COSTA RICA V.

NICARAGUA
& NICARAGUA V. COSTA RICA (2015)
ADRIJA DATTA (C-008)
BBA LLB
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

Analysing Environmental Impact Assessments in the case of Costa Rica v.

Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica

ADRIJA DATTA

C-008

BBA-LLB

IN PURSUANCE OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW TEE

SUBMITTED TO: PROFFESSOR PREETHI K.

ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Professor Preethi K. as

well as the college, Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, that gave me the golden opportunity to do
this wonderful project on the topic of public international law. During my research, I came to
know about so many new things about Environmental Impact Assessment. I am really thankful
to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I the undersigned solemnly declare that the project report is based on my own work carried
out during the course of our study under the supervision of Professor Preethi K. .

I assert the statements made and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research work. I
further certify that

I. The work contained in the report is original and has been done by me.
II. The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any other
degree/diploma/certificate in this university or any other University of India or abroad.
III. I have followed the guidelines provided by the university in writing the report.
IV. Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, and text) from other
sources, we have given due credit to them in the text of the report and giving their
details in the references.

Name: Adrija Datta

Enrolment No.: 81022018008

ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

INDEX

Sr Title Pg.
No. No.
1 Introduction 1
2 Issue 2
Facts 2
Procedural history 3
Issue 4
3 Rules 5
Treaties 5
Settled principles of international law 6
4 Analysis 7
Duty to conduct an EIA 7
Whether conducting an EIA is mandatory, and if so what are the parameters
for conducting an EIA
Duty to Notify 10
Whether the countries are obliged to notify others of significant transboundary
harm.
Substantive Obligations Concerning Transboundary Harm: 12
Whether There Was Substantive Harm To The Environment In The Present
Case.
5 Conclusion 14
6 Bibliography 15
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

I
INTRODUCTION
Assessing Environmental Impact Assessment is a complex procedure, that often has to be
undertaken for developmental projects or if environmental damage has occurred. Its
importance, in the current state of environmental degradation, cannot be understated. It is
necessary to undertake an environmental impact assessment to firstly, apply precautionary
principle and avoid activities harmful to the environment. Secondly, it is also necessary to
calculate the recompense in cases of environmental damage, and in the application of the
polluters pay principle.

Domestic law has devised and legislated methods for calculating EIA. However, when it comes
to international law, the process for calculating EIA is unclear.

The international court had deliberated on EIA only once before the present case. In the Pulp
Mills case, the Court held that conducting an EIA is a general obligation under international
law, however, it did not mention the specifics of conducting an EIA. However, since EIA is a
complex process, there is always an opposition to how it has been conducted. Therefore, there
was much need to have guidelines regulating it, like in the sphere of domestic law.

Environmentalists and legal luminaries had hoped that taking cue from the Pulp Mills
Judgement, the present case between Costa Rica and Nicaragua will provide adequate
guidelines. In this case, both the countries had conducted activities in the ecologically sensitive
wetlands. There was a scope of environmental damage arising out of both of their activities.
And hence, it provided a great opportunity for the court to deliberate on environmental harm.
The paper assesses how the court used the opportunity to develop EIA under international law
and provide guidelines on its method or parameters of assessment.

Chapertization

The research paper has been divided into five parts. The first and the current chapter serves as
an introduction to the research paper. The second chapter concerns itself with introducing facts
and issue of the case. The third chapter briefly mentions all the legal principles that have been
applied in the case. The fourth chapter, which is the main chapter, analyses the judgement and
how the courts have opined on EIA. Lastly, the fifth chapter concludes and opines on whether
the Court has developed the current international legal framework on EIA.

1
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

II
ISSUE

Facts

Credit: Charlette Blondel & Alexandra Lutz, What’s the price of nature? A first attempt by the ICJ, CliMates (25th
March, 2021), https://studentclimates.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/judicial-review-costa-rica-nicaragua/.

The area under dispute is a part of Northeast Caribbean Wetland, recognised to be

internationally important under the Ramsar convention. In accordance with Article II of the
1858 Treaty of Limits, part of the boundary between the two States runs along the right (Costa
Rican) bank of the San Juan River.

On 18 October 2010, Nicaragua started dredging the river to improve its navigability, while
Costa Rica alleged that Nicaragua artificially created a channel on Costa Rican territory.
Nicaragua also sent some military units and other personnel to the area. Nicaragua’s actions
led Costa Rica to institute proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.

2
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

Along with instituting legal proceedings, Costa Rica in December, 2010 started constructing a
road, which runs in Costa Rican territory neighbouring the border it shared with Nicaragua.
Costa Rica maintained that a 2011 Executive Decree declaring a state of emergency in the
border area exempted it from the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment
before constructing the road. In response, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica.

Procedural History

On 18 November 2010, Costa Rica instituted proceedings against Nicaragua in the case
concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (hereafter Costa
Rica v. Nicaragua). Subsequently, on 22 December 2011, Nicaragua instituted proceedings
against Costa Rica in the case concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San
Juan River (hereafter Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). Both the cases were filed on the basis of Article
31 of the Pact of Bogota and Article 36.2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
The Court merged the two disputes in one case, in April 2013. It then delivered its judgment
on 16 December 2015.

Summary of judgement

The judgement can be divided into parts, enlisted below: -

1) Territorial jurisdiction: The territorial dispute was guided by well-established principles

of international law. The judgement on territorial issues in the case, can be summarized
as, “
 Costa Rica has sovereignty over the ‘disputed territory’;
 By excavating three canos and establishing a military presence on Costa Rican
territory, Nicaragua has violated the territorial sovereignty of Costa Rica;
 By excavating two canos in 2013 and establishing a military presence in the
disputed territory, Nicaragua has breached the obligations incumbent upon it
under an ICJ order indicating provisional measures;
 Nicaragua has breached Costa Rica’s rights of navigation on the San Juan River
pursuant to the 1858 Treaty of Limits;
 Nicaragua has the obligation to compensate Costa Rica for material damages
caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities on Costa Rican territory”
2) Conducting an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) and various obligations on it

3
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

Principles for conducting an EIA are still vague under international law, and the court
had the opportunity to develop legal principles for conducting an EIA. Since rest of the
paper focuses on EIA, this section won’t get into the specifics.

ISSUE

The issues that were discussed in the judgement, and will be the main focus of the judgement
is:

1) Whether conducting an EIA is mandatory, and if so, what are the parameters for
conducting an EIA.
2) Whether the countries are obliged to notify others of significant transboundary harm.
3) Whether there was substantive harm to the environment in the present case.

4
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

III

RULES APPLICABLE

Treaties
The issue between Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Costa Rica stemmed from a breach of each
other's territory. Therefore, ICJ relied on the 1858 Treaty of Limits (between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica) that dictated the territorial jurisdiction of each country.
The territory where the alleged breach occurred was also a wetland and an important natural
ecosystem and hence it was protected by the Ramsar Convention (1996) that conferred upon
its signatories, both Costa Rica and Nicaragua to protect the natural wetlands in the area.1
On the debate of conducting an EIA, the ICJ relied upon Article 14 of Natural Convention for
Biodiversity(NCB) that confers a duty upon its signatory to conduct EIA for a project in an
environmentally sensitive zone with a view to negate negative effects of such a project. 2

Settled legal principles of international law

The Court relied on a few settled principles of international law that have been enumerated
below.
1) Corfu Channel case3
“It is a well-settled principle of international law that a breach of an obligation gives
rise to an obligation to make reparation in adequate form.”
2) Pulp Mills case4
The Court stressed that “the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment
requires an ex-ante evaluation of the risk of significant transboundary harm, and thus
an environmental impact assessment must be conducted prior to the implementation of
a project”
3) Principle of Causation5

1
MATTHEWS, G. V. T. (1993). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: its history and development. Gland,
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Bureau.
2
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1760, p. 79; and depositary notification C.N.29.1996.TREATIES-2 of 18
March 1996 (procès-verbal of rectification of the authentic Arabic text).
3
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Assessment of Compensation, 15 XII 49, International Court
of Justice (ICJ), 15 December 1949, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICJ,402398c84.html [accessed
25 May 2021].
4
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v Uruguay, Order, ICJ GL No 135, [2006].
5
Fujimoto, Kotaro, A Tendency Of Arguments On The Principle Of ‘Causa Proxima.’, 10 THE ANNALS OF THE
HITOTSUBASHI ACADEMY no. 2, pp. 158–170, (1959), Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/43751406. Accessed 25
May 2021.

5
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

The assessment of compensation for damages requires the Court to be able to determine
a causal link between the wrongful act and injury suffered.
4) Duty to conserve the environment
Although this is not a legal principle per se, it is general principle and has been used by
domestic courts on a number of occasions. Every individual and country has the
obligation to protect their natural environment, and the breach of such duty should be
condemned in light of the current state of environmental degradation happening around
us.
5) Precautionary approach6
6) Principe of due diligence7

6
Supra 2.
7
Jonathan Bonnitcha & Robert McCorquodale, The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights, 28 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, pp. 899–919
(2017).

6
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

IV

ANALYSIS

This chapter has been divided into three parts, each of which pertains to issue that have been
identified above.

DUTY TO CONDUCT AN EIA

Whether conducting an EIA is mandatory, and if so what are the parameters for
conducting an EIA

Article 14 of CBD confers a general obligation on its signatories to conduct an EIA.

In the Pulp Mills case, the Court had stressed that “the obligation to conduct an environmental
impact assessment requires an ex-ante evaluation of the risk of significant transboundary
harm”, and thus "an environmental impact assessment must be conducted prior to the
implementation of a project"". Although, the court never went on to define parameters for
conducting an EIA or defining 'significant transboundary harm. Currently, only EU’s EIA
Directive from 1985 and its successive iterations, have a comprehensive network for assessing
EIA between its member states.8 Otherwise, the method of conducting an EIA largely depends
on the parties.

This present case, offered the court another chance to define the aforesaid. Both countries
brought similar allegations that the other had failed to conduct an EIA for the projects
undertaken. In both cases, the Court carefully assessed the duty of a country to conduct an EIA.

Costa Rica V. Nicaragua: In this particular case, the court did not find that Nicaragua’s
activities had the potential to cause severe environmental harm. Thus, they held that Nicaragua
was not under an obligation to conduct an EIA.9

Nicaragua V. Costa Rica: According to the ICJ, Costa Rica had failed in its obligation to
conduct an EIA and ascertain the risks of transboundary harm that would be caused due to road
construction. The ICJ also did not buy into Costa Rica’s defence that the road had to be

8
Commission notice — Commission guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments conducted
under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU).
9
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the
San Juan River, Costa Rica v Nicaragua, Order on Provisional Measures, [2013] ICJ Rep 354.

7
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

constructed on an immediate basis, and could have sufficiently conducted an EIA before
commencing construction of the road.10

Refining duty to conduct an EIA

Linking due diligence with EIA

The Court, relying on the Pulp Mills judgement, held that conducting an EIA is synonymous
with the principle of following due diligence.

According to Judge Owada,

“To summarize, conducting an environmental impact assessment is one important constituent

element of the process that emanates from the international obligation of States to act in due
diligence to avoid or mitigate significant transboundary harm, rather than a separate and
independent obligation standing on its own under general international law.” 11

This is a rather new approach as conventionally, the concept of due diligence is used after the
fact, to assess the damage that has already been caused. In this particular case, due diligence
was being linked to assessing environmental damage that might occur in the future. In a
dissenting opinion, Justice Dugar opined, “the duty to conduct an environmental impact
assessment is an independent obligation designed to prevent significant transboundary harm,
not an obligation dependent on the obligation of a State to exercise due diligence.” 12

Content of EIA

In further developing of the reasoning given in the Pulp Mills judgement, the court tried to
provide general parameters for conducting an EIA. It must be kept in mind that EIA is a very
complex procedure. There are four to five ways of evaluating the environmental impact of a
project.

General guidelines given by the Court:

“(i) an environmental impact assessment must be undertaken prior to the implementation of

the activity in question;(ii) a preliminary assessment must be made on the basis of an objective
evaluation of all the relevant circumstances;(iii) an environmental impact assessment must be

10
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the
San Juan River, Costa Rica v Nicaragua, Order on Provisional Measures, [2013] ICJ Rep 354, at paragraph 105,
at paragraph 161.
11
Ibid, Separate Opinion of Judge Owada, at paragraph 18. See also at paragraph 21.
12
Ibid above, at paragraph 9.

8
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

done by the State undertaking the activity; (iv) if an environmental impact assessment confirms
that there is a risk of significant transboundary harm, the State planning to undertake the
activity is required to notify and consult in good faith with the potentially affected State, where
that is necessary to determine the appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate that risk.” 13

The court also said that the content on EIA should be ascertained on case-by-case basis.

These elements potentially provide criteria for determining the alleged breach of the obligation
to conduct an environmental impact assessment in international law. They, however, are not
without fault.

First, the Court observed that one possible way to assess the risk of significant transboundary
harm is for the State in question to “conduct a preliminary assessment of the risk posed by an
activity”, without defining who would the preliminary assessment constitute.14

Secondly, an environmental impact assessment will be adequate if it provides the necessary

information concerning the likely transboundary impact deriving from the proposed project
and follows the proper process. Thus, an environmental impact assessment does not, by itself,
determine whether and how a project should go ahead. Second, like the Pulp Mills judgement,
the court failed to define what would constitute “significant transboundary harm”, and warrant
an EIA.15 As a consequence, there is no guarantee that the duty to perform an EIA is
appropriately triggered by the State causing the risk. At the very least, the Court could have
invoked the precautionary principle, which is commonly used in domestic courts to assess if
something can cause environmental damage. 16

The Court gave too much discretion to the states to decide how they would assess the risk of
transboundary harm. Further, they only mentioned general guidelines, but did not specify any
objective or scientific criteria for evaluating such risk. This leads to unstandardised
measurement and can lead to misuse by the states.

13
Supra 10 at paragraph 161, 205 & 153.
14
Diane Desierto, Evidence but not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at the International Court
of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), EJIL (25th March
2021) https://www.ejiltalk.org/evidence-but-not-empiricism-environmental-impact-assessments-at-the-
international-court-of-justice-in-certain-activities-carried-out-by-nicaragua-in-the-border-area-costa-
rica-v-nicaragua-and-con/
15
Yoshifumi Tanaka, Case Note Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica: Some Reflections on the
Obligation to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment, 26(1) RECIEL (2017).
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/269287712.pdf
16
Ibid.

9
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

Further, the obligation to conduct an EIA only in cases of transboundary harm, does not do
much to save the local environment. In many countries, such as our own, an EIA evaluation
is necessary for certain projects even if there is no significant risk of harm.

According to one researcher,

“The line between the State’s discretion to conduct an EIA, and the Court’s demand for
a preliminary impact assessment to determine the existence of a significant risk of
transboundary harm warranting a fuller EIA, appears completely subjective and
indeterminate.”17

IT can also be said that the court did not take adequate efforts to even recommend a
standardised EIA. For example, they sidelined Justice Bhandari’s suggestion to “come together
and develop a sound, pragmatic and comprehensive regime of EIA.” 18

They also failed to take into consideration the International Law Commission’s 2001 Draft
Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and Commentaries
(hereafter, “ILC Commentaries to the 2001 Draft Articles”),

Article 1 links the risk of transboundary harm to the "physical consequences" of such activities,
taking into consideration "developments in scientific knowledge" in the assessment of such
risks. According to a researcher, “an activity may involve a risk of causing significant
transboundary harm even though those responsible for carrying out the activity underestimated
the risk or were even unaware of it. The notion of risk is thus to be taken objectively, as
denoting an appreciation of possible harm resulting from an activity which a properly informed
observer had or ought to have had.”19

DUTY TO NOTIFY

Whether the countries are obliged to notify others of significant transboundary harm.

Held: In cases of transboundary harm, the court held that the states have an obligation to notify,
and tied it to exercise of due diligence. This means that if a state (Nicaragua) thinks that a

17
Supra 14.
18
Annalisa Savaresi, Environmental Impact Assessment after the International Court of Justice decision in Costa
Rica-Nicaragua and Nicaragua-Costa Rica: Looking backward, looking forward, 42 QUESTIONS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW(2017). Available at: http://www.qil-qdi.org/environmental-impact-assessment-
international-court-justice-decision-costa-rica-nicaragua-nicaragua-costa-rica-looking-backward-looking-
forward/#:~:text=Nicaragua%20and%20Nicaragua%20v.,environmental%20law%20(Costa%20Rica%20v.
19
Supra 14.

10
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

project will not cause transboundary harm, they are not required to notify and consult the other
country (Costa Rica). 20

Criticism

This has been rather criticised by the scholars and was even opposed by some of the judges.

To start with, we have the provisions in the Ramsar Convention that obliges a state to notify.

Article 3.2 casts a duty on member states to notify the Secretariat of Ramsar of any changes or
likely changes that could potentially change ecological character of any wetland’ in the territory
of the notifying State.

A plain reading of Article 3.2 suggests that not only the state causing changes to the ecological
character of the wetland to have to report to the Secretariat, but even the neighbouring states
whose wetlands ecosystem will be affected need to report to the Secretariat. This calls for co-
operation and information sharing between the countries.

Article 5 of the Convention reads,

“The Contracting Parties shall consult with each other about implementing obligations arising
from the Convention especially in the case of a wetland extending over the territories of more
than one Contracting Party or where a water system is shared by Contracting Parties. They
shall at the same time endeavour to coordinate and support present and future policies and
regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna.”

A quick reading suggests that the countries were obligated to share relevant information for
activities conducted in the wetland region, even when there was no risk of transboundary harm.

As pointed out by Judge Donoghue in his dissenting opinion, assessing environmental damage
is a complex process, and the countries need to rely on information from other bordering
countries, to adequately ascertain the risk of transboundary harm. 21

When we take it a step further and look at a scenario where both countries are undertaking
projects in a close vicinity, though within their borders. Each of the projects individually may
not cause significant transboundary harm, and hence the other country was not notified.

20
Supra 10, at paragraph 104.
21
Supra 10, at paragraph 13.

11
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

However, the combined effect of both the projects undertaken may lead to significant chance
of transboundary harm.

According to another dissenting judge, “When (Article 5) read in conjunction with Article 3(2),
Nicaragua was obliged to consult with Costa Rica on the promotion of conservation in both its
own wetland and that of Costa Rica in its planning of activities affecting the wetlands.” 22

According to one scholar, while opining on the duty to notify, “the Court did not examine State
practise and opinio juris in support of its formulation of the obligation of notification. Thus,
the legal basis for this particular formulation remains unclear.” 23

SUBSTANTIVE OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

Whether there was substantive harm to the environment in the present case.

Lastly, the issue was whether any of the countries suffered environmental damage due to the
actions of the other country.

Held

Costa Rica V. Nicaragua: The court held that Nicaragua’s dredging activities did not cause
harm to Costa Rica. It was a surprise, given that in 2011, ICJ had issued a provisional order
that allowed Costa Rica the right to deploy personnel to stop and prevent dredging activities in
the area.24 It is reasonable to think that the 2011 order would not have been passed unless there
was a significant risk of damage, or the damage had already occurred. The 2011 order and the
2015 judgment, contradict each other.

According to scholars, the court also did not properly examine the scientific evidence presented
in this case and chose to rely heavily on submissions made by Nicaragua that denied any harm
to the region. 25

Nicaragua V. Costa Rica: In sharp contrast to the previous case, the ICJ in this case properly
considered the scientific evidence presented before it, to conclude that the construction of road

22
Supra 15.
23
Supra 10, at paragraph 44.
24
Provisional Measures Order of 8 March 2011, para. 86, item no. 2.
25
Charlette Blondel & Alexandra Lutz , What’s the price of nature? A first attempt by the ICJ, CliMates (25th
March, 2021), https://studentclimates.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/judicial-review-costa-rica-nicaragua/

12
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

by Costa Rica did not cause environmental damage, and Nicaragua was not entitled for
compensation. 26

Criticism

Appointment of scientific expert

ICJ did a sub-par job of ascertaining substantive and scientific harm caused in both cases, in
particular Costa Rica V. Nicaragua. In this regard, appointing scientific experts is suggested. 27
Article 50 of the ICJ Statute provisions for appointing an expert or a group of experts. However,
Article 50 is rarely evoked, like it wasn’t in the present case.

Asymmetrical focus

As would be obvious from the points mentioned before, the court treated both cases with an
uneven approach. In one case, it relied heavily on submissions made by one country. Whereas,
in the other case, the court decided to evaluate scientific evidence with their limited capacity,
sans an expert. 28

26
Supra 14.
27
Supra 15, at paragraph 186.
28
Supra 14.

13
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

CONCLUSION

The present case provided a great opportunity for the ICJ to develop international
environmental law. They could have defined the scope of 'significant transboundary harm', and
define the contours of conducting an EIA. Although the court did provide some general
guidelines, they are not sufficient enough to standardise and streamline an EIA. As an author,
I asked whether these guideline given in the judgement improves how EIAs for transboundary
harm are conducted presently, and the answer is a definitive no. The Court could have at very
least tried to link precautionary principle to EIA, and recommendations made by ILC. Similar
to vague guidelines on EIA, the Court also failed to provide parameters for conducting a
preliminary assessment to know whether a certain activity could cause significant
transboundary harm.

They also did not oblige the countries to corporate and share information that is necessary for
conducting an EIA. The reason for the lenient approach taken by the court is that stuck to the
analysis of legal principles and did not delve the environmental aspects of conducting an EIA,
perhaps due to the non-appointment of environmentalists in the case. This case can perhaps be
a reminder to appoint scientific experts in complicated matters like the environment and invoke
Article 50 of the ICJ Statute. Without the appointment of experts, the court cannot judge the
scientific evidence for itself and has to rely on the submissions made by the countries which
may have an element of bias in them, as it had to do in the present case.

The Court in its approach was very vague in setting up these parameters, and did little more
than to uphold the judgement in the Pulp Mills case. Due to these vague parameters, the entire
assessment of environmental damage is left to the whims and fancies of the countries
concerned, rather than solid legal principles. Therefore, the court has done very little to develop
the law in the present case.

The implication of an underdeveloped law has severe consequences for environmental

protection. Countries, in general, do not pay much heed to their environmental obligations, and
leaving countries to adjudge environmental harm based on their own parameters, will allow
them to disregard their obligations towards the environment. The judgement is also not in
tandem with the several judgements, treaties and other developments of recent times that aims
to take serious and focused action against environmental harm, and conserve the environment.

14
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Research papers and reports

 Fujimoto, Kotaro, A Tendency Of Arguments On The Principle Of ‘Causa Proxima.’, 10

THE ANNALS OF THE HITOTSUBASHI ACADEMY no. 2, pp. 158–170, (1959),
Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/43751406. Accessed 25 May 2021.
 Jonathan Bonnitcha, Robert McCorquodale, The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 28 EUROPEAN JOURNAL
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, pp. 899–919 (2017).
 Yoshifumi Tanaka, Case Note Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica:
Some Reflections on the Obligation to Conduct an Environmental Impact
Assessment, 26(1) RECIEL (2017). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/269287712.pdf

Cases

 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Assessment of Compensation, 15

XII 49, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 15 December 1949, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICJ,402398c84.html [accessed 25 May 2021].
 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v Uruguay, Order, ICJ GL No 135, [2006].
 Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area; Construction of a
Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River, Costa Rica v Nicaragua, Order on
Provisional Measures, [2013] ICJ Rep 354 .

Websites

 Charlette Blondel & Alexandra Lutz, What’s the price of nature? A first attempt by the
ICJ, CliMates (25th March, 2021),
https://studentclimates.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/judicial-review-costa-rica-
nicaragua/.
 Diane Desierto, Evidence but not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at
the International Court of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in
the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), EJIL (25th March 2021)
https://www.ejiltalk.org/evidence-but-not-empiricism-environmental-impact-

15
ADRIJA DATTA(C-008) PIL TEE

assessments-at-the-international-court-of-justice-in-certain-activities-carried-out-by-
nicaragua-in-the-border-area-costa-rica-v-nicaragua-and-con/
 Annalisa Savaresi, Environmental Impact Assessment after the International Court of
Justice decision in Costa Rica-Nicaragua and Nicaragua-Costa Rica: Looking
backward, looking forward, 42 QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW(2017).
Available at: http://www.qil-qdi.org/environmental-impact-assessment-international-
court-justice-decision-costa-rica-nicaragua-nicaragua-costa-rica-looking-backward-
looking-
forward/#:~:text=Nicaragua%20and%20Nicaragua%20v.,environmental%20law%20(
Costa%20Rica%20v.

Statutes and treaties

 MATTHEWS, G. V. T. (1993). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: its history and

development. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Bureau.
 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1760, p. 79; and depositary
notification C.N.29.1996.TREATIES-2 of 18 March 1996 (procès-verbal of
rectification of the authentic Arabic text).
 Commission notice — Commission guidance document on streamlining environmental
assessments conducted under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as
amended by Directive 2014/52/EU).

16