Land, Island & marine frontier dispute El Salvador v Honduras

The court gave Nicaragua permission to intervene under art 62 (Should a State considered to have legal interest that may be affected by a decision) ONLY in respect of the Gulf of Fonseca. Resolution The fact that El Salvador claims that waters of Gulf are subject to a condominium and that Nicaragua referred that if the condominium is declared it would by its very nature involve three riparians and not only the parties. (62)‘There needs to be clear identification of any legal interest that may be affected by the decision on the merits. A general apprehension is not enough’ 1990

(63)‘Nicaragua presented and argument where by it would be apparently be dispensed from producing evidence of the existence of the legal interest on which it relies, by reason of the assertion of the parties, this argument is named ‘equitable estoppel’ or ‘recognition’ [Honduras & Salvador had said that Nicaragua had legal i‘s]’ 1990 ‘So far Nicaragua relies on estoppel, the Chamber will only say that it sees no evidence of some essential elements required by estoppel: a statement or representation made by one party to another and reliance upon it by that other party to his detriment of or to the advantage of the party making it’ 1992 the Court said: The uti possidetis principle is not absolute. In a later date changes in boundaries can take place either for adjudication or boundary treaty. The question then arises whether UP can be qualified by acquiescence or recognition. There is not reason why this factor should not operate.