III. | The International Court of Justice |
3. | THE PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |
3.10. | Provisional Measures |
3.10.3. | Provisional Measures and Jurisdiction |
¤
Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989
Provisional Measures
Order of 2 March 1990,
I.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 64
[pp. 68-69] Whereas the Republic of Guinea-Bissau claims to found
the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the present case upon declarations
made by the Parties accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court; and whereas such
declarations were made, by the Republic of Senegal on 22 October 1985, deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 2 December 1985, and by the
Republic of Guinea-Bissau on 7 August 1989, deposited the same day with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations; whereas the declaration made by
Guinea-Bissau is without reservations, while the declaration of Senegal is
subject to reservations, but Guinea-Bissau contends that none of them is
relevant to the present dispute;
Whereas on a request for provisional measures the Court need not, before
deciding whether or not to indicate them, finally satisfy itself that it has
jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it ought not to indicate such
measures unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie,
to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded;
Whereas the Court takes note of the statement made at the hearing by the
Agent of Senegal that Senegal makes every reservation at this stage as to the
jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the substance of the Application, and
the statement of the Co-Agent of Senegal that it is not satisfied that the Court
has jurisdiction to entertain the main Application, but does not wish to broach
the issue of jurisdiction over the main Application at this stage; and whereas
Senegal, while contending that the Court should decline to indicate provisional
measures, has accordingly not based that contention on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the merits of the case;
Whereas the Court considers that the two declarations made under Article 36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on
which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded;
Whereas the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges
the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the
case or any questions relating to the merits themselves and leaves unaffected
the right of the Respondent to submit arguments against such jurisdiction or in
respect of such merits;