ICJ: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) preliminary objections and intervention

Colombia submitted its preliminary objections on July 21, 2003.  At the conclusion of the proceedings, Colombia made the following submissions:

Pursuant to Article 60 of the Rules of Court, having regard to Colombia’s pleadings, written and oral, Colombia respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

(1) under the Pact of Bogotá, and in particular in pursuance of Articles VI and XXXIV, the Court declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI, and declares that controversy ended;

(2) under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application; and that

(3) Nicaragua’s Application is dismissed.

Nicaragua made the following submissions:

In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the pleadings, written and oral, the Republic of Nicaragua respectfully requests to the Court, to adjudge and declare that:

1. The Preliminary Objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia, both in respect of the jurisdiction based upon the Pact of Bogotá, and in respect of the jurisdiction based upon Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, are invalid.

2. In the alternative, the Court is requested to adjudge and declare, in accordance with the provisions of Article 79, paragraph 7, of the Rules of Court that the Objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia do not have an exclusively preliminary character.

3. In addition, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to reject the request of the Republic of Colombia to declare the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá ‘ended’, in accordance with Articles VI and XXXIV of the same instrument.

4. Any other matters not explicitly dealt with in the foregoing Written Statement and oral pleadings, are expressly reserved for the merits phase of this proceeding.

International Court of Justice ruled on 4 May 2011 that it cannot grant permission to Costa Rica and Honduras to intervene in the territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary case between Colombia and Nicaragua which was submitted to the Court by Nicaragua in December 2001.

Costa Rica applied to intervene in the case as a non-party for the “purpose of informing the Court of the nature of [its] legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. Both Colombia and Nicaragua accepted the existence of a legal interest on the part of Costa Rica in at least some areas claimed by the parties in the main proceedings, but the Court judged that the indication of such an area was not sufficient in itself to justify an intervention. The Court further noted that Costa Rica had failed to demonstrate that its legal interest would be affected by the decision in the main proceedings when, if necessary, a boundary could be drawn which terminates before it reaches the area in which Costa Rica's legal interests would become involved.

Honduras applied to intervene in the case first as a party and, failing that, as a non-party. The Court reasoned that that the application boiled down to two propositions: (i) that the Court's 2007 judgment concerning the Honduras-Nicaragua maritime boundary had failed to settle the entire boundary; and (ii) that the decision in the Nicaragua v. Colombia case could affect rights enjoyed by Honduras under its 1986 maritime boundary agreement with Colombia. The Court rejected both propositions, noting that since a bilateral treaty neither confers and rights nor imposes any duties on third states, the Court would not place any reliance on the Colombia-Honduras maritime boundary agreement in determining the maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua.

With interventions ruled out, the path now appears clear for the ICJ to set dates for hearings on the merits of the case, which relate to: (i) sovereignty over the Cayos de Albuquerque; the Cayos del Este Sudeste; Roncador Cay; North Cay, Southwest Cay and any other cays on Serrana bank; East Cay, Beacon Cay and any other cays on Serranilla Bank; and Low Cay and any other cays on Bajo Nuevo bank; and (ii) to the maritme boundary between the two states. In its judgment on Colombia's preliminary objects to the case brought by Nicaragua, the Court ruled that Colombia has sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina.

Wrong move by Costa Rica

"56. The Court notes that Costa Rica initially claimed to have an interest in ensuring that its rights and interests under the 1977 Facio-Fernandez Treaty with Colombia, which it signed but did not ratify, are not affected by the Court's decision". ---
As it says, the proposed 1977 treaty between Costa Rica and Colombia hadn't been approved by the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly; therefore, by legal means, it doesn't exist. Because the Costa Rican delegates "initially claimed" the validity of the draft document, is something that is causing strong rejection from people like us, who had opposed for 34 years its approval, because the wrong application of the equidistant principle, and not the so called equity principle, considering the differences between the small Colombian islands and the Costa Rican main territory, as it was resolved by the Court in the Tunisia-Libya continental shelf case.

 

Sources: http://ilreports.blogspot.com/2007/06/icj-territorial-and-maritime-dispute.html
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/boundary_news/?itemno=11988