Uncorrected
Non corrigé
CR 2012/12
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2012
Public sitting
held on Friday 27 April 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2012
Audience publique
tenue le vendredi 27 avril 2012, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président,
en l’affaire du Différend territorial et maritime
(Nicaragua c. Colombie)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________ - 2 -
Present: Presient ka
Vice-Presipeúnltveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Sebutinde
Judges ad hoc Mensah
Cot
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Présents : M. Tomka,président
SepMúl.vvae-poé,ident
OwMada.
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Crinçade
Yusuf
Greenwood
XuMe mes
Donoghue
Sebgutisnde,
MeMnsah.
jugesCot, ad hoc
Cgefferr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 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., Chichele Professor of Inte rnational Law, University of Oxford, Counsel
and Advocate,
MrA. lexOudeElferink, Deputy-Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea,
Utrecht University,
Mr.AlainPellet, Professor at the University Pa risOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, former Member
and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr.PaulReichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
Mr.AntonioRemiroBrotóns, Professor of International Law, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid,
member of the Institut de droit international,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr.RobinCleverly, M.A., DPhil, C.Geol, F.G.S., Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty
Consultancy Services, The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
Mr.JohnBrown, R.D., M.A., F.R.I.N., F.R.G.S., Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty
Consultancy Services, The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
as Scientific and Technical Advisers;
Mr. César Vega Masís, 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 Affai
rs,
Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr.Lawrence H. Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, Washi ngton D.C., Member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Masschusetts,
MsCarmen Martínez Capdevila, Doctor of Public International Law, Universidad Autónoma,
Madrid,
as Counsel; - 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.VaughanLowe, Q.C., professeur de droit interna tional à l’Université d’Oxford, titulaire de la
chaire Chichele, conseil et avocat,
M. Alex Oude Elferink, directeur adjoint de l’Ins titut néerlandais du droit de la mer de l’Université
d’Utrecht,
M.AlainPellet, professeur à l’Université de Pari sOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit inte rnational, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C. , membre des barreaux de
la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
M.AntonioRemiroBrotóns, professeur de droi t international à l’Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M.RobinCleverly, M.A., D.Phil, C.Geol, F.G.S., consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty
Consultancy Services du bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
M.JohnBrown, R.D., M.A., F.R.I.N., F.R.G.S., consultant en droit de la mer, Admiralty
Consultancy Services du bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
comme conseillers scientifiques et techniques ;
M. César Vega Masís, 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,
Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M.Lawrence H. Martin, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux de la
Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
Mme Carmen Martínez Capdevila, docteur en droit international public de l’Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid,
comme conseils ; - 6 -
Mr.Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
MsClaudia Loza Obregon, Second Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr.Romain Piéri, Researcher, Centre for Inte rnational Law (CEDIN), University Paris Ouest,
Nanterre-La Défense,
Mr. Yuri Parkhomenko, Foley Hoag LLP, United States of America,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Helena Patton, The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
Ms Fiona Bloor, The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
as Technical Assistants.
The Government of Colombia is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Julio Londoño Paredes, Professor of In ternational Relations, Universidad del Rosario,
Bogotá,
as Agent and Counsel;
H.E. Mr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, former
Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Prof essor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,
Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris , member of the New York Bar,
Eversheds LLP, Paris,
Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
as Counsel and Advocates;
H.E. Mr. Eduardo Pizarro Leongómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the OPCW,
as Adviser;
H.E. Mr. Francisco José Lloreda Mera, Preside ntial High-Commissioner for Citizenry Security,
former Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, former
Minister of State,
Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, member of the International Law Commission, - 7 -
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, premier secrétaire de l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
MmeClaudia Loza Obregon, deuxième secrétaire de l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M.Romain Piéri, chercheur au centre de droi t international (CEDIN) de l’Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
M. Yuri Parkhomenko, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Etats-Unis d’Amérique,
comme conseils adjoints ;
Mme Helena Patton, bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
Mme Fiona Bloor, bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
comme assistantes techniques.
Le Gouvernement de la Colombie est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Julio Londoño Paredes, professeur de relations internationales à l’Universidad del
Rosario, Bogotá,
comme agent et conseil ;
S.Exc.M.Guillermo Fernández de Soto, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage, ancien
ministre des affaires étrangères,
comme coagent ;
M.James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de dr oit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,
M.Rodman R.Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de NewYork,
Cabinet Eversheds LLP, Paris,
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit internationa l à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
comme conseils et avocats ;
S. Exc. M. Eduardo Pizarro Leongómez, ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas, représentant permanent de la Colombie auprès de l’OIAC,
comme conseiller ;
S. Exc. M. Francisco José Lloreda Mera, haut conseiller présidentiel pour la cohabitation et la
sécurité des citoyens, ancien ambassadeur de la République de Colombie auprès du Royaume
des Pays-Bas, ancien ministre d’Etat,
M. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, membre de la Commission du droit international, - 8 -
H.E. Ms Sonia Pereira Portilla, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Andelfo García González, Professor of Intern ational Law, former Deputy Minister for Foreign
Affairs,
Ms Mirza Gnecco Plá, Minister-Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, Counsellor, Embassy of Colombia in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Legal Advisers;
CF William Pedroza, International Affairs Bureau, National Navy of Colombia,
Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,
Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,
as Technical Advisers;
Mr. Camilo Alberto Gómez Niño,
as Administrative Assistant. - 9 -
S. Exc. Mme Sonia Pereira Portilla, ambassadeur, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Andelfo García González, professeur de droit inte rnational, ancien ministre adjoint des affaires
étrangères,
Mme Mirza Gnecco Plá, ministre-conseiller au ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Andrea Jiménez Herrera, conseiller à l’ambassade de Colombie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers juridiques ;
Le capitaine de frégate William Pedroza, bureau des affaires internationales, Marine colombienne,
M. Scott Edmonds, cartographe, International Mapping,
M. Thomas Frogh, cartographe, International Mapping,
comme conseillers techniques ;
M. Camilo Alberto Gómez Niño,
comme assistant administratif. - 10 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. This sitting is now open. This morning the Court will
hear the continuation of the first round of oral argument of Colombia. I give the floor to
Maître Bundy. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.
Mr. BUNDY: Merci bien, Monsieur le président.
1. T HE GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT FOR MARITIME DELIMITATION
Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this morning Colombia will turn to the question of
maritime delimitation between the Parties, which is really at the heart of the case.
2. My task this morning is to set the st age by addressing the geographical context within
which the issue of delimitation falls to be carried out. I shall endeavour to do this by focusing on
the issues that continue to divide the Parties in the light of Nicaragua’s first round pleadings.
3. There are five main issues on which the Parties hold differing views:
(i)What are the relevant coasts of the Pa rties for delimitation purposes; and, equally
important, what are the coasts that are not relevant?
(ii) The nature and significance of the San Andrés Archipelago as an historic, geographic,
political and economic unit;
(iii) The implication for delimitation in this case of the presence of third States in the region;
(iv) The relevant area within which the delimitation should fall; and
(v) The legal status of Quitasueño and its role for delimitation purposes.
4. Now, I shall address the first four of tho se issues. The fifth — Quitasueño — will be the
subject of a separate presentation by Professor Crawford, who will follow me.
5. With that overview, let me turn to the fi rst issue— the coasts of the Parties that are
relevant for delimitation in this case and those that are not.
1. The relevant coasts
6. The map that now appears on the screen shows the area of concern. - 11 -
7. On the Nicaraguan side, there is the ma inland coast and Nicaragua’s offshore islands
comprising, principally the Corn Islands in the sout h, the Miskito Cays in the north and a series of
smaller islands lying in between. On the Colo mbian side, we have the islands comprising the
SanAndrés Archipelago. These include: San Andrés Island, Providencia, Santa Catalina, the
Alburquerque Cays and East-Southeast Cays, Quit asueño, Serrana, Roncador, the Serranilla Cays
and Bajo Nuevo.
8. With respect to the Nicaraguan side, Nicaragua’s first round presentation focused on its
mainland coast.
9. Colombia has been accused of ignoring that coast. But that is not the case. The relevant
area in this case extends from Colombia’s westernmost islands up to Nicaragua’s mainland coast.
It does not stop at Nicaragua’s islands, as Mr.Reichler tried to suggest. While it is true that
Colombia’s provisional equidistance line is meas ured from Nicaragua’s islands, not from its
mainland, that is because the law provides that the equidistance line should be drawn from the base
points from the nearest points on the baselines from wh ich the Parties measure the breadth of their
territorial sea. That is what was said in Qatar/Bahrain, that is what was said in Cameroon/Nigeria
and that is what was said by the Arbitral Tribunal citing the Court’s jurisprudence in
Guyana/Suriname 1. The nearest baselines of the two States are situated on their islands. That
being said, Colombia has also pointed out in its written pleadings that, if Nicaragua’s mainland
coast was used for purposes of constructing the provisional equidistance line, that line would fall
further to the west. Even if that line were thereafter adjusted at the second stage of the delimitation
process, that is the relevant circumstances stage ⎯ say, in the order of magnitude as happened in
Libya v. Malta or in Jan Mayen-Greenland ⎯ that line would still fall between the two groups of
islands.
10. As for Nicaragua’s islands, our opponents now say that those islands are an integral part
of their mainland coast and, in all other respects, they are comparable to the Colombian Islands of
1Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2001, p. 94, para. 177; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002 , p. 442, para. 290; In the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana
and Suriname, Award Dated 17 September 2007, p. 113, para. 352. - 12 -
San Andrés Archipelago . That is the assertion that was made earlier this week and in the
Nicaraguan written pleadings.
11. Now, those assertions that the islands are an integral part of Nicaragua’s mainland coast
is contradicted by Nicaragua’s original main land-to-mainland single maritime boundary claim,
which did not treat ⎯ in any way ⎯ Nicaragua’s islands as being an integral part of its mainland
coast, and the assertions of our colleagues on the other side are also not supported by the evidence.
12. Nicaragua’s islands are not in any way comparable to the islands of the San Andrés
Archipelago. The population of the main islands of Colombia’s archipelago is more than ten times
that of Nicaragua’s islands. Nicaragua’s islands are scattere d along the coast, but are mainly
concentrated in two groups: the Corn Islands in th e south and the Miskitos Cays in the north. The
Corn Islands lie opposite to Albur querque and the East-Southeast Cays and the Miskitos Cays in
the north face Quitasueño. A number of these islands ⎯ the Nicaraguan islands ⎯ lie more than
24miles off the mainland coast. The islands of the San Andrés Archipelago, on the other hand,
stretch from north to south across the entire extent of the delimitation area. Those islands, as I
demonstrated yesterday, have been administered as a unit and, for the most part ⎯ as I will discuss
this morning ⎯ have been accorded full equidistance treatment with third States in the region.
13. These are the relevant coasts between wh ich the delimitation should take place.
Nicaragua’s relevant coasts face eastwards. Colombia’s islands face westwards, towards
Nicaragua, but Colombia’s islands also project in a 360° radius as a consequence of geography and
the law of maritime entitlement. The maritime entitlements of the projections from the Parties’
coasts meet and begin to overlap in the area lying between the Parties’ respective territory— in
other words, between the westernmost string of Colombia’s islands — Quitasueño, Santa Catalina,
Providencia, SanAndrés and the Al burquerque Cays— and Nicaragua ’s coasts. It is between
those coasts that their projections start to meet and overlap.
The irrelevance of Colombia’s mainland coast
14. That being said, I am having placed on the screen a map showing the entire south-west
Caribbean stretching up to Colombia’s mainland coast. The reason for portraying this area is
2
RN, para. 4.24. - 13 -
because the map illustrates one of the key issues that divides the Parties. That is the question of the
relevance — or, I should really say, the complete irrelevance — of Colombia’s mainland coast for
delimitation purposes.
15. As the Court will no doubt recall, Nicaragua ’s Application requested you to determine
the course of a single maritime boundary between the areas of continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone appertaining to the Parties.
16. Nicaragua’s Memorial expanded on this request by specifying that Nicaragua was
seeking a single maritime boundary in the form of a median line between the mainland coasts of
the Parties (Submission No. 2).
17. The problem with that thesis is that Colo mbia’s mainland coast cannot be considered to
be either an “opposite coast” in the legal sense of th e term in relation to Nicaragua, or as a relevant
coast for delimitation purposes. That is because Colombia’s coast lies much more than 400nm
from Nicaragua’s coast, and there are two other States— Panama and Costa Rica— that are
interposed in between.
18. And, it was for that reason ⎯ or for those reasons, I should say ⎯ that Colombia’s
Counter-Memorial pointed out that there was a fundamental defect in Nicaragua’s position. Briefly
stated, Nicaragua had ignored the distance betw een the two mainland coasts, as the Court can see
on the screen ⎯ more than 400 miles apart ⎯ with the consequence that Nicaragua had no legal
entitlements that overlapped with those generate d by Colombia’s mainland coast. Colombia’s
mainland coast is simply too far away to be a relevant coast.
19. Now, Nicaragua’s Reply had no choice but to accept the correctness of what Colombia
said, and it therefore conceded that there was no need for a delimitation of exclusive economic
zones between the Parties, and between the mainland coasts of the Parties, precisely because they
3
are separated by a distance of over 400 nautical miles .
20. Now, notwithstanding that concession in the Reply, Nicaragua has still struggled to keep
Colombia’s mainland coast in play.
3
RN, p. 59, para. 1. - 14 -
21. In order to do this, Nicaragua was forced to change its entire delimitation case in its
Reply. Now, I shall have more to say ⎯ I fear, a good deal more to say ⎯ on Nicaragua’s new
continental shelf claim later this morning in a sep arate presentation, in which I will show that it is
no legal, procedural or substantive justification fo r that new continental shelf claim and that that
new claim does not somehow resurrect Colombia’s mainland coast in order to push Nicaragua’s
maritime claims even further to the east.
22. What I would note is that Nicaragua’s co unsel also appeared to have some hesitation
about the relevance of Colombia’s mainland coast . Both Dr.Oude Elferink and Mr.Reichler
presented, earlier this week, a brand new “relev ant area” that excluded Colombia’s mainland coast
[Monday, tab 4; Tuesday afternoon, tab 87]. I will come back to that shift of position a little later.
23. The plain fact, both geographically and legally, is that Colombia’s mainland coast has no
role to play in this case. The relevant coasts of Colombia are the coasts of the westernmost islands
comprising the San Andrés Archipelago and Nicaragua’s coast. It is these coasts which lie directly
opposite to each other, with no third State in between.
2. The geographic unity of the San Andrés Archipelago
24. Nicaragua’s pleadings have gone to consid erable lengths to minimize the importance of
Colombia’s islands and to deny them their legal entitlements. Symptomatic of this approach is
Nicaragua’s constant refrain that Colombia’s islands are situated on Nicaragua’s continental shelf,
as if it is only Nicaragua’s coasts, and mainland coast, that generates maritime entitlements in this
4
area . In fact, Nicaragua’s written pleadings went so far as to argue, “there is no Colombian coast
opposite Nicaragua”, and it also said that the San Andrés group of islands does not form part of the
5
coastal front of Colombia .
25. Now that myopic approach is an exerci se in refashioning geography taken to the
extreme. Colombia’s islands exist, they have co asts that face Nicaragua, they also have coasts that
face east, and it is abundantly clear under paragra ph 2 of Article 121 of the 1982 Convention and
customary international law that, for purposes of legal entitlement, the territorial sea, contiguous
4
RN, paras. 3.63, 5.4 and 5.27.
5Ibid., para. 6.72; MN, p. 239. - 15 -
zone, exclusive economic zone and continen tal shelf of an island are determined in exactly the
same way as are the entitlements of other land territory.
26. Thus, when Professor Pellet asserted on Tuesday that, even in the sense of paragraph 2 of
Article121, there was abundant jurisprudence supporting the proposition that islands only are
entitled to very limited maritime spaces, he not only put the cart before the horse ⎯ an expression
that Professor Pellet is fond of using in his Cartesian way ⎯ he confused the question of the legal
entitlements of the islands with the question of delimitation. In the Qatar/Bahrain case, your Court
clearly stated that:
“In accordance with Article 121, paragraph 2 of the 1982 Convention on the
Law of the Sea, which reflects customary in ternational law, islands, regardless of
their size, in this respect enjoy the same status, and therefore generate the same
maritime rights, as other land territory.” (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial
Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. 2001 , p.97,
para. 185.)
27. The map now appearing on the screen illustrates the extent of the maritime entitlements
generated by the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago. Of course, with all of its other neighbours
except Nicaragua, Colombia has delimited the ma ritime area between the archipelago and those
States. On Monday, Nicaragua took exception to this depiction. But the fact of the matter is that
these are legal entitlements which Colombia’s islands po ssess as a matter of law. It follows that it
is simply question-begging for Nicaragua to assert that Colombia’s islands fall on Nicaragua’s
continental shelf, as was repeated like a ma ntra during Nicaragua’s first round pleadings.
Colombia’s islands have their own continental shelves, not to mention their own exclusive
economic zones, their own contiguous zones and their own territorial seas.
28. Nicaragua also harps on the fact that Colombia’s islands are small and that, with the
exception of the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, all the other islands are
mere “rocks” within the meaning of Article 121, paragra ph 3, of the Convention. Nicaragua adds,
for good measure, that the distances between Colombia’s islands are what it calls “enormous” 6.
29. Let me take up these propositions in order to demonstrate how misguided they are.
30. As I explained yesterday, all of the is lands comprising the San Andrés Archipelago have
significant activities associated with them and are closely linked to the surrounding sea areas.
6
RN, paras. 4.14 and 5.3. - 16 -
31. The islands that are most relevant to this delimitation are those that lie along the western
side of the archipelago. They include, fro m north to south, Quitasueño, Santa Catalina,
Providencia, San Andrés Island and the Alburquerque Cays.
32. And it is that series of islands that directly face Nicaragua, and it is for this reason that
Colombia maintains that the delimitation properl y falls to be effectuated between them and
Nicaragua. Obviously, Nicaragua possesses no coast lying to the north, south or east of
Colombia’s islands, unlike France with respect to the Channel Islands ⎯ the Channel Islands are
surrounded on three sides by French te rritory and the territorial seas overlap ⎯ or Canada, with
respect to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon ⎯ again, you have Canadian territory on three
sides of the islands and they are in such clos e proximity that the territorial seas overlap.
Nicaragua’s coast lies solely to the west.
33. Now, as you have heard, San Andrés Is land is roughly 105 nautical miles from the
Nicaraguan mainland, Providencia is some 125 m iles away, and Quitasueño and the Alburquerque
Cays are both over 100nautical miles away. Consequently, there is a large body of water lying
between the coasts of the Parties in this area wh ere a maritime boundary carried out in accordance
with the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule can readily be applied. This is not the situation
of islands lying right off the coast, such as St. Mar tin’s Island off of Myanmar, or Qit’at Jaradah,
lying off of Qatar.
34. San Andrés Island is a very important island which serves as the commercial and
administrative centre of the archipelago. It has a population of over 70,000. Its capital city,
SanAndrés, is also the capital of the Department of the Archipelago. It is the home of the Port
Captaincy for maritime jurisdiction purposes, established as long ago as 1911 ⎯ that is under the
Maritime General-Directorship of Colombia. The island has a vibrant economy based on fishing,
tourism and agriculture, and a well-serviced airport.
35. To the north, Providencia is fringed by an extensive barrier reef, and Low Cay in the
north has a lighthouse on it built and operated by Colombia. Providencia is the home of another
maritime Port Captaincy; it has a permanent popula tion of about 5,000, and also an airport. As
you can see on the map, the Island of Santa Catalina lies just off the north coast of Providencia, and - 17 -
it, too, is inhabited. The population of both isla nds are engaged as well in fishing, agriculture and
tourism activities.
36. Now Nicaragua admits that San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina all generate
7
rights to a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone .
37. To the south, the Alburquerque Cays consist of tw o principal islands ⎯ North Cay and
South Cay ⎯, and they cannot be considered to be rocks within the meaning of Article 121 (3) of
the Convention. Dr.Oude Elferink was unimp ressed by the photographs you see on the screen 8.
But the term “rocks” that appears in Article121 (3) should be interpreted in accordance with its
ordinary meaning— “rocks”. These are not rocks. Yet even if they were quod non, yesterday I
showed that they have supported considerable economic life on their own. And in addition, a
Colombian marine infantry detachment, which is responsible for the control of fishing activities
and the trafficking in illegal maritime contraband in the area, is permanently stationed on North
Cay where there is a weather station and a lighthouse.
38. To the east of the Alburquerque Cays lie the East -Southeast Cays which have also been
referred to in the speech I made yesterday. And they are also not “rocks”. They have fresh water,
a weather station, a lighthouse, a radio station, as well as a permanent detachment of Colombian
marines. And they, too, were the focus of significant economic activities, as was pointed out
yesterday.
39. North of Santa Catalina lies Quitasueño. It is a substantial feature comprising over
80sqkm. But because Quitasueño will be the subject of a separate presentation by
Professor Crawford, I will not say more about it at this point.
40. Behind, or to the east of these features, lie four more sets of islands which are also part of
the San Andrés Archipelago. These are Roncador, Serrana, the Serranilla Cays and Bajo Nuevo.
Once again, these islands can not be considered to be “rocks”. And once again, the factual record
shows that they all supported economic life and that dozens of fishermen are able to stay on
Bajo Nuevo.
7
RN, para. 5.3.
8CR 2012/9, p. 41, para. 11 (Oude Elferink). - 18 -
41. Now in addressing the constituent features of the archipelago, Nicaragua also tries to
paint a picture of disjointed islands separated by long distances. And I would suggest that that is a
very misleading proposition.
42. It is obvious that the 200nautical mile EEZ and continental shelf zones of Colombia’s
islands all overlap. Moreover, even if, for so me purposes of argument, Roncador, Quitasueño and
Serrana did not exist, which they obviously do, th e islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa
Catalina would still generate their own 200nautical mile continental shelf and EEZ entitlements.
As for their territorial seas and contiguous zone , as can be seen on the map on the screen and in
your folders, those zones lie in close proximity to each other such that their contiguous zones
overlap along the entire string of the westernmost islands.
43. Starting in the north, the contiguous zone of Quitasueño overlaps with that of
Providencia and Santa Catalina; the contiguous zone of Providencia in turn overlaps with that of
San Andrés Island; and the contiguous zones a nd territorial seas of San Andrés, Alburquerque
Cays and the East-Southeast Cays all overlap with each ot her further south. Behind these islands,
the contiguous zone of Serrana overlaps with that of Quitasueño, and that of Roncador overlaps
with the contiguous zone of Serrana , again reinforcing the fact that these islands are not isolated
features.
44. Now during the oral hearings on Costa Rica’ s Application to intervene, the distinguished
Agent for Nicaragua took issue with this point stating that Colombia does not claim a contiguous
zone 9. With respect, that is incorrect. Article 101 of Colombia’s Constitution provides that the
islands of the San Andrés Archipelago are part of Colombia and that Colombia claims a contiguous
zone, as well as a territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, with respect to its
10
coastal territory in accordance with international law .
45. On Monday, Dr.Oude Elferink tried to paint a different picture. He claimed that this
11
overlap you can see on the screen does not evidence the proximity of the islands to each other .
Now that was a surprising remark given that just a few minutes later, ProfessorRemiroBrotóns
9CR 2010/16, p. 14, para. 20 (Argüello Gómez).
10
For the reference to Colombia’s Constitution, see Note 34 to Colombia’s Counter-Memorial, p. 91.
11CR 2012/8, p. 31, para. 17 (Oude Elferink). - 19 -
stood at the podium and strenuously argued that the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago
12
possessed a great proximity ⎯ “leur plus grande proximité” ⎯ to the coast of Nicaragua .
Mr.President, if the islands of the archipela go have a “grande proximité” to the Nicaraguan
mainland coast, which is well over 100nm away ev en at its nearest point, then their overlapping
contiguous zones are most certainly proximate to ea ch other. That is true geographically, and it is
also true legally, given that Colombia exercise s control over customs, fiscal, immigration and
security matters within the contiguous zones of its is lands in accordance with international law. In
short, the evidence on the record shows that Colo mbia’s islands are geographically, historically,
economically and legally linked together, as well as being absolutely critical for security purposes
in this part of the sea.
46. Unlike Nicaragua’s mainland coast, the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of
Colombia’s islands also overlap with the mariti me entitlements generated by Colombia’s mainland
coast. In other words, all of the maritime areas lying east of the San Andrés Archipelago and of the
islands of San Andrés and Providencia in the central part of the sea are within 200 nautical miles of
Colombian territory.
3. The presence of third States in the region
47. Now that brings me to my third issue— the relevance of the presence of third States.
And I can be fairly brief on this because the Court has already been exposed to the interests of two
of the neighbouring States— Costa Rica and Honduras— as a result of the hearings on their
Applications for permission to intervene.
48. Apart from Costa Rica and Honduras, howev er, there are two other States in the region
that have maritime entitlements that did not apply to intervene ⎯ Panama and Jamaica. As the
Court noted in its Judgment on Costa Rica’s Application, the protection of third States’ interests by
13
the Court is to be accorded whether they apply to intervene or not .
12
CR 2012/8, p. 42, para. 45 (Oude Elferink).
13Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Costa Rica for Permission to
Intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, para. 86. - 20 -
49. Let me start in the south. The Court will recall that the maritime areas in the south have
been the subject of a series of delimitation agreements between Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama
dating back over 35 years.
50. The Colombia-Panama agreement was concluded in 1976. As you can see, the boundary
follows a step -like configuration between Panama’s coast and the Alburquerque Cays,
East-Southeast Cays, San Andrés Island, Providencia and Roncador. Now on Tuesday,
14
Mr.Reichler argued that the line appears to give no weight to Roncador . But that is clearly
wrong. The agreement itself states that the lin e is based on a median line, adopting a step-like
configuration only to “simplify the drawing of the line”. And the well -respected publication by the
United States State Department “Limits in the Seas” also observes that the geometry of the
maritime boundary lends no evidence to the possibility that the Colombian offshore cays received
15
less consideration or “weight” than the Panamanian mainland .
51. Clearly, both countries proceeded on the basis not only that Colombia possessed
sovereignty over the islands, but also that the maritim e areas in this part of the sea were subject to
delimitation solely between Colombia and Panama. Nicaragua gave every appearance of sharing
this view given that it never protested. Mr. Reichler argued that the agreement was res inter alios
16
acta vis-à-vis Nicaragua, and that Nicaragua’s s ilence cannot be construed as acquiescence . But
Nicaragua certainly knew how to protest boundary agreements covering areas where it genuinely
felt it had an interest. With respect to th e 1986 Colombia/Honduras agreement, for example,
Nicaragua wrote a diplomatic protest to Colombia one month after the agreement was signed 17.
Thereafter, Nicaragua vigorously lobbied Honduras not to ratify the agreement and even brought a
case against Honduras in front of the Central Americ an Court. Nothing of the kind ever happened
with respect to the Panama agreement. There is no evidence that Nicaragua considered itself to
have a boundary relationship with Panama and the truth is that Nicaragua has never had any
presence in this area to the east and south-east of the islands at any time.
14CR 2012/10, p. 51, para. 69 (Reichler).
15
CMC, p. 223, para. 4.144 and Note 115.
16CR 2012/10, p. 51, para. 70 (Reichler).
17Annex 70 to Nicaragua’s Memorial in the Honduras case. - 21 -
52. The Colombia/Costa Rica agreement was conc luded in 1977, a year later. Mr. Reichler
noted that that agreement has not been ratified by Costa Rica 18. He is correct. However,
Costa Rica has stated on numerous occasions that it has applied the 1977 Treaty in good faith and
19
will continue to do so . Moreover, there is a 1984 agreement between Colombia and Costa Rica
dealing with delimitation in the Pacific which wa s ratified, and it referred to the fact that the
maritime boundary between the two States in the Caribbean was “established”. During the
intervention hearings, Nicaragua also recognized th at Costa Rica is bound to its obligations under
the treaty as reflected in its consistent conduct for over 30 years 20.
53. The Colombia/Costa Rica agreement provided for a boundary that was, once again, a
simplified equidistance line according the Alburquerque Cays full effect. Once again, Nicaragua
has never had any presence in the maritime areas lying to the south, south-east and east of
Alburquerque. As counsel for Costa Rica confirmed during the intervention hearings: “Colombia
was the State with which Costa Rica had a boundary relationship in this part of the Caribbean.” 21
Nicaragua has done nothing to dispel that notion.
54. If we turn to the north, there are the agreements concluded between Colombia and
Honduras in 1986 and Colombia and Jamaica in 1993.
55. During the proceedings in the Honduras’ intervention request, Nicaragua argued that
Colombia’s interests vis-à-vis Nicaragua were limited to areas falling south of the first sector of the
Colombia/Honduras line— a line that runs roughly along the 15°parallel of latitude 22. In other
words, according to Nicaragua, Colombia was somehow precluded from claiming areas north of
that line against Nicaragua by virtue of an agreem ent that Colombia had entered into with a third
State.
56. The Court’s Judgment on Honduras ’ Application to intervene firmly rejected that thesis.
In its Judgment, the Court stated:
18
CR 2012/10, p. 51, para. 68 (Reichler).
19CMC, paras. 4.156-4.159.
20Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Costa Rica for Permission to
Intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, para. 59.
21CR 2010/12, p. 35, para. 13 (Lathrop).
22
Nicaragua’s Written Observations on Honduras’ Request for Permission to Intervene, para.22; and also,
CR 2010/19, p. 31, para. 46. - 22 -
“Between Colombia and Nicaragua, the maritime boundary will be determined
pursuant to the coastline and maritime featur es of the two Parties. In so doing, the
Court will place no reliance on the 1986 Treaty in determining the maritime boundary
between Nicaragua and Colombia.” ( Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.
Colombia), Application by Honduras fo r Permission to Intervene, Judgment of
4 May 2011, para. 73.)
57. That being said, neither Party in this case claims as against the other any maritime areas
lying north of the Nicaragua/Honduras bisector line that the Court decided in 2007, however far
that line is extended. It is the area lying south of the bisector, and up to the intersection with that
bisector, that is in issue in this case.
58. Lastly, there is the 1993 Agreement between Colombia and Jamaica. That agreement
followed earlier fishing agreements between the tw o countries that I discussed yesterday. In the
east, the parties agreed a boundary delimitation based on equidistance principles. In the north, they
established a Joint Régime Area. Third State activ ities were not authorized in the Joint Régime
area, and no third State, including Nicaragua, has been present in this area or to the south of it
without permission.
59. The delimitation practice involving third States in the region is relevant, I would suggest,
for four main reasons.
60. First, the Court has obviously always taken care not to prejudice the actual or potential
rights of third States in deciding delimitation questions. It follows that the existence of areas where
third States have maritime interests is a factor to be borne in mind in considering the area to be
delimited between Colombia and Nicaragua.
61. Second, it is evident from this practice -- the practice of neighbouring States -- that they
consider that Colombia possesses sovereignty over all of the islands comprising the San Andrés
Archipelago.
62. Third, none of these States considered th at they had delimitation issues with Nicaragua
either to the south, east or north-east of Colombia’s islands, or in the neighbourhood of Serrana and
Roncador, let alone Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. Th ere is no evidence, for example, that Nicaragua
ever sought a delimitation with Panama in the areas over which its delimitation claims now stretch.
With respect to Jamaica, Nicaragua pointed out during its case against Honduras that delimitation
issues existed between it, Nicaragua and Jamaica, in the area of the Rosalind Bank, which, as you - 23 -
can see is quite far north 23. But Nicaragua never intimated that it had any delimitation issues with
Jamaica in the areas covered by the Colombia/Jamaica Agreement.
63. Fourth, third States have also recognized that, due to the geographic characteristic of the
area, it was equitable to accord the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago full, or substantially full,
equidistance treatment in their delimitation agreements with Colombia.
64. During the intervention proceedings, it was suggested, on the Nicaraguan side, that these
agreements were some kind of a plot in order to box Nicaragua in 24. Now, Mr. President, it takes
two to tango. Each of the other neighbouring Stat es were also parties to these agreements. They
clearly recognized that the areas being delimited ha d nothing to do with Nicaragua. This was no
plot. This was practice that was fully in acco rdance with the law of the sea principles which
emphasize that delimitation should be by agreement.
65. I should add that the use of equidistance principles where islands are involved is not
unique to this part of the Caribbean. For ex ample, the maritime boundary between the United
Kingdom, with respect to the Cayman Islands, and Honduras, employs a simplified median line
giving full effect to the Cayman Islands as well as to smaller features such as Swan Island and
Gordo Cay lying off the Honduras mainland. The Honduras/Mexico agreement takes similar
account of islands. The United States/Cuba delimitation gave full effect to the southernmost keys
of the Florida Keys lying against Cuba ’s longer coast. And the boundary between the Turks and
Caicos and the opposite, longer, coast of the Dominican Republic also closely track an equidistance
line25.
4. The delimitation area
66. Having canvassed the geographic setting in the region, I can now turn to my final
point — which is the relevant area within which the delimitation should lie.
67. The map on the screen shows the delimitation area according to Nicaragua, at least as it
was presented in Nicaragua ’s Memorial and Reply, and throughout the written phase of this case.
It depicts an extraordinary expanse which founders on three main points.
23
CR 2007/5, p. 25, para. 73 (Pellet).
24
CR 2010/16, p. 17, para. 28 (Argüello Gómez).
25RC, para. 7.50 and fig. R-7.9, p..266 - 24 -
68. First, that area stretches all the way across the sea right up to Colombia’s mainland coast.
As I have previously explained, Colombia’s ma inland coast cannot be viewed as a relevant coast
due to the distances involved. Such an area may serve Nicaragua’s purposes in visually trying to
suggest that the maritime boundary should be located somewhere in the middle of the sea, but it has
no underlying legal or factual support.
69. Second, Nicaragua’s delimitation area clearly trespasses on to large parts of the sea
where third States have actual or potential interests. In the south, that area laps up against the coast
of Panama and amputates areas where both Panama and Costa Rica have entitlements. In the north,
Nicaragua’s area overlaps substantially with zones claimed by Jamaica, and gobbles up most of the
Colombia-Jamaica Joint Régime Area. As I have said, apart from Nicaragua’s claims in this case,
Nicaragua has never shown any interest in any of these areas lying east of Colombia’s islands,
either with its own practice or in opening up di scussions and negotiations with third States in the
region.
70. Third, Nicaragua’s position ignores the fact that the maritime entitlements of the Parties
meet and begin to overlap between the westernm ost islands of the San Andrés Archipelago and
Nicaragua’s coasts including the coasts of its islands. That is the area lying between the two
Parties’ respective territory; it is the area where the relevant coasts directly face each other; and it
is the relevant area for delimitation purposes in this case.
71. Earlier this week, Nicaragua did not disp lay this map and I can well understand why. It
was however their position throughout eight year s of these proceedings. Rather, in another
example of the continuing shifting sands of Nicaragua’s position, a new “relevant area” was shown
to the Court on Tuesday afternoon ⎯ it is the one that shows up on the screen (tab 87— PR -3e;
Tuesday afternoon judges’ folder).
72. Not only does that area depict Colombia ’s “relevant area” incorrectly ⎯ we have said
that the relevant area does indeed go up to Nicaragua’s mainland coast ⎯ it is still grossly
exaggerated by virtue of the fact that it in cludes large maritime areas lying to the east of
Colombia’s islands.
73. Nicaragua says that this area to the east is an area of overlapping 200-nautical-mile
entitlements. But those entitlements ⎯ as I have said ⎯ meet and begin to overlap to the west of - 25 -
Colombia’s islands, not to the east of them. Mr.Presi dent, Members of the Court, in situations
involving delimitation between States with opposit e coasts where there are no islands in close
proximity to the mainland such that their territori al seas overlap, there is not a single precedent in
the Court’s jurisprudence, or in that of arb itral tribunals, where the area within which the
delimitation was carried out did not fall between t hose two opposite coasts. I would also add that
in numerous cases ⎯ one can mention Libya/Tunisia, Libya/Malta, Cameroon v. Nigeria, Qatar v.
Bahrain and Barbados-Trinidad & Tobago ⎯ the relevant area within which the delimitation was
effected was not based on overlapping 200-nauti cal-mile entitlements. Delimitation has always
focused on the maritime areas lying between the rele vant coasts that either face each other or are
adjacent to each other, always, and that is where the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule
should be applied.
74. Mr.President, Members of the Court, geography is what it is. Some States are
landlocked and have no maritime entitlements. Othe rs possess islands. Colombia’s islands are not
incidental features lying off a mainland coast, where the mainland coast has any relevance. Nor do
they lie on the “wrong side” of any mainland -to-mainland median line because there is no such
median line that is legally relevant in this case. Colombia ’s islands stand on their own at a
significant distance from Nicaragua’s coast, and they generate their own maritime entitlements.
75. Those entitlements, as I have said, begin to overlap with the entitlements generated by
Nicaragua’s coast in between. That is the re levant area within which application of the
equidistance/relevant circumstances rule comes into play. In the north, the relevant area stops at
the Court’s bisector line between Nicaragua and Honduras. To the south, the interests of Costa
Rica will need to be taken into account. As we ha ve said, Colombia is fully confident that the
Court is perfectly able to protect any interests of third States in this area by employing its normal
practice of not specifying the precise end -point of the delimitation line, but, rather, by drawing an
arrow instead.
76. Mr.President, that concludes my presentation on the overall geographic setting,
including the relevant coasts for delimitation purp oses and the relevant area. I would now be
grateful if the floor could be given to Professor Crawford. Thank you very much. - 26 -
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, MrB . undy, for your presentation. I invite
Professor Crawford to the Bar. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. CRAWFORD:
2. QUITASUEÑO
Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in th is presentation I will demonstrate the territorial
character of that part of the San Andrés Archipelago known as Quitasueño and its entitlement to
maritime zones. You can see the Bank of Quit asueño shown on the screen, with the 34islands
shown in red. Quitasueño’s character as territory is demonstrated in two reports based on expert
26
surveys which have been tendered by Colombia . Until this week Nicaragua has made no effort to
respond to these with any countervailing factual arguments or expertise. The islands of
Quitasueño, its associated low-tide elevations, its fringing reef and its surrounding waters are all
claimed by Nicaragua to be subject to its soverei gnty and jurisdiction. Yet, just as it has produced
no evidence, Nicaragua has not performed a single administrative act on Quitasueño ⎯ in both
respects quite unlike Colombia. There was a dispute concerning sovereignty over Quitasueño; it
was a dispute between the United States and Colomb ia. Its existence was duly recorded in the
1928 Treaty, which equated the three features of Qu itasueño, Roncador and Serrana and which, as
Professor Kohen has demonstrated, negated any Nicaraguan claim to them. In fact the dispute with
the United States was resolved in Colombia’s favour in 1972.
2. This demonstration is in three parts. Fi rst I will trace the evolution of the law concerning
the maritime zones of small features ⎯ a law now settled at least as concerns the definition of
islands and their entitlement to territorial sea and contiguous zones. Secondly I will apply that law
to the case of Quitasueño. Thirdly, I will deal w ith Mr.OudeElferink’s efforts to dismiss this
feature ⎯ which I will call the “poor white coral trash” theory.
2Study on Quitasueño and Albuquerque prepared by e Colombian Navy, September2008: CMC, Vol.II,
Ann.171, p.603; Expert Report by Dr.Robert Smith, “Mapping the Islands of Quitasueño (Colombia)— Their
Baselines, Territorial Sea, and Contiguous Zone,” February 2010: RC, Vol. II, App. I, p. 2. - 27 -
The definition of islands and their entitlement to maritime zones
3. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the modern law defini ng islands is clear,
determinate, bright-line law. It is stated in Article 10 (1) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial
Sea and Contiguous Zone; it is stated in the sa me terms, in Article121, paragraph1, of the
1982Law of the Sea Convention. In law, area s above high water are is lands. There is no
minimum size cited in either Convention. Th ere is no requirement of human habitation or
economic life, however those terms may be defined. A feature which is above water ⎯ higher than
mean high tides ⎯ is in law an island and thus generates, at a minimum, a 12-mile territorial sea
and an additional 12-mile contiguous zone. And since the land dominates the sea, the territorial sea
thus generated ⎯ this zone of sovereignty and not merely of sovereign rights ⎯ takes priority over
the EEZ and continental shelf claims of other States in a delimitation. This point was made by the
International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case, when it observed:
“Bangladesh has the right to a 12 mile territorial sea around St. Martin’s Island
in the area where such territorial sea no lo nger overlaps with Myanmar’s territorial
sea. A conclusion to the contrary would result in giving more weight to the sovereign
rights and jurisdiction of Myanmar in its exclusive economic zone and continental
shelf than to the sovereignty of Bangladesh over its territorial sea.” 27 (Emphasis
added.)
4. As to the territorial sea of islands, theposition under modern international law is clearly
and accurately reflected in the 1982Convention. Article 121, paragraph 1, defines “island” in
simple geographic terms: “An island is a natura lly formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.” This follo ws verbatim Article10, paragraph1, of the
1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea.
5. Mr.President, Members of the Court, your Court accepts without qualification or demur
that this is the international law definition of “island”. For example in Qatar/Bahrain you said:
“The Court recalls that the legal defini tion of an island is ‘a naturally formed
area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide’... The Court
has carefully analysed th e evidence submitted by the Parties and weighed the
conclusions of the experts referred to above , in particular the fact that the experts
appointed by Qatar did not themselves mainta in that it was scientifically proven that
Qit’at Jaradah is a low-tide elevation. On these bases, the Court concludes that the
maritime feature of Qit’at Jaradah satisfies the above-mentioned criteria and that it is
an island which should as such be taken in to consideration for the drawing of the
27
Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundar y between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of
Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, pp. 55-56, para. 169. - 28 -
equidistance line.” ( Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 99, para. 195.)
6. I note four things about this passage.
(1) First, you expressly accepted the definition of “island” in Article 10 of 1958 and Article 121 of
1982 as applicable under general international law.
(2) Secondly, you took that definition to relate to the present facts and not to ancient definitions or
to repute.
(3) Thirdly, as a question of fact, in doubtful cases it was to be determined by evidence.
(4) Fourthly, if a feature satisfies the definition, it can generate a base point or base points; it is to
be “taken into consideration for th e drawing of the equidistance line”. A fortiori, it should be
considered as part of a State’s baseline for the determination of the territorial sea and
contiguous zone.
7. The definition has clear advantages, which explains why it crystallized over the course of
the twentieth century as an accepted rule 28. It is a classic example of a bright-line rule. The feature
in question needs to meet three specified criteri a, and only those criteria, and each of these is
objective: (1) the feature must be naturally formed ⎯ that is to say, a man-made installation, such
as a podium, does not qualify as an island; (2)it must be surrounded by water; and (3)it must
remain above water at high tide ⎯ in other words, it is not a drying feature exposed only at low
tide. A feature is an island, or it is not, and one determines its status by determining whether or not
it meets these three objective criteria. There are no intermediate positions; and there are no other
criteria. For once the voice of doubt saying that intern ational law is never certain, that it is always
vague and indeterminate, that it can produ ce whatever outcome, these doubts are suppressed.
29
Post-modernism meets its limit here: there is a determinate answer .
8. Earlier in the twentieth century, States might have agreed to take a different approach to
islands. The United Kingdom at one time took a di fferent position: it only regarded features as
28
Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundar y between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of
Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) , Judgment of 14 March 2012, pp.55-56, para.169 . Also: D.P.O’Connell, The
International Law of the Sea, Vol. 1 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982, ed. I. Shearer), pp. 193-195 (referring principally to
Art.10 of the Geneva Convention on the Territori al Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 29Apr.1958, 516 UNTS 205);
R. R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (3rd ed., Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999), 49;
H.Dipla, “Islands”, in R.Wolfrum (gen. ed.), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2008), para. 2.
29But cf. M.Koskenniemi, defining international law as a set of “argumentative patterns, allowing any
substantive outcome”: (2004) 36 Studies in Transnational Legal Policy 109, pp. 115-116. - 29 -
islands if they had a certain size and separate si gnificance. In its comment at the time of the
1930Hague Conference the United Kingdom limite d islands to areas “capable of effective
30
occupation and use” . But that position was rejected by others and abandoned by the
UnitedKingdom itself by 1958 31. The law, as it has crystallized in custom and as it has been
adopted under the 1958Convention accords all islands a territorial sea, irrespective of their size,
economic independence, or other characteristics. As long as the feature is an island as identified in
Article 10, a territorial sea appertains to it, even if it is ⎯ as Professor Lowe said ⎯ the size of a
rostrum.
9. Just as clear is the law as expressed in th e 1982Convention. There is only one type of
territorial sea. An Article 121, paragraph 3, rock generates a full entitlement of territorial sea and a
contiguous zone. Its entitlement is reduced only by the express and limited exclusion of the other
two main categories of maritime jurisdiction, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
Like all features subject to the régime of islands, a rock generates the territorial sea and a
contiguous zone, and this means the territorial sea of the same breadth as projected from other land
territory. To apply paragraph 2 of Article 121, as read in conjunction with paragraphs 1 and 3, “the
territorial sea ... [of a rock meeting the criteria of paragraph1 is] determined in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory”.
10. It is worth recalling that during the Thir d Conference on the Law of the Sea there were
clear alternatives to this position, and they were clearly rejected. A number of States participating
in the drafting work proposed that the smallest features ⎯ the rocks of the eventual Article121,
paragraph 3 ⎯ should not be accorded any maritime entitlement at all. Malta proposed that islands
32
of less than 1 km not be accorded a maritime entitlement . Libya proposed that “small islands and
rocks, wherever they may be, which cannot support human habitation or economic life of their own
30See UK response to Point VI, of the Preparatory Work fo r the Hague Codification Conference of 1930, League
of Nations Document C.74, M.39, 1929, v, reprinted in McNair, ed., International Law Opinions (1956) p. 379:
“An island is a piece of territory surrounded by water and in normal ci rcumstances permanently
above high water. It does not include a piece of territory not capable of effective occupation and use. His
Majesty’s Government consider that there is no ground fo r claiming that a belt of territorial waters exists
round rocks and banks not constituting islands as defined above . . .”
31E.g., by its accession without reservation to the 1958Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone, 29 Apr. 1958, 516 UNTS 205 and the definition contained in Art.10 thereof. The UK signed the
Convention on 9 Sep. 1958 and ratified it on 14 Mar. 1960.
32Virginia Commentary, p. 328. - 30 -
shall have no territorial sea...” 33 Romania would have withheld all maritime entitlement from
34
“islets and small islands, uninha bited and without economic life” . Turkey proposed excluding
from any maritime entitlement “rocks and low-tide elevations” 3. These proposals attracted little
support. The Third Conference did not adopt them. The text of Article121 recognizes that the
territorial sea is an entitlement generated by every island, regardless of its characteristics or size.
So long as a maritime feature exhibits the objective geographic cr iteria expressed in Article121,
paragraph 1, it is an island. For the purposes of the generation of the territorial sea and contiguous
zone, there is one class of island and one class only.
11. The main relevant provision “applicable to other land territory”, including all islands as
defined, is Article 3 on the breadth of the territorial sea: “Every State has the right to establish the
breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not ex ceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines
determined in accordance with th is Convention.” This right is unqualified. There is no other,
curtailed or diminished, “right to establish the breadth of the territorial sea”. It is true that States
did not always have the right to establish a 12-mile territorial sea. But a reduced territorial sea
entitlement is not part of the law at the present da y, or as it has existed for some time. All land
territory generates a territorial sea, and the maximu m breadth of the territorial sea to which a State
is entitled is 12nautical miles ⎯ subject of course to delimitation especially as concerns
overlapping territorial sea claims of other islands.
The facts concerning the islands of Quitasueño
12. Mr.President, Members of the Court, I tu rn to the facts of Quitasueño. They were
clearly and scientifically determined by the Colo mbian Navy when it conducted its survey of the
islands in summer 2008, a document filed in the Counter-Memorial; they were confirmed as well
when the independent geographic consultant, Dr. Robert Smith, conducted a further survey in
November and December2009. Dr.Smith’s work within the Office of the Geographer and the
Office of Oceans Affairs of the United States Depa rtment of State will be familiar to the Court.
During his 30 years in those Offices he was responsible, among many other things, for the Limits in
33R. Platzöder (ed.), Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea; Documents, Vol. IV, p. 347.
34
Virginia Commentary, p. 330.
35Ibid., p. 333. - 31 -
the Sea series. He also was the primary geographic and technical expert in determining the
baselines and maritime limits of the United States. His expertise on questions of maritime
entitlement and delimitation is extensive.
13. Now, Colombia’s submission in the present proceedings of two surveys, conducted using
recognized methods of geographical field research and covering the considerable length of an
extended group of islands, would not in itself be rema rkable. What is remarkable is the complete
absence of any corresponding submission of any ev idence by the Applicant in its written pleadings
in respect of factual questions which the Applicant itself has raised. The other day,
Professor Oude Elferink was reduced largely to speculation and innuendo.
14. Speaking of innuendo, I should deal briefly with Nicaragua’s “gunboat” theory. It said,
three or four times this week, that it was coerced into silence and inactivity over Quitasueño by the
Colombian Navy 3, and it gave as an example the so-called Quitasueño mission of February
37
2012 . I have no time to deal with this spurious claim in detail ⎯ indeed, it does not deserve it.
Just three points: one, the alleged mission took place well after the closure of the written pleadings
and several years after Nicaragua received the Navy’s survey; two, there was no notice to
Colombia and the press reports of the alleged mission (which we sent to the Registrar) do not focus
on Quitasueño; three, there was no actual contact with the Navy, just an alleged radio report
wrongly interpreted to suggest that the Navy was in the vicinity. Mr.President, Members of the
Court, I am constrained to say that this was not coercion, not even the whiff of coercion.
15. I now turn to the facts.
16. Quitasueño is a long bank, running some 57 km from north to south. Its southernmost
point is less than 48 nautical miles from the northernmost point of the Providencia and
Santa Catalina islands 38.
17. It comprises a variety of land features. The most comprehensive survey of the bank to
date, that carried out by Dr.Smith, identified 34 features that qualify as islands because they are
36CR 2012/8, pp.19-20, paras.23-28 (Argüello Gómez); ibid., pp.23-24, paras.39-41; CR2012/9, p.50,
para. 31 (Lowe).
37
CR 2012/8, pp. 19-20, paras. 23-28 (Argüello Gómez).
38See CMC, p. 30, para. 2.25; CMC, Vol. III, fig. 2.8. See also RC, Vol. II, p. 93, fig. R-3.2. - 32 -
permanently above the high-tide mark. They are dispersed along the length of the bank. Up and
39
down the length of the bank, there is no gap be tween islands in excess of five nautical miles . For
much of the length of the bank, the concentration of islands is considerably closer. The bank also
contains at least 20 identified low-tide elevations 40. No low-tide elevation is located at more than
41 42
one and three quarter nautical miles from the nearest island . Most are much closer . They
would trigger Article 13, paragraph 1 of the 1982 UNCLOS Convention (Article 11 (1) of the 1958
Geneva Convention) which provides that
“Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not
exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from... an island, the low-water line on
that elevation may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial
sea.”
18. Quitasueño contains a significant reef structure. The reef runs for over 22 nautical miles,
43
forming the eastern edge of the bank . Its widest break is about one tenth of a mile. The reef
44
constitutes the eastern fringe of Quitasueño and is clearly marked on the chart . Its seaward
low-water line is an eligible baseline in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention 45.
19. A brief word is in order about the met hods which the two survey teams employed, since
they have been called into doubt. The surveys en tailed the collection of raw data by the teams,
both of which stayed for a number of days at the bank. The data consisted in observations and
measurements of a large number of features, in order to verify that some of them remain
46
permanently above the high-tide mark and which are low-tide elevations . Observations in some
instances were taken from a distance of some me tres, as shallow waters and waves around them
made it too dangerous for the researchers to land 47. This is a bank strewn with shipwrecks 48. In
other parts of the bank, the researchers disembarked and approached the islands on foot.
3See Island, QS 52 and Island QS 47 for the widest gap, fig. No. 7, Smith Report.
4RC, pp. 177-8, para. 5.36.
41
Smith Report, p. 38, para. 6.5.
42
The furthest is low-tide elevation QS 44, shown at p. 27, Smith Report.
43
Smith Report, p. 38, para. 6.7.
4See Colombia Nautical Chart 416, reproduced as fig. No. 1, Smith Report.
4Smith Report, p. 38, para. 6.7.
4Ibid., fold-out charts.
47
E.g., QS 21, 33: Smith report, pp. 18, 23.
48
See, e.g., shipwreck in upper right background of photograph: Smith Report, fig. 2, 4, p. 8. - 33 -
49
20. Islands which they could appro ach on foot they measured on the spot . The resultant
measurement for a given feature constituted the datum which the experts then analysed. To analyse
that data, they applied statistical methods recognized as appropriate for measuring the elevations of
land features like those comprising the bank. The st atistical analysis and the general data sets on
which they relied ⎯ in particular, the astronomical tide data for the region ⎯ are fully described in
the reports 50.
21. Instances where there was a doubt as to whet her the feature was above water at high tide
or a low-tide elevation, in such cases a “conser vative approach” was taken and the feature was
considered to be a low-tide eleva tion. If, for example, the elevatio n of the feature was close to the
51
high-tide mark, it was excluded from the list of islands . If two or more features were close
enough together to present a matter of appreciation as to whether they were in truth one or two,
they were counted as one 52.
Nicaragua’s denial of the facts
22. Mr.President, Members of the Cour t, before Nicaragua instituted the present
proceedings, Colombia had take n the sovereignty and resultant entitlements generated by the
islands of Quitasueño to be largely uncontrovers ial. A difference had existed with the United
53
States, from the time of the nineteenth century Guano Act until its resolution under the 1972
Treaty 54. But this was a difference concerning title; the practice throughout that period, as after,
largely confirmed that the feature was capable of being subject to sovereignty. As to the pre-1972
practice, I refer to the 1928 Exchange of Notes be tween Colombia and the United States, whereby
Colombians could continue their fishing activ ities while the United States would maintain and
4Colombian Navy report team: 11 geographical features and low-tide elevations — QS 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,
16, 18, 19 and 23, for which see CMC, Vol.II-A, Ann. 171, pp.604-607. Smith Report team: 22 islands and low-tide
elevations — QS 1, 2,, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 2, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 35, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52 and 53, for which see RC, Vol. II,
App. I, pp. 7-9, para. 2.3, and Ann. 5.
5Study on Quitasueño and Alburquerque prepared by th e Colombian Navy, September 2008; CMC, Vol.II-A,
Ann. 171, pp. 609-611; Smith Report, RC, Vol. II, App. 1, p. 9, para. 2.4.
5Smith Report, p. 9, para. 2.6.
5E.g., QS 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 27, 30: Smith Report, pp. 14-16, 21, 22; see also ibid., pp. 10-11, para. 3.2.
5US Code, Title 48, Ch. 8, para. 1411.
54
Treaty between Colombia and the United States of America concerning the Status of Quitasueño, Roncador and
Serrana, Bogotá, 8 Sept 1972: 1307 United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS) 379, reprinted as Ann. 3 in CMC, Vol. II-A. - 34 -
operate the lighthouse. Nicaragua was officially notified of the Exchange of Notes and never
protested it. As to the position after 1972, notwithstanding its formal reservation on the point,
subsequent United States practice has recognized the competence as to fisheries around Quitasueño
of the designated “Colombian authorities”: I refe r, for example, to the 1983 Exchange of Notes
with Colombia, which has formed the basis for a very substantial subsequent practice 55.
56
23. The Counter-Memorial recounted this practice in detail . Nicaragua, silent for some
44years on the matter, said nothing to qualify the practice or to weaken the conclusions drawn
from it. When Nicaragua did speak about Quitasueño, it claimed that Quitasueño “appertained to
Nicaragua by virtue of the doctrine of uti posseditis iuris ”; that is to say, Nicaragua, though
starting in 1972, affirmed, by claiming them , that Quitasueño constituted or included land
territory 57. In its Memorial, Nicaragua noted the earlier practice, such as President Wilson’s
declaration in 1919 “reaffirming the appropriation of the cays and reserving them in order to
establish navigational aids on them” 58 .
24. So the assertion by Nicaragua that Quitasueño contains no islands came to light at a late
59
date. Nicaragua expanded the point only towards the end of its Memorial . Its pleading here, as
in so many other respects, was hopelessly pr otean: it acknowledged the practice which accepted
that these are territorial features under sovereignty; said nothing to show the faintest reservation
about the practice; laid claim to th e features; then, in one of many volte-faces, denied that
anybody else could have them 60 .
Mr.President, this would be an appropriate time to break, if it would be convenient to the
Court.
The PRESIDENT: It seems that it is also convenient for you.
55
Agreement between Colombia and the United States of America on certain Fishing Rights in Implementation of
the Treaty between Colombia and the United States of America of 8 September 1972, Concerning the Status of
Quitasueño, Roncador and Serrana, Bogotá, 24 October 1983 and 6 December 1983, 2015 UNTS 3, USTIAS 10842:
CMC, Vol. II-A, Ann. 8, p. 45.
56
CMC, pp. 150-188, paras. 4.3-4.77.
57
MN, p.8, para.19, in reference to Nicaragua’s 1972 claim. See also ibid., paras.20, 23. For the 1972
Nicaraguan statement, see MN, Vol. II, Ann. 81, p. 261.
5Ibid., p. 128, para. 2.148.
5Ibid., para. 3.114.
6Ibid., p. 251, para. 3.123. - 35 -
Mr. CRAWFORD: Sir, my convenience is your convenience.
The PRESIDENT: We will take a 15-minute coffee break. The sitting is suspended.
The Court adjourned from 11.15 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is resumed and Professor Crawford, you
can continue.
Mr. CRAWFORD:
25. Thank you, Sir. Mr. President, in Australia there is a saying that someone who wants the
best of both worlds has “a bob each way”, which is a reference to betting at the races. Nicaragua’s
initial position on Quitasueño was “a bob each way”. If it was an island, it was their island; if it
was not an island it was their shelf.
26. In the Reply Nicaragua, while repeating its statement of the facts without further
evidence, came definitively down in favour of the proposition that Quitasueño was not an island. It
said: “all the information available for nearly two hundred years indicates that this feature is a bank
with no rocks or cays emerging at high tide” 61. That had the advantage of describing accurately the
issue between the Parties. The following points may be made in response.
27. First, the existence of Quitasueño as an island or of islands on Quitasueño, is not
determined by what “information” may have been “available” in the past. Whether there is an
island or islands present in a given area is not a question of history. It is a factual question. As you
observed in Qatar/Bahrain, just because a feature “has never been reflected on nautical charts as an
island but always as a low-tide elevation” in no way settles the matter 62. It is a matter to be
examined in view of expert evidence, admissible for determining a question of present fact.
28. But, even if the geography were a matter of historical record rather than observable fact,
Nicaragua’s version of history is wrong. The “information available for nearly two hundred years”,
which Colombia set out in the Counter-Memorial and noted again in the Rejoinder, indicates the
61
RN, p. 116, para. 4.27.
6Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questio ns between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar vBahrain), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 99, para. 193. - 36 -
opposite. Quitasueño was subject to claims of sovereignty ⎯ it is a valuable feature ⎯ and these
claims of sovereignty were acknowledged by Nicar agua as such. Nicaragua refers to surveys
carried out by the United Kingdom in the early nineteenth century and by Colombia itself in
63
1937 ⎯the very sort of maps and surveys which you said in Qatar/Bahrain were not
determinative of the geographic facts 64. Even Foreign Secretary Chamberlain acknowledged the
65
existence of “a small, solitary and quite uninhabitable rock” on the bank . That is in the letter of
1926. The reason the United Kingdom took the position it did at that time, as reflected in the
Chamberlain letter, was not because it thought Qu itasueño was totally under water but because it
was applying a different test for an island ⎯ the wrong test, in terms of international law, affirmed
in 1958 and 1982.
29. Nor does Nicaragua offer any explanation as to why the United States legislated in
respect of the islands as features potentially subject to appropriation for the purposes of exploiting
66
their resources . It refers to statements noting the presence of cays in Quitasueño — it even refers
to cays there itself. Nicaragua invokes a twentie th century declaration where the United States
refers to the feature in question as “a cay”, that denomination was used also in the 1928 Treaty.
30. Nicaragua wonders why a British naval survey in the 1830s “did not find any cays on the
bank” 67. The concern of that survey was with navi gational hazards. The reefs of Quitasueño are
an infamous navigational hazard. Even for mode rn researchers, equipped with state-of-the-art
positioning equipment and motorized sea craft, the approach to the whole feature requires extreme
caution. The law of maritime jurisdiction, as it was in the 1830s, gave no reason for naval
surveyors to enquire closely of such a dangerous pl ace as Quitasueño. It is hardly surprising that
the early surveyors in their wooden sailing ships did not get too close. The hazards of a lea shore,
as Patrick O’Brien would have put it.
63
RN, pp. 117-8, paras. 4.28-4.29.
64
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questio ns between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 70-71, para. 100; p. 85, para. 148. See also, ibid. p. 99, para. 193.
65
Letter of 7 July 1926: CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 47. See also, ibid. para. 4.29.
66E.g., the Guano Act: US Code, Title 48, Chap. 8, para. 1411.
67RN, p. 117, para. 4.28. - 37 -
31. Mr. President, Members of the Court, geography is neither created nor erased by an old
text. Nor does a geographical feature disappear b ecause an observer failed to notice it. The legal
consequences generated by geography may change over time. This is the case in respect of small
territorial features at sea. The rule defining islands for purposes of maritime entitlement that I have
recited is comparatively recent; so, too, the attri bution of a 12-mile territorial sea to such a small
feature. But, today, the entitlements generated by islands ⎯ including rocks ⎯ are clear and
settled. No legal consequence flows from the fact that old observers did not find something which
68
probably did not matter under the law of their day and for which they were not looking .
32. Nicaragua deprecates Colombia’s modern surveys as a “belated discovery of ‘islands’ on
the bank of Quitasueño” which “cannot change the conclusions on the status of Quitasueño as it
appears from information and the practice of the Parties spanning almost two centuries” 69. But
there is nothing “belated” about a respondent State surveying its territory, when challenged by a
persistent Applicant to prove the existence of a territorial or maritime entitlement 70. A legally
groundless attempt to disqualify a scientific survey does not address the merits of the survey or the
71
conclusions it supports .
33. Nicaragua, in its Reply thus submitted a pleading that was by turns self-contradictory and
non-responsive. It added nothing to the unsuppor ted assertions which lie at the heart of the
Memorial. Yet the stakes for Colombia in th is attempt to strip a long-established area of
jurisdictional authority from its control and radically to constrict its maritime spaces are high. This
is why Colombia retained Dr. Robert Smith to provide an independent geographical assessment.
34. Mr.OudeElferink makes play of the fact that the height measurements of the islands
above mean sea level were shown as accurate to the millimetre, a resolution which could not be
achieved by the measuring device used. Well that is true. In fact, as Dr. Smith’s Annex 5 makes
68
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea
intervening), I.C.J. Reports 2002 , p. 514, para.44 (indicating that the “wenesses of the contemporary techniques
employed in their preparation”, though not in themselves gr ounds for rejecting old maps, ne vertheless are reflected in
such maps).
69
RN, p. 119, para. 4.34. See also, ibid. p. 123, para. 4.42.
70Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Reply
of Bahrain, 30 May 1999, Ann. 13.
71See RN, pp. 115-116, para. 4.25. - 38 -
clear, the surveying ruler’s accuracy is to the centimetre 72. The apparent millimetre accuracy is a
function of the method of calculation.
35. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the situation in which Colombia found it necessary
to undertake two surveys of the cays of Quitasueño is unusual. It is ordinarily the party making
factual allegations which adduces evidence in order to support its allegations. That is not the
situation here ⎯ at least, it was not until this week. Nicaragua alleges that an island group ⎯ long
addressed under Colombian legislation, long the subject of third State practice; and, at least for a
time, subject to Nicaragua’s own territorial claim ⎯does not exist in law; but it furnishes no
geographical evidence, no study, no research, no fi eld report, no objective contemporary material
whatsoever to back up its categorical contention.
36. But if the onus is on Colombia it has discharged that onus. It has shown the existence of
numerous land features on Quitasueño which constitu te islands under the modern law. It has
shown the existence of numerous low-tide elevations within a few miles of those islands, and of a
fringing reef that is similar to many others thr oughout the world that have been considered proper
baselines. The result is a cumulative maritime domain which is by no means disproportionate to its
importance in the region and which is, in all respects, supported by the modern law of the sea. This
is a substantial feature, administered by Colombia, a feature significant for its fisheries but also for
the responsibilities associated with its eponymous presence as a hazard to shipping. On the second
day of a reply phase, one does not want to say too much about being denied sleep. Quitasueño, of
course, means “avoid sleep”. It is the Colombian Navy which maintains two lighthouses on the
bank, without which many ships would be called on to abandon not merely sleep but hope as well!
Professor Oude Elferink’s assault in absentia on Quitasueño
37. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I turn to address Professor Oude Elferink’s assault
on Quitasueño. Just as the so-called scientific expedition of February 2012 was subject to what
might be described as coercion in absentia, so Professor Oude Elferink’s assault on the Bank was
an assault in absentia: he has never been there, he has never asked to go there. But he made four
72
Smith Report, Ann. 5, seventh column, “In situ height observations”. - 39 -
points to which I should respond: first, high tides; second, the use of a tidal datum; thirdly,
Colombia’s charts; and fourthly, the “coral trash” theory of island deformation.
(a) The meaning of “high tide” in the definition of “island”
38. I turn first to the meaning of “high tide” in the law of the sea.
39. Nicaragua objects to the findings of Dr. Sm ith, that there exist a considerable number of
features which are islands for purposes of the international law definition 73. What Nicaragua
seems to be saying is that international law cont ains a specific definition of “high tide” and that
Colombia’s appreciation of the facts was flawed, because it failed to follow that definition.
40. But international law has not articulated a definition for high tide; it has not settled on a
general rule prescribing how States are to take tid al measurements. This emerges from the leading
case, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Alaska in 1997 74. The
question there was the status of the inaptly-na med Dinkum Sands, which we re a rather movable
feature, not infrequently submerged. I say inaptly because, at least in Australian idiom, dinkum
means “for real”.
41. The Court did not consider that a feature was to be disqualified as an island simply
because at one time or another it was washed over by waves or in some circumstances might
otherwise be submerged. The United States as litig ant in that case took an absolute position: the
feature, in order to be an island, had to be permanently above water ⎯ meaning that water must
never, even exceptionally, wash over the feature. This position the Special Master ⎯ who decided
the case on the facts ⎯ “essentially rejected” 75. The Special Master determined— and the
76
Supreme Court accepted ⎯ that the correct standard is “somewhat more lenient . . ” . The correct
standard is that “under which an island must ‘gen erally’, ‘normally’, or ‘usually’ be above mean
77
high water” .
73
CR 2012/9, pp. 50-57, paras. 32-46 (Oude Elferink).
74
521 US 1, 1997.
75521 US at p. 24.
76Ibid..
77Ibid. - 40 -
42. Mr.OudeElferink took Colombia’s expert evidence to task, becau se, according to his
appreciation, the photographs show that the isla nds of Quitasueño, or at least some of them,
sometimes to be over-topped by the waves: “Tha t is”, according to Mr.OudeElferink, “they are
78
not permanently above water ” ⎯ but the word “permanently” does not appear. Nicaragua, it
seems, espouses a standard, like that a dvanced by the United States in the Dinkum Sands case but
rejected by the Supreme Court.
43. Nor is it, evidently, a position on which the drafters of the 1958 Convention were able to
agree. Early drafts of the text would have required that a feature be “permanently above [the]
high-water mark” 79. The United Kingdom proposed adding the phrase “in normal
80
circumstances” . The United States thought the combination of words ⎯ “permanently” and “in
normal circumstances” was illogical ⎯ and, had no basis in international law. The United States
said at the Conference in 1958 “there is no established state practice regarding the effect of
81
[submerged] or abnormal or seasonal tidal action on the status of islands” . On that consideration,
both of those qualifying phrases were dropped, and the text took its adopted form. From the
drafting history, the United States Supreme Court, interpreting the 1958 Convention, concluded as
follows: “even if a feature would be submerged at the highest monthly tides during a particular
season or in unusual weather, the feature might still be above ‘mean high water’ and therefore
82
qualify as an island” .
44. The conclusion remains correct today: in ternational law does not incorporate a law of
tides or of tidal measurements. D.P. O’Connell noted that the definitions applied in practice were
considerably diverse: highest astronomical tide, mean high-water spring tides, mean high-water
83
neap tides, mean sea level, and so on . Subsequent development has done nothing to qualify his
conclusion.
78
CR 2012/9, p. 52, para. 37 (Oude Elferink); emphasis added.
79François, Report on the Régime of the Territorial SeYearbook of the International Law Commission , 1952,
Vol. II, p. 25, 36, UN doc. A/CN.4/53.
80Summary Records of the 260th mtg, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1954, Vol. I, p. 92.
813 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Offi cial Records: First Committee (Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone), Summary Records of Meetings and Annexes, 1958, UN doc. A/CONF.13/C1./L.112, p. 242.
82521 US at pp. 26-27.
83
O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea, 1982, Vol. I, p. 173. - 41 -
(b) The appropriate tidal datum
45. I move to the question of “the appropriate tidal datum”. Just as Nicaragua has purported
to fix Colombia’s continental margin for it, so it has purported to tell us which tide datum to use.
International law apparently rejects the use of the global Grenoble Tide Model FES 95.2 and
84
obliges us instead to use an “Admiralty Total Tide Model” . But there is no universal standard
adopted by the international community dictating what model a country has to use.
46. The 1982 Convention allows the coastal St ate to use the technical standards it deems
appropriate. The Colombian Hydrographic Service consists of competent hydrographers who are
knowledgeable of charting standards: their Tec hnical Report is at Annex4, Appendix 1 of the
Rejoinder. Their considered recommendations on the model should not be questioned by the
Court.
47. In this context I would note that th e 1993 International Hydrographical Association
Manual provides:
“Owing to the many varied tidal characteristics existing throughout the world, a
precise, scientific definition for chart datum, which could be used universally, has not
been agreed upon. (Over the past 200 years, different countries have adopted different
methods for computing chart datum, depending usually on the type of prevailing tide.)
As yet, only basic guidelines exist.” 85
48. Nicaragua wishes you to reject the tid al model applied by Colombia’s expert in
measuring the features of Quitasueño. But the Grenoble Tide Model applied by Dr.Smith is a
model in wide international application. Nicaragua apparently believes that international law
contains a precise technical prescription on how to measure tides. On that basis, it says that the
Smith Report, having used the Grenoble Tide Model, is to be rejected 86.
49. For the reasons given, that is wrong, in principle anyway. But in the event there is
sufficient scientific basis for the tidal datum adopted. I refer to two papers about tides in the
Caribbean published in the internationally peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research . The
first was published in 1981, and it indicates that in the region of Quitasueño, mean tidal range is
87
always below 50 cm . A second paper, from 2011, confirms this finding of 30 years before, and
84CR 2012/9, p. 51, paras. 33-34 (Oude Elferink)
85
IHO Manual on Technical Aspects of the LOS Convention, 1993, p.68, para. 3.4.
86CR 2012/9, p. 51, para. 33 (Oude Elferink).
87B. Kjerfve, “Tides of the Caribbean Sea”, 1981, 86 J Geophysical Res 4243-4247. - 42 -
compares the tidal harmonics and tide gauges and FES 2004, an updated addition of the FES 95.2
to which Mr.OudeElferink referred. The paper concludes that there is very good agreement
88
between observed and modelled tide, with harmonic amplitude differences below 1.5 cm . Thus,
the highest astronomical tide (HAT) computed fro m Admiralty Total Tide, with a difference of
over half a metre when compared to the FES model, is inaccurate. Furthermore, the methodology
to compute highest astronomical tide from the FES m odel is clearly set out in Dr.Smith’s report,
whereas how the highest astronom ical tide was computed from Ad miralty Total Tide was not
demonstrated to the Court by Nicaragua. I should add that copies of these two public domain
reports have been provided to Nicaragua and to the Registrar.
50. Incidentally, if we adopt the 0.8 m highest astronomical tide proposed by Nicaragua, then
the lowest astronomical tide (LAT) would be n early 0.8m below main sea level (MSL), and not
0.29 m as proposed by Dr. Smith (see his Ann. 4). The result would be that most of Quitasueño’s
features would be classified as low-tide elevations.
51. To conclude, there is no basis in international law to reject the tidal measurements at
Quitasueño. The measurements were conservative, accurate, and clear in their identification of
multiple features on the bank qualifying as islands, under the legal definition.
(c) Colombia’s charts
52. I turn briefly to the question of Colombia’s charts, on which Mr. Oude Elferink heavily
89
relied, in conjunction with reasoning about the critical date . Apparently whatever the map
depicts prevails over the geographic facts. This is not what you said or did in Qatar v. Bahrain, as
I have shown. He further says that the ear lier Colombian maps are “highly relevant for
determining if there have been any effectivités in respect of specific is lands. Colombia discovered
90
the coral debris on Quitasueño only in 2008 and 2009.” But effectivités have nothing to do with
the geographical facts, or with their ascertainment. I will return to the question of charts in more
detail next week.
88
R. Torres & M. N. Tsimplis, “Tides and long-term modulations in the Caribbean Sea”, 2011, 116 J Geophysical
Res C10022.
89
CR 2012/9, p. 58, para. 49 (Oude Elferink).
9Ibid. - 43 -
(d) The “coral trash” theory
53. Fourthly there is, surprisingly, the new coral trash theory, which if upheld will add
powerfully to the world’s stock of homeless people. ProfessorOudeElferink put it in the
following terms: “An individual piece of coral debr is, that is, a part of the skeleton of a dead
91
animal, is not a naturally formed area of land.” Now of course there has been active debate about
whether human intervention, using natural materials, such as landfill, gives rise to a “naturally
formed area of land”. One view is that it can do so over time. But there is no instance of which I
am aware in which the insular character of a feature has been rejected because it was made of coral,
a point made by Sir Derek Bowett: “Although such islands are in no sense geologically part of the
seabed [he is talking about coral islands], they ar e nevertheless ‘naturally formed’ and it has never
been doubted that they generate a territorial sea as do normal islands.” 92 The 1982 Convention
refers to coral islands ⎯ atolls ⎯ in Article 6, and again in Artic le 47, paragraphs1 and 7. The
fact that they were formed by the “skeletons of a dead animal” in no way relegates them. A
significant number of islands are coral islands. The Maldives would be surprised, perhaps alarmed,
to learn of the coral trash theory. They may fear that, having made one archipelago disappear,
counsel for the other side will find it straightforward to do so with other archipelagos.
54. I should note that the IHO study clearly recognizes that coral can be used as a baseline,
93
i.e., that it is natural.
55. Finally, as to coral debris, I ask you to look at the pictures. They reflect what Dr. Smith
saw, coral rocks affixed to the substrate.
Conclusion
56. Mr.President, Members of the Court, for these reasons, Mr. OudeElferink’s arguments
fail. Quitasueño is legally as we have described it.
91
CR 2012/9, pp. 56-57, paras. 44-46, esp. pp. 56-57, para. 46 (Oude Elferink).
92
D.W. Bowett, The legal regime of islands in international law (Oceana, 1979), p. 5.
93IHO Study, para. 4.6.1.4. - 44 -
Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank yo u for your attention. I would ask you now to
give the floor to my colleague, Mr.Bundy, who will address Nicaragua’s claims in respect of
delimitation. Thank you, Sir.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor Crawford and I give the floor to
Mr. Bundy. You have the floor.
Mr. BUNDY: Thank you, Mr. President.
3. NICARAGUA S MARITIME BOUNDARY CLAIMS
1. Introduction
1. Mr.President, Members of the Court, my task in this intervention is to address
Nicaragua’s claims.
2. I say “claims” quite deliberately because one of the remarkable aspects of this case is that
Nicaragua’s maritime claims, and the basis on which those claims have been formulated, have
undergone a radical change at a very late stage of these proceedings. And this has fundamentally
changed the subject-matter of the dispute which Nicaragua originally asked the Court to decide.
3. In its Application, Nicaragua requested th e Court to determine the course of the single
maritime boundary between the areas of con tinental shelf and exclusive economic zones
94
appertaining to the Parties .
4. That request was reiterated in Nicaragua’s Memorial, where Nicaragua claimed a single
maritime boundary based upon a median line between the mainland coasts of the Parties 95. And
the same claim was maintained again in Nicaragua’s Written Statement on Colombia’s Preliminary
Objections 96, as well as in its oral arguments during the jurisdictional hearings .97
5. As I pointed out earlier this morning, Co lombia’s Counter-Memorial showed that there
was no legal foundation for Nicaragua’s mainland-to-mainland median line claim.
94
Application of Nicaragua, para. 8.
95
MN, para. 3.28 and Submissions, para. 9.
9Para. 3.40.
9CR 2007/17, p. 22, para. 6. - 45 -
6. And in its Reply, Nicaragua was forced to accep t this fact. This is what it said: “There is
no need for a delimitation of exclusive economic zones claimed respectively by Nicaragua and
Colombia because the mainland coasts of the two St ates are separated by a distance of more than
98
400 nautical miles.”
7. Now during the oral proceedings on Cost a Rica’s Application to Intervene, I recall
Nicaragua’s counsel commenting: “Some things are so blindingly obvious that they go undetected
by even the most astute observers.” 99 This is certainly one of those things. If there is no need for a
delimitation of exclusive economic zones between the mainland coasts of the Parties because they
are too far apart, there is obviously no basis fo r Nicaragua’s mainland-to-mainland single maritime
boundary claim. That claim evaporates.
8. It was not until Nicaragua’s Reply that it recognized these shortcomings. And that is why
Nicaragua had to abandon its single maritime boundary claim.
9. How has Nicaragua dealt with this problem? In its Reply, Nicaragua decided to change
the entire nature of its claim, including its legal and factual basis. Having previously argued that
geology and geomorphology were irrelevant, Nicaragua abandon ed that position, gave up on its
mainland-to-mainland median line claim, discarde d the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule,
and argued instead that the Court should only delimit a continental shelf boundary between the two
States based on a division of geological margins that depends on a newly formulated Nicaraguan
outer continental shelf claim and a hypothesis as to where the geological continental margins of the
two Parties are located.
10. The scope of this change is really quite remarkable. By arguing, eight years after the
case was introduced, that the Court should now restri ct itself to a delimitation of geological or
geomorphological continental margins lying more than 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast,
but well within 200 miles of Colombia’s mainland coast and its islands, Nicaragua has not simply
reformulated its claim; it has changed the very subject-matter of the case.
98
RN, p. 59, para. 1.
9CR 2010/13, p. 29, para. 1 (Reichler). - 46 -
11. But that has hardly improved Nicaragua’s position. While its former claim was legally
baseless, the new claim is inadmissible, unprecedented, legally deficient and wholly
unsubstantiated.
12. I intend to take up those four points presently. But before doing so, I would like to spend
a few minutes on Nicaragua’s original claim to place its new claim in perspective.
2. Nicaragua’s original claim
(a) Nicaragua’s Application
13. Nicaragua is the Applicant in this case. It instituted the proceedings on
6 December 2001 with the filing of its Application.
14. States that initiate proceedings before the Court think long and hard about the nature of
the claim they intend to request the Court to d ecide. And Nicaragua is no exception. In its
Application, Nicaragua indicated that its Preside nt had indicated as early as December 1999 that it
would file a case against Colombia 100.
15. Thus Nicaragua was formulating the nature of the dispute it would bring before the Court
at least two years before instituting these proc eedings. The requests set out in Nicaragua’s
Application must therefore be taken as reflecti ng the considered position of Nicaragua as to the
subject-matter of the dispute it wished the Court to decide.
16. With respect to maritime delimitation, the Application requested the Court
“to determine the course of the single maritime boundary between the areas of
continental shelf and exclusive economic zone appertaining respectively to Nicaragua
and Colombia, in accordance with equitabl e principles and relevant circumstances
recognized by general 101ernational law as applicable to such a delimitation of a single
maritime boundary” .
There was no suggestion that Nicaragua sought only a geological continental shelf boundary or that
Nicaragua considered that it possessed outer continental shelf rights extending more than
200 nautical miles from its coast.
100
Application of Nicaragua, para. 7.
10Ibid., para. 8. - 47 -
(b) Nicaragua’s Memorial
17. Now in April 2003, two years after the A pplication, Nicaragua submitted its Memorial.
That pleading repeated the request set out in the Application for the Court to determine the course
102
of the single maritime boundary between the Parties .
18. With respect to issues of principle, Nicara gua stated that the applicable legal principles
were those “relating to cases involving single maritime boundaries”, not those relating to the
103
establishment of outer continental shelf limits or the division of geological margins .
19. Based on this reasoning, Nicaragua’s ninth submission, in its Memorial, set out its formal
request for the Court to adjudge and declare the following:
“The appropriate form of delimitatio n, within the geographical and legal
framework constituted by the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Colombia, is a single
maritime boundary in the form of a median line between these mainland coasts.” 104
20. Now, equally significant was Nicaragua’s treatment of geology and geomorphology in
the Memorial. Nicaragua devoted 80 pages of its Memorial to the issue of maritime delimitation.
However, its discussion of what it termed “the relevance of geology and geomorphology” was
contained in one sentence. Given that Nicara gua’s new outer continental shelf claim rests
exclusively on geology and geomorphology, Nicara gua’s views on the relevance of these elements
in its Memorial deserves to be recalled. This is what Nicaragua had to say:
“The relevance of geology and geomorphology
3.58. The position of the Government of Nicaragua is that geological and
geomorphological factors have no relevance for the delimitation of a single maritime
boundary within the delimitation area.”
21. That is about as clear an expression of position as you can have.
3. Nicaragua’s new claim in its Reply
22. Now, in complete contradiction, Ni caragua now asks the Court to determine the
geological and geomorphological continental marg in and continental shelf boundary between the
two Parties. But it is not just any continental shelf boundary that Nicaragua asks the Court to
decide. Rather, it is one that extends in places over 400 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coasts.
102
MN, para. 3.3; and Submissions at pp. 266-267.
103
Application of Nicaragua, para. 8; MN, para. 3.37.
10MN, pp. 266-267. - 48 -
23. And under Nicaragua’s thesis, Nicaragua is entitled to enormous outer continental shelf
rights, while Colombia is not even entitled to the 200-nautical mile entitlements that the law
accords to both its islands and its mainland.
24. Having summarized the evolution of Nicara gua’s claims in the case, now let me turn to
the reasons why this new claim ⎯ the continental shelf claim-- is inadmissible, in addition to
being unsupported legally and factually.
(a) Nicaragua’s new claim is inadmissible
25. With respect to the admissibility of Nica ragua’s new continental shelf claim, Nicaragua
said nothing in its first round of pleadings. Ignorance may be bliss, Mr. President, but it scarcely
makes the issue go away.
26. The starting-point for considering the ad missibility of Nicaragua’s continental shelf
claim is obviously Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Court’s Statute, which provides that “the subject
of the dispute” shall be set out and indicated in the Application. And Article38, paragraph2, of
the Rules of Court further stipulates that, when cases are brought by Application, the Application
shall specify the precise nature of the claim. And on several occasions, the Court has emphasized
that it deems these provisions “essential from the point of view of legal security and the good
administration of justice” ( Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 267, para. 69) 105.
27. Nicaragua’s Application did specify the s ubject-matter of the dispute and the nature of
Nicaragua’s claim. Nicaragua asked the Court to determine the course of the single maritime
boundary in accordance with international law principles applicable to single maritime boundaries.
28. And it developed the same position in its Memorial. No request was made in those
submissions for the Court to delimit solely a continental shelf boundary based on alleged outer
continental shelf rights or overlapping margins. To the contrary, as I just showed you, Nicaragua
insisted that geology and geomorphology were irre levant. The subject-matter of the dispute, as
well as its legal basis, remained the delimitation of a single maritime boundary.
10See also Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Ni caragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 2007(II) , p.695, para.10Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v.
Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 38. - 49 -
29. That position was further maintained in Nicaragua’s pleadings on Colombia’s
jurisdictional objections. As Professor Pellet empha sized as late as 2007, during the oral hearings
on the preliminary objections:
“Est-il besoin de rappeler que celui-c i est fixé par le demandeur, dans sa
requête, et précisé, toujours par celui-ci, dans le mémoire, et non pas par le
défendeur?” 106
30. That is all very well. Nicaragua’s request for a single maritime boundary was the case
set out in Nicaragua’s Application and its Memorial. And it was therefore the case that Colombia
answered when it filed its Counter-Memorial in November 2008.
31. It was only afterwards that the entire nature of the dispute that Nicaragua asked the Court
to decide changed. The newly-formulated continental shelf claim raises a whole host of new
issues, some of which go to the legal basis of th e claim, others of which are technical, that the
Court would have to decide if it entertained Nicaragua’s request. Those issues have nothing to do
with the subject-matter of the dispute it earlier asked the Court to decide or with the legal principles
that Nicaragua itself argued were applicable.
32. Your Court has repeatedly held that a new claim that transforms the subject of the
dispute originally submitted is inadmissible. This principle is implicit in Article 40 of the Statute
and Article 38 of the Rules of Court, and it was upheld by the Permanent Court in its Order of
4 February 1933, in the Prince von Pless Administration case where the Permanent Court stated:
“under Article 40 of the Statute, it is the A pplication which sets out the subject of the
dispute, and the Case, though it may elucidate the terms of the Application, must not
go beyond the limits of the claim as set out therein . . .” ( P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 52 ,
p. 14).
33. The same principle was upheld by the Permanent Court in the Société Commerciale de
Belgique case, where the Permanent Court explained the position as follows:
“It is to be observed that the liberty accorded to the parties to amend their
submissions up to the end of the oral proceedings must be construed reasonably and
without infringing the terms of Article 40 of the Statute and Article 32, paragraph 2,
[which is now Article 38] of the Rules which provide that the Application must
indicate the subject of the dispute.”
And the Permanent Court went on to say:
106
CR 2007/17, p. 22, para. 4 (Pellet). - 50 -
“it is clear that the Court cannot, in principle, allow a dispute brought before it by
application to be transformed by amendments in the submissions into another dispute
which is different in character” (Société Commerciale de Belgique, Judgment, P.C.I.J.,
107
Series A/B, No. 78, p. 173) .
34. Now pronouncements also reflect the vi ews of this Court as was expressed in the
Judgment on the preliminary objections in the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case. In that
case, the Court also noted, with respect to the qu estion whether a new claim can be considered to
have been included in the original claim:
“it is not sufficient that there should be li nks between them of a general nature. An
additional claim must have been implicit in the Application . . . or must arise ‘directly
108
out of the question which is the subject matter of the Application’.”
35. In the 2010Judgment in the Diallo case, your Court had occasion to canvass the
jurisprudence on the issue of admissibility of a new claim introduced at a late stage of the
proceedings. The question, you said, is whether “although formally a new claim, the claim in
question can be considered as included in the original claim in substance” (ibid ., para. 40, citing
both the Nicaragua v. Honduras and Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru cases). To answer that
question, the Court drew upon its earlier jurisprudence in articulating two tests: either the
additional claim must be implicit in the Applicati on, or it must arise directly out of the question
which is the subject-matter of the Application 109.
36. And Nicaragua’s new continental shelf claim meets neither of those two tests.
37. As to whether the new claim is implicit in the Application, a key factor is whether the
110
legal basis of the two claims is the same ⎯ a point that the Court emphasized in the Diallo case .
In the present case, Nicaragua’s new continental shelf claim has an entirely different legal basis
than its original, single maritime boundary claim.
107See also Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1992, p. 267, paras. 70-71.
108
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objec tions, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1992, p.266, para. 67; Territorial Sea and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (II) , p. 695, para. 110; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v.
Democratic Republic of the Co ngo), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 , p. 18, para. 41; and see also Temple of Preah
Vihear, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1962 , p. 36 and Fisheries Jurisdiction (Fed eral Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 203, para. 72.
109Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) , Judgment of 30November2010,
para. 41.
110Ibid., paras. 43-44. - 51 -
38. With respect to its original claim, Nicar agua stressed that the choice of the pertinent
method of delimitation is essentially dependent on geography 11. And, as I said, at that stage,
112
according to Nicaragua, “geological and ge omorphological factors have no relevance” . And, as
Professor Pellet insisted during the preliminary objections phase of this case, the Court should
adopt the two-step process ⎯ drawing a provisional equidistance line and taking into account any
special circumstances ⎯ it systematically employs in delimitation cases 113.
39. Nicaragua’s new claim turns that position on its head. Nicaragua no longer requests a
single maritime boundary based on the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule; in fact,
Mr.Reichler argued the other day that this is not a proper case for equidistance 114. Instead,
Nicaragua has introduced a continental margin b oundary based on five new factors: first, the
allegation that Nicaragua possesses continental sh elf entitlements that extend more than 200nm
from its coast; second, a determination of where the foot-of-slope points are located for
determining the outer limits of Nicaragua’s continen tal margin; third, a determination of the outer
limits of that continental margin measured from th e foot of the slope, and also taking into account
the constraint criteria in the Convention; fourth , a determination of where the foot-of-slope points
are located and sediment thickness for determining Colombia’s geological margin; and fifth,an
equal division of these so-called overlapping geological margins.
40. Now the rules for determining those kinds of issues are entirely different from the rules
that Nicaragua relied on in its Application and Memorial. They depend on whether Nicaragua has
established any outer continental shelf entitlements up to the limits of the margin under Article 76
of the 1982 Convention. It depends on where the foot of the slope and geologic margins of both
countries lie, and whether Colombia can be systematically deprived of its ipso facto rights to a
200-mile continental shelf, and whether the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule can be
discarded in favour of a claim based on a division of alleged overlapping continental margins. And
111MN, para. 3.14.
112
Ibid., para. 3.58.
113CR 2007/19, p. 15, para. 9 (Pellet).
114CR 2012/10, p. 28, para. 4 (Reichler). - 52 -
I would suggest that, seen in this light, Nicaragua’s claim cannot possibly be said to have been
implicit in its Application or its Memorial.
41. Nor, by the same reasoning, does Nicaragua’s new claim arise directly out of the
question that was the subject-matter of the App lication. The two subject-matters are entirely
different: one, the determination of a single maritime boundary based on geography and the
equidistance/relevant circumstances rule; the second, the new one, a continental shelf margin
boundary based on putative outer continental shelf rights, geology, geomorphology and an “equal
division of margins” theory.
42. In order for the Court to determine the single maritime boundary between the Parties ⎯
which was, after all, the original subject-matter of this case ⎯ it does not need to decide whether
Nicaragua has continental shelf rights beyond 200 nau tical miles or where the outer limits of either
Colombia’s or Nicaragua’s geological continental ma rgins are situated. All it has to do is to apply
the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule in the relevant area for delimitation.
43. On Monday, Nicaragua’s distinguished Agent argued that Nicaragua originally requested
the Court to delimit all maritime areas between th e Parties on the basis of international law, and
that this is what Nicaragua continues to request now 11: and, with respect, that is not quite
accurate. Nicaragua originally requested the Court to delimit a single maritime boundary on the
basis of the legal principles relating to single maritime boundaries. Moreover, this Court ⎯ as I
mentioned ⎯ has repeatedly held that it is not sufficient that there should be links of a general
nature between the original claim and the new claim 116. Thus, the mere fact that both claims can be
said generally to involve some kind of delimitation is not enough. For they do not concern the
delimitation of the same legal régimes; they are based on different principles and rules of law, and
they have completely different factual premises . Nicaragua’s new claim cannot be viewed as
included in substance in its original claim.
11CR 2012/8, p. 24, para. 43 (Argüello Gómez).
11Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objec tions, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1992, p.266, para. 67; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Ni caragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 2007 (II) , p. 695, parAhmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of
Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 41; and see also Temple of Preah
Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 19, p. 36 and Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal
Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 203, para. 72. - 53 -
44. For years, the subject-matter of the case was the delimitation of a single maritime
boundary. And I might add that that was also the situation in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case
where it was Nicaragua itself that emphasized that a single delimitation line is and should be the
117
general rule . Nicaragua’s new continental shelf claim is wholly extraneous to the original
subject-matter of the dispute. And for these reasons, Mr. President and Members of the Court, that
new claim is inadmissible. The subject-matter of this dispute remains the delimitation of a single
maritime boundary: and that delimitation should be carried out between the relevant coasts of the
Parties, not the irrelevant ones.
(b) Nicaragua’s new claim has no legal or factual basis in any event
45. Now, even if Nicaragua’s new claim was admissible quod non, it would still face
insurmountable hurdles. Let me explain.
46. Legally, this is because Nicaragua has not established any entitlement to outer
continental shelf limits under the 1982Convention that could form the basis of its “division of
continental margins” claim line. Factually, the so-called “evidence” that Nicaragua has adduced in
its Reply is woefully deficient, and would not ev en begin to satisfy the Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf.
47. Colombia’s Rejoinder pointed out that Nicaragua had not established any entitlement to
outer continental shelf rights because Nicaragua, wh ich is a party to the Convention, has not made
any submission to the Commission, and the Commission has therefore not made any
recommendations on the basis of which Nicaragua can establish the outer limits of its continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles that will then be “final and binding” under Article 76, paragraph 8,
of the 1982 Convention 118.
48. Professor Lowe agreed that a State’s le gal entitlements to maritime areas must be
established before delimitation can be considered 119. He also stated that sovereign rights over the
continental shelf arise automatically by operation of law ⎯in other words, such rights exist ipso
11MN, Nicaragua v. Honduras case, p. 94, para. 15.
118
RC, para. 4.45.
11CR 2012/9, p. 23, para. 10 (Lowe). - 54 -
120
facto and ab initio , and that there is no distinction between those rights whether one is dealing
with continental shelf rights within 200 nautical miles of the coast or beyond 200 nautical miles.
49. However, my good friend then went on to argue that the existence of a continental shelf
is essentially a question of fact, which he seeme d to think Nicaragua had established, because he
121
asserted that the geology speaks for itself . Professor Lowe added that, even if Colombia is not a
party to the 1982 Convention, that cannot deprive Nicaragua, which is, of its rights under the
122
Convention and under general international law .
50. While Nicaragua undoubtedly has rights under the Convention, as a party to that
Convention, it also has obligations. One of tho se obligations concerns th e requirements it must
fulfil if it wishes to establish any outer continenta l shelf limits beyond 200 nautical miles from its
coast.
51. Both Dr.Cleverly and ProfessorLowe re ferred to Article76, paragraph1, of the
Convention, which provides that the continental shelf of a coastal State extends beyond the
territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the
continental margin, or to a distance of 200nautical miles where the outer edge of the continental
margin does not extend up to that distance 123.
52. Nicaragua’s new claim beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines is based on what it
says is the outer edge of its continental margin. What Professor Lowe avoided grappling with is
that paragraph8 of Article76 sets out what a coastal State must do ⎯ one that is party to the
Convention ⎯ in order to establish that outer edge of th e continental margin in order for the outer
limits of the continental shelf to become final and binding. And he al so failed to address the
implications of these requirements for Nicaragua’s new continental shelf claim, which depends on
a determination of the outer limits of the continental margin. Since neither Dr.Cleverly nor
Professor Lowe quoted paragraph 8, of Article 76, I think it is appropriate to recall what it says. It
is on the screen. The Court will no doubt be familiar with it:
120CR 2012/9, p. 24, para. 15 (Lowe).
121
Ibid., p. 26, paras. 25 and 28 (Lowe).
122Ibid., p. 24, para. 13 (Lowe).
123Ibid., p. 13, para. 14 (Cleverly); and ibid., p. 26, para. 25 (Lowe)) - 55 -
“Information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles…
shall be submitted by the coastal State to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf set up under Annex II on the basis of geographical representation.
The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to
the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. The limits of the shelf
established by the coastal State on the basi s of these recommendations shall be final
and binding.”
53. Now, those obligations are mandatory for States parties to the Convention, and they are
absolutely critical for the present case. Nicara gua’s new claim is based on a division of what
Nicaragua says are the outer limits of its continen tal margin with the outer limits of Colombia’s
continental margin. Consequently, Nicaragua’s whole “division of overlapping continental
margins” claim depends expressly on determining the limits of each Party’s continental margin
using geology and geomorphology. Under Nicara gua’s case, this necessarily means that your
Court is being asked to determine and validate the outer limits of Nicaragua’s claimed outer
continental shelf beyond 200nautical miles fo r purposes of a continental shelf delimitation
between the Parties in this case. You are being ask ed to determine and validate the outer limits of
Nicaragua’s margin beyond 200 nautical miles.
54. The Law of the Sea Tribunal in the Bangladesh v. Myanmar case was crystal clear that
this was the Commission’s job, not that of a tr ibunal. To quote the relevant passage where the
Tribunal addressed the process for a coastal State to establish outer continental shelf limits under
Article 76, paragraph 8, of the Convention, the Tribunal ITLOS said:
“Although this is a unilateral act, the opposability with regard to other States of
the limits thus established depends upon satisfaction of th e requirements specified in
article 76, in particular compliance by the coastal State with the obligation to submit
to the Commission information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm
and the issuance by the Commission of relevant recommendations in this regard. It is
only after the limits are established by the coastal State on the basis of the 124
recommendations of the Commission that these limits become ‘final and binding’.”
55. Now, in your Judgment in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case, this Court alluded to the
same process, where it stated in that Judgment:
“It should also be noted in this regard that in no case may the line be interpreted
as extending more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth
of the territorial sea is measured; any claim of continental shelf rights beyond 200
miles must be in accordance with Artic le 76 of UNCLOS and reviewed by the
Commission on the Limits of the Contin ental Shelf established thereunder.”
124
Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundar y between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of
Bengal, Judgment of 14 March 2012, para. 407. - 56 -
(Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean
Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (II), p. 759, para. 319.)
56. Nicaragua has made no submission to the Commission, let alone had it subject to the
Commission’s examination, validation or correction, and issuance of recommendations on the basis
of which Nicaragua could establish outer limits of the continental shelf margin that are final and
binding. It follows that the putative outer limits of the margin that Nicaragua advances in this case
for its claim are not, and cannot possibly be, opposable to Colombia.
57. All that Nicaragua has done is to file preliminary information. Dr.Oude Elferink
asserted that this was done “in compliance with the requirements contained in the 1982
Convention” 125. But that is not right. Preliminary information, by definition, will not even be
considered by the Commission. Such information cannot be deemed to be in compliance with the
Convention and it certainly does not meet the require ments of Article 76, paragraph 8. All it does
is that it tolls in a sense the statute of limitations for making a filing pursuant to a decision that the
State parties took in 2008. It is not in compliance with Article 76 of the Convention.
58. It is curious that Nicaragua did not file the preliminary information with its Reply,
although the Reply does contain the technical anne xes to that preliminary information. The
preliminary information was dated August 2009 and the Reply was filed on 18 September 2009.
59. Notwithstanding this, the preliminary info rmation that Nicaragua did ultimately file, I
think, in April 2010 quite clearly states “some of the data and the profiles described below do not
satisfy the exacting standards required by the CLCS for a full submission, as detailed in the
126
Commission’s Guidelines” .
60. That statement has conveniently been left out of the Nicaragua’s Reply, and was not
mentioned by Dr. Cleverly in his presentation the othe r day. It is also a vast understatement. The
material that Nicaragua submitted, both as preliminary information, and under Annexes 16-18 to its
Reply, is utterly insufficient to establish any out er continental shelf limits under the Commission’s
Guidelines, which are the fundamental source of instruction for the technical implementation of
Article 76.
125
CR 2012/8, p. 27, para. 6 (Oude Elferink).
12Nicaragua’s Preliminary Information to the Commission, August 2009, para. 21. - 57 -
61. Let me start with Nicaragua’s foot-of-the -slope points which control the entire course of
what Nicaragua claims is the outer limit of its continental shelf ⎯ its continental margin and
continental shelf.
62. I have to say Mr.President, I feel a little bit like, in undertaking this task, like
SirElihuLauterpacht. I could remember in 1984, in the Libya/Malta case, when he stood at this
podium dealing with plate tectonics in the Libyan rift zone and geology and geomorphology, and
he said he felt like Dr.Who in a time machine. But I will do my best. Nicaragua’s
foot-of-the-slope points, which control the entire course of what Nicaragua says of the outer limits
of its margin shelf. There are five such points listed in Annex 18 to Nicaragua’s Reply. Annex I to
that annex states that four of those points are “in principle” suitable for inclusion in a full
submission to the Commission. Mr.President, when somebody tells you that something is “in
principle” suitable, you can be pretty sure that there are caveats attached. If there is one thing I
learned when I moved to France, that one so mebody says something is possible “en principe”,
faites attention . And that is certainly the case here. As for the fifth point ⎯ foot-of-slope1
(FOS-1) ⎯ it is not even “in principle” suitable for an outer continental shelf submission, as
Nicaragua concedes. And yet this unsuitable point (FOS-1) ⎯ one that Dr. Cleverly elected not to
discuss on Tuesday ⎯ controls the entire southern limits of Nicaragua’s claimed outer continental
shelf margin.
63. To put the matter in as simple terms as I can, Nicaragua’s foot-of-slope point 1 is based
on a gridded bathymetric model, not a genuine “d ataset” as Nicaragua misleadingly labels it.
Section5.2.3 of the Commission’s Guidelines require s applicant States to provide a full technical
description of the bathymetric database used for determining the foot of the slope, and Nicaragua
has not provided any such description of the underlyi ng data or any of that data. Moreover, the
information Nicaragua does rely on uses an opaque mixture of shipboard measurements and
satellite altimeter derived bathymetric data, the latter of which is, under Sections 4.2.6 and 5.2.3 of
the Commission’s Guidelines, are not regarded by the Commission as admissible. Thus, the first
foot of the slope point is thor oughly unsubstantiated, and would not begin to pass muster with the
Commission. - 58 -
64. Nicaragua’s other four foot-of-the-slope points suffer from similar defects. They do not
comply with Sections4.2.7 and 5.2.3 of the Commission’s Guidelines because there is no full
technical description of the database included eith er in Nicaragua’s Reply or in its Preliminary
Information. What is more, Nicaragua admits that foot-of-slope point5 is based on limited data,
and that it relies on what it says is “evidence to the contrary” for the identification of that point 127.
That “evidence to the contrary” is neither described nor substantiated in any way.
65. Nicaragua’s technical annex to its Reply states that its foot-of-slope points “should be
128
treated as indicative only”. And it adds “there are issues with the data quality in a few areas” ⎯
that is another understatement. This kind of information is hardly a valid basis on which to
formulate a claim to outer continental shelf limits, and it would never be accepted as such by the
Commission ⎯ which, typically, for each submission, engages in a detailed analysis and
cross-checking of data before it is satisfied that there is a sufficient basis to issue recommendations.
66. Given that Nicaragua’s foot of the slope points are fundamentally deficient, it follows
that the outer limits of Nicaragua’s alleged c ontinental margin, which depend on those points, are
also devoid of support. What is more, Nicara gua’s construction of the 2,500m plus 100-mile
constraint line for its limits does not adequate ly conform with the criteria laid out by the
Commission. In short, Nicaragua has not establis hed any outer limits of its continental margin
which are indispensible for its “division of margins” claim, its new claim in this case.
67. Professor Lowe argued that approval by the Commission does not create continental
shelf rights and that the absence of such a pproval does not cancel continental shelf rights 129. With
respect, that argument misses the point.
68. Paragraph 8 of Article 76 makes it clear that the coastal State establishes the limits of its
shelf ⎯ that is right, the coastal State establishes the limits of its shelf. But ⎯ and it is an
important “but” ⎯ this can only be done after making a full submission to the Commission and on
the basis of the Commission’s subsequent reco mmendations. Then, and only then, do those limits
become “final and binding”. As the ITLOS Tribunal stated, before that time they are not opposable
12RN, Ann. 1 to Ann. 18, p. 68.
128
Ibid., Vol. II, Ann. 1 to Ann. 18, p. 61.
12CR 2012/9, p. 33, para. 62 (Lowe). - 59 -
to other States. Yet, Nicaragua’s claim in th is case precisely seeks to impose those limits on
Colombia by making them the basis of its new continental shelf boundary claim line.
69. Nor is it a question of the Commission cancelling continental shelf rights. A party to the
Convention has no continental shelf rights up to the outer limits of the margin beyond
200nauticalmiles until the Article76 procedures have been satisfied. Nicaragua is simply trying
to short-circuit the obligations that are incumbent upon it as a party to that Convention.
70. ProfessorLowe then argued that th e pendency of a recommendation from the
Commission did not preclude delimitation by ITLOS in the Bangladesh v. Myanmar
case 130⎯there is no pendency of any submission in this case, because Nicaragua has not made
one. But he argued that the pendency of a recommendation by the Commission in Bangladesh v.
Myanmar did not preclude the limitation by ITLOS. But that case bears no resemblance to our
case.
In71. Bangladesh-Myanmar, the Tribunal did not need to determine the outer limits of either
State’s continental margin because the delimitati on was between States with adjacent coasts. The
Tribunal had already applied the “equidistance/relevant circumstances” rule to the delimitation of a
single maritime boundary up to the 200-mile limit. For purposes of delimiting areas beyond, the
Tribunal simply prolonged the delimitation line along the same azimu th using the same
methodology, and then placed an arrow at the end of the line to indicate that it would continue until
it reaches the area where the rights of third States may be affected. It did not have to determine any
outer limits, outer edge of the margin to do that. Consequently, the Tribunal’s delimitation line in
Bangladesh v. Myanmar had nothing to do with geology and geomorphology. It was based on the
equidistance/relevant circumstances rule that Nicaragua wants no part of in this case.
72. Our case is fundamentally different. It involves States with opposite coasts ⎯ albeit the
wrong coast in Colombia’s case ⎯ and a boundary claim by Nicaragua that does depend on
identifying the outer limits of its margin.
73. Nicaragua is seeking to bypass the requi rements set out in the Convention by having
your Court do the Commission’s job based on information that the Commission would never find
130
CR 2012/9, p. 53, para. 64 (Lowe). - 60 -
acceptable. This is completely inappropriate, quite apart from the fact that it has nothing to do with
the subject-matter of the dispute set out in Nicaragua’s Application.
74. As for Nicaragua’s description of Colombia’s so-called foot-of-the-slope points and
thickness of sediment calculations, which are used to calculate the supposed outer limit of
Colombia’s continental margin, that exercise lacks any legal validity or factual substantiation.
75. Legally, Dr.Oude Elferink suggested th at Colombia’s outer limits determined on the
basis of paragraphs4 to 7 of Article76 would be located well within 200 nautical miles of
Colombia’s mainland coast: and accordingly, for its claim, that is what Nicaragua has said it has
calculated.
76. But that is completely irrelevant. Paragraphs4 to 7 of Article76 only concern
establishing the outer limits of the margin and the shelf beyond 200miles, not within 200miles.
Colombia has an ipso facto entitlement to a continental shelf measured from its mainland, as well
as from its islands: paragraphs4 to 7 are irrelevant. As I said, Colombia has an ipso facto
continental shelf, not to mention the EEZ rights, not simply from its mainland but from its islands,
measuring 200miles. And in this respect, Prof essor Lowe again repeated the error of his
colleagues when he asserted that Colombia’s islands lie on the natural prolongation of Nicaragua’s
131
landmass, not the natural prolongation of Colombia . But that simply begs the question.
Colombia’s islands, as we have heard, have thei r own independent continental shelf entitlements
and their own natural prolongation under international law.
77. My colleague then argued that the notion that 200-mile continental shelf rights prevail
over a continental shelf entitlement based on the ge ological natural prolongation is baseless. Now
that is not the view of States that have made outer continental shelf submissions.
78. There have been some 32filings concerning the outer continental shelf made to the
Commission that do not involve prior agreements, but which approach other States 200-mile
limits ⎯ 18 full submissions, 14 submissions of Preliminary Information. In all but two of those
32 cases, the States concerned ⎯ and they include States such as France, Japan, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom ⎯ have avoided encroaching on the 200-mile limits of other States: and
131
CR 2012/9, p. 28, para. 33. - 61 -
Nicaragua is one of the two exceptions. There is nothing in the Convention suggesting that the
intention of Article76 was to enable States by me ans of outer continental shelf submissions, and
particularly ones that have not followed the pr ocedures of the Convention, to encroach on other
States 200-mile limits. I would suggest it is thus no accident that there is no other State in this part
of the Caribbean that has made an outer continental shelf claim, because there are no maritime
areas here that are beyond 200 nautical miles of the nearest land territory.
79. Factually, going back to Colombia’s so-called geologic margin, the only “evidence”
Nicaragua has furnished to calculate Colombia’s continental margin is a single bathymetric profile
used to “identify” one foot of slope point, and one sediment thickness illustration contained at
figure 3-8 of the Reply. That one bathymetric profile is again based on information ⎯ it is known
as ETOPO 2 for those who are interested ⎯ which would be considered inadmissible and wholly
insufficient by the Commission under its Guidelines. The sediment thickness profile is said to be
based on another dataset, which is actually not a “d ataset”. It is a grid of interpretive values
derived from a mixture of datasets which are not provided by Nicaragua as the primary, underlying,
detailed, data that the Commission would insist on. It too would be considered inadmissible by the
Commission.
80. What is also extraordinary about Nicar agua’s presentation on Colombia’s continental
margin is that Nicaragua posits 17foot-of-slope points off Colombia’s coast without giving any
data whatsoever for 16 of them. The data for the 17 th is utterly insufficient, as I said, but there is
nothing for the other 16. Yet, those foot-of-slope points form the whole predicate for Nicaragua’s
location ⎯ which is supposed to be, it is purported to be ⎯ the limits of Colombia’s geologic
margin. And the limits of that margin ⎯ Colombia’s geologic margin ⎯ in turn form the outer
parameter to Nicaragua’s “division of margins” cl aim line. The exercise is utterly superficial,
legally and factually, groundless.
81. As I said, all this has led Nicaragua, in the Preliminary Information it submitted to the
Commission, to admit that some of the data and profiles do not satisfy the exacting standards
required by the Commission for a full submission as detailed in the Commission’s Guidelines
(Preliminary Information of Nicaragua, para. 21). - 62 -
82. Mr.President, Members of the Court, if th e data that Nicaragua relies on in this case
would not satisfy the standards required by the Commission, how are they supposed to satisfy the
Court? Does Nicaragua consider that the Court has less exacting standards?
83. Professor Lowe ended his intervention by stating that Colombia criticizes Nicaragua’s
methodology, but does not challenge Nicaragua’s delimitation of its shelf or its conclusion 13.
84. And again, with the greatest respect to my good friend, that is pure wishful thinking.
Colombia challenges everything about Nicaragua’s new continental shelf claim. I have shown that
that claim is inadmissible, that Nicaragua has not established any outer continental shelf
entitlements up to the limits of what it says is themargin, that its conclusions on the limits of the
margin are technically unsubstantiated and would be unacceptable to the Commission, that the
outer limits of the margin posited by Nicaragua cannot be opposable to Colombia or indeed to any
other State, and that Nicaragua’s speculation as to the limits of Colombia’s margin are legally
irrelevant and wholly undocumented.
4. Conclusions
85. Mr. President; I come to my concluding remarks.
86. In its oral arguments on jurisdiction, Nicaragua’s counsel stressed the following:
“dans toute affaire de délimitation maritim e, la Cour voudra certainement procéder
comme elle le fait désormais systématiquement :
⎯ tracer une ligne provisoire d’équidistance ;
⎯ prendre en considération les «circonstances sp éciales» qui pourraient être de nature à
ajuster cette ligne ;”3
Nicaragua’s new claim does nothing of the kind.
87. The real question is: Why has Nicaragua advanced such a radically different, and
inherently untenable, claim so late in its Reply?
88. And I have to say, Nicaragua’s written pleadings, and its pleadings earlier this week,
have shed little light on this question. In its Reply, Nicaragua acknowledged that the Court’s
13CR 2012/9, p. 36, para. 79.
13CR 2007/19, p. 20, para. 9 (Pellet). - 63 -
Judgment on jurisdiction did not a ffect Nicaragua’s request for a ma ritime delimitation. That is
obviously right. There was nothing in the Court’s Judgment on jurisdiction that in any way
justified Nicaragua changing the entire subject-matter of the case.
89. The real explanation for Nicaragua’s shif t of position lies elsewhere. What we do know
is that, after the filing of Colombia’s Counter-Mem orial, Nicaragua realized that its initial single
maritime boundary claim was groundless legally. At the same time, Nicaragua has been desperate
to try to keep Colombia’s mainland coast in play in order to push the delimitation line as far east as
possible at the expense of the legal entitlements of Colombia’s islands and even its mainland coast.
And the result we have is this new continental shelf claim.
90. Perhaps Nicaragua believes the Court will simply “split the difference”, and that it is thus
tactically expedient for it to advance a new claim ly ing far to the east of its original claim, which
was already exaggerated. Colombia trusts the C ourt will not be misled. This Court has made it
abundantly clear in the past that maritime delimitation is not some exercise in distributive
justice134, and that their geography is not to be refashioned 135. Delimitation is a legal process, and
the Court has repeatedly articulated the governing rule that applies ⎯ the “equidistance/special
circumstances” rule.
91. At the end of the day, Nicaragua is left with no positive case. Its original single maritime
boundary claim line has been discredited and abandoned. Its new contin ental shelf claim is
inadmissible, legally flawed, and factually unsubstantiated.
92. The relevant coasts for delimitation betw een the Parties do not include Colombia’s
mainland coast. The relevant coasts remain th e coasts between the western string of islands
forming the San Andrés Archipelago and Nicaragua’s coast. There is no reason why the rules of
delimitation that have been developed by this Court and articulated by arbitral tribunals (and even
endorsed by Nicaragua at the jurisdictional phase of this case) cannot be applied in this context.
134
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 40, para. 46.
13North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 49, para. 91. - 64 -
93. Now, since that is a matter that Professor Crawford will address in the next presentation,
Mr.President, and given the time, I wonder if ProfessorCrawford and the rest of us might be
fortified by some lunch before we turn to th is presentation. Thank you to the Court for its
attention.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for your presentation. I wish you all bon appétit.
The Court will meet again this afternoon between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. when Colombia will conclude
its first round of oral argument. The Court is adjourned.
The Court rose at 12.55 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Friday 27 April 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)