Non Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2010/14
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2010
Public sitting
held on Wednesday 13 October 2010, at 11.20 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Owada presiding,
in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2010
Audience publique
tenue le mercredi 13 octobre 2010, à 11 h 20, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Owada, président,
en l’affaire du Différend territorial et maritime
(Nicaragua c. Colombie)
Requête du Costa Rica à fin d’intervention
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -
Present: Presiewtada
Vice-Presdenkta
Judges Koroma
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Xue
Donoghue
Judges ad hoc Cot
Gaja
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Présents : M. Owada,président
viceMpra,ident
KoMroMa.
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Crinçade
Yusuf
XuMe mes
Dojnogshue,
CotMM.
jugesaja, ad hoc
Cgeffrrr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
MrA. lexOudeElferink, Deputy-Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea,
Utrecht University,
Mr.AlainPellet, Professor at the University ParisOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, Member and
former Chairman of the International Law Co mmission, associate member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr.PaulReichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
Mr.AntonioRemiroBrotóns, Professor of Intern ational Law, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid;
Member of the Institut de droit international,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr.RobinCleverly, M.A., DPhil, CGeol, F.G.S., Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty
Consultancy Services,
Mr. John Brown, Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty Consultancy Services,
as Scientific and Technical Advisers;
Mr. César Vega Masís, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affai
rs,
Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel;
Ms Clara E. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and
New York,
Ms Carmen Martinez Capdevila, Doctor of Public International Law, Universidad Autónoma,
Madrid,
MsAlinaMiron, Researcher, Centre for International Law (CEDIN), University ParisOuest,
Nanterre-La Défense,
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Assistant Counsel. - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S.Exc.M.CarlosJoséArgüelloGómez, ambassadeur du Nicaragua auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
M. Alex Oude Elferink, directeur adjoint de l’Ins titut néerlandais du droit de la mer de l’Université
d’Utrecht,
M.Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de ParisOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit internatio nal, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,
M.PaulReichler, avocat au cabinetFoley Hoag LLP, WashingtonD.C., membre des barreaux de
la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
M.AntonioRemiroBrotóns, professeur de droi t international à l’Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M.RobinCleverly, M.A., D.Phil, C.Geol, F.G.S., consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty
Consultancy Services,
M. John Brown, consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty Consultancy Services,
comme conseillers scientifiques et techniques ;
M. César Vega Masís, directeur, direction des affaires juridiques, de la souveraineté et du territoire,
ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils ;
Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux du district de
Columbia et de New York,
Mme Carmen Martinez Capdevila, docteur en droit international public à l’Universidad Autónoma
de Madrid,
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur au Centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
M.EdgardoSobrenesObregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme conseils adjoints. - 6 -
The Government of Colombia is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Julio Londoño Paredes, Professor of International Relations, Universidad del Rosario,
Bogotá,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, Chair of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, Member
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and former Minister of Foreign Affairs,
as Co-Agent;
Mr.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, Member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,
Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris , Member of the NewYork Bar,
Eversheds LLP, Paris,
Mr.MarceloKohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,
as Counsel and Advocates;
H.E. Mr. Francisco José Lloreda Mera, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the OPCW, former Minister of
State,
Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Member of the International Law Commission,
H.E. Ms Sonia Pereira Portilla, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of
Honduras,
Mr.AndelfoGarcíaGonzález, Professor of Intern ational Law, former Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs,
Ms Victoria E. Pauwels T., Minister-Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Julián Guerrero Orozco, Minister-Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Legal Advisers;
Mr. Thomas Fogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,
as Technical Adviser. - 7 -
Le Gouvernement de la Colombie est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Julio Londoño Paredes, professeur de relations internationales à l’Université del Rosario
de Bogotá,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, président du comité juridique interaméricain, membre de
la Cour permanente d’arbitrage et ancien ministre des affaires étrangères,
comme coagent ;
M.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,
M.RodmanR.Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de NewYork,
cabinet Eversheds LLP à Paris,
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit internationa l à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
comme conseils et avocats ;
S. Exc. M. Francisco José Lloreda Mera, ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas, représentant permanent de la Colombie auprès de l’OIAC, ancien
ministre d’Etat,
M. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, membre de la Commission du droit international,
S. Exc. Mme Sonia Pereira Portilla, ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès de la
République du Honduras,
M. Andelfo García González, professeur de droit inte rnational, ancien ministre adjoint des affaires
étrangères,
Mme Victoria E. Pauwels T., ministre-conseiller au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Julián Guerrero Orozco, ministre-conseiller à l’ambassade de la République de la Colombie aux
Pays-Bas,
Mme Andrea Jiménez Herrera, conseiller au ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseillers juridiques ;
M. Thomas Fogh, cartographe, International Mapping,
comme conseiller technique. - 8 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
as Agent;
Mr. Coalter G. Lathrop, Lecturing Fellow at Duke University School of Law, member of the North
Carolina State Bar, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Senior Adviser to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Costa Rican Bar,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Costa Rican
Bar,
Mr. Carlos Vargas, Director of the Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel and Advocates;
H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. Michael Gilles, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
Mr. Christian Guillermet, Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the
United Nations Office at Geneva,
Mr. Gustavo Campos, Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms Shara Duncan, Counsellor at the Embassy of Costa Rica in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. Leonardo Salazar, National Geographic Institute of Costa Rica,
as Advisers. - 9 -
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès de la
République de Colombie,
comme agent ;
M. Coalter G. Lathrop, Lecturing Fellow à la faculté de droit de Duke University, membre du
barreau de l’Etat de Caroline du Nord, conse iller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires
étrangères,
M.SergioUgalde, membre de la Cour perman ente d’arbitrage, conseiller principal auprès du
ministère des affaires étrangères, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
M.ArnoldoBrenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères, membre du
barreau du Costa Rica,
M. Carlos Vargas, directeur du département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils et avocats ;
S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Michael Gilles, conseiller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre et consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,
M. Christian Guillermet, ambassadeur, représentant permanent adjoint du Costa Rica auprès de
l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève,
M. Gustavo Campos, consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Shara Duncan, conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica aux Pays-Bas,
M. Leonardo Salazar, Institut géographique national du Costa Rica,
comme conseillers. - 10 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Now we come to the first round of oral argument of
Colombia. But before inviting the first speake r to the floor, JudgeAl-Khasawneh, for reasons
which have been communicated to the President earlier, is unfortunately unable to participate in the
second half of this session. Now I give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Julio Londoño Paredes, the
Agent of Colombia.
LMON. DOÑO:
1. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President and distinguished Judges, it is a great honour for
me to address the Court, as Agent for the Repu blic of Colombia in these hearings on the
Application for permission to intervene submitted by the Republic of Costa Rica on
25February2010, in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.
Colombia).
2. Pursuant to the Court’s communication, my Government submitted its Observations on
26 May 2010 with regard to the Application filed by Costa Rica. In those Observations, Colombia
stated that it took note of the fact that the Application was filed within the framework of Article 62
of the Statute of the Court and the intervention sought by Costa Rica only had the purpose of
informing the Court of its interests and rights concerning maritime delimitation that may be
affected by a decision in the case of the dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia.
3. Mr.President, it is not my intention to discuss issues that do not form part of the
subject-matter of Costa Rica’s request to intervene. However, I believe it may assist the Court if I
briefly recall the way in which Colombia, Cost a Rica, Panama and Nicaragua came to be
neighbouring States in this part of the Caribbean , bearing in mind that Costa Rica’s Application
arises within a particular historic and geographic context.
4. The present-day political geography of the area has its origins in the early nineteenth
century when not only the Archipelago of San Andrés but also the Mosquito Coast were part of the
Viceroyalty of Santa Fe (Nueva Granada) ⎯ today the Republic of Colombia, which has exercised
uninterrupted sovereignty and jurisdiction over the whole Archipelago ever since. This has been
extensively discussed in Colombia’s written pleadi ngs and the situation can be seen on the map
being displayed on the screen. - 11 -
5. During the second half of the nineteen th century, Colombia and Costa Rica undertook
negotiations in order to fix their common land boundary. Throughout the entire negotiation
process, Colombia was willing to recognize Costa Rica’s sovereignty over the segment of the
Mosquito Coast comprised between the San Juan ri ver and the Chagres river; this was finally
decided in the Loubet Award of 1900 which set the land boundary between both countries and
reiterated Colombia’s sovereignty over the San Andrés Archipelago.
6. In 1903, what is known as the Republic of Panama seceded from Colombia in an episode
well known in world history.
7. Subsequently, Colombia and Nicaragua concluded the 1928/1930 Treaty, by which
Colombia recognized Nicaraguan s overeignty over the segment of the Mosquito Coast comprised
between Cape Gracias a Dios and the San Juan river, as well as the Islas Mangles ⎯ Corn Islands.
Nicaragua, which for the first time had claimed the Archipelago in1913, in turn recognized
Colombia’s sovereignty over the islands of San A ndrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, as well as
over “all the other islands, islets and cays that form part of the said Archipelago of San Andrés”.
8. Mr.President, in order to prevent differen ces and conflicts amongst States, in the 1970s
Colombia embarked upon the task of conclu ding a number of delimitation treaties with
neighbouring States with the aim of establishing clear and stable maritime boundaries.
9. As a result of this policy, Colombia conc luded maritime delimitation treaties with Panama
in 1976; Costa Rica in 1977; the Dominican Republic and Haiti in 1978; Honduras in 1986; and
Jamaica in 1993. Moreover, in 1972, it concluded a treaty with the United States of America with
regard to the cays of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana. Many of these involve delimitations
between Colombia’s San Andrés archipelago and neighbouring States. It can be noted that most of
these agreements were concluded before Nicaragua raised its claim over the entire archipelago in
1980.
10. The archipelago of San Andrés, one of the 32provinces of Colombia, linked to the
national soul, is located between 266 and 106mile s away from the Nicaraguan coast. With its
population of approximately 80,000inhabitants, it is an essential centre for trade, tourism,
agriculture and fisheries, as well as for maritime and aerial communications. - 12 -
11. A number of these treaties have, in turn, served as a basis for subsequent agreements
between third States, and have contributed to peace, stability and effective co-operation among
States in such an important area of the western Caribbean, criss-crossed by important navigation
routes and the centre of intense actions by Colombia and its treaty partners against drug trafficking.
12. Having provided the Court with this overv iew, I note that the distinguished Agent of
Costa Rica indicated on Monday that his country’s preferred method of proceeding is also to
resolve maritime boundaries by diplomatic means and agreement , as Colombia has done.
*
* *
13. The 1977Treaty between Colombia and Costa Rica took into account international law
with regard to islands and their entitlements to maritime areas, in light of the provisions of
Article10 of the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention and Article1 (b) of the Continental Shelf
Convention of the same year 2, and continues to reflect the law as it stands today. As Costa Rica’s
counsel have recalled during these hearings, it is one of three legal instruments that Costa Rica has
concluded to delimit its maritime areas.
14. The Treaty has been complied with in good fa ith by both countries since the date of its
conclusion in 1977. It is not necessary to recall for the distinguished Members of the Court the
evident legal effect of the consistent application of such a treaty by both States for 33 years without
any incident, which has been referred to in numer ous diplomatic exchanges and statements made
by high officials of the two countries in that regard.
15. Colombia has recalled this in its writte n pleadings in this case, and Mr.Bundy will
develop this point further as well. For its part, Costa Rica mentions it in paragraph12 of its
Application, where it states that it “has, in good faith, refrained from acts which would defeat the
1
CR 2010/12 p. 16, para.5 (Ugalde Álvarez).
2D.W. Bowett, The legal regime of islands in the international law, 1979, p. 33; H.W. Jayewardene, The regime
of islands in international law, 1990, p. 14. - 13 -
object and purpose of this agreement”. In its Written Observations on the Costa Rican Application,
Nicaragua also points out this fact.
16. The main principle inspiring and framing inter-State relations ⎯ including the
delimitation of their territorial borders and maritime areas ⎯ is that of preserving peace and
stability while maintaining good neighbourliness between them. That has been precisely the effect
of the 1977 Treaty.
17. Mr.President and distinguished Judges, we heard on Monday in more detail what
CostaRica considers its legal interest that may be affected by a decision in this case to be.
Colombia takes note of Costa Rica’s acknow ledgment of the 1977Treaty as limiting its
entitlements with regard to Colombia. In its Written Observations, Colombia did not object
because it considered that there were legal inte rests relating to the maritime areas that were
delimited pursuant to the 1977Treaty that Nicara gua’s claims have put in question and which
consequently may be affected by a decision in this case.
18. In the main case, Colombia has taken care to respect the potential interests of third
States, including Costa Rica, as will be explained in more detail by ProfessorCrawford.
Nicaragua’s claims, on the other hand, fly in the face of the interests of third States in the region.
19. MrP . resident and distinguished Judg es, Colombia’s presentation follows with
Mr.Rodman Bundy, who will address the Court on the geographic and historic factors that
Colombia deems relevant in the assessment of the substance of Costa Rica’s Application.
20. Subsequently, ProfessorJames Crawford, will address the legal issue whether, from
Colombia’s point of view, Costa Rica has shown an in terest of a legal nature that may be affected
by a decision in the case within the meaning of Article 62 of the Statute.
21. In light of Costa Rica’s contention in its Application that, “in their maritime boundary
claims against each other the parties to this case encompass, to a greater or lesser extent, maritime
areas to which Costa Rica is entitled” 3, Professor Crawford will also discuss the implications of
Colombia’s and Nicaragua’s respective claims, and their overall approaches to delimitation, in so
3
Application of Costa Rica, para. 11. - 14 -
far as these positions bear on matters raised by Costa Rica’s Application for permission to
intervene.
22. I thank the Court for having allowed me the privilege of opening Colombia’s oral
argument in these proceedings. I would now ask you, Mr.President, to give the floor to
Mr. Rodman Bundy. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: I thank HisExcellencyMr . Julio Londoño Paredes, the Agent of
Colombia for his presentation. I now give the floor to Mr.Rodman Bundy to make his
presentation.
Mr. BUNDY:
G EOGRAPHIC AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND
Introduction
1. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,
it is, as always, a great honour to appear before the Court and it is also an honour for me to
represent the Republic of Colombia in this phase of the proceedings.
2. The Court will be aware from Colombia’s Written Observations and from the remarks of
its Agent a few minutes ago, that Colombia do es not object to Costa Rica’s Application for
permission to intervene as a non-party with respect to certain aspects of the maritime delimitation
at issue in the main case between Nicaragua and Colombia.
3. Colombia recognizes, of course, that the burden is on the applicant State to demonstrate
that it has an interest of a legal nature that my be affected by a decision in the case within the
meaning of Article 62 of the Statute.
4. Notwithstanding that that burden falls on Cost a Rica to justify its Application, throughout
the main proceedings in the case, Colombia ha s repeatedly emphasized that the existence of
interests of third States in the region constitutes an important factor to be taken into account, both
for purposes of identifying the relevant area with in which the delimitation between Nicaragua and
Colombia should be carried out, and also in orde r to ensure that any delimitation decided by the
Court does not trespass onto areas where third States ha ve legitimate interests. And it is for this - 15 -
reason that when proceeding to identify the mar itime boundary in the present case, Colombia duly
took into account the legal interests of third States in the area, including Costa Rica. Nicaragua did
not. I realize that this morning we heard Nicaragua profess to express its concern not to prejudice
the actual or potential rights of third States in the region ⎯ but that is not a concern that is reflected
in Nicaragua’s written pleadings in the main case and that is the real reason why we are here today.
5. My task this morning is to lay before the Court a number of geographic and historic
factors which, from Colombia’s perspective, may be useful in assessing whether Costa Rica has an
interest of a legal nature that may be affected by a decision in the case. I will start with a brief
description of the geographic context within which Costa Rica’s Application falls to be considered.
I will then examine the practice of the States concer ned with regard to delimitations in the area
within which Costa Rica’s Application is concerned. Because those agreements shed light on
where the genuine interests of the riparian States in this part of the Caribbean are situated.
*
The Geographic setting
6. Let me start with a broad description of the geography of the maritime area where
CostaRica has announced interests of a legal na ture which it maintains may be affected by a
decision in the case.
7. Costa Rica’s Caribbean coast is situated in the south-west corner of the Caribbean Sea
between the coasts of Nicaragua and Panama. That coast faces towards Colombia’s San Andrés
archipelago lying to the north-east.
8. To the north of Costa Rica, Nicaragua’s coast is aligned on a north-south axis and the
result of that is that Nicaragua’s coast faces east wards towards the string of islands comprising the
San Andrés archipelago. It is only where the Nicaragua-Costa Rica land boundary meets the sea
that the general configuration of the coast begins to change direction so as to trend in more of a
south-east direction. - 16 -
9. To the south-east of Costa Rica on the other side lies Panama. The westernmost part of
Panama’s coast extends in a south-east directi on from the land boundary with Costa Rica and that
coast also faces north-eastwards, similar to Costa Rica’s coast, as you can see on the map. Moving
east, Panama’s coast then changes direction such that the next segment of the coast faces in a
north-west direction towards the San Andrés archipel ago and, in particular, towards the islands of
San Andrés, Providencia, the Alburquerque Cays an d the East and Southeast Cays. Further east,
the Panama coast bends once more and the norther nmost part of that coast lies opposite to the
Colombian island of Roncador. The remainder of Panama’s Caribbean coast, as it dips back down
towards the south-east and up to the land boundary between Panama and Colombia, is not relevant
to Costa Rica’s Application because it is located outside the immediate area of concern.
10. While Panama has not applied to interven e in this case, Colombia considers that its
interests must also be borne in mind in effecti ng any maritime delimitation between Colombia and
Nicaragua. Colombia bases this position on the fact that, in maritime delimitation cases, the Court
has invariably indicated that it should be sensitive to the actual or potential rights of third States
bordering the area to be delimited whether or not they have applied to intervene. Panama has fully
delimited its maritime areas in the Caribbean by means of a 1976treaty with Colombia and a
1980 treaty with Costa Rica. These instruments reflect the legal inter ests of all three States in this
area and they were grounded on the principle that delimitation should be effected by agreement, on
the basis of international law. Any delimitation between Colombia and Nicaragua in the main cae
ought not to prejudice the rights of third States which are not parties to the main case.
11. Opposite the relevant coasts of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama lie the islands of
Colombia’s San Andrés archipelago. And, as is the case with all islands under international law,
their legal entitlements to maritime areas generated by their coasts project radially in a
360° direction, as is being illustrated on the map.
12. Given the overall orientation of the coasts of the various States in this region, it is not
surprising that the area between the southern and central islands of the San Andrés archipelago, on
the one hand, and the coasts of Costa Rica and Pa nama, on the other, have been the subject of a
series of prior delimitation agreements dating b ack over 30years involving Colombia, Costa Rica
and Panama and dealing with the delimitation of their overlapping maritime entitlements. - 17 -
13. As we have heard, Costa Rica and Nicaragua do not have a deli mited maritime boundary
extending from their common land boundary. Wh ile there is some question as to how far
negotiations between those two States over a boundary have progressed, Colombia takes no
position on this issue, the details of which it is not privy to. As I will show, however, when
Colombia and Costa Rica concluded a maritime boundary treaty ⎯ to which you have already been
referred ⎯ in 1977, they proceeded on the basis that their boundary to the south-west of the
Alburquerque Cays would eventually meet up with the boundary with a third State ⎯ namely,
Nicaragua ⎯ in this area.
14. Colombia would also point out that, to its knowledge, and based on the evidence that has
been filed in the main case, Nicaragua has ne ver had any presence in the maritime areas lying
between the San Andrés archipelago and the oppos ite coasts of Costa Rica and Panama. And
moreover, there is no evidence on the record that Nicaragua protested any of the delimitation
agreements in this part of the sea signed by Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama.
15. In short, Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama have shown that they do have interests of a
legal nature in this part of the sea by virtue of their conclusion of a series of long-standing
delimitation agreements in the area based on equidistance methodology. In contrast, Nicaragua has
shown no similar interest. It did not protest th ese treaties. It did not conclude any delimitation
agreements of its own in the area. And it had, and continues to have, no presence in this area. It is
only in this case— the main case between Nica ragua and Colombia— that Nicaragua has
advanced a claim seeking to cut off the maritime entitlements and projection of Colombia’s
archipelago towards the coasts of Costa Rica and Panama ⎯ entitlements that have been
recognized by those two States, as evidenced by the agreements concluded in 1976 and 1977,
agreement which I now intend to take up.
* - 18 -
Existing delimitations in the area
16. If we turn in a little more detail to the de limitation agreements that have been negotiated
and signed in the area, unlike Costa Rica, I pr opose to take them up and discuss them in a
chronological order; in other words in the order in which they were concluded. I think that this is
important because, as I shall show, the three agreements that have been referred to in these
proceedings are all carefully linked to each other.
(i) The 1976 Colombia-Panama Treaty
17. The first such agreement that was concluded between Colombia and Panama in
November 1976 4, is an agreement that entered into force in 1977; a copy of it, which is in the
written pleadings, may also be found under tab5 of Colombia’s judges’ folders. Nicaragua itself
has referred to this agreement at paragraphs28 and 29 of its Written Observations, and mention
was made of it again this morning.
18. For present purposes, the relevant part of the Colombia-Panama Treaty concerns their
maritime boundary in the western sector. As can be seen from the map on the screen, the
delimitation line agreed assumes, for the purposes of simplicity, a step-like configuration between
the western half of Panama’s coast and the Colombian islands of San Andrés, Providencia,
Roncador, East Southeast Cays and Alburquerque . The basis of this delimitation line was
explained in Article 1 (A) of the Treaty which states that:
“In accordance with the principle of equidistance hereby agreed upon, except
for a few minor deviations which have been agreed upon in order to simplify the
drawing of the line, the median line in the Caribbean Sea should be constituted by
straight lines joining the following points.”
The co-ordinates of the turning points on the line are then listed in the agreement. As is apparent,
Panama recognized the maritime entitlements generated by Colombia’s archipelago under
international law and accorded the islands and cays full equidistance effect in the agreed
delimitation.
19. The last, or westernmost, segment of the Colombia-Panama boundary line beyond
point M ⎯ and point M is being highlighted on the map now ⎯, the last segment of that boundary
4
CMC, Ann. 4. - 19 -
follows a straight line azimuth along a bearing of 225° ⎯ or, in other words, in a south-west
direction. The Colombia/Panama agreement did not specify the terminal point of that line, pending
delimitation with a third State which, in this cas e, was Costa Rica. As Article2 of the Treaty
stipulates: “From pointM, the delimitation c ontinues in a straight line at azimuth225° ⎯
45° south-west ⎯ to the point where the maritime boundaries with a third State require
delimitation.”
20. Now as I will presently explain, this is an important element which has implications for
both of the subsequent delimitation treaties that were signed between Colombia and Costa Rica in
1977 and between Costa Rica and Panama in 1980.
(ii) The 1977 Colombia-Costa Rica Treaty
21. The second maritime boundary agreement of direct relevance to these proceedings is the
Treaty signed by Colombia and Costa Rica on 17 March 1977 dealing with the delimitation of their
maritime boundary in the Caribbean 5 ⎯ that is under tab7 of your folders. That Treaty, which
Colombia’s Agent referred to a few moments ago and which was also mentioned by Costa Rica on
Monday, and again this morning by Nicaragua, was approved by Colombia’s Congress, but it has
6
not yet been ratified by Costa Rica’s Legislative Assembly . However, there is no dispute between
Colombia and Costa Rica that the boundary line agreed in 1977 has been respected in practice
throughout the 33 years since the Treaty was signed, and that it has contributed to the maintenance
of peace and stability in the area. Moreover, as I shall explain in a f
ew moments, when Costa Rica
and Panama subsequently delimited their maritime boundary in this part of the Caribbean in 1980,
that Treaty also expressly recognized the existence of the Colombia-Costa Rica boundary.
22. Costa Rica’s Application states that “Costa Rica has, in good fa ith, refrained from acts
7
which would defeat the object and purpose of this agreement” . Now that statement is
unquestionably correct. However, in Colombia’s view it presents an unduly modest assessment of
the effect of the Treaty. In practice, both Colombia and Costa Rica have fully respected the
boundary line. Both States have exercised sovereign rights and jurisdiction on their respective
5
CMC, Ann. 5.
6
Application of Costa Rica, para. 12.
Ibid. - 20 -
sides of the line in a manner that is entirely cons istent with it, and as I said, the existence of an
agreed boundary in this part of the Caribbean h as contributed to the maintenance of peace and
stability in the region.
*
23. In this connection, it should be noted th at Colombia and Costa Rica also concluded a
delimitation treaty for their separate maritime boundar y in the Pacific in 1984. And subsequently,
when the instruments of ratification of that Treaty ⎯ of the 1984 Treaty ⎯ were exchanged in
2000, those two States executed a Protocol which also referred to the 1977 Treaty. And that
Protocol, and I quote, and the language is appearing on the screen and it is also in your folders, that
Protocol confirmed:
“That the compliance of the ‘Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and
Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation’ signed on March 17, 1977, will continue
in the current condition until the exchange of the respective instruments of ratification
of that treaty is carried out.”8
While we heard from Counsel for Costa Rica on Monday that Costa Rica has abstained from
ratifying the 1977 Treaty in deference to Nicara gua’s requests that Costa Rica not do so until
Nicaragua’s dispute with Colombia is resolved [CR 2010/12, p. 22, para. 8 (Brenes)] clearly, as this
language evidences, the intention of both parti es to the 1977 agreement was that instruments of
ratification would be exchanged. And for its part, Nicaragua’s Written Observations note “that
Costa Rica has not given any indication of an intention of not ratifying it” 9.
24. A number of other statements emanating from senior Costa Rican officials confirm the
de facto recognition of the Colombia-Costa Rica boundary by Costa Rica and confirm its intention
to proceed with the Treaty’s ratification. Now, several examples of these have been sighted in
Colombia’s written pleadings 10 and for the sake of time, I will mention just two here.
8
CMC, Ann. 18.
9
Written Observations of Nicaragua, para. 18.
10See, for example, CMC, paras. 4.156-4.162. - 21 -
25. The first is a diplomatic Note that was referred to also this morning in part. It was a Note
sent by the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica to the Foreign Minister of Colombia on 14 May 1996,
which in relevant part stated as follows:
“[I] inform Your Excellency that in the Government of Costa Rica’s view, in
full harmony with international norms as embodied in the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, the Treaty on Maritim e Delimitation between Colombia and
CostaRica has been complied with, is bei ng complied with and will continue to be
complied with, as a show of good faith of the Parties. The terms of that Treaty are
clear, unequivocal and the absence of incidents or difficulties between
both11ountries
in this matter evidences the beneficial character of that legal instrument.”
26. The second statement that I would like to refe r to is a further diplomatic Note also on the
record sent by Costa Rica’s Foreign Minister to the Colombian Foreign Minister on 29 May 2000,
which stated in relevant part:
“As the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly is setting out to consider, for its
approval, the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime
Cooperation signed between our two countries on 6April1984” ⎯ that is the
Pacific Treaty ⎯, “I am pleased to convey to Your Excellency that my country,
always observant of the principles and rul es of international law and in particular
those framing the conclusion of international treaties, has complied with and will
continue to comply with that instrume nt in good faith, as well as the Treaty on
Delimitation of Marine and Submarin e Areas and Maritime Cooperation of
17 March 1977.”
And the Note continues:
“It is evident that throughout these years, both treaties have shown their
beneficial character, have facilitated cooperation and contributed to mutual
understanding, the preservation of peace and trust between our two States, becoming
an example for the region and the continent.
The Government of Costa Rica, therefore, will continue the required procedures
for the ratification and exchange of corr esponding instruments, once approved by the
12
Legislative Power.”
27. Turning to the course of the 1977 bounda ry when Mr. Brenes discussed the 1977 Treaty
on Monday, he neglected to point out the fact that the Treaty provided that the maritime boundary
between Colombia and Costa Rica starts at the intersection of a straight line drawn in a south-west
direction from what is pointM on the Colombia-Panama boundary that is along the 225 oazimuth
with the 10° 49' N parallel of latitude. That point is labelled point A on the map. The significance
of this fact is that, by using as a reference point the last segment of the Colombia-Panama boundary
11
CMC, Ann. 67.
1RC, Vol. II, Ann. 2. - 22 -
in establishing its boundary with Colombia, Cost a Rica effectively accepted that boundary. In
other words it effectively accepted the Colombia-Panama boundary by using the last part of the
Colombia boundary as a reference point for the st arting point for its boundary with Colombia, and
indeed, Costa Rica agreed that Colombia’s islands were entitled to the same equidistance treatment
as they had been accorded in the Colombia-Panama Treaty.
28. Now, from the starting point A, the Colomb ia-Costa Rica Treaty then stipulates that the
boundary continues along the 10° 49' N parallel of latitude westwards until its intersection with the
82° 14' W meridian, which is labelled point B on the map. For all intents and purposes as we heard
also on Monday, the straight line segment between points A and B is also a simplified equidistance
line between the southern part of the archipelago and the Costa Rican coast which gives full effect
to the southern islands of the San Andrés archipelago.
29. On Monday, counsel for Costa Rica stated that, when the agreement was negotiated,
“Costa Rica agreed to give full weight to Colombia’s San Andrés Island” 13. With respect, that is
not correct. The agreed line actually gave full weight to the Alburquerque Cays located some
20nauticalmiles south of San Andrés Island. You can see that just glancing at the map on the
screen as well as on map 1 that was produced in Co sta Rica’s judges’ folders, and you can see it if
you refer to the volume of the Charney and Alexander study on International Maritime Boundaries
to which Counsel’s presentation referred.
30. From point B, the boundary then continues northwards along the 82° 14' W meridian “up
to where the delimitation shall be done with a third State” 1. That has been shown by an arrow on
the map. In this manner, both Colombia and Co sta Rica recognized that the identification of the
precise terminal point on their boundary in the w est depended on future delimitation with a third
State in this area ⎯ in other words, Nicaragua ⎯ and thus sought to avoid any prejudice to
non-parties to the agreement by leaving that point open.
31. On Monday, Mr. Lathrop for the first ti me produced a map which showed a Costa Rica
that is a hypothetical Costa Rica-Nicaragua late ral equidistance line projecting far into the sea to
the East well beyond the limits of the 1977 Costa Rica-Colombia Treaty. Colombia interprets, that
13
CR 2010/12, p. 21, para. 4 (Brenes).
1CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 5. - 23 -
by doing this, Costa Rica is not rejecting its constant position of recognizing the maritime
delimitation agreed with Colombia in 1977, but is only depicting what it considers to be its
minimum hypothetical maritime entitlement vis-à-vis Nicaragua, in the face of the claim made by
the Applicant in the present case. But, in any event, a hypothetical Costa Rican claim regarding its
delimitation with Nicaragua does not and can not affect any areas delimited by agreement in the
1977 Treaty.
32. What is clear from the 1977Treaty is that the Parties to it ⎯ Colombia and
Costa Rica ⎯ thought that the prolongation of the northward segment of that delimitation line
would eventually meet a lateral Costa Rica-Nicar agua boundary line to the south-west of the San
Andrés archipelago. Counsel for Costa Rica referre d to the fact that the 1977 Treaty showed that
the line would be extended northwards “to where a delimitation must be made with a third State”,
15
which he said could only be Nicaragua .
33. If we use a map produced by Costa Rica on Monday, the Court can see the general area
where a Costa Rica-Nicaragua boundary might be expected to intersect with the prolongation of the
Costa Rica-Colombia boundary. And, as I have said, that tripoint would be situated to the
south-west of the archipelago, not far to the east. As to areas lying to the east, Mr. Lathrop himself
confirmed that “Colombia was the State with whic h Costa Rica had a boundary relationship in this
part of the Caribbean” 16.
34. Costa Rica’s Application states that the 1977 Treaty with Colombia was predicated on
the notion that Costa Rica and Colombia have overlapping maritime entitlements, the division of
17
which required agreement in the area eventually covered by their boundary line . That point was
18
repeated by counsel for Costa Rica on Monday . Colombia agrees that this was the
understanding ⎯ in fact, to borrow Mr. Lathrop’s words, this was the “fundamental notion” of the
two States when they negotiated and signed the 1977Treaty. Nicaragua did not protest the
Treaty’s conclusion to Colombia. Moreover, no Nicaraguan protest to Costa Rica is referred to
15CR 2010/12, p. 34, para. 11 (Lathrop).
16
Ibid., p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop).
17Application of Costa Rica, para. 13.
18CR 2010/12, p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop). - 24 -
either in Costa Rica’s Application or in Nicar agua’s written pleadings, including in its Written
Observations on the Application.
35. Costa Rica also noted in its Application that its agreement with Colombia was based on
the assumption “that Colombian insular territory in the southwestern Caribbean Sea is entitled to
full weight, or effect, in a delimitation” 19. Now that statement from the Application was again
20
confirmed by two different speakers for Costa Rica on Monday morning, Mr.Brenes and
21
Mr. Lathrop . In fact, the 1977Treaty not only embodies that recognition by Costa Rica and
Colombia, it is also fully consistent, as I have said, with the principles upon which Panama and
Colombia agreed their maritime boundary further to the north-east. Mr.Brenes further explained
that these lines were agreed in an attempt to create a balance between the size of those small areas
that were exchanged by use of a simplified equi distance line, while at the same time according
22
sufficient distance from Colombia’s insular territory and from Costa Rica’s mainland coast .
Costa Rica also mentioned on Monday that e quidistance was the method it had employed for
delimitation purposes in the Pacific as well.
36. This is an important point. The distinguished Agent of Costa Rica confirmed on Monday
that, in line with Costa Rica’s democratic and le gal tradition, Costa Rica has always given priority
to finding solutions with neighbouring States on the basis of diplomatic means and international
law. Under customary international law, of cour se, as reflected in Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982
[Law of the Sea] Convention, maritime delimitati on should be effected by agreement. The Agent
of Costa Rica confirmed that it was in this sense that Costa Rica succeeded in signing agreements
with Colombia, Panama and Ecuador 23. For his part, Mr.Lathrop indicated that Costa Rica’s
claims for maritime areas are in accordance with international law, including what he termed the
24
governing principle of maritime delimitation which is to produce an equitable solution or result .
19Application of Costa Rica, para. 13.
20
CR 2010/12, p. 21, para. 4 (Brenes).
21
Ibid., p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop).
22Ibid., p. 22, para. 7 (Brenes.
23Ibid., p. 16, para. 5 (Ugalde Álvarez).
24Ibid., p. 37, paras. 19-20 (Lathrop). - 25 -
37. In the light of those statements, it was surp rising to read in Costa Rica’s Application that
this assumption underlying the 1977Treaty ⎯ the giving of full weight to Colombia’s islands ⎯
“is now in question” in the merits phase of the case, and that Costa Rica will, therefore, not take a
25
position on the validity of that assumption . The fact of the matter is that Costa Rica has already
taken a position on the issue in accordance with it s appreciation of international law, and that
position is that Colombia’s islands are entitled to “f ull weight, or effect”. In other words, Costa
Rica’s considered view was evid ently that the boundary Treaty it signed with Colombia in 1977
accorded with international law and produced an equitable result.
38. While Nicaragua’s extreme claim around Colomb ia’s islands is indeed a matter that will
be ⎯ and is being ⎯ discussed in connection with the merits of the case, that in no way places into
question the principles upon which the Colombia-Costa Rica boundary was based. The
1977Treaty recognized that an equitable delim itation between the r espective entitlements of
Colombia’s islands and Costa Rica ’s coast should be grounded on the application of equidistance
principles giving full effect to the islands. And that principle has been respected in practice by both
Costa Rica and Colombia for over three decades. It is as valid today as it was in 1977.
39. As I have shown, that was also the underlying basis of the Colombia-Panama boundary
Treaty which Costa Rica accepted by commencing its delimitation with Colombia at the end of the
south-western segment of the Colombia-Panama boundary, and ending also its delimitation with
Panama at the same point. The boundary lines agre ed in the Colombia-Costa Rica Treaty and the
Colombia-Panama Treaty reflected and gave due acc ount to the location, size and importance of
the San Andrés archipelago and gave due account to the geographic relationship with the
neighbouring coasts of Costa Rica and Panama in this part of the Caribbean Sea.
*
25
Application of Costa Rica, para. 13. - 26 -
40. There is a further statement in the Cost a Rican Application regarding the 1977Treaty,
26
which was also repeated again by counsel on Monday , which requires correction and that is Costa
Rica’s assertion that, because Costa Rica understood at the time that Colombia had an agreed
maritime boundary with Nicaragua along the 82nd degree meridian, Costa Rica assumed that
Colombia was free to negotiate maritime limits w ith its other neighbours only in areas lying to the
east of the 82nd degree meridian. Costa Rica went on in its Application to indicate that, based on
the Court’s decision at the preliminary objections stage of this case, that assumption ⎯ the
assumption that Colombia was only free to delimit w ith its neighbours areas to the east of the 82nd
degree meridian ⎯ appears to be incorrect 27.
41. Costa Rica’s assumption about the status of the 82nd degree meridian may be
understandable when it is recalled that in 1977, when it signed the Treaty with Colombia, Costa
Rica was well aware of the provision concerning the 82nd degree meridian established as the limit
to the SanAndrés archipelago in the 1928/1 930 Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua, and
Costa Rica was undoubtedly also aware of Colombia’s exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction
over the archipelago and within its appurtenant waters. Moreover, as of 1977 Nicaragua had not
yet concocted the argument that the 1928/1930 Tr eaty was somehow “null and void”, an argument
which the Court summarily rejected in its Judgment on the Preliminary Objections ( Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 859, paras. 79-81).
42. That being said, Colombia is constrained to point out that there are no grounds, either in
the 1977 Treaty itself or arising out of its negotiation, for Costa Rica’s suggestion that its boundary
agreement with Colombia was in some way predicated on the assumption that Colombia was only
free to delimit areas with its other neighbours east of the 82nd degree meridian. It is a fact that the
82nd° meridian is not mentioned in the 1977 Treat y between Colombia and Costa Rica, and it did
not influence or figure in any way the boundary lin e that was agreed. To the contrary, as you can
see on the map, the western segment of the delim itation line agreed between Colombia and Costa
Rica falls along the 82nd° 14' W longitude, which is obviously to the west of the 82nd meridian. It
is evident, therefore, that Colombia and Costa Rica felt perfectly free to delimit their respective
26
CR 2010/12, p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop).
27Application of Costa Rica, para. 13. - 27 -
maritime areas both east and west of that meridian ⎯ although they purposely left the endpoint of
that boundary line undefined pending delimitation with a third State. It follows that the
1977 Treaty between Colombia and Costa Rica remains unaffected by the status of the 82nd degree
meridian. As Mr. Brenes explained on Monday, th e 1977 Treaty line was based on the application
of equidistance, with minor balancing adjustments. There is in fact no Nicaraguan territory closer
to this line than the territories of Colombia and Costa Rica, the parties to the 1977 Treaty.
43. As will be explained by Professor Crawford shortly, there is no incompatibility between
the 1977 Treaty line and Colombia’s claim in the main case. Both leave the endpoints of the
delimitation lines in the relevant area unspecified so as not to prejudice third State rights and thus
Colombia at least has thus fully taken into account the legal interests of third States in the area.
(iii) The 1980 Costa Rica-Panama Treaty
44. The third and final delimitation agreement in the area to which I have alluded and which
I would like to turn to is the treaty concluded between Costa Rica and Panama on 2 February 1980.
28
Although Mr. Brenes indicated on Monday that th at agreement was signed in February 1982 , this
was undoubtedly a slip, probably occasioned by the fact that the agreement came into force in
29
1982 , but it was signed in 1980. Both the Cost a Rican Application and Nicaragua’s Written
Observations have made reference to this agreement.
45. Let me portray it on the screen, you have seen it before. As can be seen, the boundary is
a straight line extending from the land boundary terminus in a north-east direction. As was the case
with both the Colombia-Panama and the Colombia -Costa Rica treaties, the Costa Rica-Panama
agreement was based on the application of equidist ance principles, albeit this time between States
with adjacent coasts. Article1 of the 1980Agr eement stipulates that the boundary is a “median
line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea of each State is measured in accordance with public international law”.
46. That line extends up to its intersection w ith the latitude of 10° 49'N, which constitutes,
as we heard this morning, the tripoint where the Colombia-Costa Rica boundary begins and the
28
CR 2010/12, p. 22, para. 10 (Brenes).
2CMC, Ann. 6, and Vol. I, para. 8.42. - 28 -
Colombia-Panama boundary ends. While Mr.Brenes referred to this on Monday as a “notional
30
tripoint” , there was in fact nothing notional about it. Article1, paragraph1, of the 1980Treaty
expressly states that the boundaries of Costa Rica, Colombia and Panama all intersect at this point.
47. It is significant that, in referring in their Treaty to the boundaries of Costa Rica and
Colombia intersecting at this tripoint, both Co sta Rica and Panama recognized the existence of a
Colombia-Costa Rica boundary. Although Colombia is not a party, obviously, to the 1980 Treaty
between Costa Rica and Panama, it is not aware of any Nicaraguan protest having been lodged
against it, and none is referred to either in Co sta Rica’s Application or Nicaragua’s pleadings,
including its Written Observations.
48. In summary, by their conduct in agreei ng this tripoint, Colombia accepted the Costa
Rica-Panama boundary, Costa Rica accepted th e Colombia-Panama boundary, and Panama
accepted the Colombia-Costa Rica boundary. In ot her words, as between Costa Rica, Colombia
and Panama, there has been complete harmony in their approaches to delimitation in this part of the
Caribbean, including with respect to the application of equidistance principles on which all three
boundaries in the region have been concluded, and should be concluded, in accordance with
international law.
*
Conclusions
49. Mr.President, Members of the Court, based on this tour d’horizon of the geographic
characteristics of the area and the delimitation practice of the States concerned, it is apparent that it
is Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia that all have legal interests in the maritime areas covered by
their delimitation agreements. As I said, Nicaragua ’s land territory is located further from those
areas than the territories of those three States.
50. All three States have proceeded on the basi s that the maritime areas lying between the
San Andrés archipelago and the Costa Rican and Panamanian coasts fell to be delimited between
30
CR 2010/12, p. 22, para. 10 (Brenes). - 29 -
those three States in accordance w ith the principles and rules of international law. The three
treaties were the result of protracted negotiations; they coincide in using the equidistance method.
Each of the treaties has been in existence and respected in practice for over 30years; and
collectively, they have, in fact, contributed to stability in the region, as is evidenced by the absence
of any incidents therein.
51. On Monday, we heard the distinguishe d Agent of Costa Rica voice concerns that a
decision of the Court in the present case may result in the modification or elimination of what he
31
termed the “relation de voisinage” between Colombia and Costa Rica under the 1977Treaty .
That would entail affecting one of the cornerst ones of the law of the sea pursuant to which
maritime delimitation is to be effected by the agre ement of the parties, a principle which the Agent
of Costa Rica confirmed, for his part, has been a cornerstone of Costa Rica’s policy as well.
52. Costa Rica has agreed boundaries with Panama and Colombia. Respect for those
Treaties, together with the 1976 Panama-Colombia Treaty, has ensured stability and certainty in the
maritime relationships in this part of the Cari bbean for over 30years. The only uncertainty for
Costa Rica is its outstanding delimitation with Nicara gua, but even as to that “uncertainty”, Costa
Rica clearly envisaged that its boundary with Nicar agua would link up with its 1977boundary to
32
Colombia to the south-west of the San Andrés archipelago . Obviously, delimitation between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua is not the subject-matter of the present proceedings. Nonetheless, what
would lead to uncertainty in this region woul d be a decision in the case adversely affecting the
1977Treaty, or in fact any of these three Treaties ⎯ a treaty which Costa Rica itself has
acknowledged has “facilitated c ooperation and contributed to mutual understanding, the
preservation of peace and trust between our two St ates, becoming an example for the region and
33
the continent” .
*
31CR 2010/12, p. 19, para. 18 (Ugalde Álvarez).
32
Ibid., p. 24, para. 18 (Brenes).
33RC, Vol. II, Ann. 2. - 30 -
53. Colombia believes, Mr.President and Memb ers of the Court, that these factors that I
have discussed are relevant in determining whether Costa Rica has an interest of a legal nature that
may be affected by a decision in the case, where that interest genuinely lies and consequently
whether its Application for permission to intervene should be accepted by the Court.
54. These are matters that Professor Crawford will now be addressing and discussing further,
and therefore, Mr.President, I would be grateful if the floor could now be given to
Professor Crawford. I thank the Court for its attention.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.RodmanBundy for his presentation and I now invite
Professor James Crawford to the floor.
CMRA. WFORD:
LEGAL ISSUES
Mr.President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you on behalf of
Colombia.
Introduction
1. The key question under Article 62 of the Statute is whether Costa Rica has an interest of a
legal nature that may be affected by a decision in this case. Costa Rica affi rms that it has such an
interest. In its Written Observations, Nicaragua deni ed it; at least, that was your interpretation of
what it said. Today they denied it, without qualification. Of course, under Article 62 it is for the
Court to decide upon Costa Rica’s request.
2.Astothe precise object of the intervention , Costa Rica’s initial request says that it is
twofold:
“First, generally, to protect the legal ri ghts and interests of Costa Rica in the
Caribbean Sea by all legal means available . . .
Second, to inform the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and
interests that could be affected by the Court’s maritime delimitation decision in this
34
case.”
34
Application of Costa Rica, para. 23. - 31 -
3. In principle these objects are perfectly legitim ate. I need only refer to the comment of the
Chamber in the El Salvador/Honduras case where it stated:
“So far as the object of Nicaragua’s intervention is ‘to inform the Court of the
nature of the legal rights of Nicaragua which are in issue in the dispute’, it cannot be
said that this object is not a proper one: it seems indeed to accord with the function of
intervention.” (I.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 130, para. 90 (cited at para. 23 of Costa Rica’s
Application).)
4. In terms of the application of these criteria, you heard counsel for Costa Rica on Monday.
They went further and specified in detail the hypothetical minimum area as to which or on the basis
on which Costa Rica claims a legal interest in the present dispute. In doing so, they focused very
largely on Nicaragua’s claim, and we do not blame them for doing so. For there is an important
difference between Colombia’s claim line, whic h, as I will show, takes account of Costa Rica’s
interests in accordance with the 1977Treaty and Nicaragua’s. Nicaragua has no relevant treaty
with Costa Rica and its claim pays no attention to Costa Rica’s claims or interests.
5. Colombia agrees with the conclusion counsel for Costa Rica reached, that is to say, that
Costa Rica has legal rights and interests to prot ect in the western Caribbean Sea, rights and
interests which may ⎯ I stress the word “may” ⎯ be affected by your decision in the main case.
The issue is where those interests lie, a matter to which I will return.
6. But Colombia does not agree with all the arguments put forward on Monday in support of
that conclusion. It may be of assistance to th e Court if I spell out some of these points of
agreement and disagreement, and explain why they lead us nonetheless to the same conclusion as
Costa Rica with respect to their eligibility to intervene.
Points of agreement
7. There are four points of agreement. The graphic on the screen, one of Costa Rica’s, is
tab 15 in your folders. The first point of agreement is that the 1977 Colombia-Costa Rica Treaty is
a treaty in place. Mr. Lathrop put it well when he said:
“Costa Rica has negotiated two maritime bounda ries in the Caribbean Sea: one with
Panama and one with Colombia. Those boundaries limit ⎯ with respect to those
treaty partners ⎯ the area in which Costa Rica mainta ins a legal interest. Costa Rica
has not yet agreed a maritime boundary with Nicaragua nor has any international court
or tribunal delimited that boundary.” 35
35
CR 2010/12, p. 34, para. 9 (Lathrop). - 32 -
And he said much the same thing in paragraph 11 of his statement . 36
8. Secondly, Colombia agrees that bilatera l delimitation treaties, in which a negotiated
settlement of overlapping claims is reached between two States, ar e not opposable to third States
and cannot be relied upon by them. In Mr. Brenes’s words:
“those maritime agreements concluded be tween Costa Rica and its other neighbours
are exclusively the result of particular negotiations between the Parties, and, most
importantly, constitute res inter alios acta for Nicaragua as well as for all other
37
non-party States” .
9. This point deserves particular emphasis. You have heard this morning counsel for
Nicaragua trying to evade the res inter alios principle by reliance on good faith or conduct, or
whatever. Nicaragua cannot at the same time de ny Colombia’s title beyond 12 nm from even the
main islands of the archipelago and rely on treati es concluded by Colombia with its neighbours to
the south that were based on the recognition by Costa Rica and Panama of the archipelago as
Colombian territory, of its maritime entitlements and of its full weight in the delimitation.
Colombia was not acting when it concluded tho se treaties as a collection agent on behalf of
Nicaragua. Nicaragua cannot take what it likes from these treaties while rejecting the very basis on
which they were concluded. It either takes them as they stand, which evidently it does not do, or it
is a stranger to them entirely.
10. The third point on which we agree concerns claims to the outer continental shelf in the
western Caribbean. There is no maritime space in the western Caribbean which is more than
200nm from the nearest coast. The whole area is exclusive economic zone, and there is
accordingly no room for outer continental shelf cl aims. Again, Mr.Brenes made this point when
he said that Nicaragua’s preliminary inform ation document but later be filed with the
Secretary-General is without any incidence fo r the case. He described it as “absolutely
irrelevant” 38.
36CR 2010/12, p. 34, para. 11 (Lathrop).
37
Ibid., p. 25, para. 20 (Brenes).
38Ibid., p. 26, para. 23 (Brenes). - 33 -
11. The fourth point on which we agree con cerns two of the characteristics Mr.Lathrop
39
discerned in an eventual maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua . He suggested
that the eventual boundary to be decided by the Court is likely to have the following two features:
⎯ first it will trend north-south, with a northern end and a southern end both interacting with the
claims of third States ⎯ in the south, Costa Rica.
⎯ second, it will run through its entire length between overlapping 200nm zones of several
States, indeed up to three or four States in some locations. Yet ⎯ I interpolate ⎯ it is in such
40
“crowded geography of the south-west Caribbean Sea” that Nicaragua claims to appropriate,
whether as EEZ or fictitious outer continental shelf, more than half the total maritime area.
And ⎯ again I interpolate ⎯ the more crowded the geography, the more equidistance comes to
the fore as the presumptive method of delimitation.
Points of disagreement
12. I come to the points of disagreement, which I can illustrate by reference to figure 10 in
Costa Rica’s judges’ folder on Monday. I refer to three points.
13. The first point of disagreement concerns th e role of islands in maritime delimitation.
Counsel for Costa Rica on Monday on a number of occasions ⎯ for example by reference to
Honduras’s inshore islands, the effect on the mainla nd equidistance line, or to Serpents’ Island in
the Romania/Ukraine case ⎯ mentioned that islands are often ignored or given less than full effect
in a delimitation. But he failed to observe two thin gs. The first thing is that this is only true of
inshore islands such as Serpents’ Island, which is 23 miles offshore and can be seen from the coast,
if it is not raining. The islands and cays of the San Andrés archipelago, are, as the Agent has said,
oceanic, not coastal; they range from 106 to 266nautical miles away from Nicaragua ⎯ the
archipelago straddles the 200-mile line from Nicara gua’s coast, they are relatively speaking over
the seas and far away. Mid-oceanic islands of this sort, including islands ever smaller than the
small cays, naturally have such a pronounced effect in maritime delimitation. This is because of
39
CR 2010/12, p. 46, para. 39 (Lathrop).
4Ibid. - 34 -
the geometry of spatial distribution, and because al l their coasts project and count with respect to
neighbours in all directions.
14. Another thing counsel for Costa Rica failed to note concerns the function of equidistance
as a presumptive method of delimitation between opposite coasts in this region. Indeed it was
adopted in the 1977Agreement itself, not as a mere assumption but as an integral part of the
bargain, an essential arrangement by the parties. It played a major role in the other regional
delimitations, as described in our pleadings.
15. The second point of disagreement with Co sta Rica’s presentation on Monday concerns
what Mr.Lathrop described as its hypothetical “minimum area of legal interest” shown on his
figure10. Costa Rica tended to present this ar ea as a function of the extreme claims of both
parties. In truth it is a function of the extreme claims of Nicaragua. You will see on figure 10 the
Nicaraguan claim line shown in the Application and again in the Memorial. That claim line is a
single maritime boundary drawn from the coasts of the parties. It is a singular maritime boundary,
because it is utterly untenable, as we pointed out in the Counter-Memorial. The line is
230-260miles from Nicaragua’s coast, well beyond any area it could possibly claim as exclusive
economics zone even if the archipelago did not exist. You heard Mr. Reichler withdrawing rapidly
from it today. Having been maintained for eight long years, that claim line is now abandoned. But
what replaces that untenable claim? An ev en less tenable claim, if that is possible ⎯ 100miles
still further east ⎯ it was made in the Reply; it is a claim to an extended shelf which does not and
cannot exist within the exclusive economic zone of another State. I noticed that Nicaragua in
today’s folder refers to it as a proposal ⎯ but with respect, Sir, one does not make proposals to the
Court, one make arguments, and makes claims. Fo r its part, Costa Rica expressly accepts that the
claim is legally impossible, or “irrelevant”, to reuse Costa Rica’s words 41.
16. So far there is no disagreement between Colombia and Costa Rica. The point of
disagreement concerns Costa Rica’s placement of the arrowed southerly claim line of Colombia,
which here is shown well to the south of the late ral, notional equidistance line between Costa Rica
and Nicaragua.
41
CR 2010/12, p. 26, para. 23 (Brenes). - 35 -
17. Costa Rica’s Application states that, desp ite assurances to the contrary, the southern end
of Colombia’s median line extends into areas to which Costa Rica is entitled in a potential
delimitation with Nicaragua 42. In its Application Costa Rica said that Colombia’s assurances of
taking into account third State interests ring hollo w. Colombia respectfully disagrees, and I note
that Costa Rica did not repeat the point on Mond ay. Colombia accepts that Costa Rica has legal
interests in the south, and has taken these into account as best it can.
18. Costa Rica particularises the adverse effect to which it is subjected in a single paragraph
43
of the Application . It makes two points. First, it notes that the Colombian claim line, which is
shown on the screen as the southward-proceeding red a rrow, is somewhat to the west of the agreed
Colombia-Costa Rica line, shown on the screen as the northward-proceeding blue arrow.
Secondly, it complains that the red arrow is loca ted too far south, trenching on areas claimed by
Costa Rica vis-à-vis Nicaragua.
19. Both problems, if they are problems, ar e readily resolved. The red line on the screen
indicates a direction, not an extent, of the boundary so delimited. Whenever and as soon as that red
southward line meets the lateral Costa Rica/Nicaragua boundary ⎯ a boundary yet to be
negotiated ⎯ then that junction marks the southern lim it of Colombia’s claims with regard to
Nicaragua in this case. It is true that there is a slight disjunction between the Costa Rica-Colombia
northward-proceeding line and the Colombian claim line vis-à-vis Nicaragua. But this is quite
normal where a bilateral boundary me ets the maritime zones of a thir d State. The existence of a
gap in such case is virtual rather than real. In adopting the northerly blue line as their maritime
boundary inter se, the parties to the 1977 Treaty did not indi cate its extent either. That issue is
necessarily determined by the location of the lateral Nicaragua-Costa Rica boundary, which is not a
matter for Colombia but for those two coastal St ates. Costa Rica will have maritime jurisdiction
over all areas south of the boundary with Nicara gua, south and west of the 1977 Treaty line, and
that is all the 1977 Treaty ever assured it inter partes.
20. The third point of disagreement concerns Costa Rica’s after-the-fact “explanation” of the
so-called twin assumptions underlying the 1977 Treaty. You heard it repeated on Monday by
42
Application of Costa Rica, para. 20.
4Ibid. - 36 -
Mr.Lathrop. One of these assumptions, you will recall, concerned the 82nddegree°W meridian,
but in fact there is no indication the parties took that into account, and the northerly line of the
Colombia/Costa Rica Agreement is not on the 82°line. The second assumption was “that
44
Colombia’s insular features were entitle d to full effect in any delimitation” . But that was not a
given, it was not an objective fact ⎯ it was not a mere matter of assumption ⎯ it was a question of
entitlement. Parties can discuss a delimitation, and th e weight to be given to relevant coasts.
Colombia and Costa Rica did so, and Costa Ri ca expressly recognized the San Andrés islands ⎯
actually Alburquerque, not San Andrés itself, was the basepoint ⎯ recognizing as Colombian as
entitled to full effect. That was not an assumption, it was an agreement. Panama did exactly the
same.
21. This brings me to my final point con cerning the hypothetical “minimum area of legal
interest” shown on figure10. Nothing like it has b een seen before. Most of the dark blue areas
shown to the east of point A ⎯ the tripoint of the two treaties ⎯ most of the dark blue areas shown
to the east of pointA are closer to SanAndrés and the other Colombian features than they are to
Costa Rica; for most of the dark blue areas, they are much closer. Of course, that does not stop
Costa Rica claiming them against Nicaragua, which is even further away. But it stands in acute
tension with the long-standing position of Costa Rica as to the maritime entitlements of Colombia’s
islands. It would appear that as Nicaragua has gone lumbering off eastwards in search of a line it
can actually defend for more than five minutes, so it has dragged Costa Rica along in its wake,
producing the strange hourglass figure first shown to you on Monday. With all the respect I have
for Costa Rica’s Agent, it is not right to say, as he said on Monday, that it was the claims of the
parties that produced the result that Costa Rica was entitled to intervene 45. It was because of the
extreme claims of one of the parties, Nicaragua, claims, the basis of which Costa Rica itself, for all
its neutrality as a third party, can only describe as “utterly irrelevant” 46.
22. Mr.President, Members of the Court, in its Written Observations on Costa Rica’s
Application in this case, Nicaragua remarked th at Costa Rica’s admission that it made no claim as
44CR 2010/12, p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop).
45
CR 2010/12, p. 17, para. 10 (Ugalde Álvarez).
46CR 2010/12, p. 26, para. 23 (Brenes). - 37 -
far east as Nicaragua’s reply line was decisive against it 47 ⎯ and the Agent repeated that this
morning. That is not merely wrong in principle; what is at stake is not a line but an area bounded
by a line ⎯ and determining where the line is, requires you take into account the area of
overlapping claims. It also has this very subtle but profound effect, it would reward a State for
over-claiming. Nicaragua’s reply line is an obvi ous over-claim, Nicaragua should not be rewarded
by the disqualification of an intervention ⎯ for making a claim that will not stand up in open court
for more than five minutes and that it now describes as a mere proposal. So at the end of this part
of my presentation, I take you back to the real area in dispute, this is the area between the relevant
coasts ⎯ the opposite coasts of the Colombian archipel ago, on the one hand, and of Nicaragua on
the other. The question is, this being the real area for the delimitation ⎯ what is Costa Rica’s
“interest of a legal nature” in this scenario?
Costa Rica’s interest of a legal nature
23. In its Application, Costa Rica gives as its key interest of a legal nature the fact that:
“in their maritime boundary claims agains t each other the parties to this case
encompass, to a greater or lesser extent, maritime areas to which Costa Rica is
48
entitled” .
This claim is made against both parties. Bu t as we have seen, and it is fundamental to
understanding the problem in front of the Court, maritime boundaries are established on a relative,
relational basis, by each State vis-à-vis each other relevant coastal State. Principles of good faith or
whatever do not transform that relational basis. Thus it is necessary to deal separately with the
position of Costa Rica versus the claims of Nicaragua and that of Colombia. That is why it is
utterly invalid for Nicaragua to rely on the 1977 Treaty or to argue as it argued today as a third
Party in favour of the validity of the line drawn by that treaty. What is that to Nicaragua?
(a) The position vis-à-vis Nicaragua
24. I deal first with the position of Costa Rica vis-à-vis Nicaragua. Costa Rica dealt with that
position in paragraphs 16 to 19 of its Application. It shows there, and has shown again on Monday,
that areas depicted in Nicaragua’s pleadings as apparently claimed by it are areas which, as
47
Written Observations of Nicaragua, para 33, citing Application of Costa Rica, para 18.
48Application of Costa Rica, para 11. - 38 -
between the two coastal States, are closer to Costa Rica than Nicaragua and therefore would
primafacie be claimable by the former. It is worth dwelling on this point for a moment, to put
Nicaragua’s position in context.
25. In its Written Observations, Nicaragua di d not address the exagge rated nature of its
proposed delimitation area. It simply referred to a statement in Costa Rica’s Application that
“Costa Rica understands that these figures are not meant to show the maritime area
claimed by Nicaragua, but instead are meant to show the area in which the
delimitation should occur according to Nicaragua” . 49
26. In fact, adjudged from the written pleadi ngs, it appears that Nicaragua does claim all
such areas. In its Memorial, Nicaragua claimed a boundary based on a so-called equal division of
50
the delimitation area . How can one apply an “equal divisi on” concept unless there is a specific
area to which the “equal division” can apply? That area was Nicaragua’s delimitation area, as
shown on figure1 of its Memorial. Now Nicaragua has withdrawn from that concept, but
nonetheless it remains the case that maritime delimitation is not merely the drawing of a line on a
map but a consideration of the areas appertaining to each State which result from that line. A State
cannot avoid intervention in the terms of Article 62 by disclaiming any eventual impact on the third
State, if the nature of the reasoning which leads to the conclusion nonetheless does impact on that
third State
27. Nicaragua relies on Costa Rica’s treaty practice, in particular the treaties with Panama
and Colombia, which show that Costa Rica ma kes no claim to areas claimed by Nicaragua 5. My
colleague, Mr.Bundy, has already described the po sition with regard to these two treaties. The
following points are relevant:
(1) As Costa Rica confirmed on Monday, the treaties disposed of all the maritime claims of the
parties, but only vis-à-vis each other.
(2)The Costa Rican treaties mutually confirm a tripoint between Costa Rica, Panama and
Colombia, which is point A on the map shown on the screen. Nicaragua denies the existence of
49
Written Observations of Nicaragua, para. 30; Application Costa Rica, para. 16.
50
MN, para. 3.50.
5Written Observations of Nicaragua, paras. 14-18. - 39 -
this tripoint, agreed in treaties between all three States and located at a point which is closer to
the territory of each of them than it is to Nicaragua.
(3) Both treaties give full effect to the relevant coasts of the archipelago as Colombian.
(4) The treaties have been long-standing and have been applied in practice.
28. Now Nicaragua, of course, is not a party to those treaties. It is not bound by them,
though it did not protest them. But it now purports to rely on them to deny Costa Rica’s legal
interest in areas going beyond those lines. Presumably it would take the same position against
Panama. I have already shown that this position is untenable and inconsistent with basic principle
in relation to the conclusion and legal effects of b ilateral treaties. It follows from that, as the night
the day, that Costa Rica has a legal interest as against Nicaragua in relation to at least some areas
claimed by the latter in these proceedings and going beyond those lines.
(b) The position vis-à-vis Colombia
29. I turn to the position vis-à-vis Colombia. Mr. Reichler said this morning that at least if
you take those lines as constituting a limit, then Co sta Rica does not claim a legal interest in the
present dispute. Mr. Bundy has described the factual situation, and in particular the application of
the 1977 Treaty in practice as between the parties to it. Costa Rica’s Application seems to consider
52
the 1977 Treaty in terms of an obligation not to defeat its object and purpose pending ratification
in accordance with Article18 of the Vienna Convention, but the practice since 1977 goes well
beyond that limited obligation. For it is the Treaty of 1977 as such which has been given effect for
more than 30 years, without doubt or difficulty. This is shown by the facts, by the diplomatic
correspondence between the Parties, by the statements of Costa Rica’s highest officials and by the
recognition in the Costa Rica-Panama Treaty, of a tripoint as recalled by my colleague Mr. Bundy
earlier this morning.
30. By contrast, Costa Rica and Nicaragua ha ve not delimited their maritime boundary. In
setting forth its position on the maritime dispute w ith Nicaragua, Colombia was not aware of any
boundary claims either State might have ex tending seaward from their land boundary as between
Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Nonetheless, in fo rmulating its delimitation claim in this case,
52
Cf. Art. 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. - 40 -
Colombia has taken care not to prejudice the potential rights and interests of Costa Rica vis-à-vis
Nicaragua.
31. I show Colombia’s illustration of the relevant area on the screen. As can be seen, the
relevant area posited by Colombia does not ex tend as far as the Costa Rica-Nicaragua land
boundary in the south. [That is the line shown on the map, and the line shown on the map that we
distributed earlier does not extend that far.] Colombia’s equidistance-based position purposely
does not identify a southern end-point. Instead, an arrow has been placed on that line, consistent
with the Court’s practice in other cases.
32. That does not mean that Costa Rica lacks any interest of a legal nature vis-à-vis
Colombia. The point has already been made that the Treaty of 1977, represents a peaceful status
quo so far as the two neighbouring States are con cerned. Under Article62, it is respectfully
suggested, Costa Rica should be entitled as a State party to the Statute to express its views in order
to safeguard its interest in preserving that treaty.
(c) Conclusion on legal interest
33. In the Cameroon-Nigeria case, the Court articulated the following important principle
with respect to the maritime delimitation issues before it.
“jursd iction of the Court is founded on the consent of the parties. The
Court cannot therefore decide upon legal rights of third States not parties to the
proceedings. In the present case there are States other than the parties to these
proceedings whose rights may be affected, namely Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome
and Principe. Those rights cannot be determined by decision of the Court unless
Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Pr incipe have become parties to the
proceedings.” 53
Nicaragua accepted that principle in its Memorial.
34. The legal rights and interests of Costa Rica and Panama include the
legal rights and
obligations that they have subscribed to in th e delimitation agreements with Colombia. At a
minimum, given that neither are parties to this case, the Court should exercise restraint in making
any decision in the main case that might affect those rights and obligations.
35. But the matter can be taken further. A nd it was expressly accepted by the distinguished
Agent for Costa Rica on Monday, and I quote:
53
I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 421, para. 238. - 41 -
“Le critère de base de mon pays est qu’ une décision de la Cour sur la propriété
et l’extension des espaces maritimes de la Colombie et du Nicaragua, pourrait avoir
pour résultat la modification ou l’élimination de la relation de voisinage existant entre
la Colombie et le Costa Rica dans la mer des Caraïbes, ce qui engendrerait, sans aucun
doute, un possible impact sur les intérêts juridiques que possède le Costa Rica sur
54
ladite mer.”
36. I would add that it is sufficient for this purpose that an interest of a legal nature may be
affected by the decision: precisely how, and with what consequences, is not a matter to be decided
in terms of the admissibility of an application to intervene but in terms of the merits. In
Colombia’s case, the scenario envisaged by the Agen t for Costa Rica ⎯that is, that Colombia
disappears from the case ⎯ is unlikely, out of touch with dipl omatic history and the geography of
the relevant area. But that is not for you to decide now; and whatever one’s views on the merits, it
cannot be said a priori that something sought by a party is something the Court may not decide.
37. Finally, Colombia records its understandi ng that the arguments advanced by Costa Rica
in its Application and in the present hearings vis-à-vis Nicaragua with regard to 200-mile
entitlements in the east of the delimitation area posited by Nicaragua, do not detract from its treaty
obligations with regard to Co lombia and Panama, and are rath er illustrative of Nicaragua’s
disregard for the rights of third States in the region.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my presentation, and that of Colombia,
for today. Thank you for your attention.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor James Crawford for his presentation. That brings to an
end the first round of oral argument on Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene. I
wish to thank Costa Rica and the Parties, namely, Nicaragua and Colombia, for the statements
presented in the course of this first round of oral argument.
The Court will meet again tomorrow, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., to hear the second round of oral
argument of Costa Rica.
Thank you. The Court is adjourned.
The Court rose at 1 p.m.
__________
54
CR 2010/12, p. 19, para. 18 (Ugalde Álvarez).
Audience publique tenue le mercredi 13 octobre 2010, à 11 h 20, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Owada, président, en l'affaire du Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie) - Requête du Costa Rica à fin d'intervention