ACDI - Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional

ISSN-e: 2145-4493

ISSN: 2027-1131 

Cuestiones de procedimiento en los casos Costa Rica c. Nicaragua y Nicaragua c. Costa Rica ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia

Juan José Quintana

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/acdi/a.5299

Texto completo:

PDF HTML Lector Inteligente ePub
Enviar este artículo (Es necesario iniciar sesión)
Escanee aquí para descargar

Resumen


En el presente artículo, se examinan diversas cuestiones del procedimiento que se sigue en los litigios contenciosos que se ventilan ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia, a la luz de varios pronunciamientos de la Corte contenidos en la sentencia del 16 de diciembre de 2015, en dos procesos acumulados entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua, a saber, el caso “Ciertas actividades adelantadas por Nicaragua en la región fronteriza”, elevado por Costa Rica, y el caso “Construcción de una carretera en Costa Rica a lo largo del río San Juan”, elevado por Nicaragua. En esta sentencia, la Corte incluyó importantes decisiones en relación con aspectos procesales de carácter técnico, como la acumulación de procedimientos, las demandas reconvencionales, las medidas provisionales de protección, las medidas de reparación, el manejo de la evidencia y las costas judiciales. En varios casos, esta decisión introduce considerables innovaciones respecto de la jurisprudencia previa de la CIJ sobre temas procesales


Palabras clave


Corte Internacional de Justicia, litigio, proceso judicial, procedimiento, procedimientos incidentales, acumulación de casos, demanda reconvencional, medidas provisionales, reparación, evidencia y prueba, testigos y peritos, costas judiciales

Referencias


Doctrina

Aceves, W. J., “LaGrand (Germany v. United States), Judgment”, American Journal of International Law, 2002, 96, pp. 210-218.

Antonopoulos, C., Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice, Sprin-ger-TMC Asser Institute, The Hague, 2011.

Bekker, P. H. F., “Provisional Measures in the Recent Practice of the International Court of Justice”, International Law FORUM du droit international, 2005, 7, pp. 24-32.

Brown, C., A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.

Foster, C., “New Clothes for the Emperor? Consultation of Experts by the International Court of Justice”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2014, 5, p. 139.

Frowein, J. A., “Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice: The LaGrand Case”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2002, 62, pp. 55-60.

Gattini, A., “Breach of the obligation to prevent and reparation thereof in the ICJ’s genocide judgment”, European Journal of International Law, 2007, 18-4, pp. 695-713.

Guyomar, G., Commentaire du Reglement de la Cour international de justice, adoptee le 10 Avril 1978 - Interpretation et pratique, Pedone, Paris, 1983.

Higgins, R., “Remedies in the International Court of Justice”, en Higgins, R., Themes and theories - Selected essays, speeches, and writings in international law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, pp. 1352-1358.

Jennings, S. R., “The LaGrand Case”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2002, 1, pp. 13-54.

Kolb, R., “Note on New International Case-law Concerning the Binding Character of Provisional Measures”, Nordic Journal of International Law, 2005, 74, pp. 117-130.

Kolb, R., The International Court of Justice, Hart Publishing, 2013.

Lachs, M., “Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court”, in Bello, E. G. & Ajibola, B. A. (Eds.), Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias, 1992.

Mani, V. C., International Adjudication - Procedural Aspects, New Delhi, 1980.

Matringe, J., “L’arret de la Cour internationale de Justice dans l’affaire LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique) du 27 juin 2001”, Annuaire Francais du Droit International, 2001, 48, pp. 215-256.

Mendelson, M., “State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice”, en Fitzmaurice, M. & Sarooshi, D. (Eds.), Issues of State responsibility before international judicial institutions, London, 2004, pp. 35-53.

Mennecke M. & Ch. Tams, “The LaGrand case (Germany v. United Sta-tes of America)”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 51 (2002), pp. 449-455.

Murphy, S., “Counter-claims”, en Zimmermann, A. et al. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice - A commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 1000-1025. Nouvel, Y., “La recevabilite des demandes reconventionnelles devant la Cour internationale de Justice a la lumiere de deux ordonnances re-centes”, Annuaire Français du droit international, 1998, 44, pp. 324-336.

Orakhelashvili, A., “Questions of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the LaGrand Case”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 2002, 15, pp. 105-130.

Peat, D., “The Use of Court-Appointed Experts by the International Court of Justice”, British Year Book of International Law, 2014.

Quintana, J. J., Litigation at the International Court of Justice, practice and proce-dure, Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden-Boston, 2015.

Riddell A. & Plant, B., Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009.

Rigaux, F., « Les demandes reconventionelles devant la Cour internationale de Justice », in Ando, N., McWhinney, E. & Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Liber amicorum judge Shigeru Oda, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 935-945.

Rosenne, S., The Law and Practice of the International Court of Justice 1920-1996, Martinus Nijhoff, 2000.

Rosenne, S., Provisional measures in international law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.

Rosenne, S., “Counter-claims in the International Court of Justice revi-sited”, in Rosenne, S., Essays on international law and practice, 2007, pp. 267-293.

Salerno, F., “La demande reconventionnelle dans la procedure de la Cour Internationale de Justice”, Revue General du Droit International Publique, 1999, 103, pp. 371-374.

Sarmiento Lamus, A., “Revocation and modification of provisional measures orders in the International Court of Justice: the Court’s order regarding certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area and the case concerning construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river joint proceedings”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2013, 12 (3).

Tams, C., “Consular assistance: rights, remedies and responsibility: com-ments on the ICJ judgment in the LaGrand case”, European Journal of International Law, 2002, 13, pp. 1257-1259.

Tams, C., “Article 51”, en Zimmermann, A. et al. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice - A commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 1306-1309.

Tams, C. J., “Consular Assistance: Rights, remedies and responsibility: Comments on the ICJ Judgment in the LaGrand Case”, European Journal of International Law, 2002, 13.

Tzanakapoulos, A., “Provisional Measures Indicated by International Courts: Emergence of a General Principle of International Law”, Revue Hellenique de Droit International, 2004, 57, pp. 53-84.

White, G., ‘The Use of Experts by the International Court of Justice’, in Lowe, V. & Fitzmaurice, M. (Eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice - Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge, 1996.

Wittich, Stefan, “Non-material damage and monetary reparation in international law”, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 2004, 15, pp. 321-368.

Yang, X., “Thou Shalt Not Violate Provisional Measures”, Cambridge Law Journal, 2001, 60, pp. 441-446.

Yee, S., “Article 40”, in Zimmermann, A. et al. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice - A commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 975-982.

Jurisprudencia citada

ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, pp. 691-692, par. 164.

ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Counter-claims, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 256, par. 27.

ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, pars. 458, 467-469.

ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, pars. 20 y ss.

ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, pars. 25 y ss.

ICJ, Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 258, par. 263.

ICJ, Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 282, par. 345 (7).

ICJ, Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 1 July 2015, Declaration of judge Cançado Trindade. ICJ, Avena and other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States of Ame-rica), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 70, par. 152.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional measures, Order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 6.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Joinder of proceedings, Order of 17 April 2013,

ICJ Reports 2013, p. 166; Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Joinder of proceedings, Order of 17 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 184.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Counter-claims, Order of 18 April 2013,

ICJ Reports 2013, p. 200.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Order of 16 July 2013, Provisional measures, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 230.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional measures, Or-der of 22 November 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 354.

ICJ, Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Merits, Judgment of 16 December 2015. ICJ, Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional measures, Order of 13 December 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 398.

ICJ, Fisheries jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 177, par. 8.

ICJ, Jurisdictional immunities, Opinión disidente del juez Cançado Trin-dade, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 342, par. 30.

ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Re-ports 2001, p. 484, para. 45.

ICJ, Land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Ca-meroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 453, pars. 321-322.

ICJ, Land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Merits, Judgment,

ICJ Reports 2002, p. 453, par. 321.

ICJ, Questions relating to the seizure of certain documents and data (Timor Leste v. Australia), Request for the modification of the order indicating provisional measures of 3 March 2014, Order of 22 April 2015, par. 12.

ICJ, Request for interpretation of the judgment of 31 March 2004 in the case concerning Avena and other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 19 January 2009, pars. 50-53 y par. 61 (2) (dispositif); ibid., 58-60 y par. 61 (4) (dispositif).

ICJ, Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2014, pp. 236-237, pars. 16-20.


El archivo PDF seleccionado se debe cargar aquí si su navegador tiene instalado un módulo de lectura de PDF (por ejemplo, una versión reciente de Adobe Acrobat Reader).

Si desea más información sobre cómo imprimir, guardar y trabajar con PDFs, Highwire Press le proporciona una guía útil de Preguntas frecuentes sobre PDFs.

Por otro lado, puede descargar el PDF directamente a su ordenador donde podrá abrirlo con un lector de PDF. Para descargar el PDF, haga clic en el enlace anterior.


Métricas