Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Courts and the Development of International Law pp 65–75Cite as

The “Right Mix” and “Ambiguities” in Particular Customs: A Few Remarks on the Navigational and Related Rights Case

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 4101 Accesses

Abstract

Customary international law can be general or particular. In the San Juan River case, handed down in 2009, the International Court of Justice decided that a bilateral custom had arisen between Nicaragua and Costa Rica concerning the right to fish of the inhabitants of the two banks for subsistence purposes. The way the Court established such a right raises certain questions about the nature of custom, the process to assess it, the subjects considered, and the standard necessary to prove it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Treves 2008, para 28.

  2. 2.

    Ibidem.

  3. 3.

    ICJ: Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment (13 July 2009).

  4. 4.

    Ibidem, para 144.

  5. 5.

    RightIy Mendelson 1998, p. 215, prefers the term particular to regional, as the second is contained within the first. For the same reason Akehurst 1975, p. 29; van Hoof 1983, pp. 96–97, used the term special.

  6. 6.

    Biblia pauperum referred to the frescos in churches that explained, in a synthetic way, doctrines of faith; this expression was often used by Bruno Simma to describe Article 38 in 2009, during his general course on public international law at The Hague Academy of International Law (the Course has still to be published).

  7. 7.

    See already Basdevant 1936, p. 486. On the theoretical disputes over the admissibility of local customs under Article 38 during the PCIJ period see Cohen-Jonathan 1961, pp. 121–127, with additional references.

  8. 8.

    Guggenheim 1953, p. 47; Kunz 1953, p. 666; Tunkin 1974, p. 118.

  9. 9.

    Meijers 1978, p. 21; Wolfke 1993a, p. 7.

  10. 10.

    They are briefly summarized in Danilenko 1993, pp. 76–77.

  11. 11.

    Treves 2008, para 40; Kolb 2003, pp. 136–137, Gamio 1994, pp. 84 and 92, highlights that the letter of Article 38.1.b is clear in excluding particular customs, but that the ICJ decisions have overridden it; similarly Pellet 2006, p. 762.

  12. 12.

    Treves 2008, paras 35–6; see also ICJ: North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/the Netherlands), Judgment (20 February 1969), para 75, and the observations by Lachs in his Dissenting Opinion, pp. 227–230.

  13. 13.

    In 1927 the Court spoke about a local usage: “[T]he pre-war usage in the Galatz-Braila sector was that jurisdictional powers were exercised there by the European Commission. In this usage the Roumanian delegate tacitly but formally acquiesced, in the sense that a modus vivendi was observed on both sides according to which the sphere of action of the Commission in fact extended in all respects as far as above Braila”, PCIJ: Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube, Advisory Op. (8 December 1927), p. 17. A few years later, in the City of Danzig advisory opinion, the Permanent Court analogously did not talk about a local custom, but assessed a common practice: “[M]any differences of opinion as to foreign affairs arose between Poland and the Free City, but a practice, which seems now to be well understood by both Parties, has gradually emerged from the decisions of the High Commissioner and from the subsequent understandings”, PCIJ: Free City of Danzig and ILO, Advisory Op. (26 August 1930), p. 13.

  14. 14.

    ICJ: Asylum (Colombia/Peru), Judgment (20 November 1950), pp. 276–277.

  15. 15.

    ICJ: Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America), Judgment (27 August 1952), pp. 199–201.

  16. 16.

    ICJ: Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Judgment (12 April 1960), p. 39: « [I]t is objected on behalf of India that no local custom could be established between only two States. It is difficult to see why the number of States between which a local custom may be established on the basis of long practice must necessarily be larger than two. The Court sees no reason why long continued practice between two States accepted by them as regulating their relations should not form the basis of mutual rights and obligations between the two States».

  17. 17.

    Ibidem, p. 40. On this Case, see the comments of Buss 2010, pp. 111–126

  18. 18.

    On spontaneous customary law see Bobbio 1942, p. 19 ff.; Ago 1950, pp. 78–108; Giuliano 1950, p. 161 ff.; Barile 1953, pp. 150–229; Treves 2008, paras 17–18; Dupuy 2000, pp. 157–179, with further references. See also the critics of Arangio-Ruiz 2007, pp. 97–124.

  19. 19.

    North Sea Continental Shelf, supra n. 12, paras 75–78.

  20. 20.

    ICJ: Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3.

  21. 21.

    Tratado de límites entre Nicaragua y Costa Rica Cañas-Jerez (San José, 15 April 1858).

  22. 22.

    Article VI reproduced in Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, para 19.

  23. 23.

    Ibidem, para 98.

  24. 24.

    Ibidem, paras 4.124–4.128.

  25. 25.

    Ibidem, paras 134 and 141.

  26. 26.

    Ibidem, para 141.

  27. 27.

    Ibidem, para 144.

  28. 28.

    PCA Arbitral Tribunal: Eritrea/Yemen, Award in the First Stage (9 October 1998).

  29. 29.

    Ibidem, para 340: “In the Tribunal’s understanding, the rules applied in the aq ‘il system do not find their origin in Yemeni law, but are elements of private justice derived from and applicable to the conduct of the trade of fishing. They are a lex pescatoria maintained on a regional basis by those participating in fishing. (…) The fact that this system is recognized or supported by Yemen does not alter its essentially private character”.

  30. 30.

    PCA/Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission: Delimitation of the Border between Eritrea and Ethiopia (Eritrea/Ethiopia), Decision (13 April 2002), para 7.3: “Regard should be paid to the customary rights of the local people to have access to the river”.

  31. 31.

    Lathrop 2010, p. 460.

  32. 32.

    Weckel 2009, p. 938.

  33. 33.

    As described at para 132 of the judgment. However, during the proceedings Costa Rica itself was very generic in sustaining the existence of fishing rights: “Peu importe au fond que l’on parle de coutume locale, d’acquiescement, d’accord tacite, de régime territorial ou encore de subsistance d’un droit traditionnel datant de l’époque coloniale auquel il n’a jamais été dérogé. Le résultat est le même: les résidents de la rive costa-ricienne ont un droit de pêche à des fins de subsistance dans les eaux du San Juan”, ICJ: Navigational and Related Rights, CR 2009/3, p. 62, para 41 (Kohen), internal footnote omitted.

  34. 34.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, paras 140–1, 156 (3).

  35. 35.

    In this sense also Tanaka 2009, p. 8.

  36. 36.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, Separate Opinion of Judge Sepúlveda-Amor, para 20: “The Court’s reasoning in the present case is not in accordance with its previous findings on the recognition of rules of customary international law. It will be difficult to find a precedent which corresponds with what the Court has determined in the present case. (…) These are the grounds on which the Court concludes that there is a customary right. An undocumented practice by a community of fishermen in a remote area”.

  37. 37.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, Separate Opinion of Judge Sepúlveda-Amor, paras 28–31. Also Judge Skotnikov in his Separate Opinion, para 20, affirms that a construction of a bilateral custom is superfluous, because those rights pre-exist the relations between the two states: “the 1858 Treaty, as in the case of the practice of riparians traveling on the river to meet the requirements of their daily life (see para 13 above), left unaffected the practice of subsistence fishing by riparians from the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan River”.

  38. 38.

    Wolfke 1993b, p. 4; Ochoa 2007, pp. 119–186.

  39. 39.

    For Akehurst 1976, p. 11, the acts of private individuals only count through the reaction of the states. Dinstein 2006, pp. 267–268 and 271, contemplates just a role in forming the opinio iuris of states; similarly Treves 2008, paras 33–34.

  40. 40.

    A critical reflection on the role of personality can be read in Byers 1999, pp. 75–87.

  41. 41.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, Declaration of Judge Guillaume, para 22.

  42. 42.

    The ICJ, in order to assess sovereignty over an island, considered the habits of a local tribe, the conduct of low-ranked officials on the ground and the declarations made by representatives of the two Governments, ICJ: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment (13 December 1999), para 71 ff; see also the interesting reflections on the point made by Rezek and Parra-Aranguren in their Dissenting Opinions, respectively at paras 12–16 and para 88.

  43. 43.

    Also this problem can entail further difficulties: public statements and effective deeds can be contradictory, and it is not always the former, even if emanating from a Government, that should always prevail over the latter. In general, in analysing practice, it is not possible to set a hard and fast rule that provides guidance, cf. Treves 2008, para 28.

  44. 44.

    PCIJ: Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France (France/USA), Judgment (12 July 1929), p. 124.

  45. 45.

    Asylum, supra n. 14, p. 276: “The Party which relies on a [special custom] must prove that this custom is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other Party”.

  46. 46.

    D’Amato 1969, pp. 212 and 216; Shaw 2008, pp. 92–93, requires greater flexibility in assessing general customs; contra see Cassella 2009, p. 274.

  47. 47.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, para 141.

  48. 48.

    Ibidem, para 140.

  49. 49.

    On this point see the strong criticism by Sepúlveda-Amor in his Separate Opinion to Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, paras 20–24.

  50. 50.

    See Treves 2008, para 20. See also ICJ: Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo), Judgment (24 May 2007), para 39.

  51. 51.

    Navigational and Related Rights, supra n. 3, paras 140–141; see also the comments by Sepúlveda-Amor in his Separate Opinion, cit., para 36. The importance of the attitude of Nicaragua before the bench in the establishment of the local custom has also been stressed by Cassella 2009, pp. 275–276, and Palchetti 2009, p. 313. Indeed, not only concerning its attitude, but also in the written proceedings Nicaragua admitted that it had always allowed the very minor activity of fishing for subsistence purposes, cf. ICJ: Navigational and Related Rights, Rejoinder of Nicaragua (15 July 2008), pp. 200–201, para 4.67.

  52. 52.

    On a special custom being non-existent, but as a tacit agreement, see already Gianni 1931, p. 123; Haemmerlé 1936, p. 170; more recently certain authors have stressed the consensual nature of special customs, Condorelli 1991, pp. 206–7; Cassese 2005, pp. 164–165 (referring to both Asylum and Right of Passage cases as describing a tacit agreement); Shaw 2008, p. 93. On the contrary, Thirlway 1972, pp. 135–141, criticises the strict consent theory of local custom: if many states follow a customary rule within a region, also the other few states not explicitly accepting the rule have to conform to it.

  53. 53.

    ICJ: Right of Passage, supra n. 16, p. 40: “It is common ground between the Parties that the passage of private personas and civil officials was not subject to any restrictions, beyond routine control during these periods. There is nothing on the record to indicate the contrary”.

References

  • Ago R (1950) Scienza giuridica e diritto internazionale. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst M (1975) Custom as a source of international law. British Yearb Int Law 47:1–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (2007) Customary law: a few more thoughts about the theory of “Spontaneous” international custom. In: Johannsson M, Wahl N, Bernitz U (eds) Droit du pouvoir, pouvoir du droit: Mélanges offerts à Jean Salmon. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 97–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Barile G (1953) La rilevazione e l’integrazione del diritto internazionale non scritto e la libertà di apprezzamento del giudice. Comunicazione e Studi 5:150–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Basdevant J (1936) Règles générales du droit de la paix. Recueil des Cours 58

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio N (1942) La consuetudine internazionale come fatto normativo. CEDAM, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss A (2010) The Prèah Vihear Case and Regional Customary International Law. Chin J Int Law 9:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers M (1999) Custom, rules and the power of rules. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cassella S (2009) Rééquilibrer les effets inéquitables d’une délimitation territoriale: l’arrêt de la Cour internationale de Justice du 13 juillet 2009 dans l’affaire du Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua). Annuaire français du droit international 55:253–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2005) International law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G (1961) La coutume locale. Annuaire français de droit international 7:119–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (1991) Custom. In: Bedjaoui (ed) International law: achievement and prospects. UNESCO, Paris, pp 179–211

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato A (1969) The concept of special custom in international law. Am J Int Law 63:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danilenko GM (1993) Law making in the international community. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2006) The interaction between customary international law and treaties. Recueil des Cours 322:243–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy PM (2000) L’unité de l’ordre juridique international. Recueil des cours 297

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamio JM (1994) Costumbre universal y particular. In: Rama-Montaldo (ed) International law in an evolving world, Liber Amicorum Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, vol I Fundación de cultura universitaria, Montevideo, pp 69–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianni G (1931) La coutume en droit international public. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano M (1950) La comunità internazionale e il diritto. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1953) Traité de droit international public, vol 1, 2nd edn. Librairie Georg, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Haemmerlé (1936) La coutume en droit des gens d’après la jurisprudence de la C.P.J.I. Recueil Sirey, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoof GJH (1983) Rethinking the sources of international law. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2003) Selected problems in the theory of customary international law. Neth Int Law Rev 50:119–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz JL (1953) The nature of customary law. Am J Int Law 47:662–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop CG (2010) Case report: dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Am J Int Law 104:454–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijers H (1978) How is international law made? The stages of growth of international law and the use of customary rules. Neth Yearb Int Law 9:3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson M (1998) The formation of customary international law. Recueil des Cours 272:155–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa C (2007) The individual and customary international law formation. Va J Int Law 48:119–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2009) The activity of the International Court of Justice in 2009. Italian Yearb Int Law 19:297–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2006) Article 38. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C, Thienel T (eds) The statute of the International Court of Justice. OUP, Oxford, pp 677–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2009) Navigational rights on the San Juan river: a commentary on the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua Case. The Hague Justice Portal. http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/Commentaries%20PDF/Tanaka_Navigational_Rights_EN.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2012

  • Thirlway HWA (1972) International customary law and codification: an examination of the continuing role of custom in the present period of codification of international law. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2008) Customary international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 8 Jan 2012

  • Tunkin GI (1974) Theory of international law. George Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckel P (2009) Chronique de jurisprudence internationale. Cour internationale de justice. Arrêt du 13 juillet 2009. Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica–Nicaragua). Revue Générale de Droit International Public 113:931–949

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfke K (1993a) Custom in present international law, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfke K (1993b) Some persistent controversies regarding customary international law. Neth Yearb Int Law 24:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emile Noël Fellow (2011–2012), New York University, New York, USA

    Luigi Crema

  2. Research Associate, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Luigi Crema

Authors
  1. Luigi Crema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Crema .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Nerina Boschiero

  2. Bicocca University, Dipartimento giuridico, University of Milan, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milan, 20126, Italy

    Tullio Scovazzi

  3. , Dipartimento di Diritto,, University of Parma, Via Università 12, Parma, 43121, Italy

    Cesare Pitea

  4. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Chiara Ragni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crema, L. (2013). The “Right Mix” and “Ambiguities” in Particular Customs: A Few Remarks on the Navigational and Related Rights Case. In: Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation