran titles. After El Ocotillo and the Lagunetas . ; rom therefirst reserving the question of precisely where their south- south-eastwards, to the top o f the hill . . .marked on theem limits lay, since if the Chamber found in favour of maps with a spot height of 848 metres; from there

El Salvador's claim based on effectivitis, it would not have slightly south of east to a small quebrada; eastwardsto be considered, the Chamber ultimately determines the dow n the bed of the q u e ~ r a d ao its junction with theboundary in this area on the basis of these titles. river Amatillo or Gualcu quin . . . ; he boundary thenAs for the second part of the third sector, the Chamber follows the middle of the Gualcu quin river downstreamconsiders it impossible to reconcile all the landmarks, dis- to the Poza del Ca j6 n. . , he point where the next agreedtances and directions given in the various eighteenth- sector of boundary begins."century surveys: the most that can be achieved is a linewhich harmonizes with such features as are identifiablewith a high degree of probability, corresponds mo re or less -o the recorded distances and does not leave any major dis- 3 ~ e eketch-map C on page 37 ; fo r the identification letters andcrepancy The Chamber considers that three coordinatcs of the various defined points, see the operative clausefeatures are identifiable and that these three reference of the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps availablepoints make it possible to reconstruct the boundary between for inspection in the Registry.24


10/30

VII. Fourth sector of the land boundary(paras. 186-267)The fourth, and longest, disputed sector of the landboundary, also involvi~~ghe largest area in dispute, liesbetween the source of the Orilla stream and the Malpasode Similat6n boundary marker (see sketch-map D onpage 38).The principal issue in this sector, at least as regards the

size of the area concerned, is w hether the bclundary followsthe river Negro-Q uiagara, as H onduras contends, o r a linlecontended for by El Salvador, some 8 kiilometres to thenorth. In terms of the utiposside tis juris prii~ciple,he issueis whether or not the province of San Miguel, which onindependence became part of El Salvador, extended to thenorth of that river or whether on the contrary the latter wasin 1821 the boundary between that province and theprovince o f Com ayagua, which became pa:rt of Honduras.El Salvador relies on a title issued in 1745 to the commu -nities of Aramb ala and Perquin in the pi-ovince of SanMiguel; the lands so granted extended non:h and south ofth~e iver Negro-Quiagara, but H ondu ras contends that, northof th at river, the lands were in the province of Com ayagua.The Chamber first sets out the relevant events, in par-ticular a dispute between. the Indian comm unity of A rambalaarid Perquin, in the province of S an Miguel, and an Indiancom mun ity established iin Jocora o r Jocoara in the provinceof Comayagua. The position of the boundary between theprovince of San Miguel and that of Comayagua was on(:of the main issues in the dispute between the two comm u-nities, which gave rise to a judicial decision of 1773. In1131 5 a deci sion wa s issu ed by the Real Audiencia o fGuatemala confirming the rights of the In dians of Arambala-Parquin. The Parties made extensive reference to these de-cisio ns in sup port o f the:ir contentio ns as to the location oiFthe boundary; the Chamber is, however, reluctant to base:a conclusion, one way o r the other, on the 1773 decisionand does not regard the 1815 one as wholly conclusive in

respect of the location o f the provincial bound ary.

by doubts each Party casts on the regularity or relevanceof titles invoked by the other.After listing chronologically the titles and documentsclaimed by the one side or the other to be relevant, theChamber assesses five of these documents to which theParties took ob jection on various grounds.The Chamber goes on to determine, on the basis of anexamination of the titles and an assessment of the argu-ments advanced by the Parties by reference to them, theline of the uti possidetis juris in the sub-sector under con-sideration. Having established that the inter-provincialboundary was, in o ne area, the river L as Caiias, the Cham -ber relies on a presumption that such a boundary is likelyto follow the river so long a s its course is in the same gen-eral direction.The Chamber then turns to the final section of theboundary between the river Las Caiias and the source ofthe Orilla stream (end-point o f the sector). With respectto this section, the Chamber accepts the line claimed byHonduras on the basis of a title of 1653.The Chamber next addresses the claim of El Salvador,based upon the uti posside tis juris in relation to the conceptof tierras realengas (crown land), to areas to the west andsouth-west of the land comprised in the ejidos of ArambalaPerquin, lying on each side of the river Negro-Quiagara,bounded on the west by the river Negro-Pichigual. TheChamber finds in favour of part of El Salvador's claim,south of the river Negro-Pichigual, but is unable to acceptthe remainder.The Ch amber has finally to deal with the eastern part ofthe boundary line, that between the river Negro-Quiagaraand Malpaso de Similat6n. An initial problem is that theParties do not agree on the position of the Malpaso deSimilatbn, although this point defines one of the agreedsectors of the boundary as recorded in article 16 of the1980 Peace Treaty, the two locations con tended for b eing2,500 m etres apart. The Chamber therefore concludes that

there is a dispute between the Parties on this point, w hichThe Chamber th en cclnsiders a contentio:n by Honduras it has to resolve.that El Salvador had in 1861 admitted that the Arambala-. The Cham ber notes that this dispute is part of a disagree-Perquin ejidos extended across the provincial boundary, ment as to the course of the boundary beyond the M a l~ a solt refers to a note of 14 May 1861 in wh ich the M inister de Sirnilaton, in the sector which is deemed to have beenfor Foreign Relations of ~1 Salvador suggested negotia-. agreed. While it does not consider that it h as jurisdictiontions to settle a long-standing dispute between the inhabi- to settle disputed questions in an "agreed" sector, neithertants of the villages of ,\rambala and Perquin, on the one: does it consider that the existence of such a disagreementhsmd, and the village of Jocoara, on the otlier, and to th e affects its jurisdiction to determine the boundary up to andreport of surveyors appointed to resolve the inter-village including the Malpaso de Similat6n-dispute. It considers this note to be significznt not only as, Noting that neither side has offered any evidence what-in effect, a recognition that the lands of the Arambala- ever as to the line of the uti possidetis juris in this region,Pe:rquin community had, prior to independence, straddled the Cham ber, being satisfied that this line is impossiblethe provincial bound ary, but also as recognition that, as a to determine in this area, considers it right to fall back onresult, they straddled the international frontier. equity infra legem, in conjunction with an unratified de-~h~ cham ber then turns to the south-western part of. limitation of 1869. The Chamber considers that it can inth,e disputed boundary, to as the sub-sector of this case resort to the line then proposed in negotiations,~ ~ , l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .h~ problem here is, in broad terms, the as a reasonable and fair solution in all the circumstances,determination of the extent of the lands of C:olomoncagua, particularly since there is nothing in the records of theprovince o f C omayagua (H onduras), to th e \;vest, and those negotiations to suggest any fundamental disagreementof th e communities of Arambala-Perquin and Torola, prov- between the Parties On that line-ince of San Miguel (El Salvador), to the east and south- The Chamber then considers the question of the effec-east. Both Parties rely on titles and o ther d01:uments of the tivitks El Salvador claims in the area north of the rivercolonial period; El S alvador has also submitted a remeasure- Negro-Quiagara, which the Chamber has found to fall onmerit and renewed title of 1844. The Chamber notes that the Honduran side of the line of the uti posside tis juris, asapart from the difficulties of identifying landmarks and well as the areas outside those lands. After reviewing thereconciling the various surveys, the matter i.s complicated evidence presented by El Salvador, the Ch amber fin ds that,

25


11/30

to the extent that it can relate various place-names to thedisputed areas and to the uti possidetis juris boundary, itcannot regard this material as sufficient evidence of anykind of eflectivitbs which could be taken into account indetermining the boundary.Turning to the eflectivitbs claimed by Honduras, theChamber does not see here sufficient evidence of Hon-duran effectivitbs to an area clear ly shown to be on theEl Salvador side of the boundary line to justify doubtingthat that boundary represents the uti possidetis juris line.The Chamber's conclusion regarding the course of theboundary in the fourth disputed sector is as follow^:^

"from the source of the Orilla stream . . . he boundaryruns through the pass of El Jobo to the source of theCueva H edionda stream . nd thence down the m iddle ofthat stream to its confluence with the river Las Caiias . . ,and thence following the middle o f the river upstreamas far as a point . . near the settlement of Las Piletas;from there eastwards over a col . . o a hill .. nd thennor th-eas twards to a point on the r iver Negro orPichigual . . .; ownstream along the middle of the riverNegro or Pichigual to i ts confluence with the riverNegro-Quiagara .. .; hen upstream along the middle ofthe river Negro-Quiagara as far as the La s Pilas bound-ary marker . . . , and from there in a straight line to theMalpaso d e Sirnilaton as identified by Ho nduras".

VIII. Fifth sector of the land boundary(paras. 268-305)The fifth disputed sector extends from "the point on thenorth bank of the river Torola where it is joined by theManzupucagua stream" to the Paso de Unire in the Unireriver (see sketch-map E on page 39).El Salvad or's claim is based essentially on the th lo ejidalgranted to the village of Polor6s, province of San Miguel,in 1760, following a survey; the boundary line El Salvadorclaims is what it considers to be the northern boundary ofthe lan ds comprised in that title, save for a narrow strip onthe western side, claimed on the basis of "human argu-ments".Honduras, while disputing El Salvador's geographicinterpretation of the Polor6s title, con cedes that it extendedacross part of the river Torola, but nevertheless claims thatthe frontier today should follow that river. It contends thatthe northern part of the ejidos granted to Polor6s in 1760,including all the lands north of the river and also extendingsouth of it, had formerly been the land of San Miguel deSapigre, a village which had disappeared owing to a n epi-dem ic some time after 1734, and that the village had beenin the jurisdiction of Comayagua, so that those lands, althoughgranted to Polor6s, rem ained within that jurisdiction. Itfollows, according to Ho nduras, that the uti possidetis jurisline ran along the boundary between those lands and theother Polorbs lands; but H onduras concede s that as a resultof even ts in 1854 it acquiesced in a boundary further north,formed by the Torola. Alternatively, Hond uras claims thePolorbs lands north of the river on the ba sis that El Salvadoracquiesced, in the nineteenth century, in the Torola as fron-tier. The western part of the disputed area, which Hon durasconsiders to fall outside the Polor6s title, is claimed by

it as part of the lands of Cacaoterique, a village in thejurisdiction of Comayagua.Noting that the title of Poloros was granted by theauthorities of the province of San Miguel, the Chamberconsiders; hat it mu st be presumed that the lands com prisedin the survey we re all within the jurisdiction of SanMiguel, a presumption which, the Chamber notes, is sup-ported by the text.After examining the available material as to the exist-ence, location and extent of the village of San Miguel deSapigre, the Cha mber concludes that the claim of Ho ndurasthrough that extinct village is not supported by sufficientevidence; it does not therefore have to go into the questionof the effect of the inclusion in an ejido of one jurisdictionof tierras realengas of another. It concludes that the ejidogranted in 1760 to the village of Polor6s, in the provinceof San Miguel, was wholly situated in that province andthat accclrdingly the provincial boundary lay beyond thenorthern limit of that ejido or coincided with it. Therebeing equally no evidence of any change in the situationbetween 1760 and 182 1, the uti posside tis juris line maybe taken to have b een in the sam e position.he Chamber then exam ines the claim of Honduras that,whatever the 182 1 position, El Salvador had, by its conduct

between 1821 and 1897, acquiesced in the river Torola asboundary. The co nduct in question was the granting by theGovernnient of El Salvador, in 1842, of a title to an estatethat both Parties claim was carved out of the ejidos ofPolor6s and El Salvador's reaction, or lack of reaction, tothe granting of two titles over lands north of the riverTorola by Honduras in 1856 and 1879. From an examina-tion of these events, the Cham ber does not find it possibleto uphold Honduras's claim that El Salvador acquiesced inthe river Torola as the boundary in the relevant area.The Ch amb er goes on to interpret the extent of the Polorosejido as surveyed in 1760, on the face of the text and inthe light of developments after 1821. Following a lengthyand detailed analysis of the Polor6s title, the Cham ber con-

cludes that neither of the interpretations o f it by the Pa rtiescan be reconciled with the relevant landmarks and dis-tances; the inconsistency crystallized during the negotia-tions that led up to the unratified Cruz-Letona Conventionin 1884. In the light of certain republican titles, the Cham -ber arrives at an interpretation of the Polor6s title which,if not perfectly in harmony w ith all the relevant data, pro-duces a better fit than either of the Parties' interpretations.As to neighbouring titles, the C hamber takes the view that,on the ma terial available, no totally consistent mapping ofthe Polorbs title and the survey of Cacaoterique can beachieved.In the eastern part of the sector, the Cham ber notes thatthe Parties agree that the river Unire constitutes the boun d-

ary of their territories for some distance upstream of the"Paso de Unire", but disagree as to which of two tribu-taries is to be regarded as the headwaters of the Unire.Honduras claims that between the Unire and the head-waters of the Torola the boundary is a straight line corre-sponding to the south-western limit of the lands comprisedin the 1'738 Honduran title of San Antonio de Padua. Afteranalysing the Polor6s title and 1682 and 1738 surveys ofSan Antonio, the Cham ber finds that it is not convinced bythe ~ o n d u r a h rgument that the San Antonio lands ex-4 ~ e eketch-mapD on page 38; for the identification letters and tended weswards across the river Unire and holds that itcoordinates of the various defined points, see the operative clauseo f the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps available Was the river which was the uti ~oss id e t i suris line, asfor inspection in the Registry. claimed by El Salvador.


12/30

'To the west of the Polor6s lands, since El Salvador'sclaim to land north of the river is based solely on the Pol od stitle (save for the strip on the west claimed on the basis of"human arguments"), the river Torola forms the boundarybetween the Polor6s lands and the starting poirit of the sector.Wi.th regard to the strip of land claimed by El Salvado r onthe west, the Chamber considers that, for lack of evidence,this claim cannot be sustained.'Turning finally to the evidence of eflectivitis submitted

by Honduras with respect to all six sectors, the Chambercoilcludes that this is insufficient to justify re-exam iningits conclusion as to the boundary line.'The Chamber's conc l~ision egarding the course of theboundary in the fifth disputed sector is as follows:5

"From the confluence with the river 'rorola of thestream identified in the General T reaty 01 Peace as thequebrada de Mansupucagua . . . the boundary runsupstream along the m iddle of the river Torola as far asits confluence w ith a stream known as the quebrada de lArenal or quebrada d.e Aceituno . . . ; hence up themiddle of the course o f that stream as far as [a] point, at ornear its source, . . nd thence in a straight I!ine somew hatnorth of east to a hill some 1,100 metres hig h. ..; hencein a straight line to a hill near the river Unire . nd thenceto the nearest point on the river Unire; dow~ lstream longthat river to the point known as the Paso d.e Unire . . "IX. Sixth sector of the land boundaty(paras. 306-322)

The sixth and final disputed sector of the land boundaryis that between a point on the river Goasco:dn known asLo:; Amates, and the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca (seesketch-m ap F on page 40'). Hond uras contends that in 182 1the river Goascorin constituted the boundary between thecollonial units to which the two States have succee ded, thatthere has bee n no m aterial cha nge in the cour:se of the riversince 182 1, and that the b oundary therefon: follows thepresent stream flowing into the G ulf north-west of the IslasRamaditas in the Bay of La Uni6n. El Salvatlor, however,claims that it is a previous course followed by the riverwhich defines the boundary and that this course can betraced and reaches the G ulf at Estero La C utli.The C hamber begins by examining an argument El Sal-vadlor bases on history. The Parties agree that during thecolonial period a river called the G oascorin constituted theboundary between the province of San Miguel and theAlcaldia Mayor de M inas of Tegucigalpa, and that El Sal-vad.or succeede d on inde:penden ce to the territory o f theprovince; but El Salvador denies that Honduras acquiredany. rights over the former territory of the Alcaldia Mayorof Tegucigalpa, which according to El Salvador did not in182:1 belong to the province of Honduras but was an inde-pendent entity. The Chamber, however, obsarves that onthe basis of the uti posside tis juris, El Salvatlor and Hon-duras succeeded to all the relevant colonial territories,leaving no terra nullius, and that the fonner AlcaldiaMtiyor was at no time after 1821 an independent state addi-tional to them. Its territory had to pass either to El Salvadoror to Honduras and the Chamber understands it to havepassed to Honduras.

The Chamber observes that El Salvador's argument oflaw, on the basis that the former bed of the river Goascorinforms the uti possidetis juris boundary, is that where aboundary is formed by the course o f a river and the streamsuddenly forms a new bed, this process of "avulsion" doesnot bring about a change in the boundary, which continuesalong the old channel. No record of an abrupt change ofcourse having occurred has been brought to the Chamber'sattention, but were the Chamber satisfied that the coursewas earlier so radically different from its present one, thenan avulsion might reasonably be inferred. The Chambernotes that there is no scientific evidence that the previouscourse was such that the river debouched in the EsteroLa Cu tli rather than in any of the o ther neighbouring inletsin the coastline.El Salvador's case appears to be that if the change in theriver's course occurred after 1821, the river w as the bound-ary which under the uti possidetis juris had become theinternational frontier, and would have been maintained asit was by virtue of a rule of international law; if the coursechanged before 182 1 and no further change took place after1821, El Salvador's claim to the "old" course as the mod-ern boundary would be based on a rule concerning avulsionwhich wo uld be one not of international law but of Spanish

colonial law. El Salvador has not committed itself to anopinion on the p osition of the river in 182 1, but does con-tend that a rule on avulsion supporting its claim was partof Spanish colonial law.In the Chamber's view, however, any claim by El Sal-vador that the boundary follows an old course of the riverabandoned at some time before 1821 must be rejected. It

, is a claim that was first made in 1972 and is inconsistentwith the previous history of the dispute.The C hamber then turns to the evidence concerning thecourse of the Go asco rin in 182 1. El Salvador relies on cer-tain titles to private lands, beginning with a 1695 survey.Honduras produces land titles dating from the seventeenthand nineteenth centuries as well as a m ap or chart of the

Gulf of Fonseca prepared by an expedition in 1794-1796,and a map of 1804.The ch am ber considers that the report of the expeditionthat led to the preparation of the 1796 map, and the mapitself, leave little room for doubt that in 1821 the Goascorinwas already flowing in its present-day course. It empha-sizes that the 1796 map is not one which purports to indi-cate frontiers or political divisions, but the visual repre-sentation of what was recorded in the contemporary report.The Cham ber sees no difficulty in basing a conclusion onthe expedition report combined with the map.The C hamber adds that similar weight may be attached tothe condu ct of the Parties in negotiations in 1880 and 1884.In 1884 it was agreed that the Goascorin river was to be

regarded as the boundary between the two Republics,"from its mouth in the Gulf of Fonseca . . .upstream as far asthe confluence with the G uajiiliquil or Pescado ri ver . . . ",and the I880 record refers to the boundary following theriver from its mouth "upstream in a north-easterly direc-tion", i.e., the direction taken by the present course, notthe hypothetical old course of the river. The Chamber alsoobserves that an interpre tation of these texts as referring tothe old course of the river is untenable in view of the car--- tographic material of the period, presumably available to%ee sketch-map E on page 39; for the identificarion letters and the delegates, which pointed ovemhelmingly to the rivercoordinates of the various defined points, se e the operative clauseof the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps available being then in its present and the interns-for inspection in the Registry. tional boundary.


13/30

Referring to a suggestion by El Salvador that the riverGoa scorin would h ave returned to its old course had it notbeen prevented from so doing by a wall or dike built byHonduras in 1916, the Cham ber does not consider that thisallegation, even if proved, would affect its decision.At its mouth in the Bay of La Uni6n the river dividesinto several branches, separated by islands and islets.Honduras has indicated that its claimed boundary passes tothe north-west of these islands, thus leaving them all inHonduran territory. El Salvador, contending as it doe s that

the boundary does not follow the present course of theGoascoran at all, has not expressed a view on whether aline following that course should pass north-west o r south-east of the islands or between them. The area at stake isvery small and the islets involved do not seem to be inhab-ited or habitable. The Ch amber considers, however, that itwould not complete its task of delimiting the sixth sectorwere it to leave un settled the question of the choice of oneof the present mouths of the Goasc orin a s the situation ofthe boundary line. It notes at the same time that the materialOF which to found a decision is scanty. After describingthe position taken by Honduras since negotiations held in1972, as well as its position during the work o f the JointFrontier Comm ission and in its submissions, the Cham berconsiders that it may uphold the relevant Honduran sub-missions in the terms in which they w ere presented.

The Cham ber's con clusion regarding the sixth disputedsector is as follow^:^"From the point known as Los Amates . he boundaryfollows the middle of the bed o f the river Go ascorinto the point where it emerges in the waters of the BahiaLa Unibn, Gulf of Fonseca, passing to the north-west ofthe Islas Ramaditas."X. Legal situation of the islands(paras. 323-368)

The major islands in the Gulf are indicated on sketch-map G on page 41. El Salvador asks the Chamber to de-clare that it has sovereignty over all the islands within theGulf except Zacate Grande and the Farallones; Hondurasasks it to declare that only Meanguera and M eangueritaislands are in dispute between the P arties and that Ho ndurashas sovereignty ove r them.

In the view of the Ch amber, the provision of the SpecialAgreemen t that it determine "la situacidn juridica insular"confers upon it jurisdiction in respect of all the islands ofthe Gulf. A judicial determination, however, is only re-quired in respect of such islands as are in dispute betweenthe Parties; this excludes, inter alia, the Farallones, whichare recognized by both Parties as belonging to Nicaragua.The Cham ber considers that prima facie the existence ofa dispute over an island can be deduced from the fact of

its being the subject o f specific and argued claims. Notingthat El Salvador has pressed its claim to El Tigre islandwith arguments in support and that Honduras has advancedcounter-arguments, though with the object of showing thatthere is no dispute over El Tigre, the Chamber considersthat, either since 1985 or at least since issue was joined inthese proceedings, the islands in dispute are El Tigre,Meanguera and Meanguerita.%ee sketch-map F on page 40; for the ide ntification letters andcoordinates of the various defined points, see the operative clauseof the Judgment, set out above, and the 1:50,000 maps availablefor inspection in the Registry.

Honduras contends, however, that, since the 1980 Gen-eral Treaty of Peace uses the same terms as article 2,paragraph 2, o f the Special Agreement, the jurisdiction ofthe Chamber must be limited to the islands in dispute atthe time the Treaty was conclud ed, i.e., Meangu era andMeangnerita, the Salvadorian claim to El Tigre havingbeen m:ade only in 1985. The Chamber, however, observesthat the question whether a given island is in dispute isrelevant, not to the question of the existence ofjurisdiction,but to that of its exercise. Ho nduras also claims that thereis no real dispute over El Tigre, which has since 1854 beenrecognized by El Salvador as belonging to Ho nduras, butthat El :Salvadorhas made a belated claim to it as a politicalor tactical move. The Ch amber notes that for it to find thatthere is no dispute would require it first to determine thatEl Salvador's claim is wholly unfounded, and to do so canhardly be viewed as anything but the determination of adispute. The Chamber therefore concludes that it shoulddetermine whether Hond uras or El Salvador has jurisdic-tion over each of the islands of El Tigre, Meanguera andMeanguerita.

Honduras contends that by virtue of article 26 of theGeneral Treaty of P eace the law applicable to the disputeis solely the uti possidetis juris of 1821, while El Salvadormaintains that the Chamber has to apply the modem lawon acquisition of territory and look at the e ffective exerciseor display of S tate sovereignty over the islands as well ashistorical titles.

Th e Chamberhasno dou bt that the determination of sov-ereignty over the islands must start with the uti possidetisjuris. In 1821, none o f the islands of the Gulf, which hadbeen under the sovereignty of the Spanish Crown, wereterra nullius. Sovereignty over them could therefore not beacquirtzd by occupation a nd the matter was thus one o f thesuccession of the newly independent States to the islands.The Cham ber will therefore consider whether the appurte-nance in 1821 of each disputed island to one or the otherof the various administrative units of the Spanish colonialstructure can be established, regard being had not only t olegislative and administrative texts o f the colonial period,but also to "colonial effectivitks". The Chamber observesthat in the case o f the islands the legal and administrativetexts are confused and conflicting, and that it is possiblethat Spanish colonial law gave no clear and definite answeras to the appu rtenance of som e areas. It therefore considersit particularly appropriate to examine the conduct of thenew States during the period immediately after 1821.Claims then made, and the reaction--or lack of reaction-to thern may throw light on the c ontemporary appreciationof what the situation in 1821 had been, or should be takento have been.The Chamber notes that El Salvador claims all theislands in the Gulf (except Zacate Grande) on the basisthat during the colonial period they were within the juris-diction of the township of San Miguel in the colonialprovirlce of San Salvador, which was in turn within thejurisdiction of the Real Audiencia of Guatemala. Hondurasasserts that the islands formed part of the bishopric andprovince of H onduras, that the Spanish Crown had attrib-uted Meanguera and Meanguerita to that province andthat ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the islands appertainedto the parish of Choluteca and the G uardania of Nacaome,assigned to the bishopric of Comayagua. Honduras hasalso presented an array of incidents and events by way ofcolonial effectivitks.


14/30

The fact that the ecclesiastical jurisdicrtion has beenrelied on as evidence of "colonial effectii~itbs"presents,difficulties, as the presence of the church on the islands,wlhich were sparsely populated, was not permanent.The Chamber's task us made more difficult by the factthat many of the historical events relied on can be, andha.ve been, interpreted in different w ays an d thus used tosupport the arguments of either Party.The Chamber considers it unnecessary to analyse in fur-ther detail the argument!; each Party ad vanc es to show thatit acquired sovereignty lover some or all of the islands bythle application of the uti possidetis juris principle, themiaterial available being too fragmentary and am biguous toadm it of any firm conc1u:sion. The Cham ber m ust thereforeconsider the post-independence conduct of the Parties, asindicative o f what must have been the 182 1 position. Th ismily be supplemen ted by considerations indepen dent of theuti possidetis juris principle, in particular the possible sig-nilkcance of the conduct: of the Parties as constituting ac-quiescence. T he Chamb~zr lso notes that under article 26o f the General T reaty of' Peace, it may c onsider all "otherevidence and arguments; of a leg al, historical, human orother kind, brought before it by the Parties and admitted

under international law"'.The law o f acquisition1 of territory, invoked b y El Salva-dor, is in principle clearly established and buttressed byarbitral an d judicial decisions. The difficulty with its ap-plication here is that it was developed primarily to dealwith the acquisition of sovereignty over terrtz nu llius. BothParties, however, assert a title of succession from theSpanish Crown, s o that the question arises whether the ex-ercise or' display o f sovereignty by the one Party, particu-larly when cou pled with lack of protest by the other, couldindicate the presence o f an uti possidetis juris title in thefoimer Party, where the evidence based on titles or colonialeflectivitis is ambiguous. The Chamber notes that in theMinquiers and Ecrehos case in 1953 the Co urt did notsin ~p ly isregard the ancient titles and decide on the basisof more recent displays o f sovereignty.

IIn the view of the Chamber, where the relevant admin-istrative boundary in the colonial period was ill-defined orits position disputed, the behaviour of the two States in theyeiits following independence may serve ;IS a guide towh~ere he boundary was,, either in their shared view , or inthe: view acted on by one and acquiesced in by the other.Being uninhabited or sparsely inhabited, the islands didnot arouse any interest or dispute until the years nearingthe: mid-nineteenth century. W hat then occurred appears tobe highly material. The islands were not terra nullius an din legal theory each island already appertained to one ofthe Gu lf States as heir to the appropriate part of the Spanish

colonial possession, which precluded acquisition by occu-pation; but effective post;ession by one of the States of anisland could constitute a post-colonial effectivitb, throwingliglht on the contempora~ry ppreciation of the legal situ-ation. Possession backed by the exercise of sovereigntymay confirm the uti possidetis juris title. The Chamberdoes not find it necessary to decide whether such posses-sion could be recognizecl even in contradiction of such atitle, b ut in the case o f Ithe islands , wher e :the historic almaterial of colonial times is confused and contradictory andindependence w as not immediately followed by unambigu-ous; acts of sovereignty, this is practically the only way inwhich the utipossidetis rtris could find formill expression.

The Chamber deals first with El Tigre, and reviews thehistorical events concerning it from 1833 onward. Notingthat Honduras has remained in effective occupation of theisland since 1849, the Cham ber concludes that the conductof the P arties in the years .following the dissolution o f theFederal Republic of Central America was consistent withthe assumption that El Tigre appertained to Honduras.Given the attachment of the Central American States to theprinciple of utipossidetis uris, the C hamber considers thatthat contemporary assumption also implied belief thatHonduras was entitled to the island by succession fromSpain, or, at least, that such succession by Honduras wasnot contradicted by any known colonial title. AlthoughHonduras has not formally requested a finding of its sov-ereignty over El Tigre, the Chamber considers that itshould defin e its legal situation by holding that sovereigntyover El Tigre belongs to Honduras.

Regarding Meanguera and Meanguerita, the Chamberobserves that throughout the argum ent the two islands weretreated by both Parties as constituting a single insularunity. The smallness of Meanguerita, its contiguity to thelarger island, and the fact that it is uninhabited allow itscharacterization as a "dependency" of Meanguera. ThatMeanguerita is "capable of appropriation" is undoubted:although without fresh water, it is not a low-tide elevation andis cov&d by vegetation. he Parties have treated it as capableof appropriation, since they claim sovereignty over it.The Chamber notes that the initial formal manifestationof the dispute occurred in 1854, when a circular letter madewidely known El Salvador's claim to the island. Further-more, in 1 856 and 1879 El Salvador's official journal car-ried reports, concerning administrative a cts relating to it.The Cham ber has seen no record of reactions or protest byHonduras over these publications.The Chamber observes that from the late nineteenth cen-tury the presence of El Salvador on Meanguera intensified,still without objection or protest from Honduras, and thatit has received considerable documentary evidence on the

administration of Meanguera by El Salvador. Throughoutthe period covered by that doc umentation there is no recordof any protest by Honduras, with the exception of one re-cent event, described later. Furtherm ore, El Salvador calleda witness, a Salvadorian resident of the island, and his tes-timony, not challenged by Honduras, shows that El Salva-dor has exercised State power over M eanguera.According to the material before the Chamber, it wasonly in January 1991 that the Government of Hondurasmade protests to the Government of El Salvador concern-ing Meanguera, which were rejected by the latter Govern-ment. The Chamber considers that the Honduran protestwas made too late to affect the presumption of acquies-cence on the part of Honduras. The conduct of Honduras

vis-a-vis earlier effectivitbs reveals some form of tacit con-sent to the situation.The Chamber's conclusion is thus the following. In re-lation to the islands, the "docum ents which w ere issued bythe Spanish Crown or by any other Spanish authority,whether secular or ecclesiastical", d o not appear sufficientto "indicate the jurisdictions or limits of territories or settle-ments" in terms of article 26 of that Treaty, so that no firmconclusion can be based upon such material, taken in isola-tion, for deciding between the two claim s to an uti possidetisjuris title. Under the final sen tence of article 26, the Cham -ber is, however, entitled to consider both the effective inter-pretation of the uti possidetis juris by the Parties, in the


15/30

years following independence, as throwing light on the corpus of disputes. In the Cham ber's view, however, inapplication of the principle, and the evidence of effective interpreting a text of this kind, regard must be had to thepossession and control of an island by one Party without common intention as it is expressed. In effect, what Hon-protest by the other as pointing to acquiescence. The evi- duras is proposing is re

El Salvador vs Honduras

Documents

Transcript of El Salvador vs Honduras