text: might Court. merica fthem icethe outof case. tsfinal natters N."D.Unanimously, "Decides thatthewrittenproceedings shallfirstbe addressed tothequestions ofthejurisdiction oftheCourt toentertain thedisputeandoftheadmissibility ofthe Application; "AndreservA,thefixingofthetime-limits forthesaid writtenproceedings, andthesubsequent procedure, for furtherdecision." JudgesMoslerandSirRobertJennings appended ajoint separateopiniontotheOrderoftheCourt(ibid.,p.189) andJudgeSchwebel appended adissenting opinion(ibid., pp.190-207). 22.Inaccordance withArticle41,paragraph 2,ofthe StatuteoftheCourt,theRegistrar immediately notifiedthe PartiesandtheSecurityCounciloftheindication ofthese measures. 23.ByanOrderof14May1984,thePresident ofthe Courtfixeothefollowing time-limits forthefilingof pleadings addressed tothequestions ofjurisdiction and admissibility: 30June1984fortheMemorial ofNicaragua, and17August1984fortheCounter-Memorial oftheUnited States(/.C.J.Reports/984,p.209).Thesepleadings were filedwithintheprescri~ed time-limits. 24.On15August1984,beforetheexpiration ofthe time-limits allowedforthefilingofpleadings relatingto jurisdiction andadmissibility, theRepublic ofElSalvador filedaDeclaration ofIntervention inthecaseunderthe termsofArticle63oftheStatute.ThisArticlereadsas follows: "I.Whenever theconstruction ofaconvention to whichStatesotherthanthoseconcerned inthecaseare partiesisinquestion, theRegistrar shallnotifyallsuch Statesforthwith. "2.EveryStatesonotifiedhastherighttointervene intheproceedings; butifitusesthisright,theconstruc­ tiongivenbythejudgment willbeequallybindingupon it." . InitsDeclaration, theGovernment ofElSalvador stated thatthepurposeofitsintervention wastoenableitto maintain thattheCourthadnojurisdiction toentertain Nicaragua's application. Inthisconnection, itreferredto certainmultilateral treatiesonwhichNicaragua reliesinits disputewiththeUnitedStatesofAmerica. 25.Havingregardtothewrittenobservations onthat Declaration submitted bythePartiesinaccordance with Article83oftheRulesofCourt,on4October 1984the CourtmadeanOrderofwhichtheoperative provisions are asfollows: "TheCoun. "(i)Byninevotestosix, "Decides nottoholdahearingontheDeclaration of Intervention oftheRepublic ofElSalvador. "Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra Singh,Oda,, EI-Khani, Mbaye,Bedjaoui. "Against: JudgesRUda,Mosler,Ago,Schwebel, Sir RobertJennings, deLacharriere. "(ii)Byfourteen votestoone, "Decides thatthedeclaration ofintervention ofthe Republic ofElSalvador isinadmissible inasmuch asit relatestothecurrentphaseoftheproceedings broughtby Nicaragua againsttheUnitedStatesofAmerica. 3"Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra S;ngh,Ruda, MosJer,Oda,Ago,EI-Khani, SirRobertJennings, de Lacharriere, Mbaye,Bedjaoui. "Against: JudgeSchwebel." 26.From8to18October 1934,theCourtheldten publicsittingsduringwhichspeeches weremadeonbehalf ofNicaragua andtheUnitedStatesonthequestion~ ot jurisdiction andadmissibility. TheJudge£idhocappointed byNicaragua underArticle31oftheStatuteoftheCourt, Mr.C.-A.Colliard, participated intheworkoftheCourt fromthisstageoftheproceedings. 27.Atapublicsittingheldon26November 1984,the Courtdelivered itsJudgment (I.e.l.Reports1984,p.392). Theoperative provisions areasfollows: "TheCourt. "(1)(a)finds,byelevenvotestofive,thatithas jurisdiction toentertain theApplication filedbythe Republic ofNicaragua on 9April1984,onthebasisof Article36,paragraphs 2and5,oftheStatuteofthe Court; "Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra Singh,Ruda, EI-Khani, deLacharriere, Mbaye,Bedjaoui; Judgead hocColliard; "Against: JudgesMosler,Oda,Ago,Schwebel andSir RobertJennings: "(b)finds,byfourteen votestotwo,thatIthas jurisdiction toentertain theApplical. .filedbythe Republic ofNicaragul> on9April1984,insofarasthat Application relatestoadisputeconcerning theinterpreta­ tionorapplication oftheTreatyofFriendship, Commerce andNavigation betweentheUnitedStatesofAmericaand theRepublic ofNicaragua signeaatManagua on21Jan­ uary1956,onthebasisofArticleXXIVofthatTreaty; "Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra Singh,Mos­ ler,Oda,Ago,EI-Khani, SirRobertJennings, de Lacharriere, Mbaye,Bedjaoui; JudgeadhocColliard; "Against: JudgesRudaandSchwebel; "(c)finds,byfifteenvotestoone,thatithas jurisdiction toentertain t.hecase; "Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra Singh,Ruda, Mosler,Oda,Ago,EI-Khani, SirRobertJennings, de Lacharriere, Mbaye,Bedjaoui; JudgeadhocColliard; "Against: JudgeSchwebel; "(2)finds,unanimously, thatthesaidApplication is admissible. " JudgesNagendra Singh,Ruda,Mosler,Oda,AgoandSir RobertJennings appended separateopinions totheJudg­ ment(ibid.,pp.444-557). JudgeSchwebel appended a dissenting opiniontotheJudgment (ibid.,pp.558~637). 28.Byaletterdated18January1985,theAgentofthe
analysis: The text appears to be related to an international legal dispute between Nicaragua and the United States, involving issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the interpretation of treaties. The language and terminology used are technical and formal, suggesting a focus on legal and diplomatic matters.