Pooja K Jojo| 19BBl039

COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA1

I. FACTS
The case primarily revolves around activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area,
particularly in the wetland protected under the Ramsar Convention. These activities resulted
in environmental damage, leading to a claim for compensation by Costa Rica.
Nicaragua carried out several specific activities in the border area that led to the
compensation owed to Costa Rica. These activities resulted in environmental damage and
other consequences, leading to the claim for compensation. Nicaragua constructed a dyke
across the eastern caño in the wetland area, causing environmental impact and damage to the
territory. Nicaragua excavated three caños in the northern part of Isla Portillos, leading to
environmental damage and breaching Costa Rica's territorial sovereignty. Nicaragua
established a military presence in the disputed territory, which was found to be in breach of
Costa Rica's sovereignty, resulting in the obligation to make reparation for the damage
caused by these unlawful activities. These specific activities carried out by Nicaragua in the
border area, including construction, excavation, and military presence, led to the
environmental damage and territorial breaches that formed the basis for the compensation
owed to Costa Rica.
Specific facts of the case include:
1. Unlawful Activities: Nicaragua's unlawful activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos
between October 2010 and April 2011, including the construction of a dyke across the eastern
caño and the removal of trees, causing significant damage to the area .
2. Environmental Damage: The affected area is a wetland protected under the Ramsar
Convention, and the Court assessed the impairment or loss of environmental goods and
services, including standing timber, other raw materials, gas regulation and air quality
services, soil formation and erosion control, and biodiversity .
3. Claim for Compensation: Costa Rica filed a claim for compensation for costs and expenses
incurred in relation to Nicaragua’s unlawful activities, including expenses related to
monitoring activities, purchase of reports, and other supplies.
These facts form the basis of the dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, leading to the
Court's determination of the amount of compensation owed for the environmental damage
caused by Nicaragua's activities in the border area.
II. ISSUE

 Determining compensation for material damage caused by Nicaragua's unlawful

activities in the border area

1
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Costa Rica v Nicaragua,
Compensation owed by Nicaragua to Costa Rica, ICJ GL No 150, [2018] ICJ Rep 15, ICGJ 520 (ICJ
2018), 2nd February 2018, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]
 Pooja K Jojo| 19BBl039

 Establishing the legal principles applicable to the determination of compensation,

such as the obligation to make full reparation and the need for a direct causal nexus
between the wrongful act and the injury suffered
 Addressing the claim for compensation for environmental damage and the valuation
of such damage
 Assessing the compensable costs and expenses incurred by Costa Rica due to
Nicaragua's unlawful activities.

III. RULES
The specific legal rules used in the case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua include:
1. The Ramsar Convention: The Court considered the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, signed at Ramsar on 2 February
1971. The Convention played a significant role in the protection of the wetland area affected
by Nicaragua's activities, and the Court's decisions were influenced by the obligations under
this convention.
2. International Environmental Law: The case involved the application of principles and rules
of international environmental law, particularly in assessing the environmental damage
caused by Nicaragua's activities and the compensability of such damage under international
law.
3. State Responsibility: The Court applied the principles of state responsibility, including the
obligation to make full reparation for the damage caused by a wrongful act.
4. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: The Court addressed issues related to sovereignty
and territorial integrity, particularly in determining the breaches of Costa Rica's territorial
sovereignty by Nicaragua's activities in the disputed territory.
5. Causation and Valuation of Damage: The Court applied principles related to causation and
the valuation of damage, particularly in the context of environmental damage. It considered
the existence of damage, causation, and the methodologies for the valuation of environmental
damage in determining the compensation owed to Costa Rica.
Some of the cases cited include:
1. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo),
Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (I), p. 337, para. 33: This case was cited in the
context of determining the amount of compensation due on the basis of equitable
considerations.
2. Story Parchment Company v. Paterson Parchment Paper Company (1931, United States
Reports, Vol. 282, p. 555): This case was cited in the Trail Smelter case, which was also
referenced in the document. The case was cited in the context of determining compensation
for damages that cannot be ascertained with certainty.
 Pooja K Jojo| 19BBl039

3. Trail Smelter case (United States, Canada), 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. III, p. 1920: This case was
cited in the context of determining compensation for damages that cannot be ascertained with
certainty .
4. Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), pp. 27-28, para. 86:
This case was cited in the context of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in the
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.
5. Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica):
This case was cited in the context of the proceedings instituted by Nicaragua against Costa
Rica for "violations of Nicaraguan sovereignty and major environmental damages on its
territory".
IV. ANALYSIS
The outcome of the case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua was a decision by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) on December 16, 2015. The Court found that Nicaragua
had violated Costa Rica's sovereignty and caused significant environmental damage in Costa
Rican territory. The Court ordered Nicaragua to pay compensation to Costa Rica for the costs
incurred as a result of Nicaragua's unlawful activities.
The Court found that Nicaragua's activities, including tree cover removal, construction of a
new river channel, and dredging activities, caused significant environmental damage. The
Court evaluated the evidence presented by Costa Rica to demonstrate the environmental
damage caused by Nicaragua's actions, including the use of high-resolution satellite imagery
and reports from environmental monitoring missions. The Court also assessed the
quantification of compensation for the environmental damage and the direct and certain
causal nexus between Nicaragua's unlawful activities and the costs incurred by Costa Rica.
The Court applied legal principles and precedents related to state responsibility,
compensation for environmental damage, and territorial disputes. It cited cases such as
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) and the
Trail Smelter case to support the legal arguments and decisions in the case. The Court also
discussed the challenges in valuing the environmental damage caused by Nicaragua's
activities and raised doubts about the reliability of certain aspects of Costa Rica's
methodology for valuing the damage.
Overall, the outcome of the case was a decision in favor of Costa Rica, with Nicaragua
ordered to pay compensation for the costs incurred as a result of its unlawful activities. The
case highlights the importance of respecting sovereignty and the environment and the need
for clear evidence and legal principles to determine the rights and obligations of the involved
states.
V. CONCLUSION
 Pooja K Jojo| 19BBl039

The case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua highlights the importance of protecting the
environment and the need for states to be held accountable for their actions that cause
environmental damage. The Court found that Nicaragua's activities caused significant
environmental damage in Costa Rican territory, including the removal of tree cover,
construction of a new river channel, and dredging activities. The Court's decision emphasizes
the need for states to respect the environment and take measures to prevent environmental
damage. The case also highlights the importance of valuing the environmental damage
caused by unlawful activities and compensating the affected state for the costs incurred as a
result of the damage. Overall, the case underscores the need for states to prioritize
environmental protection and take responsibility for their actions that cause environmental
harm.