2/12/2015

InternationalCourtofJustice

RightofPassageoverIndianTerritory(Portugalv.India)
Application

Incidental
Proceedings

Merits

Written
Proceedings

Oral
Orders Judgments SummariesofJudgments
Proceedings
andOrders

Press
releases

Correspondence

SummaryoftheSummaryoftheJudgmentof12April1960
CASECONCERNINGRIGHTOFPASSAGEOVER
INDIANTERRITORY(MERITS)
Judgmentof12April1960
ThecaseconcerningRightofPassageoverIndianTerritory(Portugalv.India)wasreferredtotheCourtbyanApplicationfiledon22December
1955.InthatApplication,theGovernmentofPortugalstatedthatitsterritoryintheIndianPeninsulaincludedtwoenclavessurroundedbythe
TerritoryofIndia,DadraandNagarAveli.ItwasinrespectofthecommunicationsbetweenthoseenclavesandthecoastaldistrictofDaman,and
betweeneachother,thatthequestionaroseofarightofpassageinfavourofPortugalthroughIndianterritoryandofacorrelativeobligationbinding
uponIndia.TheApplicationstatedthatinJuly1954theGovernmentofIndiapreventedPortugalfromexercisingthatrightofpassageandthat
Portugalwasthusplacedinapositioninwhichitbecameimpossibleforittoexerciseitsrightsofsovereigntyovertheenclaves.
FollowingupontheApplication,theCourtwasseisedofsixpreliminaryobjectionsraisedbytheGovernmentofIndia.ByaJudgmentgivenon26
November1957,theCourtrejectedthefirstfourobjectionsandjoinedthefifthandsixthobjectionstotheMerits.
InitsJudgment,theCourt:
(a)rejectedtheFifthPreliminaryObjectionby13votesto2
(b)rejectedtheSixthPreliminaryObjectionby11votesto4
(c)found,by11votesto4,thatPortugalhadin1954arightofpassageoverinterveningIndianterritorybetweentheenclavesofDadraandNagar
AveliandthecoastaldistrictofDamanandbetweentheseenclaves,totheextentnecessaryfortheexerciseofPortuguesesovereigntyoverthe
enclavesandsubjecttotheregulationandcontrolofIndia,inrespectofprivatepersons,civilofofficialsandgoodsingeneral
(d)found,by8votesto7,thatPortugaldidnothavein1954sucharightofpassageinrespectofarmedforces,armedpoliceandarmsand
ammunition
(e)found,by9votesto6,thatIndiahadnotactedcontrarytoitsobligationsresultingfromPortugal'srightofpassageinrespectofprivatepersons,
civilofficialsandgoodsingeneral.
ThePresidentandJudgesBasdevant,Badawi,KojevnikovandSpiropoulosappendedDeclarationstotheJudgmentoftheCourt.JudgeWellington
KooappendedaSeparateOpinion.JudgesWiniarskiandBadawiappendedaJointDissentingOpinion.JudgesArmandUgon,MorenoQuintanaand
SirPercySpender,andJudgesadhocChaglaandFernandes,appendedDissentingOpinions.
*
**
InitsJudgmenttheCourtreferredtotheSubmissionsfiledbyPortugalwhichinthefirstplacerequestedtheCourttoadjudgeanddeclarethataright
ofpassagewaspossessedbyPortugalandmustberespectedbyIndiathisrightwasinvokedbyPortugalonlytotheextentnecessaryforthe
exerciseofitssovereigntyovertheenclaves,anditwasnotcontendedthatpassagewasaccompaniedbyanyimmunityandmadeclearthatsuch
passageremainedsubjecttotheregulationandcontrolofIndia,whichmustbeexercisedingoodfaith,Indiabeingunderanobligationnottoprevent
thetransitnecessaryfortheexerciseofPortuguesesovereignty.TheCourtthenconsideredthedatewithreferencetowhichitmustascertain
whethertherightinvokedexistedordidnotexist.ThequestionastotheexistenceofarightofpassagehavingbeenputtotheCourtinrespectof
thedisputewhichhadarisenwithregardtoobstaclesplacedbyIndiainthewayofpassage,itwastheeveofthecreationofthoseobstaclesthat
mustbeselectedasthestandpointfromwhichtocertainwhetherornotsucharightexistedtheselectionofthatdatewouldleaveopenthe
argumentsofIndiaregardingthesubsequentlapseoftherightofpassage.
PortugalnextaskedtheCourttoadjudgeanddeclarethatIndiahadnotcompliedwiththeobligationsincumbentuponitbyvirtueoftherightof
passage.ButtheCourtpointedoutthatithadnotbeenasked,eitherintheApplicationorinthefinalSubmissionsoftheParties,todecidewhetheror
notIndia'sattitudetowardsthosewhohadinstigatedtheoverthrowofPortugueseauthorityatDadraandNagarAveliinJulyandAugust1954
constitutedabreachoftheobligation,saidtobebindinguponitundergeneralinternationallaw,toadoptsuitablemeasurestopreventtheincursionof
subversiveelementsintotheterritoryofanotherState.
Turningthentothefuture,theSubmissionsofPortugalrequestedtheCourttodecidethatIndiamustendthemeasuresbywhichitopposedthe
exerciseoftherightofpassageor,iftheCourtshouldbeofopinionthatthereshouldbeatemporarysuspensionoftheright,toholdthatthat
suspensionshouldendassoonasthecourseofeventsdisclosedthatthejustificationforthesuspensionhaddisappeared.Portugalhadpreviously
invitedtheCourttoholdthattheargumentsofIndiaconcerningitsrighttoadoptanattitudeofneutrality,theapplicationoftheUnitedNationsCharter
andtheexistenceintheenclavesofalocalgovernmentwerewithoutfoundation.TheCourt,however,consideredthatitwasnopartofitsjudicial
functiontodeclareintheoperativepartofitsJudgmentthatanyofthoseargumentswasorwasnotwellfounded.
*
**
BeforeproceedingtotheconsiderationoftheMerits,theCourthadtoascertainwhetherithadjurisdictiontodoso,ajurisdictionwhichIndiahad
expresslycontested.
InitsFifthPreliminaryObjectiontheGovernmentofIndiarelieduponthereservationinitsDeclarationof28February1940acceptingthejurisdiction
http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?sum=278&code=poi&p1=3&p2=3&case=32&k=ce&p3=5

1/3

2/12/2015

InternationalCourtofJustice

oftheCourt,whichexcludedfromthatjurisdictiondisputeswithregardtoquestionswhichbyinternationallawfallexclusivelywithinthejurisdictionof
India.TheCourtpointedoutthatinthecourseoftheproceedingsbothPartieshadtakentheirstandongroundswhichwereontheplaneof
internationallaw,andhadonoccasionexpresslysaidso.Thefifthobjectioncouldnotthereforebeupheld.
TheSixthPreliminaryObjectionlikewiserelatedtoalimitationintheDeclarationof28February1940.India,whichhadacceptedthejurisdictionofthe
Court"overalldisputesarisingafterFebruary5th,1930,withregardtosituationsorfactssubsequenttothesamedate",contendedthatthedispute
didnotsatisfyeitherofthesetwoconditions.Astothefirstcondition,theCourtpointedoutthatthedisputecouldnothavearisenuntilallits
constituentelementshadcomeintoexistenceamongtheseweretheobstacleswhichIndiawasallegedtohaveplacedinthewayofexerciseof
passagebyPortugalin1954evenifonlythatpartofthedisputerelatingtothePortugueseclaimtoarightofpassageweretobeconsidered,certain
incidentshadoccurredbefore1954,buttheyhadnotledthePartiestoadoptclearlydefinedlegalpositionsasagainsteachotheraccordingly,there
wasnojustificationforsayingthatthedisputearosebefore1954.Astothesecondcondition,thePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticehadin
1938drawnadistinctionbetweenthesituationsorfactswhichconstitutedthesourceoftherightsclaimedbyoneoftheParties,andthesituationsor
factswhichwerethesourceofthedispute.OnlythelatterweretobetakenintoaccountforthepurposeofapplyingtheDeclaration.Thedispute
submittedtotheCourtwasonewithregardtothesituationoftheenclaves,whichhadgivenrisetoPortugal'sclaimtoarightofpassageand,atthe
sametime,withregardtothefactsof1954whichPortugaladvancedasinfringementsofthatrightitwasfromallofthisthatthedisputearose,and
thiswhole,whatevermayhavebeentheearlieroriginofoneofitsparts,cameintoexistenceonlyafter5February1930.TheCourthadnotbeen
askedforanyfindingwhatsoeverwithregardtothepastpriortothatdateitwasthereforeofopinionthatthesixthobjectionshouldnotbeupheld
and,consequently,thatithadjurisdiction.
*
**
Onthemerits,IndiahadcontendedinthefirstplacethattherightofpassageclaimedbyPortugalwastoovagueandcontradictorytoenablethe
CourttopassjudgmentuponitbytheapplicationofthelegalrulesenumeratedinArticle38(1)oftheStatute.Therewasnodoubtthatthedayto
dayexerciseoftherightmightgiverisetodelicatequestionsofapplicationbutthatwasnot,intheviewoftheCourt,sufficientgroundforholdingthat
therightwasnotsusceptibleofjudicialdetermination.
PortugalhadreliedontheTreatyofPoonaof1779andonsanads(decrees)issuedbytheMaratharulerin1783and1785,ashavingconferredon
PortugalsovereigntyovertheenclaveswiththerightofpassagetothemIndiahadobjectedthatwhatwasallegedtobetheTreatyof1779wasnot
validlyenteredintoandneverbecameinlawatreatybindingupontheMarathas.TheCourt,however,foundthattheMarathasdidnotatanytime
castanydoubtuponthevalidityorbindingcharacteroftheTreaty.IndiahadfurthercontendedthattheTreatyandthetwosanadsdidnotoperateto
transfersovereigntyovertheassignedvillagestoPortugalbutonlyconferred,withrespecttothevillages,arevenuegrant.TheCourtwasunableto
concludefromanexaminationofthevarioustextsoftheTreatyof1779thatthelanguageemployedthereinwasintendedtotransfersovereigntythe
expressionsusedinthetwosanads,ontheotherhand,establishedthatwhatwasgrantedtothePortuguesewasonlyarevenuetenurecalleda
jagirorsaranjam,andnotasingleinstancehadbeenbroughttothenoticeoftheCourtinwhichsuchagranthadbeenconstruedasamountingtoa
cessionofsovereignty.Therecould,therefore,benoquestionofanyenclaveorofanyrightofpassageforthepurposeofexercisingsovereignty
overenclaves.
TheCourtfoundthatthesituationunderwentachangewiththeadventoftheBritishassovereignofthatpartofthecountryinplaceoftheMarathas:
PortuguesesovereigntyoverthevillageshadbeenrecognizedbytheBritishinfactandbyimplicationandhadsubsequentlybeentacitlyrecognized
byIndia.AsaconsequencethevillageshadacquiredthecharacterofPortugueseenclaveswithinIndianterritoryandtherehaddevelopedbetween
thePortugueseandtheterritorialsovereignwithregardtopassagetotheenclavesapracticeuponwhichPortugalreliedforthepurposeof
establishingtherightofpassageclaimedbyit.IthadbeenobjectedonbehalfofIndiathatnolocalcustomcouldbeestablishedbetweenonlytwo
States,buttheCourtfounditdifficulttoseewhythenumberofStatesbetweenwhichalocalcustommightbeestablishedonthebasisoflong
practicemustnecessarilybelargerthantwo.
ItwascommongroundbetweenthePartiesthatduringtheBritishandpostBritishperiodsthepassageofprivatepersonsandcivilofficialshadnot
beensubjecttoanyrestrictionsbeyondroutinecontrol.Merchandiseotherthanarmsandammunitionhadalsopassedfreelysubjectonly,atcertain
times,tocustomsregulationsandsuchregulationandcontrolaswerenecessitatedbyconsiderationsofsecurityorrevenue.TheCourttherefore
concludedthat,withregardtoprivatepersons,civilofficialsandgoodsingeneraltherehadexistedaconstantanduniformpracticeallowingfree
passagebetweenDamanandtheenclaves,itwas,inviewofallthecircumstancesofthecase,satisfiedthatthatpracticehadbeenacceptedaslaw
bythePartiesandhadgivenrisetoarightandacorrelativeobligation.
Asregardsarmedforces,armedpoliceandarmsandammunition,thepositionwasdifferent.
Itappearedthat,duringtheBritishandpostBritishperiods,PortuguesearmedforcesandarmedpolicehadnotpassedbetweenDamanandthe
enclavesasofright,andthatafter1878suchpassagecouldonlytakeplacewithpreviousauthorizationbytheBritishandlaterbyIndia,accorded
eitherunderareciprocalarrangementalreadyagreedto,orinindividualcases:ithadbeenarguedthatthatpermissionwasalwaysgranted,but
therewasnothingintherecordtoshowthatgrantofpermissionwasincumbentontheBritishoronIndiaasanobligation.
Atreatyof26December1878betweenGreatBritainandPortugalhadlaiddownthatthearmedforcesofthetwoGovernmentsshouldnotenterthe
Indiandominionsoftheother,exceptinspecifiedcasesorinconsequenceofaformalrequestmadebythepartydesiringsuchentry.Subsequent
correspondenceshowedthatthisprovisionwasapplicabletopassagebetweenDamanandtheenclaves:ithadbeenarguedonbehalfofPortugal
thatontwentythreeoccasionsarmedforcescrossedBritishterritorybetweenDamanandtheenclaveswithoutobtainingpermission,butin1890,
theGovernmentofBombayhadforwardedacomplainttotheeffectthatarmedmenintheserviceofthePortugueseGovernmentwereinthehabit
ofpassingwithoutformalrequestthroughaportionofBritishterritoryenroutefromDamantoNagarAveliwhichwouldappeartoconstituteabreach
oftheTreatyon22December,theGovernorGeneralofPortugueseIndiahadreplied:"PortuguesetroopsnevercrossBritishterritorywithout
previouspermission",andtheSecretaryGeneraloftheGovernmentofPortugueseIndiastatedon1May1891:"OnthepartofthisGovernment
injunctionswillbegivenforthestrictestobservanceof...theTreaty".Therequirementofaformalrequestbeforepassageofarmedforcescould
takeplacehadbeenrepeatedinanagreementof1913.Withregardtoarmedpolice,theTreatyof1878andtheAgreementof1913hadregulated
passageonthebasisofreciprocity,andanagreementof1920hadprovidedthatarmedpolicebelowacertainrankshouldnotentertheterritoryof
theotherpartywithoutconsentpreviouslyobtainedfinally,anagreementof1940concerningpassageofPortuguesearmedpoliceovertheroad
fromDamantoNagarAvelihadprovidedthat,ifthepartydidnotexceedteninnumber,intimationofitspassageshouldbegiventotheBritish
authoritieswithintwentyfourhours,butthat,inothercases,"theexistingpracticeshouldbefollowedandconcurrenceoftheBritishauthorities
shouldbeobtainedbypriornoticeasheretofore."
Asregardsarmsandammunition,theTreatyof1878andrulesframedundertheIndianArmsActof1878prohibitedtheimportationofarms,
ammunitionormilitarystoresfromPortugueseIndiaanditsexporttoPortugueseIndiawithoutaspeciallicence.Subsequentpracticeshowedthat
thisprovisionappliedtotransitbetweenDamanandtheenclaves.
ThefindingoftheCourtthatthepracticeestablishedbetweenthePartieshadrequiredforthepassageofarmedforces,armedpoliceandarmsand
ammunitionthepermissionoftheBritishorIndianauthoritiesrendereditunnecessaryfortheCourttodeterminewhetherornot,intheabsenceof
thepracticethatactuallyprevailed,generalinternationalcustomorgeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbycivilizednations,whichhadalsobeen
http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?sum=278&code=poi&p1=3&p2=3&case=32&k=ce&p3=5

2/3

2/12/2015

InternationalCourtofJustice

invokedbyPortugal,couldhavebeenrelieduponbyPortugalinsupportofitsclaimtoarightofpassageinrespectofthesecategories.TheCourt
wasdealingwithaconcretecasehavingspecialfeatures:historicallythecasewentbacktoaperiodwhen,andrelatedtoaregioninwhich,the
relationsbetweenneighbouringStateswerenotregulatedbypreciselyformulatedrulesbutweregovernedlargelybypractice:findingapractice
clearlyestablishedbetweentwoStates,whichwasacceptedbythePartiesasgoverningtherelationsbetweenthem,theCourtmustattribute
decisiveeffecttothatpractice.TheCourtwas,therefore,oftheviewthatnorightofpassageinfavourofPortugalinvolvingacorrelativeobligation
onIndiahadbeenestablishedinrespectofarmedforces,armedpoliceandarmsandammunition.
HavingfoundthatPortugalhad,in1954,arightofpassageinrespectofprivatepersons,civilofficialsandgoodsingeneral,theCourtlastly
proceededtoconsiderwhetherIndiahadactedcontrarytoitsobligationresultingfromPortugal'srightofpassageinrespectofanyofthese
categories.PortugalhadnotcontendedthatIndiahadactedcontrarytothatobligationbeforeJuly1954,butitcomplainedthatpassagewas
thereafterdeniedtoPortuguesenationalsofEuropeanorigin,tonativeIndianPortugueseintheemployofthePortugueseGovernmentandtoa
delegationthattheGovernorofDamanproposed,inJuly1954,tosendtoNagarAveliandDadra.TheCourtfoundthattheeventswhichhad
occurredinDadraon2122July1954andwhichhadresultedintheoverthrowofPortugueseauthorityinthatenclavehadcreatedtensioninthe
surroundingIndiandistrict,havingregardtothattension,theCourtwasoftheviewthatIndia'srefusalofpassagewascoveredbyitspowerof
regulationandcontroloftherightofpassageofPortugal.
Forthesereasons,theCourtreachedthefindingsindicatedabove.
Disclaimer

Accessibility

http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?sum=278&code=poi&p1=3&p2=3&case=32&k=ce&p3=5

3/3