{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018867924528301886, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003430531732418525, 'mean_word_length': 4.951530612244898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Massey

in this case is that three states must now contemplate sharing a narrow strip of some two hundred miles long by 13.75 miles wide: a cartographic (and navigational) absurdity. To this extent, there is a similarity to the result in the June 1992 decision of the court of arbitration in the Canada/France arbitration regarding St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Chamber's decision also reiterates the reluctance of the International Court of Justice to perform a specific delimitation unless instructed to do so specifically by the parties to the dispute. In relation to the El Salvador/Honduras land frontier, a specific request was made by the parties, and the Court delimited the six disputed zones. In the maritime part of the case, however, the Chamber balked at effecting a delimitation because of the lack of consent by the parties. The Chamber's decision on the maritime dispute—giving Honduras access to the Pacific Ocean—further confirms the Court's longstanding position of protecting the interests of states affected by an adverse geographical condition. The primary importance of the principle of uti possidetis juris in delimiting boundaries in Latin America was also reaffirmed. The role accorded to evidence of effective occupation was limited to cases lacking clear evidence of uti possidetis juris, and acquiescence in such an effective occupation could be identified. The amount of evidence reviewed by the Chamber was enormous, and once again the Court showed that it is able to digest vast amounts of evidence, in different areas of law, with "exacting care." The Chamber in its delimitation of the land frontier awarded Honduras twothirds of the territory in dispute. Loss of territory due to a judicial decision is possibly the ultimate test of the Court's authority. The pledge made by both states to abide by the decision is an indication of the Court's status and a demonstration of its capacity to resolve similar disputes in the future. Moreover, the caution expressed by the Chamber—the determination of sovereignty over only those islands that were clearly in dispute and its reluctance to effect a maritime delimitation—is a clear signal to future litigants that the Court will seek to limit the remedy strictly to the jurisdiction in which it is invited to operate.