Passage through the Great Belt (FINLAND v. DENMARK), ICJ

“Urgency” of provisional measurs may also suggest a matter of substance, therefore justifying the need for procedural measures to be adopted by a party to the dispute. Judicial examples of this situation for the ICJ would include the 1991 Passage though the Green Belt case between Finland and Denmark.

In its Order, the Court recalls that on 17 May 1991 Finland instituted proceedings against Denmark in respect of a dispute concerning passage through the Great Belt (Storebaelt), and the project by the Government of Denmark to construct a fixed traffic connection for both road and rail traffic across the West and East Channels of the Great Belt. The effect of this project, and in particular of the planned high-level suspension bridge over the East Channel, would be permanently to close the Baltic for deep draught vessels of over 65 metres' height, thus preventing the passage of such drill ships and oil rigs manufactured in Finland as require more than that clearance. The Government of Finland requested the Court to adjudge.  In an Order made in the case concerning the Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) the Court found, unanimously, that the circumstances, as they presented themselves to the Court, were not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures.

Source: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=433&code=fd&p1=3&p2=3&case=86&k=a5&p3=5