## Facts

- Honduras and Nicaragua concluded the **Gámez–Bonilla Treaty (7 Oct. 1894)** to settle their land boundary, creating a Mixed Boundary Commission and providing that unresolved sectors would be submitted to arbitration by the **Government of Spain**, with the decision final.
- The Mixed Commission did not settle all boundary segments. In **October 1904**, the parties requested **King Alfonso XIII of Spain** to decide the remaining disputed portion.
- On **23 Dec. 1906**, the King rendered an arbitral award delimiting the frontier from the **Atlantic coast** inland to **Portillo de Teotecacinte**.
- Honduras relied on Nicaragua’s early post-award conduct to show acceptance, including official acts and statements treating the award as operative.
- From **1912 onward**, Nicaragua disputed the award’s validity, contending (among other arguments) that the treaty basis for arbitration had lapsed, that the King exceeded his authority, that the award contained “essential errors,” and that it was **incapable of execution** due to alleged obscurities and contradictions.
- After regional diplomatic efforts, the parties concluded the **Washington Agreement (21 July 1957)** setting the procedure to submit the dispute concerning the award to the International Court of Justice.
- Honduras filed an **Application on 1 July 1958**, asking the Court to declare the award valid and binding and that Nicaragua’s refusal to give it effect breached an international obligation.
- Nicaragua asked the Court to reject Honduras’s claim and to declare the 1906 decision invalid or, at minimum, inexecutible, leaving the parties in the same legal situation as before the award.
- Following written pleadings and public hearings in 1960, the Court delivered judgment on **18 Nov. 1960**.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1906 decision by the King of Spain possessed the character of a **valid and binding arbitral award** under the 1894 treaty and related instruments.
2. Whether the **arbitration agreement and mandate** had lapsed before the King accepted the task or before the award was rendered, depriving the arbitrator of jurisdiction.
3. Whether the King **exceeded the powers conferred** by the parties’ submission, such that the award was void.
4. Whether alleged **essential errors** or an asserted lack of sufficient reasoning could vitiate the award.
5. Whether alleged **obscurities or contradictions** made the award legally **incapable of execution**.
6. If the award was valid, whether Nicaragua was under an **international obligation to give effect** to it.

## Decision

- The Court held that the 1906 decision was a **valid and binding arbitral award**.
- The Court found that Nicaragua **freely accepted** the designation of the King of Spain as arbitrator, **participated** in the arbitral process, and thereafter **accepted** the award through its conduct.
- The Court rejected Nicaragua’s claim that the treaty basis for the arbitration had lapsed in a way that deprived the King of jurisdiction to act.
- The Court found no nullifying **excess of authority**: allegations that the arbitrator misconstrued facts, maps, or treaty materials did not amount to deciding matters outside the submission.
- The Court concluded that asserted **errors** and the style or brevity of the award’s explanation were not defects that annulled the award in the absence of a true jurisdictional flaw.
- The Court held that any difficulties in demarcation based on alleged obscurities were matters of **execution and interpretation**, not grounds to deny the award’s binding force.
- The Court declared that Nicaragua was **obliged under international law** to give effect to the award.

## Legal Principles

- International arbitral awards rendered pursuant to a valid submission are **final and binding**, and review by an international court is limited to exceptional defects such as lack of jurisdiction or a genuine excess of authority.
- A party that **consented** to arbitration, took part in the proceedings, and then treated the result as operative may be precluded, consistent with **good faith**, from later denying the arbitrator’s competence or the award’s legal character.
- Allegations of **factual or legal error** within the scope of the arbitrator’s mandate do not, without more, void an award; the relevant question is whether the arbitrator decided matters **not submitted** or lacked authority to decide at all.
- Unless the parties required a reasoned decision, an award is not invalid merely because its reasoning is brief or because a party considers the explanation unsatisfactory.
- Claimed ambiguities that affect boundary demarcation generally raise questions about **implementation**, and do not by themselves render an award null or without legal effect.
- In territorial and boundary disputes, the Court gives strong weight to the **stability** produced by agreed dispute-settlement outcomes and the duty to **comply** with a valid award.

## Conclusion

In *Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)*, the ICJ held that the 1906 award by King Alfonso XIII delimiting the Honduras–Nicaragua land boundary was valid and binding, rejected Nicaragua’s challenges based on lapse of the arbitration basis, excess of powers, alleged essential error, and claimed inexecutibility, and declared that Nicaragua had an international obligation to give effect to the award.


Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Hond. v. Nicar.), Judgment, 1960 I.C.J. Rep. 192 (Nov. 18).