| III. | The International Court of Justice |
| 2. | THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2.3. | The Optional Clause |
| 2.3.4. | Interpretation of a Declaration made under
Article 36, Paragraph 2, of the Statute |
¤
Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 53
[pp. 61-62] 22. The Court will first consider its jurisdiction. In
its Application, Guinea-Bissau founds the jurisdiction of the Court on "the
Declarations by which the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and the Republic of Senegal
have respectively accepted the jurisdiction of the Court under the conditions
set forth in Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute" of the Court. These
declarations were deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in
the case of Senegal on 2 December 1985, and in the case of Guinea-Bissau on 7
August 1989. Guinea-Bissau's declaration contained no reservation; Senegal's
declaration, which replaced a previous declaration of 3 May 1985, provided that
| "Senegal may reject the Court's competence in respect of:
|
| - | Disputes in regard to which the parties have agreed to have recourse to
some other method of settlement;
|
| - | Disputes with regard to questions which, under international law, fall
exclusively within the jurisdiction of Senegal."
|
That declaration was also expressed as being applicable solely to "all
legal disputes arising after the present declaration..."
23. Senegal observed that if Guinea-Bissau were to challenge the decision of
the Arbitration Tribunal on the merits, it would be raising a question excluded
from the Court's jurisdiction by the terms of Senegal's declaration. According
to Senegal, the dispute concerning the maritime delimitation was the subject of
the Arbitration Agreement of 12 March 1985 and consequently fell into the
category of disputes "in regard to which the parties have agreed to have
recourse to some other method of settlement". Furthermore, in the view of
Senegal, that dispute arose before 2 December 1985, the date on which Senegal's
acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court became effective, and is
thus excluded from the category of disputes "arising after" that
declaration.
24. However, the Parties were agreed that there was a distinction between
the substantive dispute relating to maritime delimitation, and the dispute
relating to the Award rendered by the Arbitration Tribunal, and that only the
latter dispute, which arose after the Senegalese declaration, is the subject of
the present proceedings before the Court. Guinea-Bissau also took the position,
which Senegal accepted, that these proceedings were not intended by way of
appeal from the Award or as an application for revision of it. Thus, both
Parties recognize that no aspect of the substantive delimitation dispute is
involved. On this basis, Senegal did not dispute that the Court had jurisdiction
to entertain the Application under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. In
the circumstances of the case the Court regards its jurisdiction as established.
