Alegatos ante la CIJ y el TIDM
Pleadings before The international Court of Justice and Itlos / Plaidoiries devant la CIJ et le TIDM
Advisory proceedings
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 4 September 2018: Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleading: «La séparation de l’archipel des Chagos s’est faite en violation du droit de la décolonisation» (CR 2018/22, pp. 39-49, video public hearings at 0:11’:53’’).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 1 December 2009, Advisory proceedings on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Legal Advisor for Serbia, pleadings: «Les arguments de l’autodétermination, de la neutralité juridique et du caractère sui generis du cas du Kosovo doivent être rejetés» (translation: «The Arguments of Self-Determination, Legal Neutrality and the Sui Generis Character of the Kosovo Case must be Dismissed») (CR 2009/24, original version: pp. 76-90; translation: pp. 53-66).
Contentious cases
2017
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 3 July 2017, Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: »La Cour doit préciser la frontière et non rouvrir une question déjà tranchée» (translation: »The court must define the boundary and not reopen a question which has already been settled») (CR 2017/8, original: pp. 10-20; translation: pp. 2-11).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 4 July 2017, Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: »Les circumstances pertinentes dans la mer des Caraibes et la non-pertinence du traité de 1977» (translation: »The relevant circumstances in the Caribbean Sea and the irrelevance of the 1997 treaty») (CR 2017/9, original: pp. 10-32; translation: pp. 2-23).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 10 July 2017, Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: ‘L’affaire d’Isla Portillos dans ses contours précis» (translation: »The case of Isla Portillos in its precise contours») (CR 2017/13, original: pp. 35-45; translation: pp. 31-41).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 10 July 2017, Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: »Les vains efforts du Nicaragua pour faire jouer un rôle à des traités conclus par des Etats tiers» (translation: »Nicaragua’s vain attempts to bring into play treaties concluded by third states») (CR 2017/13, original: pp. 63-72; translation: pp. 61-69).
2015
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 1 May 2015, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), pleadings: “L’absence de la violation de la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua et de l’obligation d’effectuer et notifier une étude d’impact environnemental” (translation: “There has been no breach of Nicaragua’s territorial sovereignty or the obligation to carry out and notify an environmental impact assessment”) (CR 2015/17, original: pp. 33-43; translation: pp. 28-38; video public hearings at 00:58’:25’’).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 24 April 2015, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), «Answer to the question raised by Judges Bennouna and Greenwood» (CR 2015/13, original: pp. 54-57; translation: pp. 50-53).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 23 April 2015, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), pleadings: “L’absence de violation du traité de 1858, de la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua et de l’obligation d’effectuer et notifier une étude d’impact environnemental” (translation: “There has been no breach of the 1858 Treaty, or of Nicaragua’s territorial sovereignty, or of the obligation to carry out and notify an environmental impact study”) (CR 2015/11, original: pp. 37-59; translation: pp. 31-51; video public hearings at 01:15’:10’’).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 20 April 2015, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), «Cross examination to the scientific expert appointed by Nicaragua Dr Sheate» (CR 2015/9, original and translation: pp. 36-43; video public hearings at 1:16′:44″).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 28 April 2015, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: “Le Nicaragua est incapable d’articuler une revendication sérieuse de souveraineté et se prépare déjà pour la phase suivante de l’affaire” (translation: “Nicaragua is unable to articulate a genuine claim to sovereignty and is already preparing for the next phase of the proceedings”) (CR 2015/14, original: pp. 23-39; translation: pp. 16-31; video public hearings at 00:34′:43″).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 15 April 2015, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: “Remèdes: une simple constatation n’est pas suffisante” (translation: “Remedies: a simple declaration is not enough”) (CR 2015/4, original: pp. 34-44; translation: pp. 28-37; video public hearings at 00:57′:33″).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 14 April 2015, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: “La revendication de souveraineté du Nicaragua est tardive, sans fondement et visant à cacher son comportement illicite” (translation: “Nicaragua’s claim of sovereignty is untimely, baseless and intended to conceal its wrongful conduct”) (CR 2015/2, original: pp. 46-73; translation pp. 40-65; video public hearings at 00:01′:58″).
2013
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 6 November 2013, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), pleadings: “Une demande opportuniste et totalement injustifiée” (translation: «An Opportunistic and Totally Unjustified Request») (CR 2013/29, original: pp. 42-54; translation: pp. 41-52; video public hearings at 2:25′:31″). ATENCIÓN: EL VIDEO NO ESTÁ MAS DISPONIBLE.
– International Court of Justice, The Hague 17 October 2013, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), «Comment on answers provided by Nicaragua to questions from Members of the Court» (CR 2013/27, original: pp. 41-44; translation: pp. 37-40; video public hearing at 1:32′:10″).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague 16 October 2013, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: “Les observations orales du Nicaragua renforcent le besoin d’indiquer les mesures conservatoires demandées” (translation: «Nicaragua’s Oral Observations Reinforce the Need for the Provisional Measures Requested») (CR 2013/26, original: pp. 24-34; translation: pp. 20-34; video public hearings at 0:41′:15″).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 14 October 2013, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pleadings: “Les consequences découlant d’une hypothétique refus d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires” (translation: «The Consequences of a Hypothetical Refusal to Indicate Provisional Measures») (CR 2013/24, original: pp. 47-61; translation: pp. 43-57; video public hearings at 1:48′:13″).
2012
-International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Hamburg, 29 November 2012 The “ARA Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Case No. 20, Counsel and Advocate for Argentina (ITLOS PV C20 Verbatim Record, original: pp. 23-37; translation: pp. 20-34; video public hearings at 0:01’:45’’).
-International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Hamburg, 30 November 2012 The “ARA Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Case No. 20, Counsel and Advocate for Agentina (ITLOS PV C20 Verbatim Record, original: pp. 7-14 ; translation: pp. 6-13 ; video public hearings at 0:27’:19’’).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 4 May 2012, Case concerning The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Counsel and Advocate for Colombia, pleadings: «L’incapacité du Nicaragua d’articuler une justification pour sa revendication artificielle des cayes» (translation: «Nicaragua’s Inability to Provide any Justification for its Artificial Claim to the Cays») (CR 2012/16, original: pp. 17-33; translation: pp. 9-26; video public hearings 10 am – 1 pm (Part 1 of 2 ) at 0:42′:12»). ATENCIÓN: EL VIDEO NO ESTÁ DISPONIBLE.
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 27 April 2012, Case concerning The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Counsel and Advocate for Colombia, pleadings: «La demande nicaraguayenne d’une déclaration en réparation doit être rejetée» (translation: «Nicaragua’s Request for a Declaration of Reparation must be rejected») (CR 2012/13, original: pp. 64-65; translation: pp. 53-62; video public hearings 3 pm – 6 pm (Part 2 of 2 ) at 62’34»). ATENCIÓN: EL VIDEO NO ESTÁ DISPONIBLE.
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 26 April 2012, Case concerning The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Counsel and Advocate for Colombia, pleadings: «La revendication artificielle nicaraguayenne face à la souveraineté territoriale incontestable de la Colombie sur les cayes» (translation: «Nicaragua’s Artificial Claim in the light of Colombia’s Indisputable Territorial Sovereignty over The Cays») (CR 2012/11, original: pp. 30-50; translation: pp. 25-43; video public hearings (Part 1 of 2) at 65’15»).
2011
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 12 January 2011, Case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «La préservation de la souveraineté et de l’intégrité territoriale costaricienne dans le cadre de l’indication de mesures conservatoires» (translation: «The Preservation of Costa Rican Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity in the Context of the Indication of Provisional Measures») (CR 2011/3, original: pp. 8-20; translation: pp. 2-14).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 11 January 2011, Case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «Les droits que le Costa Rica demande de sauvegarder sont amplement prouvés et même reconnus par le Nicaragua» (translation: «The Costa Rican Rights that require Protection are Demonstrably Proven and are even Recognized by Nicaragua») (CR 2011/1, original: pp. 36-52; translation: pp. 32-47).
2010
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 20 October 2010, Case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for permission to intervene, Counsel and Advocate for Colombia, pleading: «L’impact du traité de délimitation maritime de 1986 sur le requête hondurienne à fin d’intervention» (translation: «The Impact of the 1986 Maritime Delimitation Treaty on the Honduran Application for Permission to Intervene») (CR 2010/20, original: pp. 27-38; translation: pp. 20-30).
2009
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 29 September 2009, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «Les tentatives Uruguayennes de contourner le Statut doivent être rejetées» (translation: «Uruguay’s Attempts to Bypass the Statute must be Rejected») (CR 2009/21, original: pp. 36-51; translation: pp. 29-44).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 17 September 2009, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «Conclusions du premier tour des plaidoiries de la République Argentine» (translation: «Conclusions to the Argentine Republic’s First Round of Oral Argument») (CR 2009/15, original: pp. 56-67; translation: pp. 49-59).
-International Court of Justice, The Hague, 16 September 2009, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «Les parties ne sont pas mises d’accord pour ecarter la procédure du Statut de 1975. Les tentatives Uruguayennes d’imposer un fait accompli» (translation: «The Parties did not agree to dispense with the Procedue under the 1975 Statute. Uruguay’s Attempts to Impose a Fact Accompli») (CR 2009/14, original: pp. 12-23; translation: pp. 2-13).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 15 September 2009, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «La question relative à l’emplacement de l’usine est au coeur du différend» (translation: «The Question of Site Selection is at the Heart of the Dispute») (CR 2009/13, original: pp. 12-25; translation: pp. 2-14).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 9 March 2009, Case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «L’article VI du traité de limites se réfère ‘aux fins du commerce'» (translation: «Article VI of the Treaty refers to ‘purposes of commerce'») (CR 2009/6, original: pp. 19-36; translation: pp. 14-31).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 3 March 2009, Case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «Les droits connexes du Costa Rica et leurs violations par le Nicaragua» (translation: «The Related Rights of Costa Rica and Violations of These Rights by Nicaragua») (CR 2009/3, original: pp. 52-63; translation: pp. 48-59).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 3 March 2009, Case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «Les violations nicaraguayennes du droit perpétuel de libre navigation aux fins du commerce» (translation: «The Violations by Nicaragua of the Perpetual Right of Free Navigation for the Purposes of Commerce») (CR 2009/3, original: pp. 34-43; translation: pp. 31-39).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 2 March 2009, Case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Counsel and Advocate for Costa Rica, pleadings: «La portée du droit de navigation aux fins du commerce» (translation: «The Scope of the Right of Navigation for the Purposes of Commerce») (CR 2009/2, original: pp. 47-69; translation: pp. 43-64).
2007
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 23 November 2007, Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Counsel and Advocate for Malaysia, pleadings: «Les nouvelles bases de revendication de Singapour» (translation: «The New Grounds for Singapore’s Claims») (CR 2007/31, original: pp. 28-40; translation: pp. 20-32).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 22 November 2007, Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Counsel and Advocate for Malaysia, pleadings: «Le consentement de Jahore à la construction du phare Horsburgh» (translation: «Johor’s Consent to the Construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse») (CR 2007/30, original: pp. 40-49; translation: pp. 33-42).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 16 November 2007, Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Counsel and Advocate for Malaysia, pleadings: «Le prétendu titre de souveraineté revendiqué par Singapour» (translation: «Singapore’s Claim to a Purported Title of Sovereignty») (CR 2007/27, original: pp. 46-62; translation: pp. 41-56).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 14 November 2007, Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Counsel and Advocate for Malaysia, pleadings: «La phare Horsburgh a été construit avec le consentement de Johore» (CR 2007/25, original: pp. 37-63; translation: pp. 31-58).
2006
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 19 December 2006, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «La position argentine sur la demande de l’Uruguay en indication de mesures conservatoires» (translation: «Argentina’s Position on Uruguay’s Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures») (CR 2006/57, original: pp. 8-17; translation: pp. 2-16).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 18 December 2006, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «La demande uruguayenne de mesures conservatoires n’a aucun lien avec le Statut du fleuve Urguguay» (translation: «The Uruguay Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures has no link with the Statute of the River Uruguay») (CR 2006/55, original: pp. 17-37; translation: pp. 11-30).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 9 June 2006, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «La réalité des procéures suivies par les Parties» (translation: «The Truth about the Procedures followed by the Parties») (CR 2006/48, original: pp. 21-29; translation: pp. 14-22).
– International Court of Justice, The Hague, 8 June 2006, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Counsel and Advocate for Argentina, pleadings: «La demande de suspension des autorisations et de la construction des ouvrages» (translation: «The Request for the Suspension of Authorization and Construction of the Works») (CR 2006/46, original: pp. 39-48; translation: pp. 33-49).