Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:07:24.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Concerning the Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Covey T. Oliver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 1961 , pp. 478 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Heading by court

References

1 Digested by Wm. W. Bishop, Jr., of the Board of Editora.

2 Composed for this case of President Klaestad ; Vice President Zaf rulla Khan ; Judges Haekworth, Winiarski, Badawi, Armand-TJgon, Kojevnikov, Moreno Quintana, Cordova, Wellington Koo, Spiropoulos, Sir Percy Spender, Alf aro; Prof. Boberto Ago of Bome, chosen by Honduras as National Judge ad hoc, and Prof. Francisco Urrutia Holguin, Ambassador of Colombia, chosen by Nicaragua as National Judge ad hoc.

3 National Judge ad hoc Holguín gave a dissenting opinion. While concurring in the result, Judge Spender wrote a separate opinion and Judge Moreno Quintana made a declaration. Sir Percy Spender stressed Nicaragua’s delay in raising objection and long-continued acquiescence in the arbitration, and would have preferred to examine the merits of the several Nicaraguán contentions as to invalidity of the award. Judges Moreno Quintana and Holguín both believed more attention should have been paid to the principle of uti possidetis juris in connection with a boundary dispute between two American Republics.