Audience publique tenue le mercredi 30 septembre 2015, à 16 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président, en l'affaire relative à des Violations alléguées de droits souver

Corrigé
Corrected

CR 2015/24

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THE HAGUE LA HAYE

YEAR 2015

Public sitting

held on Wednesday 30 September 2015, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Abraham presiding,

in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and
Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Preliminary Objections
____________________

VERBATIM RECORD
____________________

ANNÉE 2015

Audience publique

tenue le mercredi 30 septembre 2015, à 16 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,

en l’affaire relative à des Violations alléguées de droits souverains
et d’espaces maritimes dans la mer des Caraïbes
(Nicaragua c. Colombie)

Exceptions préliminaires

________________

COMPTE RENDU
________________ - 2 -

Present: President Abraham
Vice-President Yusuf

Judges Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Xue
Gaja

Sebutinde
Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian
Judges ad hoc Daudet
Caron

Registrar Couvreur

 - 3 -

Présents : M. Abraham, président
M. Yusuf, vice-président

MM. Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Mme Xue
M. Gaja

Mme Sebutinde
MM. Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian, juges
MM. Daudet
Caron, juges ad hoc

M. Couvreur, greffier

 - 4 -

The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,

as Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the English Bar, Emeritus Professor of International Law,
Oxford University, member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Professor of
International Law of the Sea, Utrecht University,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, former
member and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de
droit international,

Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Professor of International Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,

member of the Institut de droit international,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. César Vega Masís, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Director of Juridical Affairs,
Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Counsel;

Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the

Netherlands,

Mr. Benjamin Samson, Ph.D. Candidate, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),
University Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Defense,

Ms Gimena González,

as Assistant Counsel;

Ms Sherly Noguera de Argüello, Consul General of the Republic of Nicaragua,

as Administrator. - 5 -

Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme agent et conseil ;

M. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., membre du barreau d’Angleterre, professeur émérite de droit
international, Oxford University, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Alex Oude Elferink, directeur de l’Institut néerlandais du droit de la mer, professeur de droit
international de la mer, Université d’Utrecht,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur émérite à l’Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, ancien
membre et ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de
droit international,

M. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, professeur de droit international à l’Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. César Vega Masís, vice-ministre des affaires étrangères, directeur des affaires juridiques, de la
souveraineté et du territoire au ministère des affaires étrangères,

M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,

M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme conseils ;

M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, première secrétaire de l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des

Pays-Bas,

M. Benjamin Samson, doctorant au Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Mme Gimena Gonzales,

comme conseils adjoints ;

Mme Sherly Noguera de Argüello, consul général de la République du Nicaragua,

comme administrateur. - 6 -

The Government of Colombia is represented by:

H.E. Ms María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, Minister for Foreign Affairs,

H.E. Mr. Francisco Echeverri Lara, Vice Minister of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,

as National Authorities;

H.E. Mr. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla, former Judge of the Council of State of Colombia, former

Attorney General of Colombia and former Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Agent;

H.E. Mr. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, former President of the Constitutional Court of Colombia,
former Permanent Delegate of Colombia to UNESCO and former Ambassador of Colombia to

the Helvetic Confederation,

as Co-Agent;

Mr. W. Michael Reisman, McDougal Professor of International Law at Yale University, member of
the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, former avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar,
Eversheds LLP, Singapore,

Sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., member of the English Bar, member of the International Law
Commission,

Mr. Tullio Treves, member of the Institut de droit international, Senior Public International Law
Consultant, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP Milan, Professor, University of Milan,

Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, member and Special Rapporteur of the International Law

Commission, President of the Latin American Society of International Law,

Dr. h.c. Matthias Herdegen, Director of the Institute of International Law and Institute for Public
Law at the University of Bonn,

as Counsel and Advocates;

H.E. Mr. Juan José Quintana Aranguren, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom

of the Netherlands, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the OPCW, former Permanent
Representative of Colombia to the United Nations in Geneva,

H.E. Mr. Andelfo García González, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of
Thailand, Professor of International Law, former Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs,

Ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands, - 7 -

Le Gouvernement de la Colombie est représenté par :

S. Exc. Mme María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, ministre des affaires étrangères,

S. Exc. M. Francisco Echeverri Lara, vice-ministre des affaires multilatérales, ministère des
affaires étrangères,

comme autorités nationales ;

S. Exc. M. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla, ancien juge au Conseil d’Etat de la Colombie, ancien

Attorney General de la Colombie et ancien ambassadeur de la Colombie auprès du Royaume
des Pays-Bas,

comme agent ;

S. Exc. M. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, ancien président de la Cour constitutionnelle de
Colombie, ancien délégué permanent de la Colombie auprès de l’UNESCO et ancien

ambassadeur de la Colombie auprès de la Confédération helvétique,

comme coagent ;

M. W. Michael Reisman, professeur de droit international à l’Université de Yale, titulaire de la
chaire McDougal, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Rodman R. Bundy, ancien avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de New York,
cabinet Eversheds LLP, Singapour,

sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., membre du barreau d’Angleterre, membre de la Commission du
droit international,

M. Tullio Treves, membre de l’Institut de droit international, conseiller principal en droit
international public, cabinet Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt et Mosle LLP, Milan, professeur à
l’Université de Milan,

M. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, membre et rapporteur spécial de la Commission du droit
international, président de la société latino-américaine de droit international,

M. Matthias Herdegen, docteur honoris causa, directeur de l’Institut de droit international et de
l’Institut de droit public de l’Université de Bonn,

comme conseils et avocats ;

S. Exc. M. Juan José Quintana Aranguren, ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas, représentant permanent de la Colombie auprès de l’OIAC, ancien
représentant permanent de la Colombie auprès des Nations Unies à Genève,

S. Exc. M. Andelfo García González, ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès du
Royaume de Thaïlande, professeur de droit international, ancien vice-ministre des affaires
étrangères,

Mme Andrea Jiménez Herrera, conseiller, ambassade de la République de Colombie au Royaume
des Pays-Bas, - 8 -

Ms Lucía Solano Ramírez, Second Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the

Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Mr. Andrés Villegas Jaramillo, Co-ordinator, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,

Mr. Giovanny Andrés Vega Barbosa, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Ms Ana María Durán López, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Camilo Alberto Gómez Niño, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Juan David Veloza Chará, Third Secretary, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,

as Legal Advisers;

Mr. Rear Admiral Luís Hernán Espejo, National Navy of Colombia,

CN William Pedroza, International Affairs Bureau, National Navy of Colombia,

CF Hermann León, National Maritime Authority (DIMAR), National Navy of Colombia,

Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,

Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,

as Technical Advisers;

Ms Charis Tan, Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore, member of the New York Bar, Solicitor,
England and Wales, Eversheds LLP, Singapore,

Mr. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., New York University School of Law,

Mr. Renato Raymundo Treves, LL.M., Associate, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle

LLP Milan,

Mr. Lorenzo Palestini, Ph.D Candidate, Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies, Geneva,

as Legal Assistants. - 9 -

Mme Lucía Solano Ramírez, deuxième secrétaire, ambassade de la République de Colombie au

Royaume des Pays-Bas,

M. Andrés Villegas Jaramillo, coordinateur, division des affaires portées devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,

M. Giovanny Andrés Vega Barbosa, division des affaires portées devant la CIJ, ministère des
affaires étrangères,

Mme Ana María Durán López, division des affaires portées devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires
étrangères,

M. Camillo Alberto Gómez Niño, division des affaires portées devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires
étrangères,

M. Juan David Veloza Chará, troisième secrétaire, division des affaires portées devant la CIJ,
ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme conseillers juridiques ;

le contre-amiral Luis Hernán Espejo, marine nationale de Colombie,

le capitaine de vaisseau William Pedroza, bureau des affaires internationales, marine nationale de
Colombie,

le capitaine de frégate Hermann León, autorité maritime nationale (DIMAR), marine nationale de

Colombie,

M. Scott Edmonds, cartographe, International Mapping,

M. Thomas Frogh, cartographe, International Mapping,

comme conseillers techniques ;

Mme Charis Tan, avocat et Solicitor (Singapour), membre du barreau de New York, Solicitor
(Angleterre et Pays de Galles), cabinet Eversheds LLP, Singapour,

M. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., faculté de droit de l’Université de New York,

M. Renato Raymundo Treves, LL.M., associé au cabinet Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt et Mosle
LLP, Milan,

M. Lorenzo Palestini, doctorant, Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement,

Genève,

comme assistants juridiques. - 10 -

Le PRESIDENT : L’audience est ouverte. La Cour se réunit aujourd’hui pour entendre le

second tour de plaidoiries de la Colombie. J’indique d’abord que, pour des raisons dont elle m’a

dûment fait part, la juge Donoghue n’est pas en mesure de siéger aujourd’hui. Je donne à présent la

parole à Sir Michael Wood.

Sir Michael WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION : ARTICLE LVI OF THE PACT OF BOGOTÁ

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the order of speakers in Colombia’s second round,

responding to what Nicaragua said yesterday, will be as follows.

2. I shall address Colombia’s first objection to jurisdiction, based on Article LVI of the Pact

of Bogotá.

3. Professor Reisman will follow on the non-existence of a dispute between the Parties.

4. Mr. Valencia-Ospina will address Colombia’s alternative argument, that the dispute is not

one which, in the opinion of the Parties, could not have been settled by direct negotiations.

5. Professor Treves will then deal with the supposed inherent jurisdiction.

6. Mr. Bundy will then offer some concluding remarks.

7. And he will be followed by the Agent of Colombia, who will read out Colombia’s final

submissions.

8. Mr. President, in this short intervention, I will respond to what Professor Remiro Brotóns

had to say yesterday concerning Colombia’s first objection to jurisdiction.

Correct approach to the interpretation of Article LVI

9. The Parties agree on two important points. First, that the core issue is the proper

interpretation of Article LVI. Second, that the applicable rules of treaty interpretation are those set

forth in the Vienna Convention.

10. Despite the common understanding that the issue of concern is the interpretation of

Article LVI, Nicaragua continues to ignore half of its text. That is hardly a good faith

interpretation. In an effort to avoid interpreting the ordinary meaning of Article LVI, taken as a - 11 -

whole, Professor Remiro Brotóns yesterday followed the same methodology as that found in

Nicaragua’s written pleadings. He began with the first paragraph of Article LVI, and only the first

paragraph . He then moved straight to Article XXXI, thus concluding Nicaragua’s interpretation

2
of the applicable texts . He even said that the consent to the jurisdiction of the Court is based on

Article XXXI and the first paragraph of Article LVI . He then supported his conclusion, reached

on the basis of Article XXXI and the first paragraph of Article LVI, by referring to his subjective

view of the object and purpose of the Pact and of the principle of good faith. And only at this

point, he moved on to consider the travaux préparatoires, and it was only then that he

acknowledged that Article LVI consists of two paragraphs. Rather than interpreting all the

elements of Article LVI as a whole, in an effort to reach a harmonious interpretation  he

acknowledged Colombia had done  Nicaragua prefers to contrast the second paragraph of the

article with its first paragraph and with Article XXXI in an attempt to deprive the second paragraph

of any real meaning. Professor Remiro Brotóns only tells the Court what the second paragraph

cannot do: for Nicaragua it cannot override Nicaragua’s understanding of the first paragraph.

11. Nicaragua has nowhere explained what the purpose of the second paragraph is. The only

thing the learned Professor had to say about the second paragraph was that “its raison d’être is to
5
protect ongoing proceedings” . Precisely, but the whole question is which procedures are protected

by the second paragraph? The answer, we say, is clear  the second paragraph protects

procedures initiated prior to the moment of transmission of the notification, not procedures initiated

thereafter. This is the only reading of the text that harmonizes its various elements, and ensures

that each of the paragraphs has effect.

12. Our colleagues opposite scarcely referred to the actual text of Article LVI, but when they

did so they were mistaken. For example, Professor Remiro Brotóns’ reliance on the word

“préavis” in the French version of the article  “notice” in English  seeks to attach a

significance to the word that it simply does not bear. Moreover, the thesis advanced by the learned

1
CR 2015/23, pp. 20-21, paras. 4-6 (Remiro Brotóns).
2Ibid., p. 21, para. 6 (Remiro Brotóns).

3Ibid., pp. 22-23, para. 10 (Remiro Brotóns).
4
Ibid., pp. 23-24, para. 13 (Remiro Brotóns).
5Ibid., p. 27, para. 26 (Remiro Brotóns). - 12 -

Professor that the specific provision in the second paragraph cannot override what he curiously

called the “general rule of intertemporal law” in the first paragraph is contrary to established rules

concerning lex specialis and lex generalis. To accept this thesis would be to deprive more specific

rules in treaties of any meaning or purpose.

13. In short, Mr. President, Nicaragua’s approach to the interpretation of Article LVI is
6
fundamentally flawed. We set out the correct approach in our written pleadings , and I described it

again on Monday and I shall not repeat now what I said then.

Object and Purpose

14. Mr. President, Members of the Court, my colleague opposite sought to bolster his

interpretation by referring to the object and purpose of the Pact. Yes, the Pact aimed to advance the

peaceful settlement of disputes as compared with prior treaties in the Americas. As the Court said

in its 1988 Judgment, in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case “the purpose of the American States in
8
drafting [the Pact] was to reinforce their mutual commitments with regard to judicial settlement” .

But the Pact advanced that cause within the limits of the consent of the Parties given in the Pact,

neither more nor less. You cannot use the general object and purpose of a treaty on pacific

settlement to interpret away conditions and safeguards contained therein. Treaties conferring

jurisdiction are neither to be interpreted restrictively nor broadly. They are to be interpreted, like

any other treaty, in accordance with the Vienna rules. It does not further the cause of judicial

settlement to ignore the limits that States place on their consent. Without the assurance that the

limits of the consent will be respected, parties will not consent in the first place. It is by no means

uncommon for States to denounce a particular treaty setting out procedures for the peaceful

settlement of disputes. That in no way diminishes their commitment to the fundamental principle,

set out in the United Nations Charter, that disputes must be settled by peaceful means.

15. We see this, for example, with the optional clause. The optional clause undoubtedly

serves the object and purpose of the peaceful settlement of disputes. On Monday I drew attention

6Preliminary Objections of Colombia (POC), Vol. I, Chap. 3.

7CR 2015/22, pp. 19-30 (Wood).
8
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 89, para. 46. - 13 -

to the reservations, frequently included in declarations under the optional clause, of the right to

withdraw with immediate effect. This may be seen in recent practice. Since 2011, new

declarations have been made by Ireland , Italy , Lithuania 10 11 and Romania , and revised

13 14
declarations have been made by Greece and the United Kingdom . Each one of these

declarations reserves the right to withdraw consent with immediate effect.

16. In the 2014 Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice:

15
model clauses and templates  that is, United Nations document A-68/93, which may be found

through the Court’s website  that Handbook includes the following text as one option for a

termination clause in an optional clause declaration:

“This Declaration will remain in force until notice is given to the

Secretary-General of the United Nations withdrawing the declaration, with effect as
from the moment of such notification.”

17. Professor Remiro Brotóns sought to argue that because, as he claimed, all denunciation

clauses in dispute settlement treaties only take effect at the end of the period of notice. Article LVI

16
had to be interpreted in the same way . That, with respect, is a non sequitur, but in any event it

seems to be based on a false assumption. Thus, Article 72 of the Convention on the Settlement of

Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention)

provides that notice of denunciation (which takes effect six months later) pursuant to Article 71

shall not affect rights or obligations of a State arising out of consent to the jurisdiction of the Court

9Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by Ireland, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=IE (last visited: 29 September 2015).

10Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by Italy, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=IT (last visited: 29 September 2015).

11Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by Lithuania, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=LT (last visited: 29 September 2015).

12Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by Romania, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=RO (last visited: 29 September 2015).

13Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by Greece, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=GR (last visited: 29 September 2015).
14
Declaration Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court by United Kingdom, http://www.icj-
cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=1&code=GB (last visited: 29 September 2015).
15
Letter dated 24 July 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations addressed
to the Secretary-General, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/963 (last visited:
29 September 2015).

16CR 2015/23, pp. 30-31, para. 35 (Remiro Brotóns). - 14 -

17
given before such notice was received by the depositary . This means that jurisdiction is

preserved only for proceedings that were initiated before the transmission of the notice of

denunciation.

Article by Jiménez de Aréchaga and the Court’s 1988 Judgment

18. Mr. President. In seeking to justify its position, Nicaragua relied in its written

18
proceedings rather heavily on an article published in 1989 by Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga .

This was referred to again yesterday by Professor Remiro Brotóns . We have included the full text

20
of this article in your folders at tab 39 , though I do not think you need turn to it, because the short

passage relied upon by our friends opposite has to be read in context. Nicaragua relies on the

statement that under the Pact “the withdrawal of the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction as soon

21
as the possibility of a hostile application looms in the horizon has been severely restricted” .

Restricted, perhaps, but not excluded  the distinguished author chose his words carefully. He did

not say that jurisdiction persisted throughout the one-year period following transmission of the

notification. The context was the distinction between an agreement under Article 36, paragraph 1,

of the Statute and the optional clause. The point being made was that when the obligation is

“contractualized”, to use the author’s word, it is not sufficient simply to withdraw a declaration 

as under the optional clause. The State has to go much further, it has to denounce an agreement, as

in this case, the Pact of Bogotá as a whole. That is politically a much more significant step, a step

that States do most certainly not take lightly. In this sense, “contractualization” does indeed place

restrictions on States.

17Article 72 reads:

“Notice by Contracting State pursuant to Articles 70 or 71 shall not affect the rights or obligations
under this Convention of that State or of any of its constituent subdivisions or agencies or of any national
of that State arising out of consent to the jurisdiction of the Centre given by one of them before such
notice was received by the depositary.”
18
Written Statement of Nicaragua (WSN), para. 2.33.
19
CR 2015/23, p. 28, para. 29 (Remiro Brotóns).
20E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Pact of
Bogotá and the Optional Clause”, International Law at a time of perplexity: Essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne,

Martinus Nijhoff, 1989, pp. 356-360.
21Ibid., p. 357. - 15 -

19. It was in this context that Professor Remiro Brotóns again cited the Court’s statement in

the 1988 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, and he claimed that “the Court itself has recognized that a

State’s consent to compulsory jurisdiction under Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá ‘remains valid

22
ratione temporis for as long as that instrument itself remains in force between those States’” .

20. In its 1988 Judgment this Court was not considering the effect on consent to jurisdiction

of the transmission of a notification of denunciation. That question simply did not arise in the case

before it. What the Court was actually addressing were arguments put forward by Honduras in an

attempt to import the conditions, including the temporal conditions, of its optional clause

declaration into its consent to jurisdiction under Article XXXI of the Pact. The Court in 1988

simply did not address Article LVI of the Pact in any way . 23

The various provisions of the Pact of Bogotá

21. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Professor Remiro Brotóns next tries to attack

Colombia’s interpretation of Article LVI by claiming that the provisions of the Pact of Bogotá are

inseparable and that without jurisdiction over procedures initiated under Chapters II through V

after the transmission of the notification of denunciation, the Pact would remain an empty shell, as

he put it, during the one-year period of notice. He does so by selectively canvassing the articles of

the Pact.

22. Mr. President, this argument distorts both the content of the Pact and Colombia’s

24 25
argument. As Colombia demonstrated in its written and oral presentations, a significant number

of substantive obligations continue to apply to the denouncing State during the one-year period,

even though new procedures cannot be initiated against it.

23. First, Professor Remiro Brotóns conveniently overlooked several important provisions of

the Pact. For example, he did not mention Article L on the steps to be taken in the case that a

contracting Party fails to carry out a decision of this Court. He did not mention Article LI on

22WSN, para. 2.11; see also MN, para. 1.23.

23Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 84, paras. 33-34.
24
POC, Vol. I, paras. 3.5-3.7; see also Appendix to Chapter 3 (Pact of Bogotá).
25
CR 2015/22, pp. 21-23, paras. 10-23 (Wood). - 16 -

requests for advisory opinions. He summarily dismissed the relevance of Article I on refraining

from the threat or use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes, two very fundamental

obligations under the Pact adopted in 1948, just three years after the United Nations Charter.

Moreover, Article I in fact contains an obligation to refrain from “any other means of coercion”

which is not contained, in terms at least, in the United Nations Charter.

24. Second, the learned professor is wrong to assert that other articles would become

redundant. The principles contained in some of them would continue to carry substantive

obligations for the denouncing Party and are clearly separable from the procedures in Chapters II

to V of the Pact. Article II provides that “[t]he High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to

settle international controversies by regional procedures before referring them to the Security

Council of the United Nations”  this is not limited to procedures under Chapters II to V of the

Pact. But Article II further provides that,

“[c]onsequently . . . the parties bind themselves to use the procedures established in

the present Treaty, in the manner and under the conditions provided for in the
following articles, or, alternatively, such special procedures as, in their opinion, will
permit them to arrive at a solution” .26

This reference to “special procedures” is likewise clearly separable from Chapters II to V.

25. Furthermore, many “procedural” provisions of the Pact will still be in effect after the

transmission of the notification of denunciation: they continue to govern any procedures initiated

before the transmission and their content and applicability are independent of the ability to initiate

new procedures during that period. Moreover, the reservations of Argentina and the United States

when signing the Pact, which exclude the applicability of the majority of the procedures under the

Pact, demonstrate that the various elements of the Pact can be separated one from another . 27

Travaux préparatoires

26. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Professor Remiro Brotóns finally turned to the

28
travaux préparatoires of Article LVI . He asserted that there was “not an element, not a single

2CR 2015/22, pp. 21-23, paras. 10-23 (Wood).
27
Reservations of the Pact of Bogotá by United States, http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-
42.html#United States (last visited:29 September 2015); Reservations of the Pact of Bogotá by Argentina,
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-42.html#Argentina (last visited: 29 September 2015).
28
CR 2015/23, pp. 29-31, paras. 31-35 (Remiro Brotóns). - 17 -

element” which supported Colombia’s interpretation, and that this had explained our brevity on the

subject on Monday . To the contrary, we were brief because we had set out the preparatory work

30
fully in our written pleadings , and Nicaragua, in its Written Statement in response, had said

31
hardly anything . The learned professor asserts that in 1948 there was no debate in the relevant

Commission, no explanation, etc. 32 Well, it may be that the records are limited  not unusual for

conferences of that date, or even now, and certainly not unusual in relation to the final clauses of a

treaty, or for matters discussed in a drafting committee. But, in fact, as we have shown at length in

our written pleadings, the travaux do confirm that the drafters of the Pact consciously chose to

word Article LVI as they did so as to limit with immediate effect the initiation of new procedures

upon the transmission of the notification of denunciation.

27. Nicaragua accepts that the original draft of Article LVI was based on Article 9 of the

General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration of 1929. Yet despite the change, despite the

additional sentence, introduced in 1938 to the text which eventually became Article LVI,

Nicaragua continues to assert that the meaning of the article remained the same . The change is

obvious from tab 9, which is now on the screen, where the two provisions are set out side-by-side.

28. In support of his wholly untenable position, Professor Remiro Brotóns now relies upon

one sentence from the records of the 1948 Conference . The Rapporteur of the Third Commission,

Mr. Enriquez from Mexico, in his report to the Conciliation Committee said: “We decided that the

best drafting would consist on replicating Article 16 [he actually meant Article 9  it was

Article 16, I think, in the Conciliation Treaty  Article 16, Article 9] of the 1929 Treaty.”

Mr. Enriquez then read out both paragraphs of Article LVI (which was then numbered LV).

Colombia did not ignore this, as the learned professor claimed . We included what Mr. Enriquez

said, in full, and in an English translation, at Annex 31 of our preliminary objections. But it is

29
CR 2015/23, p. 29, para. 31 (Remiro Brotóns).
30POC, paras. 3.33-3.52.

31WSN, paras. 2.35-2.39.
32
CR 2015/23, p. 29, para. 31 (Remiro Brotóns).
33
WSN, para. 2.39.
34CR 2015/23, pp. 29-30, paras. 32-34 (Remiro Brotóns).

35Ibid., p. 30, para. 33 (Remiro Brotóns). - 18 -

hardly a sentence of great import  Mr. Enriquez’s statement  since it is clear that Mr. Enriquez

was referring to the first paragraph of Article LVI, which does indeed follow Article 9 of the

1929 Treaty. He simply could not have been referring to the second paragraph. The second

paragraph was clearly new, having been introduced in 1938  as I said on Monday  upon a
36
proposal by the United States of America . When the new text was introduced, in 1938, the then

Legal Adviser to the State Department, Mr. Green Hackworth, emphasized orally that there was a

new addition to the draft. And the addition was italicized to draw further attention to the alteration

of the text .

29. Professor Remiro Brotóns suggested yesterday that the additional paragraph in

Article LVI must be interpreted so as not to be “regressive” compared with the 1929 General

Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration, or indeed other treaties, which the Pact of Bogotá was to

replace . That, with great respect, is a false argument. The Pact of Bogotá and the 1929 Treaty,

and the other treaties, are wholly different instruments. As its name suggests, the 1929 Treaty was

only concerned with a particular form of arbitration. It contained no provisions referring, for

example, to the jurisdiction of the then Permanent Court of International Justice.

30. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my response to what

Professor Remiro Brotóns said yesterday.

31. I thank you for your attention and I would ask you to invite Professor Reisman to the

podium.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne à présent la parole au professeur Michael Reisman.

3POC, Vol. II, Ann. 25: Delegation of the United States of America, Report of the Meetings of Sub-
Committee 1 of Committee I, Consolidation of American Peace Instruments and Agreements, 19 Dec. 1938, p. 5.
37
Ibid, Ann. 24, Art. XXII, p. 203.
38
CR 2015/23, p. 30, paras. 34-35 (Remiro Brotóns). - 19 -

Mr. REISMAN:

A BSENCE OF A DISPUTE

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I am grateful for the opportunity to return to

Colombia’s discussion of the “absence of dispute” in order to correct some of Nicaragua’s

misstatements.

2. This is a proceeding on jurisdiction. Colombia’s principal contention is that its consent to

jurisdiction ended with immediate effect upon the transmission of its denunciation of the Pact of

Bogotá on 27 November 2012. Thus Nicaragua’s Application is out of time by one year. But, for

the sake of argument, let me assume Nicaragua’s contention that Pact Article LVI requires that a

year must run for jurisdictional purposes from the date of denunciation; on that assumption, other

things being equal, Nicaragua’s Application of 26 November 2013, would be admissible because it

was lodged one day before Colombia’s consent to jurisdiction lapsed.

3. In Nicaragua’s view, its Application was admissible but the “critical date” for the

Application was one day before the expiration of Colombia’s consent to jurisdiction under the Pact.

That means that in order to fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, events that constituted Nicaragua’s

grievance must have occurred before that date and, as Peace Treaties said, in “a situation in which

the two sides hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of the performance or

non-performance of certain treaty obligations” 39.

4. How does one determine the objective existence of such a dispute? Yesterday,

Professor Lowe cited the Hostages case as authority against Colombia’s submission that

international law requires some modality of communication of a claim to the other party as a means

of confirming the objective existence of a dispute. But he only quoted what the Court said about

the Hostages case in the Headquarters Agreement case, namely  and this is the Headquarters

Agreement summary: “The Court saw no need to enquire into the attitude of Iran in order to

40
establish the existence of a ‘dispute’.” With respect, Professor Lowe ignored the actual holding

3Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 1950, p. 74.

4CR 2015/23, p. 40, para. 42 (Lowe). - 20 -

and the context of the Hostages case in which modalities for establishing the existence of a dispute

were fully and amply complied with by the United States. I quote the Court:

“From the outset of the attack upon its Embassy in Tehran, the United States
protested to the Government of Iran both at the attack and at the seizure and detention

of the hostages. On 7 November a former Attorney-General of the United States,
Mr. Ramsey Clark, was instructed to go with an assistant to Iran to deliver a message
from the President of the United States to the Ayatollah Khomeini.” 41

5. The Court went on to note that it was Iran’s leader who forbade members of the

42
Revolutionary Council and all the responsible officials to meet the United States representatives .

Quoting the Court again:

“Subsequently, despite the efforts of the United States Government to open
negotiations, it became clear that the Iranian authorities would have no direct contact
with representatives of the United States Government concerning the holding of the

hostages.”

6. But there was more. The Court quoted the Security Council “resolution 457 (1979)

calling on Iran to release the personnel of the Embassy immediately, to provide them with

43
protection and to allow them to leave the country” .

And the Court concluded:

“In the present instance, neither of the parties to the dispute proposed recourse
to either of the two alternatives, [in the 1955 bilateral treaty] before the filing of the
Application or at any time afterwards. On the contrary, the Iranian authorities refused
to enter into any discussion of the matter with the United States, and this could only be

understood by the United States as ruling out, in limine, any question of arriving at an
agreement to resort to arbitration or conciliation under Article II or Article III of the
Protocols, instead of recourse to the Court.” 44

Mr. President, the existence of the dispute was established beyond a shadow of doubt.

7. The Pact of Bogotá, Nicaragua’s principal basis of jurisdiction, is particularly relevant in

this regard. Under its Article II, not every dispute can be submitted to the Court. As

Mr. Valencia-Ospina explained the day before yesterday, Article II preconditions access to

Article XXXI’s judicial procedure to the demonstration that the parties were of the opinion that the

41
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1980, p. 15. para. 26.
4Ibid.

4Ibid., p. 16. para. 28.
44
Ibid., p. 26. para. 49. - 21 -

relevant dispute or disputes “cannot be settled by direct negotiations through the usual diplomatic

channels”.

8. Now, Mr. President, the Parties’ opinion on the possibility of resolving the dispute

through “the usual diplomatic channels” presupposes knowledge of the other Party’s legal position.

Hence the Pact requires a positive communication of the claim before a dispute can be brought to

the Court on its basis.

9. Article II of the Pact refers specifically to negotiations through “the usual diplomatic

channels”. The Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry is well aware that “the usual diplomatic channels”

include such modalities as sending a formal diplomatic Note. The fact that Nicaragua even cared

to belatedly send a formal Note on 13 September 2014 (almost ten months after the Application

was filed) alleging infringement of their sovereign rights as well as the purported use of force by

Colombia, means that they were well aware of the meaning of the need for recourse to the “usual

diplomatic channels”.

10. Now, in the case before you, what events, which are alleged to have occurred before the

critical date, can be deemed to constitute “a situation in which the two sides hold clearly opposite

views concerning the question of the performance . . .” of a legal obligation and which cannot be

settled through “the usual diplomatic channels”? The evidence adduced by Nicaragua to answer

this question is selective and contradictory. On 14 August 2013, President Ortega announced that

“the Naval Force of Colombia . . . has been respectful and there has not been any kind of

46
confrontation between the Colombian and Nicaraguan Navy . . .” . Eight days before the

submission of Nicaragua’s Application, Nicaraguan Admiral Corrales Rodriguez declared that “we

47
have not had any problems with the Colombian Naval forces . . .” . Now, nine months later, nine

months after having submitted its Application, the Nicaraguan Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked

the Admiral for an inventory of “any incidents that may have taken place between the Colombian

Navy and the Nicaraguan Navy” . This time, for some reason, the Admiral reported ten low-level

45
POC, Vol. II, Ann. 17.
4POC, Vol. II, Ann. 11, p. 118.
47
POC, Vol. II, Ann. 43, p. 355.
48
Memorial of Nicaragua (MN), Ann. 23 A, p. 281. - 22 -

incidents allegedly occurring up to the critical date. Far be it from me to impugn the good faith of

Admiral Corrales but it is striking that not one of those events was deemed, at the time of its

occurrence, important enough to protest, or otherwise to bring to the attention of the Colombian

Government, let alone to Nicaraguan President Ortega.

11. Similarly selective is Nicaragua’s presentation of President Santos’ speech to the nation

on the evening the 2012 Judgment was handed down. The theory that statements by Colombian

officials may constitute per se a dispute led Nicaragua to pick out sentences and to read them in

ways that create an impression of a defiant non-compliance and repudiation of the Judgment. But

the President’s statement, for example, that he “emphatically rejects this aspect of the decision”

meant absolute disagreement, not an intention of non-compliance. And, incidentally, the

disagreement was only with that part of the Judgment dealing with maritime enclaves, not with the

whole maritime delimitation. And, indeed, shortly after this sentence in the speech, the President

stated: “Therefore, we will not discard any recourse or mechanism available to us in international

49
law” and he went on to inform his countrymen about the method by which Colombia would

implement the decision. Mr. President, this is not a declaration of non-compliance.

12. Counsel yesterday said, rightly, that to rely on the first days’ reaction of Colombian

officials to the Judgment would be “a cheap shot” but he then carefully ignored later statements and

the judgment of the Constitutional Court, all of which manifest the intention to comply by means of

the conclusion of a treaty. Nor could Nicaragua’s Agent resist taking that “cheap shot”: the Agent,

selecting passages from the President’s statement on the day of the Judgment, asserted that it

showed “the existence of a serious dispute between the parties” as of the day of the delivery of the

Judgment, as purported evidence that “quite obviously . . . Colombia does not accept the

delimitation carried out by the Court” . And, Mr. President, I am not sure this goes into the

“cheap shot” category, but I note that Nicaragua’s propensity is not to quote President Ortega’s

statement of satisfaction with the comportment of Colombia’s President Santos.

13. So, having cited Hostages as his authority, we are baffled by Professor Lowe’s

conclusion that “it is evident from the record in this case that what international law does

4POC, Vol. II, Ann. 6, p. 89.

5CR 2015/23, p. 17, para. 29 (Argüello). - 23 -

require  the clear presentation of positions, so that each side can understand what the
51
disagreement is  is abundantly satisfied” . Quite the contrary. By contrast to Hostages, not

once did Nicaragua protest or otherwise indicate to Colombia that it had grievances or complaints

of fact and law that amounted to an objective dispute with Colombia, not once. It simply initiated

this case before the Court. Considering that some of Nicaragua’s claims involve allegations of

threats to use force, its failure to timely protest by any modality renders the existence of that

dispute even more doubtful. Nicaragua’s efforts to demonstrate the existence of a dispute on these

matters at the critical date thus fails.

14. Nicaragua, conscious of the insubstantiality of proving the existence of its claimed

dispute before the critical date, argues that the objective existence of the dispute can be proved by

reference to events occurring after the submission of its Application. In this regard, it sweeps in,

again selectively, speeches and events occurring, in some instances almost two years after

26 November 2013, the date of its Application and the crucial date for the purpose of jurisdiction.

Now, it may certainly be argued that when consensual jurisdiction continues, there may be a basis

in law for sometimes adducing evidence occurring after the date of the application. But in this

case, such events are inadmissible because the critical date and the end of jurisdiction, even on

Nicaragua’s reading of the Pact, are only one day apart. Hence no jurisdiction exists after

27 November 2013, the end of the one year period after Colombia’s denunciation of the Pact. So,

wholly apart from the substantive failure of these various post-Application events to demonstrate

an objective dispute, they are also without a basis for jurisdiction.

15. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Nicaragua claims that it is a small State compared

to Colombia and, apparently, is entitled to special treatment with respect to the brevity of the period

between its Application and the cessation of jurisdiction under the Pact. But it was not a short

period: Ambassador Argüello stated that Nicaragua had known of a serious dispute since the

delivery of the Judgment . The consequences of Nicaragua’s delay and concealment of its action

are its own responsibility. Nicaragua has used the Court more than any other Member of the

United Nations and it is wise in its ways. It needs and deserves no special treatment, no matter

5CR 2015/23, p. 41, para. 44 (Lowe).

5CR 2015/23, p. 17, para. 28 (Argüello). - 24 -

how large the respondent State may be. Legally, Mr. President, the Charter teaches that all States

are equal.

16. Mr. President, there are compelling reasons for insisting on a demonstration of the

objective existence of a dispute as a condition for an otherwise valid basis of jurisdiction. Parties at

the international level should know of claims against them and have the opportunity to react to

them and to look for ways to resolve them without litigation in order to avert an unnecessarily

frictive political  and economic  transaction which can leave in its wake decades if not

generations of hostility. The objective existence standard also protects international judicial

processes from being exploited with adjudication becoming a tactical device for pressuring a State.

And it facilitates the litigation process. In Certain Property, where there had been bilateral

consultations between Germany and Liechtenstein, you said:

“The Court thus finds that in the present proceedings complaints of fact and law

formulated by Liechtenstein against Germany are denied by the latter. In conformity
with well-established jurisprudence . . ., the Court concludes that ‘[b]y53irtue of this
denial, there is a legal dispute’ between Liechtenstein and Germany.”

17. In this case, nothing prevented Nicaragua from communicating its claims and grievances

to Colombia through the usual diplomatic channels or by any other modality at any time prior to

the termination of jurisdiction under the Pact. Not only did it not protest or otherwise

communicate: to the contrary, at the highest levels, it assured Colombia of its satisfaction with its

comportment. Recall President Ortega’s statement of 14 August 2013 that “there has not been any

54
kind of confrontation between the Colombian and Nicaragua Navy” . Having failed to

communicate any “complaints of fact and law”, to borrow your language from Certain Property,

indeed, from expressing at the highest political level, the opposite until the critical date, Nicaragua

must bear the responsibility and cannot evade it by claiming to be a “small” country. Now,

Mr. President, Members of the Court, that may seem to be a matter of rules, but the rule of law is

comprised of rules which are applied to all equally. It is the hallmark of the law.

18. Before concluding, I must comment on Nicaragua’s tendency to malign a State that dares

to criticize a judgment, or part of a judgment, of the Court while burnishing its own appreciation.

5Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 19,
para 25.

5POC, Vol. II, Ann. 11. - 25 -

There is no violation of international law when a State  or a scholar  criticizes a decision of the

Security Council, or of the General Assembly or of a judgment of the Court. When, however, a

party that has not prevailed undertakes the arduous process of implementing a deeply unpopular

judgment, it demonstrates all the more its commitment to international law.

19. Mr. President, yesterday, Professor Lowe mused whether there is really a dispute or

“whether we are all here as a result of some ghastly misunderstanding”. The Court will surely have

realized by now that it is indeed the latter; we are here as the result of a ghastly misunderstanding

and none of us should really be here. As a result of Nicaragua’s filing of an entirely artificial

application, we have been compelled to appear before you to respond to frivolous claims without a

jurisdictional base, which are said to constitute a phantom dispute, the subject-matter of which was

entirely unknown to Colombia until it was informed by the Registry that, once again, proceedings

had been instituted against it. Ghastly, indeed, Mr. President.

20. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your attention and ask that

Mr. Valencia-Ospina be invited to address you.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne à présent la parole à

M. Valencia-Ospina.

Mr. VALENCIA-OSPINA:

THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION : THE C OURT LACKS JURISDICTION BECAUSE

THE PRECONDITION OF A RTICLE IIOF THE PACT OF B OGOTÁ HAD NOT BEEN
FULFILLED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION

Introduction

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, after having heard Nicaragua’s first round of oral

pleadings, it becomes necessary to shed more light on the Applicant’s misguided interpretation of

the applicable law and appreciation of the facts relevant for the third objection.

2. In so doing, I shall concentrate on the objective assessment of the opinion of the Parties.

During the first round, Colombia dealt extensively with the interpretation of Article II of the Pact

of Bogotá, a question that Nicaragua largely neglected at that round. In this respect I will,

therefore, limit myself to highlighting four of the many additional points that could be made. - 26 -

 First, Nicaragua has now gone as far as to suggest that, “the judgment of the negotiability of

the dispute is a matter . . . not for a third party” . In other words, the Applicant argues that the

Court  contrary to what it stated in the 1988 Judgment  is not entitled to make an

objective assessment of the opinion of the Parties but only to take note of what Nicaragua says.

 Second, the fact that the Inter-American Juridical Committee’s Rapporteur moved an

amendment to Article II of the Pact did not imply that for him the proper interpretation of that

provision was the one suggested by the French text. On the contrary, as he explained in his

report: “[n]either party is legally in a position to invoke the Pact at the time when, in its

57
individual judgment, a controversy can no longer be settled by diplomatic means” . He thus

confirmed the view he had expressed four years earlier that Article II enshrined “a qualified

obligation to have recourse to the peaceful means of settlement only when there is a concurrent

58
opinion of the State Parties” ; and most significantly, that the terminology in the opinion of

the parties “was not a mistake in drafting technique” . 59

 Third, Nicaragua seeks to strengthen its reading of Article II by drawing attention to Article 26

60
of the OAS Charter which also uses the expression “in the opinion of one” of the Parties .

However, the reliance of Article 26 on the term in the singular is virtually effaced by that

article’s injunction that the “Parties [in the plural] shall agree on some other peaceful procedure

that will enable them to reach a solution”. In other words, what matters according to Article 26

is in the end the opinion of both Parties since one of them cannot unilaterally determine the

procedure to be used.

55CR 2015/23, p. 42, para. 47 (Lowe).

56Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 95, para. 65.

57Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of
Bogotá), Organization of the American States doc. OEA/SER.G, CP/Doc. 1603/85, 3 Sep. 1985, English Text, Ann. 23 of
Nicaragua’s Counter-Memorial in the Border and Transborder Armed Actions case (Nicaragua v. Honduras),
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 461.

58Galo Leoro, F., “La Reforma del Tratado Americano de Soluciones Pacíficas o Pacto de Bogotá”, Anuario
Jurídico Inter-Americano, 1981, p. 48, para. 93.

59Galo Leoro, F., “La Reforma del Tratado Americano de Soluciones Pacíficas o Pacto de Bogotá”, Anuario
Jurídico Inter-Americano, 1981, p. 51, para. 106.

60WSN, para. 4.28. - 27 -

 Fourth, counsel for Nicaragua stated that “it is enough if one of [the Parties] holds the view that

there is no prospect of a negotiated settlement” . Colombia has rejected this proposition,

which, in any event, would be inapplicable in the present case given the repeated statements by

the President of Nicaragua emphasizing that negotiations were possible.

The opinion of the Parties

3. Yesterday, the Agent of Nicaragua stated that, “President Ortega has repeatedly reiterated

Nicaragua’s willingness to initiate conversations on different topics related to the implementation

62
of the judgment” . In fact, he stressed  as if Colombia had reasons to think otherwise  that

“[t]hese are not empty words” . 63

4. Colombia certainly appreciates that Nicaragua has recognized on several occasions the

many subject-matters over which the Parties are in agreement concerning the possibility to

negotiate. Already in its Written Statement, Nicaragua asserted that, “it ha[d] kept the door open to

talking about the treaty Colombia wants, including on issues like fishing and environmental

protection” , that “there were . . . subjects on which negotiations might eventually be had” and 65

66
that “both Parties had expressed willingness to consider” certain issues . These are correct

depictions of the situation at the time of the seisin of the Court.

5. However, in the same Written Statement, Nicaragua proceeded to downplay the value of

its assertions. In those pleadings, Nicaragua indeed argued that the subject-matter of the claims it

had brought before the Court was different from “the subject matter of the negotiations both Parties

had expressed willingness to consider” . In other words, for Nicaragua the alleged violations of its

sovereign rights and maritime zones had nothing to do with the implementation of the

2012 Judgment.

61CR 2015/23, p. 42, para. 47 (Lowe).

62Ibid., p. 12, para. 12 (Arguëllo).
63
Ibid., p. 12, para. 12 (Arguëllo).
64
WSN, para. 4.7.
65WSN, para. 4.56.

66WSN, para. 4.59.

67WSN, para. 4.59. - 28 -

6. In fairness, it must be acknowledged that Nicaragua has not repeated this argument in the

first round. Nicaragua must have realized that arguing that the Parties are willing to negotiate

issues related to the implementation of the 2012 Judgment but not the alleged violations of its

maritime zones resulting from that Judgment is artificial and deceptive.

7. Nicaragua has likewise avoided reasserting its argument that, “pending the decision of the

Constitutional Court, Colombia was of the opinion that no negotiation was even possible” . In 68

fact, Nicaragua made no mention during the first round of the statements made by the President and

69
Foreign Minister of Colombia on 15 and 18 September 2013 . Similarly, Nicaragua has failed to

rebut the statements made on 9 and 10 September 2013 by Colombia’s Executive that expressed

70
Colombia’s willingness to negotiate .

8. Instead, for Nicaragua now, what rendered negotiations futile was the enactment of

Colombian Decree 1946, a decree that was not protested by Nicaragua prior to the critical date. To

quote the Agent of Nicaragua, “the possibility of successful negotiations became clearly closed

when Colombia enacted the 1946 Decree” . But this is implausible to say the least. For if the

words of the President of Nicaragua “are [to be considered as] not [being] empty” , what about his

statements made in September 2013, January and May 2014? After all, the Agent of Nicaragua

does refer to them in his speech as being instances in which Nicaragua has expressed “willingness

73
to initiate conversations” . Indeed, at the same time he recognizes that the words of his President

must be taken seriously, the Agent cites passages from the Memorial that explicitly refer to the

September and May statements . 74 The Memorial rightfully emphasizes that the September

declaration was made “the day after President Santos introduced Decree 1946 establishing the

75
Colombian ‘ICZ’” . How can Nicaragua then demonstrate that the Decree had rendered

68WSN, para. 4.46 and paras 4.38-4.52, Anns. 12 and 39.

69POC, Anns. 13 and 42.
70
POC, paras 4.68 and 4.69, Anns. 12 and 39; CR 2015/22, p. 55, para. 24 (Valencia-Ospina).
71
CR 2015/23, p.17, para. 31 (Arguëllo).
72
Ibid., p. 12, para. 12 (Arguëllo).
73Ibid., p. 12, para. 12, fn. 9 (Arguëllo); MN, paras 2.53-2.63.

74CR 2015/23, p. 12, para. 12 (Arguëllo); MN, paras 2.58 and 2.60.

75MN, para. 2.58. - 29 -

negotiations futile if on the very next day, and the following months, its President had continued to

express such bona fide willingness?

9. The elements of conduct adduced by Colombia “[t]o measure the validity of the

Applicant’s assumption that the complaint to the Constitutional Court made negotiations useless”,

are equally relevant to dispose of the new Nicaraguan argument based on the adoption of the

Decree . Contrary to what Counsel for Nicaragua stated, these declarations by the Executive of

Nicaragua certainly do not support the contention that by the critical date “it quickly bec[a]me

77
evident that a deadlock [had been] reached” . In spite of what Nicaragua would have us believe, it

is Colombia and not the Applicant that takes with the utmost seriousness the words of the

Nicaraguan President.

10. As it turns out, Nicaragua has itself defeated its own proposition that it had seised the

Court because in its opinion direct negotiations were impossible. Rather, its motives were purely

opportunistic. For as the Agent of Nicaragua stated, after having recognized that “unilateral

78
recourse” to the Court would be impossible after 27 November 2013 , Nicaragua “reluctantly took

79
the decision to come to the Court before the denunciation of the Pact of Bogotá came into force” .

What the Agent thus emphasizes is Nicaragua’s will to preserve the jurisdictional avenue, not the

futility of negotiations. Counsel for Nicaragua also stated, in terms that are illuminating, that

Nicaragua “had to make [a] judgement (sic) call” . What he meant, of course, is that Nicaragua

took this decision not on the basis of whether negotiations were, in the opinion of the Parties,

possible, but because it faced the last possible opportunity in which to do so.

11. In this respect, I want to stress that the Agent of Nicaragua’s query as to whether it is

“reasonable to suppose that Nicaragua had to continue attempting to negotiate before attempting

procedures which would cease to be in effect one day later” is simply beside the point . The 81

coming into effect of Colombia’s denunciation of the Pact of Bogotá did not relieve an informed

76CR 2015/22, pp. 55-57, paras 25-29 (Valencia-Ospina).

77CR 2015/23, p. 44, para. 58 (Lowe).

78Ibid., p. 15, para. 22 (Arguëllo).
79
Ibid., para. 23 (Arguëllo).
80Ibid., pp. 42-43, para. 52 (Lowe).

81Ibid., p. 16, para. 27 (Arguëllo). - 30 -

Applicant from its duty to fulfil the preconditions for the Court’s jurisdiction. It cannot trump the

positive statements made by the President of Nicaragua immediately before and after the filing of

the Application. In light of those explicit statements, the unsubstantiated assertion by Counsel for

Nicaragua that “[a]t the time of the Application, there seemed [to be] no hope of a negotiated

settlement” could not be further removed from the truth.

12. Also beside the point is Nicaragua’s reference to the case law of the Court, according to

which negotiations and recourse to judicial settlement can be pursued pari passu . For obviously3

that is only relevant when the Court’s jurisdiction is not limited by a clause such as Article II of the

Pact. Indeed, in the 1978 Judgment in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, the Court did not

uphold the argument that in general “the existence of active negotiations in progress constitutes an

84
impediment to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction” . It so acted because under general

international law the governing principle is the free choice of means . Had Turkey and Greece

been parties to a treaty such as the Pact, the situation would have been very different. In this

respect, counsel for Nicaragua’s reference to the 1998 Judgment in the Cameroon v. Nigeria case 86

is also totally irrelevant because the applicable law was likewise general international law and not a

treaty in which the parties had agreed to incorporate a precondition of unavailability of

negotiations. Nicaragua is well aware that that precedent confirms Colombia’s argument since in

the very paragraph quoted by the Applicant, the Court also dealt expressly with the question of the

special clauses embodied in treaties, which it significantly termed “precondition[s]” and

87
distinguished it from the situation under general international law .

13. In fact, as the Court stated in its 2011 Judgment in Georgia v. Russia, referring to a

provision similar to Article II of the Pact, preconditions pertaining to negotiations are “conditions

88
precedent to the seisin of the Court even when the term is not qualified by a temporal element” .

82CR 2015/23, p. 43, para. 54 (Lowe).

83Ibid., p. 17, para. 30 (Arguëllo).
84
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 12, para. 29.
85
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
86CR 2015/23, p. 42, para. 49 (Lowe).

87Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 303, para. 56.

88Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 124, para. 130. - 31 -

Moreover, as Colombia has already stressed during the first round, the precondition of Article II of

the Pact had to be met at the time of the filing of the Application, also for an additional reason

specific to this case. Due to the fact that the jurisdiction under the Pact had, even on Nicaragua’s

theory, lapsed at the latest on 27 November 2013, it would be impossible for Nicaragua to bring

fresh proceedings after that date.

14. For all these reasons, the Applicant must demonstrate that the precondition was met at

the latest by the time of the seisin of the Court. Whether the precondition under Article II has been

fulfilled later, which in any event it has not been, is irrelevant once jurisdiction under the Pact has

expired.

Conclusion

15. Mr. President, Members of the Court, by manufacturing a deadlock which Nicaragua

attributes to the authorities of Colombia, the Applicant has made a desperate attempt at diverting

the attention of the Court from the analysis of the statements of its own Executive. Yet, as

Nicaragua itself admits when quoting the Georgia v. Russia case, “primary attention” should be

“given to statements made or endorsed by the Executives of the two Parties” . 89

16. Consequently, would it not be more appropriate for Nicaragua to objectively assess its

own opinion on the basis of all the statements made by its Executive that explicitly recognized that

negotiations were the way to proceed? Instead Nicaragua seeks to establish its opinion from an

inconclusive element of tacit conduct, namely, the filing of its Application which neither

mentioned Article II of the Pact nor referred to the opinion of the Parties concerning the viability of

negotiations.

17. Finally, Nicaragua has stated during the first round that it “has been  and still

remains  willing to conclude a treaty implementing the Court’s judgment” and that it is “open to

make some adaptations to the régime applicable in the areas recognized by the Court to belong to

it” . For the purpose of this third objection, what really matters is that these assertions confirm

what has been stated by the Parties all along, namely, that negotiations are in the opinion of both

8WSN, para. 4.53.

9CR 2015/23, p. 44, para. 58 (Lowe). - 32 -

Parties still possible. The fact that a treaty has not yet been reached cannot evidence that the

precondition under Article II had been met at the relevant time.

18. Mr. President, having arrived at the end of my presentation, may I express my thanks to

you and the Members of the Court for your courteous attention and respectfully ask that you call on

my colleague, Mr. Treves.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne à présent la parole au professeur Tullio Treves.

M. TREVES :

L A C OUR N ’A PAS UN POUVOIR INHÉRENT POUR JUGER DES DEMANDES DU N ICARAGUA

(QUATRIÈME ET CINQUIÈME OBJECTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES )

1. Merci, Monsieur le président. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges,

ma tâche est aujourd’hui de démontrer que la compétence de la Cour à se prononcer sur la demande

du Nicaragua ne saurait trouver sa base sur un pouvoir inhérent qu’aurait la Cour. Pour ce faire, je

vais répondre aux arguments, pourtant brillants, soumis par mon collègue et ami Alain Pellet à

l’audience d’hier matin.

2. Le leitmotiv de l’argumentation du professeur Pellet est que l’allégué pouvoir (ou
91
compétence) inhérent de la Cour «découle de l’existence même de la Cour» expression utilisée

dans les arrêts sur les Essais nucléaires, ou, selon une formule que le professeur Pellet utilise aussi,

92
«de la qualité d’organe judiciaire de la Cour» . Ainsi, du simple fait que la Cour est un organe

judiciaire (et personne n’en doute), elle serait automatiquement compétente à se prononcer sur

toute demande relative à l’inexécution d’un arrêt.

3. Une affaire conclue par un jugement qui l’a tranchée en portant ainsi à exhaustion la

compétence de la Cour, donnerait  comme par parthénogénèse  naissance à la compétence à

juger sur une autre affaire portant sur la responsabilité internationale découlant des obligations qui

incombent à un autre Etat aux termes d’un arrêt de la Cour.

91CR 2015/23, p. 48, par. 12 (Pellet) citant Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974,
p. 259, par. 23 et Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle-Zélande c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 463, par. 23.
92
CR 2015/23, p. 46, par. 5 (Pellet). - 33 -

4. Chacun voit qu’il s’agit d’une idée qui manque de cohérence avec le principe consensuel

de la compétence de la Cour. En acceptant cette compétence sur la base de n’importe quel titre

prévu par le Statut, les parties acceptent que la Cour se prononce sur l’objet de la demande ou de la

question qu’elles soumettent par compromis et non sur une question ayant un objet différent, tel

qu’est la prétendue non-exécution de l’arrêt qui a mis fin à l’affaire.

5. Un argument important visant à exclure l’existence d’un pouvoir inhérent qui, à lui seul,

fonderait la compétence de la Cour, que la Colombie fait valoir est que les cas d’invocation de

pouvoirs inhérents qu’on trouve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour sont tous basés sur la prémisse

que la compétence de la Cour soit établie.

6. C’est ce qu’a dit la Cour dans les arrêts sur les Essais nucléaires et encore dans

l’arrêt LaGrand de 2001, dans des passages dûment cités dans ma plaidoirie d’avant-hier . Pour 93

mémoire, dans les affaires des Essais nucléaires, la Cour a dit que ses pouvoirs inhérents pouvaient

être exercés «si sa compétence au fond est établie» ; dans l’arrêt LaGrand, la Cour a dit que son

pouvoir de juger sur l’inexécution d’une ordonnance portant mesures conservatoires pouvait

s’exercer «lorsque la Cour a compétence pour trancher un différend» . 95

7. Le professeur Pellet semble ne donner aucune importance à ces affirmations de la Cour. Il

s’attache à démontrer, toutefois, l’existence de cas envisagés par la Cour où la compétence de

celle-ci trouve sa base dans un pouvoir inhérent même en l’absence d’une compétence établie.

8. Ainsi, fait-il valoir que, dans les arrêts sur les Essais nucléaires, la Cour, après avoir dit

qu’elle possède un pouvoir inhérent l’autorisant à prendre toute mesure voulue «d’une part pour

faire en sorte que, si la compétence au fond est établie, l’exercice de cette compétence ne se révèle

pas vain» dit que cette compétence vaut «d’autre part pour assurer le règlement régulier de tous les

points en litige ainsi que le respect des «limitations inhérentes à l’exercice de la fonction

93CR 2015/22, p. 62-63, par. 12 et p. 63, par. 14 (Treves).

94 Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 259, par. 23 et Essais nucléaires
(Nouvelle-Zélande c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 463, par. 23.
95
LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 484, par. 45. - 34 -

96
judiciaire»» . Cela indiquerait, d’après M. Pellet, qu’existent des pouvoirs inhérents pour

l’exercice desquels la présence d’une compétence établie ne serait pas nécessaire . 97

9. On ne saurait trop lire dans la structure de la phrase que l’on vient de citer. Il n’en reste

pas moins que les pouvoirs mentionnés après l’expression «d’autre part» n’ont rien à voir avec une

possible compétence sur le fond d’une affaire. En effet, ils ont trait à la régularité procédurale et au

fait que la Cour ne saurait se prononcer sur une requête ne correspondant pas à la notion même de

la fonction judiciaire. Tel serait un arrêt, comme celui envisagé dans l’affaire du Cameroun

septentrional, qui n’aurait pas des «conséquences pratiques» ne pouvant pas «affecter les droits ou

98
obligations juridiques existants des parties» . Partant, la Cour est loin d’affirmer un pouvoir

inhérent la rendant compétente pour se prononcer sur l’inexécution d’un arrêt.

10. Pour ce qui est de l’arrêt LaGrand, invoqué par M. Pellet, il faut souligner d’abord que la

décision de la Cour de se prononcer sur l’inexécution d’une ordonnance portant mesures

conservatoires adoptée dans le cadre du même procès, ne fut pas prise en accueillant l’argument

«accessoire et subsidiaire» de l’Allemagne que la compétence était comprise dans un pouvoir

inhérent. La Cour, comme déjà souligné avant-hier , n’accepta pas cet argument et affirma que la

conclusion de l’Allemagne relative à l’inexécution de l’ordonnance indiquant des mesures

conservatoires portait «sur des questions qui découlent directement du différend opposant les

100
Parties devant la Cour, à l’égard desquelles la Cour a déjà conclu qu’elle était compétente» .

11. La Cour réaffirme ensuite l’arrêt sur l’affaire de la Compétence en matière de pêcheries

en soulignant que lorsque la Cour

«a estimé que, afin de considérer le différend sous tous ses aspects, elle pouvait aussi
connaître d’une conclusion qui «se fonde sur des faits postérieurs au dépôt de la
requête mais découlant directement de la question qui fait l’objet de cette requête…»

(Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale101Allemagne c. Islande),
fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 203, par. 72)» .

96 Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 259, par. 23 et Essais nucléaires

(Nouvelle-Zélande c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 463, par. 23  les italiques sont de nous.
97CR 2015/23, p. 49, par. 13 (Pellet).

98 Cameroun septentrional (Cameroun c. Royaume-Uni, exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1963,
p. 34.
99
CR 2015/22, p. 63, par. 14 (Treves).
100
LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 483, par. 45.
101Ibid., p. 484, par. 45. - 35 -

12. C’est sur cette base  et non sur l’idée du pouvoir inhérent  que la Cour affirma que

«[l]orsque la Cour a compétence pour trancher un différend, elle a également

compétence pour se prononcer sur des conclusions la priant de constater qu’une
ordonnance en indication de mesures rendue aux fins de préserver les droits des
Parties à ce différend n’a pas été exécutée» . 102

M. Pellet affirme que : «Il s’agit là encore d’un pouvoir inhérent, déduit de la qualité d’organe

103
judiciaire de la Cour et nullement d’une compétence prévue expressément par le Statut…»

13. Il semble oublier que c’est un pouvoir inhérent que la Cour n’exerce que quand elle a

établi sa compétence et seulement quand elle l’a établie, d’autant plus que les mesures

conservatoires sont, par définition, provisoires. C’est pourquoi la transposition de l’affirmation de

la Cour relative à sa compétence à se prononcer sur l’inexécution d’une ordonnance portant

mesures conservatoires à la compétence pour se prononcer sur l’inexécution d’un arrêt n’est pas
104
soutenable. Ce ne serait pas faire un raisonnement a fortiori comme le voudrait M. Pellet . Ce

serait suivre un raisonnement possible dans le cadre d’une affaire où la compétence est établie, qui

n’est pas admissible pour établir une compétence sur une affaire où une telle compétence n’existe

pas.

14. En somme : reste valable l’affirmation faite par le juge Guillaume dans son article

«De l’exécution des décisions de la Cour internationale de Justice». En se référant à l’exécution

des arrêts de la Cour, l’éminent juge s’exprime ainsi :

«Par ailleurs, tout différend relatif à cette exécution doit être regardé comme un
différend distinct de celui réglé par le jugement. La Cour ne saurait dès lors s’en saisir
105
sans un nouvel accord des parties.»

15. Ces deux phrases, citées dans les plaidoiries orales de la Colombie, sont les seules

omises dans la citation faite par M. Pellet de la demi-page de l’article de M. Guillaume qui les suit

106
immédiatement . Elles donnent néanmoins un sens précis à la phrase suivante d’après laquelle la

Cour a

102LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 484, par. 45.

103CR 2015/23, p. 50, par. 14 (Pellet).
104
Ibid., p. 62, par. 43 (Pellet).
105Gilbert Guillaume, «De l’exécution des décisions de la Cour internationale de Justice» (1997), dans La Cour
e
internationale de Justice à l’aube du XXI siècle, Le regard d’un juge, Pédone, Paris, 2003, p. 178-179 (références
omises).
106CR 2015/23, p. 51, par. 16 (Pellet). - 36 -

«jugé à plusieurs reprises qu’elle ne pouvait, ni ne devait envisager l’inexécution de
ses arrêts et ne s’est-elle prononcée sur cette exécution que dans les cas où les Parties
lui avaient donné spécifiquement compétence à cet effet» . 107

16. Le sens qu’il faut tirer de cette affirmation est que pour juger d’un différend portant sur

l’inexécution d’un arrêt de la Cour, un titre spécifique de compétence est nécessaire, que ce soit un

accord ad hoc des parties ou une autre forme de consentement.

17. Le professeur Pellet semble confondre la possibilité abstraite de la Cour de se prononcer

sur l’inexécution d’un arrêt avec la possibilité concrète de le faire qui requiert un titre spécifique de

compétence qui ne saurait être le simple fait que l’objet du différend est une question de

responsabilité pour inexécution d’un arrêt déjà adopté. Quand il se demande  et il s’agit

évidemment d’une question rhétorique  sur quelle base la Cour a pu adopter les paragraphes 60

et 63 des arrêts de 1974 sur les affaires des Essais nucléaires , le professeur Pellet donne un

exemple de pouvoir inhérent dans l’abstrait  un pouvoir qui ne fonde pas une compétence de la

Cour mais qui peut s’exercer à la condition que la Cour soit saisie d’un différend sur lequel sa

compétence est établie, ce qui était le cas dans les affaires des Essais nucléaires.

18. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, l’invitation que le Nicaragua

dirige à la Cour de suivre d’autres juridictions internationales, qui se considèrent investies du

pouvoir de juger sur l’inexécution de leurs décisions, peut paraître attrayante dans l’optique d’une

hypothétique «fonction judiciaire internationale» dont feraient partie toutes les cours et tous les

tribunaux internationaux.

19. L’invitation devient moins attrayante et juridiquement moins persuasive si l’on considère

les différences entre votre Cour et les cours et tribunaux internationaux qui se sont déclarés

compétents pour juger sur l’exécution de leurs décisions. Il s’agit notamment des cours dont la

compétence concerne la protection des droits de l’homme, des tribunaux administratifs

internationaux et de la cour très spéciale (quasi domestique) qui était la Cour des communautés

européennes. Ni les unes ni les autres ne basent leur compétence sur le consentement des parties.

20. Il faut ajouter que les cours et tribunaux internationaux qui se considèrent investis du

pouvoir de juger de l’inexécution de leurs jugements sont moins nombreux que ce qu’il apparaît de

107Gilbert Guillaume, «De l’exécution des décisions de la Cour internationale de Justice» (1997), dans La Cour
internationale de Justice à l’aube du XXI siècle, Le regard d’un juge, Pédone, Paris, 2003, p. 179 (références omises).

108CR 2015/23, p. 62, par. 64 (Pellet). - 37 -

la plaidoirie de M. Pellet. En effet, la position de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme ne

correspond pas à celle de la cour interaméricaine comme on pourrait le croire en écoutant M. Pellet.

Dans l’arrêt Meltex du 21 mai 2013, la Cour européenne dit en effet :

«la Cour souligne continuellement qu’il ne relève pas de ses compétences de vérifier

si une partie a rempli les obligations que lui impose un des jugements de la Cour. Par
conséquent, elle refusa d’examiner des requêtes relatives au manquement des Etats
d’exécuter ses jugements, en déclarant de telles requêtes inadmissibles
ratione materiae.» 109

110
21. En outre, contrairement à ce que le Nicaragua a soutenu avant-hier , l’arrêt Saiga II du

Tribunal international du droit de la mer n’a pas utilisé un pouvoir inhérent quand il s’est prononcé

sur une demande relative à l’inexécution de son arrêt antérieur portant sur la prompte mainlevée du

navire. Le Tribunal était en effet investi d’une demande portant sur la violation d’un ou plusieurs

articles de la convention sur le droit de la mer. Et il était compétent pour toute affaire portant sur

111
l’interprétation ou l’application des dispositions de celle-ci .

22. Le pas franchi par les cours et tribunaux internationaux dont la compétence est

indépendante du consentement des parties aux procès qui se déroulent devant elles est infiniment

plus modeste du pas que le Nicaragua invite la Cour à faire en se déclarant pourvue d’un pouvoir

inhérent à juger de l’exécution de ses arrêts. Un tel pas, si la Cour devait le faire, pourrait

décourager les Etats qui envisagent d’accepter la compétence de la Cour.

23. Non seulement la sagesse d’un tel pas serait ainsi contestable. Sa compatibilité avec le

Statut le serait aussi. Comment considérer cohérente avec un Statut qui base la compétence de la

Cour sur le consentement des parties à la soumission à la Cour de différends bien définis, la

revendication d’un pouvoir «inhérent» de juger de différends portant sur la responsabilité

internationale pour violation des obligations contenues dans un arrêt, dont la base serait cet arrêt et

que les Etats peuvent considérer avoir définitivement réglé une affaire ?

24. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, nonobstant les arguments portés

par le Nicaragua à l’audience d’avant-hier, la Colombie continue à penser que l’article L du pacte

109Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), Meltex Ltd. c. Arménie, application n 45199/09, jugement
du 21 mai 2013, par. 28.

110CR 2015/23, p. 56, par. 26 (Pellet).
111 er
Tribunal international du droit de la mer (TIDM), arrêt du 1 juillet 1999, Affaire du navire «SAIGA» (No. 2)
(Saint-Vincent-et-les Grenadines c. Guinée), par. 30. - 38 -

de Bogotá a une importance dans notre affaire. Lu conjointement à l’article 52, paragraphe 2, de la

Charte des Nations Unies (les deux apparaissent sur l’écran), cet article indique que en tout cas

d’alléguée inexécution d’un arrêt de la Cour les Etats américains parties au pacte s’obligent à

entreprendre tout effort possible pour obtenir une solution pacifique au niveau régional. Pour

donner plein effet à ces deux articles, l’obligation de «faire tous leurs efforts» au niveau régional et,

notamment, pour les Etats parties au pacte de Bogotá, d’investir la réunion de consultation des

ministres des relations extérieures des Etats parties au pacte, doit comprendre non seulement les cas

où une partie envisage de recourir à l’article 94, paragraphe 2, de la Charte, mais aussi les cas où

elle envisage de recourir à la Cour pour soutenir que l’alléguée inexécution a causé une

responsabilité internationale. Or, le Nicaragua n’a entrepris aucun pas au niveau régional avant de

recourir à la Cour. La Colombie soumet respectueusement ce fait à la considération de la Cour.

25. Les quatrième et cinquième exceptions préliminaires de la Colombie sont ainsi

confirmées.

26. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie pour votre

patience. Je vous prie bien, Monsieur le président, de donner la parole à M. Bundy.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne à présent la parole à M. Bundy.

Mr. BUNDY:

C ONCLUDING REMARKS

1. Thank you very much, Mr. President, Members of the Court. Having heard my colleagues

address Nicaragua’s contentions advanced yesterday with respect to each of Colombia’s

preliminary objections, it falls to me to make some brief concluding remarks.

2. Nicaragua has advanced two bases of jurisdiction for its claims. The first is Article XXXI

of the Pact of Bogotá . Now, that was the basis of jurisdiction for the case decided by the Court’s

Judgment of 19 November 2012. And the second, which Nicaragua put forward as an alternative

basis of jurisdiction in its Application, is grounded on a novel theory, which counsel for Nicaragua

admitted is nowhere authorized in the Court’s Statute, in the Rules of Court or even in the Pact of

11Application of Nicaragua, paras. 16-17. - 39 -

113
Bogotá and that theory is that, even though the case was fully and finally decided in 2012, and

was thereafter removed from the List of pending cases before the Court, and I quote from

Nicaragua’s Application: “the jurisdiction of the Court lies in its inherent power to pronounce on

114
the actions required by its Judgments” .

3. Colombia, for its part, has raised five preliminary objections. The first three  the

absence of jurisdiction ratione temporis, the lack of a dispute, and the failure of Nicaragua to fulfil

the [pre]conditions of Article II of the Pact, concern the absence of jurisdiction under the Pact of

Bogotá.

4. To be clear, if the Court decides that there is no jurisdiction ratione temporis under

Article LVI of the Pact, as Colombia believes to be the case, it does not need to reach the question

whether, objectively, there was a dispute between the Parties over the subject-matter of

Nicaragua’s claims as of the critical date  the date of Nicaragua’s Application  and similarly,

the Court would not need to decide whether Nicaragua had satisfied the requirements of Article II

of the Pact prior to instituting these proceedings. However, if the Court were to subscribe to

Nicaragua’s reading of Article LVI, including the all-important second paragraph, that would still

not be the end of the matter, for the Court would still need to decide whether there really was

objectively a dispute between the Parties as to the allegations advanced by Nicaragua in its

Application, as of the critical date, and whether, if so, the facts show that the Parties were of the

opinion, as of 26 November 2013, that such dispute could not be settled by direct negotiations

through the usual diplomatic channels. If either of those requirements were not met, there would

still be no jurisdiction under the Pact.

5. Colombia’s fourth and fifth objections are interrelated and are directed to Nicaragua’s

alternative theory of jurisdiction. The fourth objection is that the Court has no “inherent

jurisdiction” to pronounce on the actions required by one of its previous judgments and the fifth

objection is centred on the principle that the Court has no post-adjudication enforcement

jurisdiction.

11CR 2015/23, p. 48, para.11 (Pellet).

11Application, para. 18. - 40 -

6. I think it is pretty evident that Nicaragua has advanced its alternative basis of jurisdiction

because it realizes the fragility of its arguments that there is jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá.

If Nicaragua were as confident as it professes to be that jurisdiction vests under the Pact, there

would have been no need for it to conjure up its novel and far-reaching “inherent jurisdiction”

theory. As Professor Treves has explained, Nicaragua’s alternative basis of jurisdiction does not

save Nicaragua because such “inherent jurisdiction” does not exist in the circumstances of this

case.

7. I should also add that all of Colombia’s preliminary objections have an exclusively

preliminary character. In other words, all of them can be decided on the basis of the facts that have

been adduced relevant to jurisdiction.

8. That being said, there is one common factor that has a bearing on each of Colombia’s

objections and that concerns the timing of Nicaragua’s Application. I trust that the significance of

the fact that Nicaragua lodged its Application on 26 November 2013  the very last day it could

under its interpretation of Article LVI of the Pact  will not be lost on the Court.

9. That date had nothing to do with whether a dispute genuinely existed between the Parties

at the time. Nor did it have any relation with the question whether, if a dispute actually existed, the

Parties  or even Nicaragua alone  considered that the dispute was one that could not be settled

by negotiations. No, Mr. President; the date of 26 November 2013 was chosen for pure reasons of

expediency. As Nicaragua’s Agent acknowledged: “After this last date Nicaragua would be left

without clear recourse to the instruments of peaceful resolution of conflicts which was at the heart

of the Pact of Bogotá.” 115 And it is precisely because there are a host of reasons why there is no

jurisdiction under the Pact as of the critical date that Nicaragua had to invent its “inherent

jurisdiction” alternative.

10. With respect to the question whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis, I would

only add one point to what Sir Michael Wood has already said.

11. As Sir Michael explained, the addition of the second paragraph to Article LVI was new

in the Pact. The fact that it was a new addition to what had been provided for in previous treaties

11CR 2015/23, p. 15, para. 22 (Argüello Gómez). - 41 -

was deliberate, and it was highlighted during the travaux. The negotiating States obviously

considered the situation where dispute resolution procedures might have been instituted before a

party to the Pact denounced it, and they wanted to ensure that such procedures survived the

particular notice of denunciation and that is what the second paragraph of Article LVI does. In

contrast though, what it does not do and what it does not say is that denunciation shall have no

effect with respect to procedures initiated after the transmission of the particular notification. The

negotiators could perfectly easily have provided for that outcome, but they did not do so.

12. On the screen, you will see the text of the second paragraph of Article LVI, which you

are familiar with. “The denunciation shall have no effect with respect to pending procedures

initiated prior to the transmission of the particular notification.” [Emphasis added.]

13. For Nicaragua’s interpretation to be valid, what the second paragraph should have said is

the following. “The denunciation shall have no effect with respect to pending procedures initiated

prior to the date when the Pact ceases to be in force with respect to the State denouncing it.”

[Emphasis added.] But that obviously did not happen, and it fundamentally undermines

Nicaragua’s interpretation of the provision.

14. Then there is the question whether there was a dispute between the Parties concerning

the allegations in Nicaragua’s Application and, if so, whether it could not be settled by

negotiations.

15. According to Nicaragua’s Agent and Professor Lowe, the existence of a dispute had been

public knowledge since the very day that the Judgment was rendered  19 November 2012  as a

result of President Santos’s remarks that were made really just a few moments after the Judgment

116
was read out . But, as Professor Reisman has shown, that allegation is completely contradicted

by what Nicaragua’s President and what Nicaragua’s highest military commanders said over the

next twelve months. The Court will not find a single accusation on the record from these senior

State representatives that they considered that a dispute had emerged  you won’t find it 

whether as a result of President Santos’s remarks or otherwise.

11CR 2015/23, p. 17, para. 28 (Argüello Gómez); p. 42, para. 52 (Lowe). - 42 -

16. I respectfully invite the Court to look at the record as a whole. There is a consistent

pattern of statements emanating from President Ortega that show just the opposite of what our

colleagues on the other side contend. I referred to many of these on Monday and counsel for

Nicaragua studiously avoided mentioning any of them yesterday. Sometimes, Mr. President, it is

instructive to listen to the silences.

17. We also heard yesterday that the Nicaraguan navy did not attempt to interfere with what

are alleged to be illegal Colombian patrols in Nicaraguan waters, and that this is the reason there

117
was no confrontation . Apparently, Nicaragua wishes to take credit for the fact that the situation

at sea was calm and without incident, as was repeatedly confirmed by Nicaragua’s highest military

officials. But let us not forget that it was President Ortega himself, on 13 August 2013, who

credited Colombia’s President Santos with the lack of any confrontations in the pacific situation . 118

18. And let us also not forget that, not simply on this occasion, but also on many others right

up to the time the Application was filed, both President Ortega and President Santos had confirmed

that they welcomed having negotiations, and that Foreign Minister Holguín had expressly stated

that Colombia’s doors were always open to negotiate a treaty . I hope that responds to my good

120
friend, Mr. Lowe’s question whether Colombia ever responded to Nicaragua’s offers . It did.

19. Mr. President, Members of the Court: in the light of the factual context, the timing of

Nicaragua’s Application was artificial. It was lodged when it was because Nicaragua thought it

was about to run out of time to institute proceedings under the Pact. But, at that time, there was not

a shred of evidence that the Parties had a dispute over the allegations that appeared for the first time

in the Application, or that they could not settle any issues relating to the implementation of the

Judgment by negotiations. That is, as I said, why we have this far-fetched alternative theory of

11CR 2015/23, p. 14, para. 20 (Argüello Gómez).

11Preliminary Objections of Colombia (POC), Ann. 11; and see CR 2015/22, pp. 33-34, para. 11 (Bundy).
119
CR 2015/22, p. 34, para. 11 (Bundy), and Written Statement of Nicaragua (WSN), Ann. 8, and Memorial of
Nicaragua (MN), Ann. 40.
12CR 2015/23, p. 43, para. 56 (Lowe). - 43 -

inherent jurisdiction expounded by Professor Pellet yesterday. It is supposed to act as some kind of

safety net in the event Nicaragua cannot show that it satisfied the conditions for instituting

proceedings under the Pact. But, as innovative as Professor Pellet’s exposé was, it does not create

a basis of jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.

20. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Colombia firmly believes that jurisdiction must be

grounded on the fundamental principle of consent, which includes any conditions that are attached

to that consent. We have shown that Colombia’s consent to jurisdiction in this case does not exist

under the Pact of Bogotá, and that there is no basis for implying consent with respect to

Nicaragua’s theory of “inherent jurisdiction”.

Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I thank the Court for its attention, and I would

ask if the floor could now be given to Colombia’s Agent. Thank you.

Le PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur Bundy. Je donne à présent la parole à S. Exc. M. Carlos

Gustavo Arrieta, agent de la Colombie.

Mr. ARRIETA:

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, as this will be our final presentation in this case and

since Nicaragua has made some accusations about Colombia’s position purportedly challenging

your authority and rejecting your Judgment of 19 November 2012, I wish to stress two very

important points before presenting our final submissions:

 First, Colombia firmly rejects Nicaragua’s tendency to distort Colombian officials’

declarations and statements. As Nicaragua recognized yesterday, what they have tried to do is

nothing less than a “cheap shot”. We believe it is not even that; it has been an outright

misrepresentation of those statements. Mr. President, let me say something. It is true that

Colombian public opinion does not agree with some aspects of the Judgment; Colombia is,

after all, a democracy, and Nicaragua seems to forget that democratic debate about a Court

decision is very different from defiance of it. Then, having a dualist system on boundaries is

not a sin, we are proud of our constitutional system; but what should be clear, first, is that

Colombia is, above all, a law-abiding country, and, second, that we are committed to the - 44 -

Judgment’s implementation. Our Constitutional Court, whose decisions are final, has held that

judgments of the International Court of Justice are binding, that they have to be incorporated

through treaties in case they affect our boundaries, and that it is our duty to negotiate them.

That is the rule of law. And that is the way domestically for us to proceed; it is not, as

Nicaragua has misstated, our use of domestic law to justify non-compliance.

 Second, as Colombia has made abundantly clear since November 2012, negotiations are the

way to proceed for implementation of the Judgment. Now, last, Nicaragua’s delegation seems

to have fallen in line with President Ortega’s declarations. Colombia wishes to confirm to

them and to you what we have always said: we are willing to sit at any moment, with

Nicaragua, and however many times it should prove necessary, to negotiate a treaty for the

implementation of the Court’s decision. This has been our position from the very start. I am

glad Nicaragua’s delegation has accepted it, and hope that they will show the Court that their

position regarding negotiations is not purely rhetorical.

2. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I now have the honour formally to read Colombia’s

final submissions, which are as follows:

“For the reasons set forth in our written and oral pleadings on preliminary
objections, the Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it
lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in its Application of
26 November 2013 and that said Application should be dismissed.”

3. A copy of the written text of Colombia’s final submissions is now being communicated to

the Court and transmitted to the Agent of Nicaragua.

4. Mr. President, Members of the Court, before I conclude let me express, on behalf of all the

members of the Colombian delegation, our thanks to you, Mr. President, and to the Members of the

Court, for your attention and for the efficient manner in which these proceedings have been

prepared and conducted. We are very grateful to all concerned: to the Registrar and his staff, to

the interpreters, to the translators and to all those who have worked so hard behind the scenes to

make this hearing possible.

5. That, Mr. President, concludes Colombia’s case. Thank you. - 45 -

Le PRESIDENT : Excellence, je vous remercie. La Cour prend acte des conclusions finales

dont vous venez de donner lecture au nom de la Colombie. Le Nicaragua présentera son second

tour de plaidoiries le vendredi 2 octobre, à 10 heures.

L’audience est levée.

L’audience est levée à 17 h 45.

___________