Public sitting held on Tuesday 1 May 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Uncorrected
Non corrigé

CR 2012/14

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THHEAGUE LAAYE

YEAR 2012

Public sitting

held on Tuesday 1 May 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

er
tenue le mardi 1 mai 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
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.
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. The sitting is now open. This morning the Court will

hear Nicaragua in the second round of oral argument. Before giving the floor to the Agent, I wish

to inform you that Judge Abraham, for reasons dul y explained to me, is unfortunately unable to sit

today on the Bench. And I now give the floor to His Excellency Dr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez,

Agent for Nicaragua. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. ARGÜELLO GOMEZ: Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning.

1. I will begin with a few short comments on certain points addressed by Colombian counsel

during the oral pleadings of last week.

I. Admissibility

2. Colombian counsel repeatedly mocked Nicaragua’s submission in its Reply requesting a

continental shelf delimitation. It has claimed that this is a completely unrelated claim to that made

in the Nicaraguan Memorial that requested a singl e maritime boundary. I have already spoken on

this point in my first oral presentation and will only add a few words since Professor Pellet will

address the question of admissibility raised by Colombia.

3. The Nicaraguan case against Colombia began with the Parties claiming two different lines

of delimitation: one, claimed by Colombia as a single maritime boundary, was the 82nd meridian

and the other, claimed by Nicaragua in its Appli cation, was the single maritime boundary based on

a median line between the mainland coasts of the Pa rties. Colombia claimed that its delimitation

line was in place and ran along the 82nd meridi an, and began enforcing it in1969 and has

continued to enforce to this day in spite of the fact that it was considered by the Court in its

2007 Judgment not to be a line of delimitation.

4. For its part, Nicaragua did not claim that its proposed single maritime boundary was a

pre-existing boundary or the only possible solution for the delimitation. Nicaragua never attempted

to enforce this line with its navy. It was simply part of the request for the Court to determine a

maritime boundary in conformity w ith international law. Nicaragua believes that the Court is the

undisputed international expert on ma ritime delimitations and is confident that it will arrive on an

equitable solution which is all that Nicaragua is seeking. - 11 -

5. At this point I would also reiterate that the delimitation sought by Nicaragua is only in

areas not claimed by third States. The claims of third States in the general area where the

delimitation is to take place are those of Panama, Costa Rica and Jamaica. Nicaragua has full

confidence that the Court will be able to effect an equitable maritime delimitation between

Nicaragua and Colombia without affecting rights of third States.

II. Reparation

6. Mr. President, Professor Kohen last Friday 1 referred to the claims of reparation made by

Nicaragua in its Reply. In the presentation he asks himself the real reasons for this Nicaraguan

claim for reparation 2. My response to his soliloquy is brief. Nicaragua in its Application had

reserved its rights to claim compensation for being deprived by Colombia of access to maritime

areas east of the 82nd meridian and for the exploita tion by Colombia of these maritime areas in her

benefit. Nicaragua is aware of the thinking of the Court on the question of reparation in

delimitation cases. For this reason Nicaragua did not submit this claim in its Memorial of

28April2003. After the Judgment of the Court of 13December2007 found that the

82ndmeridian was not a maritime boundary, and Colombia persisted in maintaining what it calls

the status quo at the time the case was brought to the Court in December 2001; that is, it maintains

that this meridian is a maritime boundary and it continues to impose it with its naval forces.

Nicaragua considered that this situation went be yond any of the previous cases in which the Court

had been faced with questions of delimitation. In the present case, there is a Judgment by the Court

that has made clear that the 82nd meridian is not a line of delimitation. The continued insistence of

Colombia of using it as a maritime boundary shows ⎯ at least ⎯ disrespect of that Judgment and

is not simply a question of a pending delimitation. It is for this reason that Nicaragua considers

that the present circumstances are different from those previously addressed by the Court and that a

declaration is in order.

7. Professor Kohen displayed some vehemence in his assault on Nicaragua’s position on the

legal validity of the 1928Treaty. It is true that Nicaragua denounced this Treaty in 1980 for the

1
CR 2012/13, pp. 56-65 (Kohen).
2Ibid., p. 65, para. 25, “Je m’interroge sur les véritables raisons de cette demande en réparation.” - 12 -

reasons well known to the Court. But Nicaragua never attempted to impose by force this unilateral

decision on Colombia. There are many countries that have historical territorial grievances and I

will not elucidate more on a question well known by Professor Kohen except to say that the claims

of these countries, if asserted peacefully, are not considered violations of international law.

Colombia, on the other hand, unilaterally decided that the 82nd meridian was a maritime boundary:

it has been imposing it on Nicaragua since 1969, a nd more importantly subsequent to the Court’s

2007Judgment. That is a violation of internati onal law and that is why Nicaragua considers the

point should be noted by the Court.

8. Finally, Professor Kohen, asserts that Nicaragua has not accepted the Court’s Judgment of

13 December 2007. I have referred to this ques tion in my first presentation and will only add that

Nicaragua considers itself bound by that Judgment that decided the jurisdictional questions that

were placed before it by Colombia and has modified its submissions accordingly.

III. Questions of Security

9. Mr. President, several of the presentations by Colombian counsel during the first round of

oral pleadings, including that of the Agent, pondere d the security interests of Colombia in the area.

Professor Crawford considered that Nicaragua’s claim “is tantamount to throwing a very large rock

3
into a peaceful, orderly, treaty-regulated pool” .

10. The security problems in the Caribbean are mainly derived from the production of

cocaine in Colombia and its transfer to the United States via the Caribbean. The peaceful and

orderly pool of Professor Crawford is a morass of crime originating largely in Colombia, with

important bases in San Andrés and Providencia. Nicaragua spends an enormous amount of

resources preventing the drug traffic originating in Colombia and sent throughout the Caribbean

area. Nicaragua is a party to all the princi pal international conventions aimed at fighting

3
CR 2012/13, p. 53, para. 59 (Crawford). - 13 -

international organized crime, drug abuse, fina ncing of terrorism and on mutual assistance in

4
criminal matters .

IV. Aborted scientific expedition of Nicaragua to the area in dispute

11. Mr. President, I will not repeat my statement of last Monday 23 April on the question of

the scientific expedition that Nicaragua attempted to send to the area in dispute, in particular to the

area of Quitasueño in order to verify the survey s carried out by the Colombian navy in 2008 and

2009, this last one in the company of Dr. Smith. Colombia maintains that they were not informed

of the objective of the scientific expedition of Nicaragua. First of all, it was publicly announced

and a detailed description of the area to be vis ited was also part of this public announcement.

Should Colombia have the right to presume that Nicaragua had the obligation to consult them

before sending this ship? Certainly not. Di d Colombia consult Nicaragua or even announce

publicly the expedition of their Navy to conduct the two surveys above mentioned? Not at all.

12. Second, Colombia immediately reacted to the announcement of the voyage of the

scientific expedition. The Colombian Ambassador to Nicaragua called the Ministry of Fisheries of

Nicaragua and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs protesting the mission being sent by Nicaragua. The

Colombian Ambassador, Mrs. Luz Jara Portilla, in fact spoke to the legal adviser of the Nicaraguan

Foreign Ministry the same day of the announcem ent to make this protest personally. The

Colombian reaction did not wait long to reach this C ourt in the form of a protest Note received on

5
23 February 2012 and on which I made several comments in my first presentation .

13. Professor Crawford states that in the situation involving the Nicaraguan scientific

expedition there was not a whiff of coercion. Apparently he wants you to believe that the capture

of Nicaraguan ships by the Colombian Navy is a question of the Nicaraguan imagination. Since

the beginning of this case, the question of the persecution and capture of Nicaraguan vessels has

been highlighted and a short list of examples was given in paragraph5 of the Application. The

4E.g., UN Convention against Transnational OrganizedCrime, UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC);
UNInternational Convention for the Suppression of the Finncing of Terrorism; Inter-A merican Convention against
Corruption; Inter-American Mutual Le gal Assistance Convention; Inter-Ame rican Convention against Terrorism;
Cooperating Nation Information Exchange System (CNIES ); 1961 UN Single Convention as amended by the 1972
Protocol; the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substa nces; and the 1988 UN Drug Convention; Agreement

concerning cooperation to suppress illicit traffic by sea and air between the Governments of Nicaragua and the United
States of America.
5CR 2012/8, pp. 19-20, paras. 25-28 (Argüello Gómez). - 14 -

more recent incidents are listed in the Nicaraguan Memorial and Reply in the sections indicated in

6
the footnotes of this speech .

V. Nicaraguan and Colombian maps

14. Mr. President, the originals of the maps c ited by Colombia have not been deposited with

the Court, to the knowledge of Nicaragua. This makes it difficult to comment on them. But certain

questions are apparent even from the copies that have been made available. The maps of the

Colombian territory presented by Colombian counsel in the first round of oral pleadings have been

artificially adorned and painted over by Colomb ia; in particular the colouring of this

82nd meridian and the reefs in dispute as shown in the copy of the 1931 map in Colombia’s judges’

folder, tab 25.

15. The copy of the Nicaraguan map of 1967 presented by Colombia has a legend indicating

that it is a preliminary edition. In any event, even if there were a map with the type of indication

suggested by Colombia, it must be recalled that it was only until 1980 that Nicaragua denounced

the 1928 Treaty. Up to that moment, Nicaragua only claimed sovereignty over the cays presently

in dispute and not the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina.

16. Mr.President, Members of the Court, this concludes my Agent’s presentation proper.

The order of the pleadings is as follows. I will sp eak on the questions of the interpretation of the

second paragraph of Article 1 of the 1928 Treaty. Professor Antonio Remiro will then follow with

further analysis on the questions of sovereignty over the cays. Dr. Alex Oude Elferink will address

the questions of islands and cays and the submerged feature of Quitasueño. Mr. Paul Reichler will

then respond to Colombia’s effort to defend th e inequitable nature of the delimitation that

Colombia has proposed. Dr. Robin Cleverly will further respond to Colombia on the technical and

scientific questions related to a continental shelf. ProfessorVaughan Lowe will deliver

Nicaragua’s response on the delimitation of the con tinental shelf. In so doing, he will provide

Nicaragua’s answer to the question put by Judge Be nnouna to both Parties at the close of the first

round. ProfessorAlain Pellet will address the question of the admissibility of Nicaragua’s

6
MN, Vol. I, pp. 159-162, paras. 2.215-2.222; RN, Vol. I, pp. 15-19, paras. 34-43, and pp. 226-227, para. 7.20. - 15 -

submissions and will give a summary of the Nicaraguan position. Finally, the Nicaraguan

submissions will be delivered by the Agent.

17. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the Court’s 13December2007 Judgment

determined that the 1928 Treaty was valid and in forc e at the date of the conclusion of the Pact of

Bogotá in 1948 and that the matter of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and

Santa Catalina had been decided by that Treaty. On the other hand, it considered that this treaty did

not decide the questions of sovereignty over the other maritime features in dispute.

Thedetermination of sovereignty over the thr ee maritime features excluded from the 1928 Treaty

will depend in good measure on the interpretation given to the second pa ragraph of Article I of that

treaty. Our Reply deals with this question in paragraphs 1.79 to 1.96.

VI. 1928 Treaty: the text

18. Mr.President, the translation of the first pa ragraph of ArticleI of the treaty is not in

question. But ProfessorKohen has claimed that the translations of the second paragraph into

7
English and French by the Secretariat of the League of Nations are incorrect . Different versions

of the translation of this short text were offere d by Professor Kohen as belated alternatives to that

of the official translation of the Secretariat many years ago.

19. The nuances in the different translations are fundamentally irrelevant and miss the

obvious point. The treaty does not say that these keys will not be considered part of the

SanAndrés Archipelago but that “The present Tr eaty does not apply to the reefs of Roncador,

Quitasueño and Serrana” ⎯ in the League of Nations translation ⎯ or that “The Roncador,

Quitasueño and Serrana Cays are not consid ered to be included in this Treaty” ⎯ as

ProfessorKohen would have them read. So, are these maritime features part of the substantial

continental coast of Nicaragua? Or are they pa rt of the relatively minor and insignificant island

group of San Andrés? The paragraph itself does not give any indication. But geography, history

and plain common sense would clearly indicate that these features fell under the dominant

mainland coast and not under three small islands completely detached from the cays and located

some 100 miles distant from them.

7
CR 2012/11 p. 46, para. 42 (Kohen). - 16 -

20. More importantly than the nuances of translation, the meaning and intent of this

paragraph needs further interpreta tion. First, the text itself. Does it mean that Nicaragua is

recognizing that those cays are not under its sovereignty but under that of Colombia or the United

States? This cannot be read into the Treaty for the following reasons.

(i) It is not recognizing sovereignty of third parties to those cays because it does not say so.

In stark contrast the wording of the first paragraph makes it clear that it is a recognition of

sovereignty over territory. If the intention of recognizing the sovereignty of Colombia or

the United States over the cays was intended, the appropriate wording was at hand.

(ii) Nicaragua is not relinquishing its rights. The text has no hint of this.

VII. 1928 Treaty: negotiating history

21. Apart from the text itself, the negotiating history makes this clear. As explained and

substantiated in Nicaragua’s Memorial 8, the negotiations of the 1928 Treaty were quasi exclusively

between the United States (acting for Nicaragua) and Colombia. These negotiations make it clear

that,

(i) The United States did not consider these cays to be part of the San Andrés Archipelago.

In a Memorandum of United States Assistant Secretary of State White of 1 August 1927 9,

he summarizes a meeting held that day with the Colombian Minister in charge of

negotiating the question of San Andrés and the th ree maritime features. He made clear to

the Colombian Minister that the United States did not consider that Roncador, Serrana and

Quitasueño were part of the San Andrés Archipelago.

(ii)The cays were considered of ve ry minor importance. In a Memorandum

of 2 August 1927, Mr. White explains that he told the Colombian Minister that “these cays

appeared to have very little intrinsic value; that they do constitute a very real menace to

shipping, lying as they do on the trade route between the Panama Canal and the Straits of

8
MN, Vol. I, paras. 2.149-2.156.
9Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United Sta1927, Vol. I, US Gove rnment Printing Office,
Washington, 1942, pp. 323-325. - 17 -

Yucatan”. The Colombian Minister agreed they were “practically worthless. Part of the

year they are completely submerged.” 10

22. That Colombia itself considered these uni nhabited cays of no importance is also made

clear in the internal communications of the Colombian authorities. During the negotiations

between Colombia and the United States, the Colombian negotiator, Mr.Olaya, sent to the

Colombian Foreign Minister several communications. In note number 826-17, of 18 August 1927,

he stated:

“If we accept the cession of the cays, that are uninhabited and uninhabitable
islets, of scarce or no value for us, I would have you consider the following:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(d) According to your cable [that is, the Foreign Minister’s cable] number 26 in case
of agreeing to the cession of our rights over the cays, the government would like
that if any compensation is to be received it would prefer that it was not in money,

taking into account that no d11and of any importance can be made since the cays
are of insignificant value.”

23. Another communication from the Colomb ian negotiator to the Colombian Foreign

Minister on 10 December 1927, stated:

“As that Honorable Office has indicated in its cables to this Legation, the value
of the cays of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serranilla is insignificant for us. They are
far away reefs, uninhabitable and unproductive, that, covered with water during part of

the year, have even been considered by England as high seas, not susceptible of
appropriation.” 12

24. The reason why Colombia was not willing to surrender the cays directly to the United

States was clarified by the Assistant Secretary of State Mr.White in the above quoted

Memorandum. He noted down that the Colombian Minister had stated

“that it was a question of amour propre for Colombia as she could not well give up the

Islands or recognize American jurisdiction over them except through arbitration and
that he felt sure that Colombia would accept anybody proposed by the United States as
arbitrator” 13.

25. The initial proposal of the United Stat es to Colombia was that both Nicaragua and

Colombia in the 1928 Treaty relinquish any claim to these three reefs. The text proposed stated:

10Op. cit. pp. 325-328.
11
Moyano, C., El Archipiélago de San Andrés y Providencia, Ed. Temis, Bogotá, 1983, pp. 522-523.
12Ibid., p. 524.

13Op. cit., p. 325. - 18 -

“It is understood that the present Treaty does not include the cays of Roncador, Quitasueño and

14
Serranilla (sic), the sovereignty of which the two Parties agree to no longer claim from now on.”

26. In passing I would note that this proposal makes at least one thing clear. It was the

understanding of the United States and Colombia that Nicaragua had claims over those cays.

27. The counter proposal of Colombia to the United States was that the Treaty should

recognize the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the three cays. The Colombian proposal stated:

“Colombia acknowledges Nicaragua’s ab solute domain over the Mosquitia, the

Mangles Islands and the cays of Roncador , Quitasueño and Serranilla, with the
express condition that in the said cays the Co lombians may exercise the fishing rights
for perpetuity. Nicaragua acknowledges Co lombia’s absolute domain over all the
15
other islands of the Archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia.”

28. The object of this offer by Colombia was to facilitate the transfer of sovereignty over the

cays to the United States. The Colombian note indicated that, “It is considered preferable that

Nicaragua be the one to receive and cede the cays to the United States because thus we can avoid

any constitutional difficulty that might arise and the cession would be less discussed in Congress

and the press.”

29. On the other hand, why did the United States not accept that the keys be recognized as

Nicaraguan by Colombia? The problem with Nicara gua being the undisputable sovereign over the

cays was that it would then have to be Nicaragua that ceded them to the United States. Since

Nicaragua was under United States occupation and political, economic and military control, it

would have been exceedingly embarrassing for the United States to be seen as directly taking

territory from Nicaragua.

30. The different texts in the negotiations make it clear that if the intention was for

Nicaragua to relinquish its claim, it would have clearly said so. It could have stated, paraphrasing

for example the wording of the proposal of the United States cited in paragraph25 above: “It is

understood that the present Treaty does not include the cays of Roncador, Quitasueño and

Serranilla the sovereignty of which Nicaragua agrees to no longer claim from now on.” But,

nowhere in the text does Nicaragua make any indicat ion that it was relinquishing its claim to those

cays. If the Treaty had that wording or any similar we would probably not be having this pleading.

14
MN, Vol. I, p. 129-130, para. 2.151, and MN, Vol. II, ann. 75, and Moyano, op. cit., p. 124.
1MN, Vol. I, p. 131, para. 2.155. - 19 -

Why did this paragraph not leave things clear as in the first paragraph of ArticleI? The

explanation is that this would have eliminated Nicaragua’s claim and have left the Colombian

claim more solid vis-à-vis the United States that wanted these cays.

31. The only conclusion from the text and nego tiations of the Treaty is that the cays were

simply left out of the Treaty. It did not apply to the cays.

32. In that case, how can sovereignty be determined over these maritime features? The

Treaty itself is the key. In it Colombia recognized Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the Mosquito or

Caribbean Coast and Great and Little Corn Island, and Nicaragua recognized Colombia’s

sovereignty over the Archipelago of San Andrés. This recognition of Nicaragua’s sovereignty over

this large mainland coast with all its appurtenances included all titles based on the uti possidetis

iuris at independence. Any title of Colombia based on uti possidetis iuris over that mainland coast

was transferred to Nicaragua without any reserva tions. Whatever rights Colombia had over the

Mosquito Coast based on the Royal Order of 1803 ⎯ which Nicaragua has never accepted ⎯ but,

whatever the value of those rights and titles over the mainland coasts, they were transferred to

Nicaragua.

33. ProfessorRemiro will analyse what areas we re considered to be included in the island

group of San Andrés at the time of independence. For the moment, a simple common sense view is

that it would be preposterous to consider that at independence two sma ll islands, San Andrés and

Providencia (since Santa Catalina is simply a sma ll appendix of Providencia), with a population of

16
approximately 700 inhabitants at the time , should take precedence over the extensive Nicaraguan

mainland coast on matters of s overeignty over a few uninhabitable and uninhabited cays fronting

this coast. It should be recalled that located on this mainland coast was the mouth of the San Juan

River, gateway to the Great Lake of Nicaragua and its commercial cities during colonial times and

at the time of independence. Nicaragua’s coastline was a very valuable asset sought after

independence by, among others, Great Britain, the United States and, of course, Colombia.

34. To conclude, Mr. President:

16
http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/1237/10/09CAPI08.pdf. - 20 -

It is clear from the text of the Treaty that it does not decide questions of sovereignty over the

three maritime features excluded by name from the Treaty.

It is clear that the text of the Treaty is nworded in any way that can be interpreted as a

relinquishment of Nicaragua’s claims.

It is also clear that the negotiating history of the Treaty confirms the above statements.

Finally, these negotiations also make clear a di fferent question of fact. That is, that these

cays were uninhabitable and uninhabited and not under the control of Colombia.

35. Mr. President, this ends my presentation. Thank you, Mr.President, Members of the

Court. May I ask you now, Mr. President, to call Professor Remiro Brotóns.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Sir. Je passe la parole à

M. le professeur Remiro Brotóns. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.

M. REMIRO BROTÓNS :

S OUVERAINETÉ DU N ICARAGUA SUR LES « FORMATIONS MARITIMES »
EN LITIGE AVEC LA C OLOMBIE

1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, après avoir entendu les

interventions des honorables membres de la dé légation colombienne sur la souveraineté des

formations maritimes en litige, je dois, tout d’a bord, réaffirmer les concepts, les faits et les

conclusions exposés lors de ma plaidoirie du 23 av ril dernier, que je tiens comme maintenue dans

17
son intégralité .

2. Aujourd’hui mon intervention doit se limiter à préciser quelques points soutenus par les

conseils et avocats de la Colombie au premier tour de ces audiences.

Sur les effectivités

3. Commençons, tout d’abord, par les effectivités. «Au fond», écrivait un cher collègue,

«le règlement des conflits territoriaux par la voie juridictionnelle oscille,
essentiellement, entre deusituations l’existence d’un titre juridique (soit

17
CR 2012/8, p. 32-49 (Remiro Brotóns). - 21 -

l’uti possidetis juris, soit un traité de frontière18 co lonial ou non) et la présence de
l’occupation effective d’un territoire nullius» .

4. L’affaire qui nous occupe n’est pas un cas où les effectivités des Parties rivalisent entre

19
elles aux fins d’établir un meilleur droit sur un territoire sans maître . Le nôtre est un cas où il n’y

a pas de terra nullius ; les effectivités peuvent, donc, servir pour confirmer un titre, mais pas pour

le créer, à moins que le titre originaire ait été abandonné de manière incontestable par celui qui le

détenait 20.

5. Comme l’ont écrit les jugesSimma et Abraham dans leur opi nion dans l’affaire

Pedra Branca :

«une idée se dégage avec certitude de la ju risprudence: lorsqu’il existe un souverain

originaire, aucun exercice de l’autorité étati que, si continu et effectif soit-il, ne peut
entraîner un transfert de souveraineté s’il n’est pas possible d’établir que le souverain
originaire a, d’une manière ou d’une autre, consenti à la cession du territoire en cause

ou acquiescé à son transfert au profit de l’Etat ayant exercé de facto son autorité. Sans
un tel consentement ⎯ ou acquiescement ⎯, le titre originaire ne peut pas céder,
même en présence d’un exercice continu et effectif de l’autorité par un Etat autre que

le titulaire.» ( Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, MiddleRocks et
South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 120, par. 13.)

6. Evidemment le Nicaragua n’a jamais prétendu se battre avec la Colombie sur le terrain des

effectivités. Le Nicaragua est le petit poisson de cette histoire. Cela n’empêche que la Colombie,

le gros poisson, n’arrive à apporter la preuve d’effectivités décisives pour sa cause, au vu de la

nature mineure des activités qu’elle avance comme preuves et du moment où ces activités se sont

produites.

7. En tout cas, même s’il en allait différemment et si ses effectivités étaient probantes, elles

ne pourraient pas détruire un titre de souverain eté fondé sur un traité en vigueur ou sur

l’uti possidetis juris, à moins que la Colombie ne dém ontre que le Nicaragua a renoncé ou a

abandonné son titre. Puisque cela n’est pas arrivé, la confrontation juridique doit se tenir aux titres,

pas aux effectivités présumées des Parties.

8. Ainsi, il n’est guère nécessaire de dire grand-chose sur les effectivités. Cependant, on

fera, à titre indicatif, certaines remarques. Contra irement à ce qui a été déclaré par l’expérimenté

18
L.I.Sánchez Rodríguez, «L’ uti possidetis et les effectivités dans les conten tieux territoriaux et frontaliers»,
Recueil des Cours, t. 263, 1997, p. 370.
19Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Pulau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 625.

20Voir Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour),
arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 51, par. 122. - 22 -

agent de la Colombie, il n’est pas vrai qu’elle ait exercé la souveraineté sur «each and every one of

21
the cays in dispute» d’une manière «effective, peaceful and ininterrupted for two centuries» . La

«overwhelming evidence», l’écrasante évidence, dont parlent les conseils de la Colombie 22 n’est

plus telle si de l’archipel on se déplace vers les cayes, si du papier on saute à la réalité, si dès les

années plus récentes on remonte deux cents ans.

9. A supposer qu’il eût existé, pendant le XIX esiècle et une bonne partie du XX e siècle, cet

exercice de souveraineté s’est borné au papier. La Colombie n’a pas mis un pied sur les cayes

litigieuses pendant plus d’un siècle, tant et si bien que ce sont les citoyens des Etats-Unis qui les

ont occupées pour l’exploitation du guano. Le fait que les cayes ont été enregistrées par le

département du Trésor en1871 comme «appertaining to the UnitedStates», conformément au

Guano Islands Act de 1856, suppose qu’elles étaient inhabitées, mais aussi qu’elles ne montraient

aucun signe d’occupation, même pas apparente.

10. C’est seulement en 1890 que la Co lombie s’est intéressée à la question 23; trois ans plus

tard, en 1893, elle a formulé une revendication par rapport à Roncador, sans pourtant mentionner

24
Serrana . A cet égard, la réaction du Nicaragua a précédé celle de la Colombie, car le Nicaragua a

réclamé la souveraineté sur Serrana, en tant que successeur de l’Espagne, en1868, dans une note

25
de son ministre des affaires étrangères en date du 3 avril .

11. Lorsqu’en1890 le préfet de la province de Providencia, qui venait d’être créée, a été

appelé à informer sur les activités menées à Ron cador, il déclara qu’il ne pouvait pas s’étendre

26
là-dessus à cause de «the absolute lack of information» [«le manque total d’informations»].

21
CR 2012/11, p. 11, par. 6 (Londoño).
22CR 2012/11, p. 51-52, par. 6 (Bundy).

23Note présentée par le chargé d’affaires de la Colo mbie le 8décembre1890 (contre-mémoire de la Colombie
(CMC), annexe 26).

24Note du 18 janvier 1893 (CMC, annexe 27).

25Voir J.M.Skaggs, The Great Guano Rush. Entrepreneu rs and American Overseas Expansion, St. Martin’s
Griffin, New York, 1994, p.127; Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, Sovereignty of Islands Claimed
under the Guano Act and of the North-western Hawaiian Islands, Midway and Wake, Washington D.C., 1932,

p.106-107; Notes from the Nicaraguan Legation in the United States to the Department of State 1862-1906 (National
Archives Microfilm Publication, T-797, roll 1), Records of the Foreign Service Post s of the Department of State, Record
Group 84 ; National Archives Building, Washington D.C.
26 o
Note n 326, du préfet de la province de Providencia au secrétaire du gouvernement à Cartagène, du
19 septembre 1890 (CMC, annexe 82). - 23 -

12. La Colombie présente une liste de «leg al provisions concerning the archipelago of

27
San Andrés» . Toutefois, ces dispositions ne regardent pas spécifiquement les cayes en dispute.

13. La Colombie attire l’attention sur l’insta llation de phares et d’aides à la navigation, une

activité qui est en elle-même peu concluante pour établir la souveraineté 28.

14. Ceci étant, la Colombie n’a construit aucun phare à Roncador ni sur aucune autre

formation maritime en litige avant que le différend ait surgi.

15. Ce sont les Etats-Unis qui ont fourni les phares et les aides à la navigation à Roncador,

Quitasueño et Serrana, en1919, une fois que l es décrets du présidentWilson du 5février et du

5 juin ont déterminé que ces formations appartenaient à son pays.

16. Le Gouvernement de la Colombie l’a appr is parce que le fait est venu, par hasard, aux

oreilles de l’intendant de San Andrés, où, à l’époque , il n’y avait pas un seul bateau pour garder la

29
côte ou, même, pour assurer la communication avec le continent . Cela veut dire que le bateau

prévu par la loin o52 de1912, que le conseil de la Colombie emploie comme exemple des

30
effectivités colombiennes , n’est jamais arrivé à sa destination.

17. Plus tard, dans une communication du 13 septembre1919, le ministre de la légation

colombienne à Washington a déploré l’initiative des Et ats-Unis ; parmi d’autres raisons, à cause de

31
«la situation quasi sans défense dans laquelle nous nous trouvons dans ces îles et cayes» .

32
18. Les expéditions et opéra tions de l’armée colombienne , pas davantage que les

opérations de sauvetage en mer 33, ne constituent pas d’effectivités probantes; toutefois, les

premières cherchent à préparer une occupation militai re des cayes de la part de la Colombie quand

les Etats-Unis les ont abandonnées.

19. En 1937 le garde-côtes Junín s’y déplaça. Le fonctionnaire Ortega Ricaurte signale, dans

le rapport qu’il adresse au ministre des affaires étrangères, que l’exploitation des cayes est

27
CMC, vol. II-B, appendice 4, p. 35-62.
28 Voir Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour),

arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 52-65, par. 126-162.
29 Voir la note n 1287 en date du 21 septembre 1919 adressée au ministre du gouvernement par le gouverneur de

San Andrés (CMC, annexe 102) et le Rapport annuel de l’Intendente (mai 1919-avril 1920) (CMC, annexe 103).
30 CR 2012/11, p. 55, par. 21 (Bundy).

31 CMC, annexe 101.

32 CR 2012/11, p. 60, par. 37-38 (Bundy).
33
CR 2012/11, p. 61, par. 40 (Bundy). - 24 -

contrôlée par une entreprise (Whiteside & Ritch) formée par deux citoyens, l’un nord-américain,

l’autre de la Jamaïque, qui agissaient sans autorisation des autorités colombiennes, qui n’étaient pas

même au courant. La Colombie a éliminé certa ins passages du rapport dans la version anglaise

34
qu’elle a produite à la Cour .

20. La Colombie soutient que le Nicaragua «n’a jamais protesté contre l’exercice par la

35
Colombie de sa souveraineté et de sa juridiction sur les cayes» , mais elle ne précise pas quels sont

les actes de souveraineté dont il s’agit, car, dans ces années-là, avant la conclusion du traité

Saccio-Vázquez, il n’y a pas eu de tels actes, et ceux que la Colombie a pu réaliser plus tard sont

postérieurs à la date à laquelle a surgi le différend entre les Parties. La cristallisation du différend

exclut toute initiative de la Partie adverse visant à améliorer sa position.

21. Bref, les faits mentionnés par la Colo mbie manifestent des revendications, pas des

effectivités sur les cayes en litige.

Sur les titres : du traité Molina-Gual au traité Bárcenas-Esguerra

22. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, qu’est-ce qu’on trouve en ce

qui concerne les titres? Tout d’abord, l’acceptati on par les parties au traité Molina-Gual, de 1825,

de l’uti possidetis juris comme principe tranchant leurs limites souveraines. Ce traité est encore en

vigueur, dans la mesure où ses dispositions ne sont pas incompatibles avec celles d’un traité

postérieur.

23. En second lieu, du point de vue chronologique, on a le traité Bárcenas-Esguerra, de 1928.

La Cour a décidé dans son arrêt du 13décembre 2007 que «le traité de1928 était valide et en

vigueur à la date de la conc lusion du pacte de Bogotá en1948» (Différend territorial et maritime

(Nicaragua c. Colombie), exceptions prélim inaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p. 859, par. 81),

ce qui l’a conduite à retenir l’exception d’incompétence soulevée par la Colombie sur la base des

articlesVI etXXXIV du pacte du Bogotá, «en ce qu’e lle a trait à la souveraineté sur les îles de

SanAndrés, Providencia et SantaCatalina» ( Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua

34
CMC, par. 3.98 et annexe 120.
35CMC, par. 4.45. - 25 -

c.Colombie), exceptions préliminai res, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p.875, par.1421). Le

Nicaragua a respecté et respecte cette décision à la lettre.

24. Dans les limites établies par la Cour pour le déroulement de notre affaire, le premier

élément pertinent est l’articlepremier du traité de1928, qui, dans ses deux paragraphes, pose des

problèmes d’interprétation qui ont été débattus pa r les Parties. L’ambassadeur CarlosArgüello

s’en est déjà occupé. Je vais donc m’arrêter su r certains aspects concernant les cayes du point de

vue de leur appartenance à l’archipel et du rôle du méridien 82º ouest à cet égard.

A propos des cayes et de l’«archipel de San Andrés»

25. La première mention da ns un document de la Colombie de Roncador comme faisant

partie de l’archipel de San Andrés se trouve dans la note 326, du 19 septembre 1890, que le préfet

36
de la province de Providencia a adressée au secrétaire du gouvernement de Cartagène . Il s’agit,

bien évidemment, d’une note interne entre des fonctionnaires colombiens.

26. On dirait qu’elle a été rédigée avec l’intention de démontrer, permettez-moi l’expression,

la «colombianité» de l’îlot de Roncador à des da tes auxquelles l’on essayait de convaincre de ceci

le département d’Etat nord-américain. On peut su ggérer que la Colombie cherchait aussi à contrer

le Nicaragua, qui venait d’occuper les îles Mangles, un événement auquel fait allusion d’une façon

37
intentionnelle le préfet de la province dans son document .

27. Peu après, le ministre des affaires étrangè res de la Colombie, JorgeHolguín, dans son

rapport au Congrès de 1896, a mentionné les cay es en dispute comme composantes d’un des trois

38
groupes d’îles qui formaient l’archipel de San Andrés .

28. La délégation colombienne a mis en ex ergue le silence du Nicaragua devant ces

39
manifestations, tenant pour acquis qu’il devait les connaître et réagir . Cependant, si, comme l’a

dit la Cour dans l’affaire Cameroun c. Nigéria, «un Etat n’est pas juridiquement tenu de s’informer

des mesures d’ordre législatif ou constitutionnel que prennent d’autres Etats et qui sont, ou peuvent

devenir, importantes pour les relations internationales de ces derniers» ( Frontière terrestre et

36CMC, par. 2.53 et annexe 82.
37
CMC, annexe 82, texte original.
38CMC, par. 2.59 et annexe 89.

39CR 2012/11, p. 21-22, par. 15 (Crawford) ; p. 34, par. 12-14 (Kohen). - 26 -

maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun cN . igéria; Guinée équatoriale

(intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 2002 , p. 430, par.266), à plus forte raison, un Etat ne sera pas

obligé de connaître tout ce qu’y se passe à l’intérieur d’autres Etats.

Sur le méridien 82º

29. Venant au méridien, l’agent de la Co lombie a dit que l’interprétation que fait le

Nicaragua des limites du méridien 82º comme ligne d’attribution territoriale «defies logic and

crashes against the weight of evidence, contra dicting the good faith that should govern treaty

relations» 40.

30. Ces mots très âpres surprennent à double titre. D’abord, parce qu’ils ont été utilisés par

le représentant d’un Etat qui, à l’encontre du droi t, a employé le méridien 82º comme une frontière

maritime pendant des décennies, s’attribuant unilaté ralement une juridiction qui ne lui appartient

pas ; un Etat qui, maintenant, après que la Cour a adopté son arrêt du 13 décembre 2007, cherche à

blanchir sa conduite et à persister à la suivre, au nom du statu quo.

31. Est aussi frappante, en deuxième lieu, la tendance obsessionnelle des conseils de la

41
Colombie à qualifier d’«infraction flagrante» du traité de 1928 tout désaccord par rapport à leur

interprétation de cet instrument, appelant la C our à donner une «réponse ferme et catégorique» au

nom du sacro-saint principe pacta sunt servanda.

32. Or, dans son arrêt du 13 décembre 2007, la Cour elle-même a considéré

«qu’il ressort très clairement du libellé du pr emier paragraphe de l’article premier du

traité de1928 que celui-ci ne répond pas à la question de savoir quelles sont, en
dehors des îles de San Andrés, Providencia et Santa Catalina, les formations maritimes
qui font partie de l’archipel de SanAndrés» ( Différend territorial et maritime
(Nicaragua c.Colombie), exceptions pré liminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II),

p. 863, par. 97).

33. Le Nicaragua ne manque ni à la bonne foi ni au respect des règles. Ce qu’il y a, c’est un

désaccord entre les Parties sur la signification du méridien 82ºaux effets de déterminer les îles

composant l’archipel. De l’avis de la Colombie 42, le méridien 82ºouest sépare ce qui est

40CR 2012/11, p. 14, par. 22 (Londoño).
41
Voir ad ex. ibid., p. 38, par. 23 ; p. 49, par. 53 (Kohen).
42Ibid., p. 43, par. 35 (Kohen). - 27 -

colombien à l’est de ce qui est nicaraguayen à l’ouest, jusqu’à ce que l’on trouve des Etats tiers au

nord et au sud.

34. D’après le Nicaragua, cette approche est erronée. Ce n’est pas le méridien82ºqui

détermine l’extension de l’archip el de SanAndrés. C’est l’archipel de SanAndrés, une fois

identifié, qui détermine les limites sud et nord du méridien82ºcomme ligne d’attribution de

souveraineté sur les cayes en litige (onglet 1 du dossier des juges). Il faut rappeler qu’à la même

latitude des cayes Misquitos et à l’est du méridien82º se trouve Serrana, qui a fait l’objet d’une

e
réclamation concrète et spécifique de la part du Nicaragua depuis la moitié du XIX siècle, bien que

la Colombie s’obstine à le nier emphatiquement 43. Comme le rappelle le conseil de la Colombie 44,

le ministre des affaires étrangères du Nicara gua a expliqué, à l’époque, que le méridien82°

«indiquait la limite géographique entre les archip els litigieux», c’est-à-dire les Mangles d’un côté,

et San Andrés de l’autre. Les Misquitos ne faisai ent pas, comme la Colombie semble le suggérer,

l’objet du différend. Personne n’ a soutenu qu’elles étaient des composantes de l’archipel de

San Andrés ou mis en doute leur appartenance au Nicaragua.

35. Pour la Colombie, soutenir, comme le fa it la Nicaragua, que les cayes soit appartiennent

à la côte soit appartiennent à l’archipel est un non sequitur ⎯ un non sequitur , on dit même,

45
typique . Et pourquoi l’argumentation du Nicaragua est fallacieuse ? Est-ce que dans un traité qui

vise à finir avec les conflits territoriaux, comme le remarque constamment la Colombie, il peut

exister une troisième voie ? Ou est-ce que finir avec les conflits territoriaux veut dire que toutes les

cayes en litige doivent être attribuées à la Colombie 46 ?

36. Si la Cour attribue la souveraineté sur les cayes à la Colombie, ce ne peut pas être

seulement parce qu’elles se trouvent à l’est du méridien 82º.

L’uti possidetis juris

37. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Me ssieurs les juges, qu’est-ce qu’on peut dire

maintenant sur l’uti possidetis juris ? Pour appliquer ce principe, la Colombie a attribué un rôle

43CR 2012/11, p. 34, par. 15 ; p. 36-37, par. 20 ; p. 39, par. 26 ; p. 41, par. 30, ; p. 46, par. 44 (Kohen).
44
Ibid., p. 44, par. 39 (Kohen).
45Ibid., p. 37, par. 21 (Kohen).

46Ibid., p. 36-37, par. 20 (Kohen). - 28 -

central au décret royal du 20-30 novembre 1803, qui aurait séparé la côte des Mosquitos et les îles

adjacentes de la capitainerie générale de Guat emala (à laquelle appartenait la province du

47
Nicaragua) pour les placer dans la vice-royauté de Santa Fé (d’où est issue la Colombie) .

38. Je ne fatiguerai pas les honorables membr es de cette Cour avec un exposé ennuyeux des

raisons pour lesquelles le Nicaragua considère que ce décret royal n’a pas été le dernier décret du

roi d’Espagne à être appliqué avant l’indépendance de l’Amérique centrale en 1821. Je renvoie aux

48
écritures .

39. Par ailleurs, je me demande si les remar ques que je pourrais faire maintenant concernant

la portée de ce décret arriveraient à temps, ca r la Partie adverse a invoqué à plusieurs reprises 49

l’arrêt du 8 octobre 2007, dans l’affaire du Différend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le

Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes, où, en passant, la Cour semble accepter qu’en vertu du décret

royal de1803 la partie de la côte des Mosquito s située au sud du cap Gracias a Dios passa sous

contrôle de la vice-royauté de Santa Fé 50.

40. Etant donné que ce décret royal n’avait p as donné lieu à des débats dans l’affaire en

cause et ne touchait pas aux rapports entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras, l’ obiter dictum de la Cour

est quand même surprenant, mais je ne crois pas qu’il suffise à préjuger l’affaire pendante

aujourd’hui devant vous.

La sentence Loubet et ses conséquences

41. Au-delà des termes dans lesquels on peut débattre du droit espagnol des Indes, il faut

tenir compte de ce que le président de la Répub lique française, M.Loubet, en tant qu’arbitre du

différend territorial entre le Costa Rica et la Colombie, a rejeté la prétention de la Colombie sur la

côte des Mosquitos. Et s’il a attribué à ce pays les îles de l’«archipel de SanAndrés», parmi

lesquelles ne sont pas, d’ailleurs, mentionnées les cayes en litige au nord de Providencia, ce fut

simplement parce que le Costa Rica, qui se trouve au sud de ces îles, ne les avait pas revendiquées.

47
CMC, par. 3.7-3.14; CR 2012/11, p. 31, par. 5 (Kohen).
48
MN, par. 1.45-1.79.
49 CMC, par. 3.10, 6.14-6.16; CR 2012/11, p. 21-22, par. 15 (Crawford) ; p. 31, par. 5 (Kohen).

50 Différend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua ele Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua
c. Honduras), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p. 708, par. 161. - 29 -

42. La réaction immédiate de l’ambassadeur du Nicaragua à Paris, dans son ardeur pour

sauver les Mangles, occupées déjà par le Nicaragua et qui avaient été déclarées comme

51
colombiennes par l’arbitre Loubet , n’était pas nécessaire. L’ambassadeur a prêté tellement

d’attention aux Mangles qu’il a perdu de vue les mangroves. Mais l’on sai t que les affirmations

erronées d’un fonctionnaire, même d’un haut fonctionnaire, ne peuvent pas priver un Etat d’un titre

52
qu’il croit posséder sur un territoire .

Sur la reconnaissance de la souveraineté colombienne par des tiers

43. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieu rs les juges, le car actère litigieux des cayes

au nord de Providencia était bien connu par les puissances qui avaient dominé la mer des Caraïbes

pendant les derniers deux cents ans.

44. La Colombie insiste sur le fait que sa souveraineté sur les cayes en dispute avait été

reconnue par des tiers. Il ne fa it guère de doute que la reconnaissa nce par des tiers, y inclus ceux

ayant signé des traités de délimitation maritime avec la Colombie, ne serait pas opposable au

Nicaragua.

45. Les traités que la Colombie fait valoir sont importants mais pour découvrir les limites des

53
prétentions de leurs parties, pas pour limiter les prétentions des Etats tiers .

46. En outre, ni les Etats-Unis ni le Royaume-Uni, qui ont dominé le scénario des Caraïbes,

n’ont procédé à une telle reconnaissance.

47. Venant au cas des Etats-Unis, auquel la Colombie a consacré presque 40pages de son

contre-mémoire 54, la correspondance diplomatique révèle la non-reconnaissance par ce pays de la

prétention colombienne pendant des décennies et finalement son abandon des cayes sans, pourtant,

reconnaître le meilleur titre de la Colombie sur elles.

51 Voir F.Silvela, Limites entre la Colombie et le CostaRica. Ex posé présenté à S.E. M.le président de la
République française en qualité d’arbitre, Madrid, décembre 1898, p7 .; R.oincaré, Arbitrage de
S.E. M. le président de la République française, troisième mémoire de la Colombie, résumé des conclusions, Paris, 1900,
p. 2-3.

52 Voir Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour),
arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 81, par. 227; opinion dissident e commune de MM.les juges Simma et Abraham, p.124,
par. 24.

53 Voir Arbitration between Barbados and th e Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, sentence du 11 avril 2006,
par.344-349. Voir aussi Différend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes
(Nicaragua c. Honduras), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p. 725, par. 225.

54 CMC, p. 150-188. - 30 -

48. On peut dire la même chose en ce qui concerne le Royaume-Uni. Une des directives du

Foreign Office était justement de ne pas tomber dans le piège de la reconnaissance d’une

souveraineté controversée aux Caraïbes. La correspondance diplomatique britannique concernant

la Colombie 55 se limite à constater les revendications colombiennes, pas à les reconnaître.

Les cayes dans le plateau

49. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le JonkheerFeith, dans un

rapport rédigé en juin1948 pour la conférence de l’International Law Association tenue à

Copenhague en août1950, observait: «Si, par su ite d’un cataclysme affectant le sol marin ou par

suite d’un tremblement de terre le plateau contin ental venait à émerger, pourrait-il alors appartenir

56
à un pays autre que l’Etat riverain?» Roncador, Serrana, Serranilla ou BajoNuevo, qui sont le

résultat de processus géologiques qui se perdent dans le temps, sont des exemples avant la lettre de

ce qui peut se passer. Si le droit international n’a pas fait de cela un titre sur les cayes, on peut au

moins espérer que les cayes ne portent pas atteinte aux droits de l’Etat riverain sur son plateau.

50. Avec ces réflexions un peu mélancoli ques, Monsieur le président, Mesdames et

Messieurs les juges, on rentre dans les enjeux pl us substantiels de l’affaire soumise à votre

décision. Mais ma tâche finit ici. Je vous reme rcie de votre bienveillante patience et je vous prie,

Monsieur le président, d’appeler à la barre mon collègue AlexOudeElferink pour continuer avec

les plaidoiries dans la défense des intérêts lég itimes du Nicaragua, à moins que vous considériez

venu le moment de faire la pause.

Le PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Le moment n’est pas encore venu. It is

for Mr.OudeElferink to continue in the pleadings of Nicaragua. I give the floor to

Mr. Oude Elferink.

55CMC, par. 4.81-4.93.

56P.R.Feith, «Rights to the Seabed and its SubsoiThe Importance of the Continental Shelf Theory for the
Exploitation of Submarine Regi ons», cité par G.Gidel, Mémorandum sur le régi me de la haute mer, 3 partie, p. 77
(A/CN.4/32). - 31 -

Mr. OUDE ELFERINK:

T HE ISLANDS , CAYS AND BANKS IN THE RELEVANT MARITIME AREA

1. Thank you, Mr.President. Mr.President, Members of the Court, it is my task to again

address the islands and cays in the relevant maritime area and the submerged bank of Quitasueño.

The islands and cays in the relevant maritime area

2. Mr. President, just a couple of words a bout Nicaragua’s fringing is lands and San Andrés

and Providencia and the other islands in the mi ddle of the delimitation area that are claimed by

Colombia. We still have not heard anything from counsel for Colombia refuting Nicaragua’s

57
arguments on the case law in respect of fringing islands , so I need not dwell on that issue.

3. Last Monday, I also explained that the case law of this Court does not justify using the

presence of overlapping contiguous zones to de termine whether islands are in each other’s

58
proximity . Counsel for Colombia nonetheless continues to insist on the relevance of overlapping

contiguous zones to demonstrate the alleged proximity of cays 59. In the past, Colombia has held

differently as regards this matter. After a survey of the area in 1937, an official of the Colombian

Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the “cays of Serrana and

Roncador, whose total area does not amount to so me 30 hectares and which are abandoned in the

60
middle of the Ocean” .

4. Mr.Bundy did spend considerable time to refute our point that the cays claimed by

Colombia constitute rocks in the sense of Article 121, paragraph 3, of the 1982 Convention 61. One

of his arguments was that “the term ‘rocks’ that appears in Article 121 (3) should be interpreted in

accordance with its ordinary meaning ⎯ ‘rocks’. These [that is, the cays,] are not rocks.” 62 He did

not explain what he meant by that, but I assume he was referring to the fact that the cays are not

57See CR 2012/9, p. 38, para. 5 (Oude Elferink).
58
CR 2012/8, p. 31, para. 17 (Oude Elferink).
59
CR 2012/12, p. 18, paras 42-43 (Bundy).
60CMC, original texts of the Anns. translated into English, Vol. 2, Ann. 120, p. 19. Translation at judges’ folders,
tab 2.

61CR 2012/12, p. 17, paras 37-40 (Bundy).

62CR 2012/12, p. 17, para. 37 (Bundy). - 32 -

rocks in geological terms, but consist of sand and other materials. Mr. Bundy was putting a little

too much emphasis on ordinary meaning and too little on context. His view would imply that a few

square centimetres of sand permanently above wa ter would be entitled to a continental shelf and

exclusive economic zone, but much larger geological rocks might not be. A publication by the

United Nations Secretariat indicates that Mr. Bundy is indeed wrong. This study indicates that the

term rock is not defined in the 1982Convention an d then refers to the definition of islands and

low-tide elevations 63. That is, it indicates that the term rock in Article 121 (3) refers to a naturally

formed area of land, thus also including cays.

5. Mr.Bundy also referred to the presence of persons on the cays and effectivités. I will

discuss the latter topic in connection with Quit asueño and will not look at the significance of

effectivités for the title to the cays. That latter matter has been addressed by

ProfessorRemiroBrotóns. As I will set out, th e leases granted by Colombia in respect of

Quitasueño point to the conclusion that Colombia had no knowledge whatsoever of the nature of

the bank of Quitasueño. It gave out leases to exploit guano and coconut, whereas there was no

piece of dry land on Quitasueño. That practice also puts into doubt that the leases in respect of the

cays were anything else than paper claims. In that sense, they do not provide evidence that the cays

were capable of sustaining an economic life of their own.

6. As far as human habitation is concerned, the other leg of paragraph 121(3), Mr.Bundy

submitted that two agreements of Colombia with Jamaica “provided that up to 36 fishermen could

stay on Serranilla and up to 24 fishermen from Jamaica could stay on Bajo Nuevo. That many

64
individuals do not stay on ‘rocks’.” Could stay , he said. Not, did stay. And among the many

photographs of the cays Colombia has shown y ou, there were none showing the dwellings of

fishermen on Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. And as I explained last Tuesday the mere presence of

persons on a feature does not constitute proof that they are capable of sustaining human

65
habitation . So, we remain where we were last Tuesday, the evidence that Colombia has

63
The Law of the Sea; Baselines: An examination of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations, New York, 1989, p. 61.
64
CR 2012/11, p. 59, para. 34 (Bundy).
6CR 2012/9, p. 41, para. 12 (Oude Elferink). - 33 -

submitted indicates that the cays are not capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of

their own.

Quitasueño ⎯ Surveys predating Nicaragua’s Application instituting
the present proceedings

7. Mr. President, until last Thursday, Colombia had not said anything on a number of surveys

on Quitasueño that spanned the period between th e 1830s and Nicaragua’s Application instituting

the present proceedings. These included a surv ey by the United Kingdom in the1830s, a

Colombian survey in 1937 and surveys of the Colombian Navy up to and including the1990s in

connection with the preparation of nautical charts. As Nicaragua had repeatedly observed, all these

surveys pointed out that there were no islands or low-tide elevations on the Bank of Quitasueño 66.

Professor Crawford attempted to disqualify the British survey of the 1830s. Allegedly, at that time

there was no reason “for naval surveyors to enquire closely of such a dangerous place as

Quitasueño” 67. That is a preposterous proposition. Surveys like these are intended to chart dangers

to navigation. That made it par ticularly relevant to survey Quitasueño. I would respectfully invite

the Court to read the relevant part of the repor t of CaptainOwen of the Royal Navy, included at

Annex 12 of the Reply. The report indicates that the Bank was carefully surveyed. The resulting

information was included in the 1861 edition of The West India Pilot of the British Admiralty 68.

8. Mr. Bundy addressed Colombia’s 1937 report on a Colombian survey. He was brief. He

69
said the lighthouse at Quitasueño was visited . He refrained from commenting on my quotations

from the Report to the effect that the entire bank was permanently submerged. An official of the

Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who prepared the report on that survey for the Minister of

Foreign Affairs did comment on the survey’s implications for Quitasueño, stating that

“From the description that we have made of the four great banks of Quitasueño,

Serrana, Roncador and Serranilla, it results that for the issue of sovereignty and as the
only dry land, the two small islets, which are the cays of Serrana and Roncador, whose

66
See RN, Vol. I, paras. 4.27-4.33; CR 2012/9, p. 48, para. 27 (Oude Elferink).
67
CR 2012/12, p. 36, para. 30 (Crawford).
68RN, Ann. 13.

69CR 2012/11, p. 60, para. 37 (Bundy). - 34 -

total area does not amount to some 30 hectares abandoned in the middle of the Ocean,
are the only ones that may be taken into consideration” . 70

We consider that this statement, as well as other evidence from Colombia to the effect that there

were, until2008, no islands on the bank of Quitasueño, to be of particular significance. As has

been observed repeatedly by this Court, this constitutes evidence of a party against its own

71
interest .

Colombia’s alleged effectivités in relation to Quitasueño

9. Notwithstanding all the surveys indicating the absence of any islands on Quitasueño,

Colombia insists that it is otherwise. For instance, AmbassadorLondoño referred to a cay on

72
Quitasueño . Mr.Bundy, in discussing Colombia’s alleged effectivités over the cays claimed by

Colombia, went even further. He had no problem in telling you that Colombia had granted leases

73
to extract guano and coconuts from Quitasueño . He did not explain the details of this extraction

industry. Hardly surprising, as we are talking about a submerged bank. What this tells us is that

the Colombian Government was issuing leases for the extraction of non-existing resources. It did

not have a clue about the true nature of Quitasueño when it issued those leases.

10. Mr.Crawford also asserted that the Un ited States practice in relation to fisheries

confirmed that Colombia had sovereignty over the islands of Quitasueño. In that connection he

74
referred to a 1983 Exchange of Notes between the United States and Colombia . Nicaragua

75
discussed that Exchange of Notes in the Reply . The Reply concluded that this practice indicated

that there was no baseline, that is, no islands, on the submerged bank of Quitasueño to measure a

territorial sea limit from. On the screen we have the area to which the arrangement on fisheries

applied. This is at tab 3 of the judges’ folder. For Roncador and Serrana the limit is at 12 nautical

70CMC, original texts of the Annexes translated into English, Volume 2, Annex 120, p. 19. Translation at Judges’

folder, tab 2.
71Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits,

Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986 , pp.41 and 42, paras 64 and 69; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 201, para. 61.
72
CR 2012/11, p. 11, para. 5 (Londoño).
73CR 2012/11, p. 56, para. 26 (Bundy).

74CR 2012/12, pp. 33-34, para. 22 (Crawford).
75
RN, pp. 121-122, paras 4.38-4.39. - 35 -

miles from the baselines. In the case of Quitasueño it is a rectangle 76. The latter definition is

explained by the fact that the United States ha d the position that Quitasueño, being permanently

77
submerged at high tide, was not subj ect to the exercise of sovereignty . Interestingly, at the time

of the 1983Exchange of Notes, Dr.Smith, Colombia’s expert on Quitasueño was in the United

States Department of State where he was “responsible for the technical and geographical aspects of

negotiating U.S. bilateral boundary agreements and establishing U.S. claims to marine

jurisdiction” 78.

Quitasueño ⎯ The 2008 and Smith Reports

11. Let me now turn to the 2008 and Smith Reports on Quitasueño 79. Last Thursday

ProfessorCrawford took us to task because Nicaragua allegedly until that week “had addressed

80
neither the legal case, nor the factual case” . I beg to differ. In the Reply, we put in a whole

section specifically addressing Quitasueño’s status a nd the 2008 Report that had been included in

the Counter-Memorial 81. The Reply concluded that there was no merit to Colombia’s belated

82
attempt to convert the submerged bank of Quitasueño into an “island” . Colombia decided to

persist in its claim and, in its last round of written pleadings, put in the Smith Report that raised

further issues that required a response. Obviously, we had not had the chance to do so before last

week. In light of Professor Crawford’s misplaced indignation, it is all the more striking what he

had to say about charts last Thursday. Virtually nothing, although I had gone through these charts

in considerable detail 83. And he concluded by observing “I will return to the question of charts in

76
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: Diplom atic Note Nº 711 from the Embassy of the United States of America to the
Colombian Foreign Ministry, 24 Oc tober 1983; and Diplomatic Note Nº DM 01763 from the Colombian Foreign
Ministry to the Embassy of the United States of America, 6 December 1983 (CMC, Vol. II-A, pp. 45-49, Ann. 8).

77See Note of the Embassy of the United States to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia of
8 September 1972 (CMC, Ann. 3, p. 14).

78RC, Vol. II, App. 1, Ann. 1, p. 41.

79Study on Quitasueño and Albuquerque prepared by the Colombian Navy, September 2008 (CMC, Vol.II-A,
Ann.171); Expert Report by Dr. Robert Smith “Mapping The Islands Of Quitasueño (Colombia) ⎯ Their Baselines,
Territorial Sea, And Contiguous Zone”, February 2010 (hereinafter “Smith Report”), RC, Vol. II, App. 1.

80CR 2012/11, p. 25, para. 24 (Crawford).

81RN, Chap. IV, Section IV, pp. 115-123, paras 4.25-4.43.
82
RN, p. 123, para. 4.43.
83
CR 2012/9, pp. 53-55, paras 38-42 (Oude Elferink). - 36 -

more detail next week” 84, that is, after Nicaragua’s second round of pleading. In view of our

Colombian friends’ ability to distort the facts, let me just revisit two points as regards the charts.

First, last Tuesday, I explained the difference be tween the symbol for breakers on nautical charts

and that for drying reefs 85. I did this because Dr. Smith had created the impression that the symbol

86
for breakers is used to chart drying reefs . If this were the case, Colombia’s charts on, among

others, Quitasueño and Bajo Nuevo, would always have shown the existence of extensive drying

reefs. As I explained the symbol for breakers is not used to depict drying reefs and breakers do not

form part of the low-water line 87. On the screen we now have an extract from British Admiralty

88
Chart 666 . It indicates the edge of a reef, that is , the low-water line, and offshore it shows the

presence of breakers, which are clearly seaward of the low-water line in an area that is identified as

being always submerged. And, as a matter of fact, on the figure you can also see chart depths in

the area of the breakers. Last Tuesday, I also discussed Appendix2.10 of the Rejoinder and its

incorrect use of the symbol for drying reefs in an area of breakers, whereas breakers are correctly

shown on the Colombian charts 89. On the screen, you have again that picture, with next to it an

extract from Colombian chart COL 046 90. As can be seen the chart shows the symbol for breakers

that identifies permanently submerged features.

12. Professor Crawford last Friday insisted that Dr. Smith is an independent expert 91. That

assertion is problematic on both counts. As regard s his alleged independence, Dr. Smith was hired

by Colombia to prepare his report. As the repor t indicates, it was elaborated in close collaboration

with the Colombian Navy. A number of the appendices to the report, on which Dr. Smith relies in

his report, were prepared by Colomb ia’s Office of Hydrographic Services 92. And what about

Dr. Smith’s expertise? As Professor Crawford indicated, Dr. Smith is a geographical and technical

84CR 2012/12, p. 42, para. 52 (Bundy).
85
CR 2012/9, p. 55, para. 42 (Oude Elferink).
86
See CR 2012/9, p. 55, para. 42 (Oude Elferink).
87
CR 2012/9, p. 55, para. 42 (Oude Elferink).
88Judges’ folder, tab 4.

89CR 2012/9, pp. 43-44, para. 17 (Oude Elferink).

90Judges’ folder, tab 5.
91
CR 2012/12, pp. 30-31, para. 12 (Crawford).
92
See e.g. Smith Report, Apps. 4, 6 and 8. - 37 -

93
expert . He is certainly a distinguished political geographer. Does that also make him qualified to

deal with matters of hydrography, such as chart datum? Mr. President, Members of the Court, by

now you will be familiar with some of the techni cal terms that are used in connection with the

vertical datum that is relevant to determini ng the high- and low-water line along the coast for

charting purposes. One of those terms is low-water springs. So, this is a basic notion in

hydrography. Colombia itself on most of its na utical charts of the area uses mean low-water

springs as the datum for its low-water line. Of th e 13 Colombian charts of the area we examined,

eight used mean low-water springs, four mean low-water, and one mean lower low-water. All the

charts on Quitasueño used mean low-water spri ngs. Dr.Smith was ques tioned about the term

low-water springs in 2006, when he acted as an expert witness for Guyana in the AnnexVII

arbitration with Suriname. During his cross-examination by counsel for Suriname, the following

transpired 94. Question: “Have you heard of the concept of low-water springs?” Answer: “I may

have heard about it, but I don’t think I could define it.” Question: “You don’t know what it is?”

95
Answer: “No” . So that is as far as the expertise of Dr.Smith goes as far as hydrography is

concerned.

13. Mr. President, there is one further point to be noted about the support Dr. Smith received

from the Colombian Hydrographic Service. ProfessorCrawford at one point submitted that their

96
recommendations should not be questioned by the Court . We respectfully submit that the Court

should not follow his advice. In our view, these recommendations are similar to affidavits. As this

Court observed in Nicaragua v. Honduras, a number of criteria are relevant in assessing the value

of affidavits. In this connection, this Court observed that

“In assessing such af fidavits the Court must take into account a number of
factors. These would include whether they were made by State of ficials or by private

persons not interested in the outcome of the proceedings and whether a particular
affidavit attests to the existence of facts or represents only an opinion as regards
certain events. The Court notes that in some cases evidence which is

contemporaneous with the period concerned may be of special value. Af fidavits
sworn later by a State of ficial for purposes of litigation as to earlier facts will carry

9CR 2012/12, pp. 30-31, para. 12 (Crawford).
94
Judges’ folder, tab 6.
9In the Matter of Arbitration between the Republic of Guyana and the Republic of Suriname; transcript, Vol. 4 of

Monday, 11 Dec. 2006, p. 505, lines 5-9 (available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/1211%20Day%204.pdf).
9CR 2012/12, p. 41, para. 46 (Crawford). - 38 -

less weight than af fidavits sworn at the time when the relevant facts occurred.”
(Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean
Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 731, para. 244.)

If these criteria are applied to the declarations of the Colombian Hydrographic Service it is clear

that they should be treated with particular caution by the Court.

14. Let me now turn to the substance of th e Smith report once more. My critique of the

97
inexactness of measurements was not to the liking of Professor Crawford . On screen we have

again QS 4. It is at tab 7 of the judges’ fold er. As Professor Crawford pointed out the “surveying

ruler’s accuracy is to the centimetre. The apparent millimetre accuracy is a function of the method

of calculation” 98. This warrants a number of comments. First, the ruler may be accurate to the

centimetre, but does that mean that the measurement is accurate up to the centimetre? The

photograph does not give any confidence that this is the case. However, the alleged accuracy may

be ⎯ and I quote Professor Crawford ⎯ a “function of the method of calculation”. As he pointed

99
out, this method comprised a statistical analysis . Let me show you one other example of what

statistics may apparently be capable of. On screen we have a photograph of QS 18 ⎯ tab 8 of the

judges’ folder. This is one of the base poi nts of Colombia’s proposed equidistance line

100
Professor Crawford discussed last Friday afternoon . He did not show you this photograph. The

text alongside it indicates that the height of QS18 was recorded about 30m from the feature

because of wave conditions. Fortunately, a statistic al analysis allowed Dr.Smith to provide an

exact height. This brings to mind the somewhat worn-out, but in this case very apposite, one-liner

“there’s lies, damn lies and statistics”. The f undamental problem with Colombia’s statistical

analysis is that, in order for a statistical analysis to be reliable, the raw data on which it is based has

to be reliable also. In the present case, the raw data does not pass muster.

15. ProfessorCrawford did not accept our criticism of the Grenoble Tide Model FES95.2

used by Dr. Smith 101. It sounded like he knew the ins and out s of the science. But did he? I have

to disappoint you. ProfessorCrawford wittingly or unwittingly confused two basic concepts. I

97CR 2012/12, pp. 32-33, paras 19-21 and pp. 37-38, para. 34 (Crawford).
98
CR 2012/12, pp. 37-38, para. 34 (Crawford).
99
Ibid.
10See CR 2012/13, p. 16, para. 26 (Crawford).

10CR 2012/12, pp. 41-42, paras 45-51 (Crawford). - 39 -

invite you to carefully read ProfessorCrawford’s statement. You will note that he is submitting

that a tidal model equals the chart datum that is used for nautical charts. However, these are

different concepts.

16. A chart datum is a reference level selected by the coastal State to apply to its charts ⎯

for example, lowest astronomical tide (LAT) or mean low-water springs. All water depths on the

chart are referred to this level. So, if a water depth sounding of 5 m is s hown on a chart this means

that at the time of lowest astronomical tide there is 5m of water ⎯ that is if the chart LAT as a

reference datum ⎯ and so for navigation purposes there will ne arly always be more water than is

shown.

17. On the other hand, a tidal model or method is required to convert bathymetric

measurements made at different stages of the tide to a standard level. During a survey,

measurements are made of water depth through out the day. The tidal model will provide an

estimate of the tidal height at the time of each observation ⎯ this value will be subtracted from the

observed reading to give the value reduced to chart datum.

18. ProfessorCrawford referred to two peer-revi ewed papers to refute our criticism of the

102
Grenoble Tide Model FES 95.2 applied by Dr. Smith . Contrary to what he suggested, we were

not criticizing the vertical datum used by Dr.Smith . What ProfessorCrawford lost from view is

that these articles confirm our main point of criticism of the Grenoble TideModelFES95.2,

namely that in shallow waters it is quite unrelia ble. As we pointed out, NASA has observed that

this makes the model unsuitable for navigation or other practical applications 103.

19. Professor Crawford is also wrong as far as the applicable law on this point is concerned.

He submits that international law does not entitle Nicaragua to oblige Colombia to adopt a special

tidal model or vertical datum. To use a cherished expression of my good friend Alain Pellet, that is

putting the cart before the horse. Colombia assumes th at it is the coastal State. It is not. In

the 1960s, it became evident that Colombia and Nicaragua have competing claims to the maritime

zones in which the bank of Quitasueño is located. Colombia cannot impose its tidal model or

vertical datum on Nicaragua. Even if Colombia were the coastal State, quod non,

102
CR 2012/12, pp. 41-42, paras 49 (Crawford).
10See CR 2012/9, p. 51, para. 33 (Oude Elferink). - 40 -

Professor Crawford is still wrong. As this Court has repeatedly observed: “The delimitation of sea

areas has always an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal

State as expressed in its municipal law.” (Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J.

104
Reports 1951, p.132.) Another State is not obliged to accept an inappropriate tidal model or

vertical datum that would qualify features that would otherwise not be islands as islands.

20. My analysis of Article121 of the 1982Convention neither was to the liking of

ProfessorCrawford. He made it appear that we disagreed on a large number of aspects of the

105
article , but in reality this only concerns the question whether the coral debris found on

Quitasueño constitutes “a naturally formed area of land” . Or, as he referred to it “the “poor white

106
coral trash” theory” . I must confess that I still have not figured out what he meant by that. But

what did he have to say on the substance of the matter? My submission was that individual pieces

of coral debris do not qualify as a naturally formed area of land. Such debris as a consequence

neither is an island nor a low-tide elevation under the definitions of Articles121 and13 of

the 1982 Convention 107. ProfessorCrawford intimated that I was saying something completely

different, namely that I was submitting that whol e island States made of up coral islands, like the

108
Maldives, do not have any maritime zones . Now, there is of course a huge difference between a

coral island and a piece of coral debris. On the screen you have two photographs. Over the

weekend, I asked some people to tell me which of these two in their view was a coral island, and

109
the choice unanimously was for the figure on the left . Let me add that it should be clear from

my presentation of last Tuesday that I fully subscr ibed to that view. On Tuesday, I submitted that

the cays claimed by Colombia are entitled to a terr itorial sea. According to the IHO Hydrographic

104See also Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974 , p.22,

para. 49; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgmen t, I.C.J.Reports 1974 ,
p. 191, para. 41. See also Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982, pp. 66-67,
para. 87.)
105
CR 2012/12, pp. 27-30, paras 3-11 (Crawford).
106
CR 2012/12, p. 26, para. 2 (Crawford).
107CR 2012/9, pp. 56-57, paras 44-46 (Oude Elferink).

108CR 2012/12, p. 43, para. 53 (Crawford).
109
Judges’ folder, tab 9. - 41 -

Dictionary a cay is a flat island of sand or coral a nd the term originally applied to the coral islets

found in the Caribbean Sea 110.

21. The status of coral debris has been considered in the legal literature. Professor Crawford

actually referred to one of those authors. On the sc reen we have a text by Derek Bowett, as he was

then, that ProfessorCrawford quoted 111. What he failed to mention was the text immediately

preceding his quotation: “It should be added that many islands are in fact coral islands, formed

over centuries, by the gradual accretion of skeletons of the coral polyp in temperate waters,

creating first reefs and then, by further elevation, islands” 112. It should be clear from the

information on Quitasueño that the phase of gra dual accretion of skeletons of coral polyp has

hardly started. A similar distinction between co ral debris and coral islands is made by Beazley,

who observes:

“On fringing reefs and broad barrier r eefs there is a boulder zone behind the
seaward flat where dead coral masses and fragments of reef thrown up by the sea may

be found. It is here that sand, resulting from the pulverizing of loose coral, will lodge,
and it is from here that any associated island may gradually rise.” 113

On Quitasueño we just have some pieces of dead coral and no associated island has risen.

22. Professor Crawford in setting out his “poor white coral trash” theory also tried to give the

loose pieces of coral debris on Quitasueño an impression of permanence by suggesting that they are

attached to the subsoil. He said: “as to coral de bris, I ask you to look at the pictures. They reflect

114
what Dr.Smith saw, coral rocks affixed to the substrate.” The compte rendu does not specify

the source for this alleged observation by Dr. Smith. No reference to the coral being affixed to the

substrate is to be found in the Smith Report, so this is at best hearsay. The photographs in the

Report in no way support Professor Crawford’s suggestion.

110
Hydrographic Dictionary, Part I, Vol.I, English, Sp ecial Publication No.32 Fifth Edition, International
Hydrographic Organization, Monaco, 1994, item 665.
111
Judges’ folder, tab 10.
112D. W. Bowett, “The legal regime of islands in international law”, Oceana, 1979, pp. 4-5.

113P.D. Beazley “Reefs and the 1982 Conven tion on the Law of the Sea”, 6, 1991, International Journal of
Estuarine and Coastal Law pp. 281-312 at p. 285.

114CR 2012/12, p. 43, para. 55 (Crawford). - 42 -

Conclusions

23. Mr. President, I can be brief as far as my conclusions are concerned. While reaffirming

115
my conclusions from last Tuesday , let me just emphasize the two most important points. First,

the cays claimed by Colombia are rocks in the sense of Article121, paragraph3, of

the 1982 Convention. Secondly, the coral debris on Quitasueño that Colombia alleges to constitute

islands and low-tide elevations do not fall under the definition of a naturally formed area of land

that is included in Article 13 on low-tide elevati ons and Article 121 on the definition of islands of

the 1982Convention. There are no islands or lo w-tide elevations on the permanently submerged

bank of Quitasueño.

24. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this finalizes my presentation. I once more thank

you for your kind attention. I respectfully request you to allow my colleague PaulReichler to

continue on behalf of Nicaragua, but I assume that you would first like to take a coffee break.

Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr.OudeElferink. It is indeed the moment for a pause of

15 minutes. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

The Court adjourned from 11.30 to 11.50 a.m.

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed and I invite Mr. Reichler to the

podium. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. REICHLER:

C OLOMBIA ’S ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF DELIMITATION METHODOLOGY
AND THE INEQUITABLE SOLUTION IT PRODUCES

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning.

2. Here is a graphic that Colombia did not show you last week. In pink is what they are

claiming in this case. This is not an exaggeration. It is what they are really claiming. This is at

tab 11 of your judges’ folders.

115
CR 2012/9, pp. 60-61, paras 56-57 (Oude Elferink). - 43 -

3. From east to west, they first claim an EEZ and continental shelf of 200miles from their

mainland coast. This then links with their territo rial seas, EEZs and continental shelves that they

claim are generated by their geographically det ached islands of SanAndrés, Providencia and

Santa Catalina, as well as the minor cays Colombia associates with them.

4. Colombia leaves Nicaragua with a narrow band of sea, extending only some 55 miles from

its mainland coast, even less from its fringing islands. The result: Colombia gets 87 per cent of the

maritime area lying between itself and Nicaragua th at is not claimed by third States. Nicaragua

gets 13 per cent.

5. Last Monday, AmbassadorArgüello spoke of Colombia’s aspiration to be Queen of the

Caribbean. I think he was too generous. They look more to me like Pirates of the Caribbean.

Last week I even thought I saw Johnny Depp sitting at their counsel table. But it turned out to be

my good-looking friend, Marcelo Kohen.

6. What you see before you is the claim of a State that has accused Nicaragua of the mortal

sin of gluttony. Professor Crawford charges Nicara gua with gluttony for wanting “both”; but he

116
has nothing to say about the fact that Colombia wants “all” ⎯ or just about “all” .

7. Let us focus at what they claim within 200 miles of Nicaragua’s coast. It is at tab 12.

8. Colombia insists, repeatedly, emphatically, that this is an equitable delimitation. But they

completely fail ⎯ indeed, they do not even try ⎯ to prove this by means of the third

essential step of the maritime delimitation process. I am referring of course to the

proportionality/disproportionality test.

9. Mr. President, you will recall how I challenge d Colombia, in the first round, to perform a

proportionality/disproportionality test and show us th e results. I could not have been more direct.

I threw down the gauntlet. I did everything but challenge them to a duel.

10. What was their response? Nothing whatsoever . In nine hours of pleading, they made no

attempt to subject their delimitation line to a disproportionality test. To the contrary, they ran away

from it like it was the plague.

116
CR 2012/11, p.18, para. 5 (Crawford). - 44 -

11. To cover their retreat, they put up a smokescreen. Professor Crawford acknowledged

that the Court has sanctioned a three-step process in maritime delimitation cases. But what are his

three steps: (1) identify the base points; (2) plot the equidistance line; and (3) check for relevant

117
circumstances . My friend has invented a new dance: the Crawford three-step. The actual third

step, the disproportionality test, has gone missing.

12. Mr.Bundy took a different escape route. He cut the three-part process down to two.

You can guess which part he threw overboard 118.

13. Mr.President, the fundamental truth re mains: the line Colombia proposes cannot pass

the proportionality/disproportionality test. Let us look at the numbers.

14. Colombia now concedes that Nicaragua’s mainland coast is relevant to the delimitation.

This is an indisputable fact, with or without th eir concession, but it is nice to have. This is at

tab13. Rendered as a straight line, the coast m easures 453km. This has not been disputed by

Colombia. According to Mr. Bundy, the relevant Colombian coasts are the west-facing sides of its

insular features closest to Nicaragua 119. Also rendered as straight lines, these measure 21 km. We

did not hear any disagreement with this figure last week, either. The coastal ratio is, therefore,

more than 21:1 in Nicaragua’s favour.

15. The relevant area is where the potential entitlements of Nicaragua and Colombia overlap.

This is that area. Nicaragua and Colombia agre e that continental land territory, like Nicaragua’s

mainland coast, generates a potential EEZ entitlement out to a distance of 200 miles. Islands, too,

generate200-mile potential EEZ entitlements, a lthough it is less clear in the case law than

ProfessorCrawford made it appear that they generate these entitlements radially, in all

directions 120. However, for the sake of ar gument, we accept this proposition, quod non, and we

117CR 2012/13, p. 11, para. 5 (Crawford).

118CR 2012/13, p. 21, para. 2 (Bundy).
119
CR 2012/12, p. 14, para. 23 (Bundy); CR 2012/12, p.63, para. 92 (Bundy).
120
CR 2012/11, p. 29, para. 36 (Crawford). In their separate opinion in the Libya/Malta case, Judges Jiménez de
Aréchaga, Ruda and Bedjaoui observed: “Such a radial proj ection may, undoubtedly, exist in the case of islands in the
open ocean not facing other States’ coasts, but it does not correspond to the practice of States in enclosed or
semi-enclosed seas, where more than two States may advan ce conflicting claims in respect of a given maritime area.”
(Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985 ( hereinafter “ Libya/Malta”);
separate opinion of Judges Ruda, Bedjaoui and Jiménez de Aréchaga, p. 78, para.5.) - 45 -

show here the overlapping potential EEZ entitleme nts generated by Nicaragua’s coast and

Colombia’s islands of San Andrés and Providencia.

16. Colombia’s proposed delimitation line di vides the relevant area in this manner:

72 per cent for Colombia; 28 per cent for Nicaragua. Despite a coastal ratio of more than 21:1 in

Nicaragua’s favour, Colombia’s line gives Colomb ia between two and thre e times more of the

relevant area than Nicaragua. This is the epitome of disproportionality. Colombia has said nothing

to change this.

17. For obvious reasons, Colombia is uncomfo rtable with this result. So, on Friday,

Professor Crawford tried to jiggle the numbers. It was Colombia’s position, throughout this case,

that only the west-facing coasts of Colombia’s islands should be counted. This was repeated last

121
week by Mr.Bundy . But, because he is well aware that this leads Colombia to a dead

end ⎯ that is, a 21:1 coastal ratio in favour of Nicaragua ⎯ Professor Crawford suddenly changed

Colombia’s position. Apparently, changing argu ments is actually a good thing, when it is

Colombia that makes the change.

18. And so, Professor Crawford claimed that because islands generate potential entitlements

in all directions, the entire circumferences of Colombia’s islands, or at least what he called the

122
main islands of San Andrés and Providencia , should be considered relevant coasts .

Professor Crawford said these add up to 62 km 123.

19. Since Colombia did not make this argumen t or provide these precise measurements in its

written pleadings , we asked our hydrographers from th e UKHO to make the measurements.

Instead of using straight lines, they followed th e sinuosities of the coasts, which produces a longer,

but more accurate, coastline than the use of st raight line vectors. The circumferences of

San Andrés and Providencia, including its offshore dependency, Santa Catalina, which are the only

true islands in the so-called “archipelago” , total 6km, that is, 3km longer than

Professor Crawford himself claimed.

12CR 2012/12, p. 63, para. 92 (Bundy).
122
CR 2012/11, p. 29, para. 36 (Crawford).
12Ibid. - 46 -

20. Let me be clear. We do not accept Professor Crawford’s circumferential approach to

measuring the relevant coasts. It leads to a double counting of the coasts of islands. Colombia had

it right in its written pleadings and the first time th eir counsel, Mr. Bundy, addressed this issue last

week: only the west-facing coasts of Colombia’s islands are relevant to the delimitation. They

measure 21 km.

21. However, and again for the sake of argum ent, let us accept Professor Crawford’s double

counting of Colombia’s relevant coasts, and gi ve them 65km as measured according to their

sinuosities. To compare apples to apples, we have re-measured Nicaragua’s east facing coast ⎯ its

mainland coast-- according to its sinuosity. But, to be conservative, we have excluded the

east-facing sides of Nicaragua’s offshore islands, th e CornIslands and Miskito Cay. Nicaragua’s

relevant coast, by this standard ⎯ the same one ProfessorCrawford used to measure Colombia’s

coasts ⎯ is 701 km. This is at tab 14. But even by this arithmetic, which is weighted in favour of

Colombia, the ratio of relevant coasts is still11:1 in Nicaragua’s favour. Even using this coastal

ratio, Colombia’s delimitation proposal is grossly in equitable, because the distribution of maritime

areas is still 2.6:1 in Colombia’s favour.

22. For comparison purposes, let us look again at Nicaragua’s proposed delimitation. This is

at tab15. As you know, we have proposed enclaves of 12miles for SanAndrés and

Providencia/Santa Catalina; and 3miles for any other Colombian features. But, as I said last

Tuesday, just as a provisional equidistance line can be adjusted in light of relevant circumstances to

achieve an equitable solution, so too enclaves, provisionally drawn, can be adjusted.

23. Professor Crawford insists that all islands , even rocks, regardless of how insignificant,

get at least a 12 mile territorial sea. Let us give him that much ⎯ for the sake of argument only, of

course. The result of giving 12-mile enclaves to al l of the features owned or claimed by Colombia

(except Quitasueño ⎯ which is under water) is this: 201,000 sq km for Nicaragua; 18,000 sq km

for Colombia. This is a ratio of11:1 in fa vour of Nicaragua, almost precisely the same as the

coastal ratio using Professor Crawford’s inflated approach and treating as relevant coasts the entire

circumferences of Colombia’s islands, where the ratio of relevant coasts was also 11:1.

24. Mr.President, you will recall that Professo rCrawford tried to discredit our analysis by

resort to infinitology: that is, the study of the concept of infinity. On Thursday, he showed you a - 47 -

graphic telling you that Nicaragua’s proposal gives Nicaragua an EEZ of 186,362sqkm, and

124
Colombia an EEZ of zero, a ratio of “infinity” .

25. Mr. President, Nicaragua is not troubled by this piece of advocacy. But Colombia should

be. This is not how you measure maritime spaces. It is misleading. It deliberately excludes all the

maritime space Nicaragua’s proposal would allocate to Colombia within the various territorial sea

enclaves. Yes, Colombia gets territorial seas, not EEZs; but that is inherent in the nature of an

enclave; the island gets a territorial sea, not an EEZ. I note in that regard that the Channel Islands,

St.Martin’s Island and Abu Musa were all encl aved within 12miles. There is nothing

unprecedented or out of the ordinary here. When Colombia’s territorial sea enclaves are taken into

account, the ratio is not infinity. It is 11:1.

26. Infinitology, as applied in these hearings, is mere gamesmanship. But, it is a game that

two can play. Let us look at how Colombia’s proposal divides the Parties’ overlapping

entitlements in the relevant area ⎯ east of San Andrés and Providencia/Santa Catalina.

Colombia 122,000 sq km; Nicaragua zero. Ratio: infinity.

27. Why is not this area, where both Parties ha ve potential entitlements, part of the relevant

area to be divided equitably between the Parties? Why should it go by default to Colombia? In our

first round, we challenged Colombia on this point, too. Here again, they failed to answer us.

28. But Mr. Bundy made an interesting, and very significant concession, perhaps more than

he intended. He challenged our de piction of Colombia’s relevant area ⎯ shown here, and which

we also showed in the first round. He said, and th is is the interesting part, that for Colombia the

relevant area extends westward beyond Nicaragua ’s coastal islands all the way to Nicaragua’s

mainland coast ⎯ the natural limit 125. This is at tab16. I invite you to think about this for a

moment. The entitlement generated by Colo mbia’s islands reaches to the west beyond ⎯ past ⎯

Nicaragua’s islands to Nicaragua’s coast. We fully agree with this.

29. But how can Mr.Bundy then deny that Nicaragua’s islands ⎯ or more importantly,

Nicaragua’s mainland coast ⎯ reach to the east beyond Colombia’s islands to the natural limit of

their 200-mile EEZ entitlement? He asserts that Nicaragua’s islands do not block the maritime

124
CR 2012/11, p. 29, para. 37 (Crawford).
12CR 2012/12, p. 11, para. 9 (Bundy). - 48 -

entitlement emanating from Colombia’s islands toward the west 126while, at the same time, he

continues to assert the completely contradict ory position that Colombia’s islands block ⎯ and

completely block ⎯ the maritime entitlements emanating no t only from Nicaragua’s islands but

also from its much more significant mainland coast. These two contrary positions cannot be

reconciled.

30. Colombia’s solution is unsustainable. It does not divide the relevant area equitably. It

comes nowhere close to doing so. Colombia has failed to demonstrate, by means of a

proportionality/disproportionality test, that its claimed delimitation line constitutes the equitable

solution required by international law.

31. Yet, Colombia insists that it properly applied standard delimitation methodology in the

way the Court’s jurisprudence dictates. And Colomb ia insists, further, that Nicaragua’s approach

would stand that jurisprudence on its head. They portray Nicaragua as some kind of barbarian at

the gates, eager to burn down the temple of international law.

32. Mr.President, I cannot help but ask this question. If they are so right and we are so

wrong, how is it that the result they produce is so manifestly inequitable, and the one we produce is

proportionate, and meets the standards for an equitable solution?

33. Let us start to answer this question by looking a bit more carefully at the Jan Mayen and

Libya/Malta cases than ProfessorCrawford did on Friday 127. These are the two cases that

Colombia considers the most relevant, because they involve delimitations between mainland coasts

on the one hand, and islands on the other. We di sagree with Colombia on the lessons to be drawn

from these cases.

34. Jan Mayen bears some similarities to this case. This is at tab 17. The delimitation was

between Greenland’s extensive coast, and the shorte r coast of Jan Mayen. But the case also has a

very significant dissimilarity with our case. B ecause the parties were located 250 miles from one

another, neither one could claim a potential entitlement beyond, that is, on the far side of, the other.

The area of overlapping entitlements was therefore ne cessarily limited to the area lying in between

126
CR 2012/12, p. 11, para. 9 (Bundy)
12Ibid., p. 41, paras. 25-26 (Crawford). - 49 -

them. Naturally, the provisional delimitation lin e was drawn in that area, equally dividing the

overlapping entitlements.

35. The provisional line was then adjusted becau se the sizeable disparity in coastal lengths

of 9:1 was deemed to be a relevant circumstance. As a result of its longer coast, Greenland got a

larger portion of the area of overlap than Jan Ma yen. In fact, Greenland ended up with 74 per cent

of the area of overlapping entitlements, to 26 per cent for Jan Mayen.

T3he. Libya/Malta case exhibits similar circumstances. This is at tab18. The distance

between the parties was 180miles. So the entir e maritime area between them was within each

party’s respective 200-mile entitlement, and this fo rmed the relevant area, except for the areas

claimed by a third State, Italy, which were both to the east and the west of the area that was

delimited. Theoretically, Libya’s 200-mile EEZ entitlement might have extended a few miles

beyond Malta, but Libya could make no such claim, because Italy lies just 43 miles north of Malta,

effectively excluding Libya from that area.

37. So, here again, the delimitation necessar ily was entirely in between Libya and Malta.

The provisional delimitation line, a median line, could only be placed in the area between the two

parties, equally dividing that area. And, here again, Libya’s much longer coast, eight times that of

Malta’s, was a relevant circumstan ce justifying an adjustment in favour of Libya. Colombia

trivializes the adjustment, but it ended up giving Li bya 74 per cent of the delimitation area defined

by the parties’ relevant coasts and Italy’s claims, and left Malta with only 26 per cent. Malta got

even that much because it is not a mere island, but an island that is a sovereign State unto itself;

and because of its size ⎯ Malta is 316 sq km ⎯ more than six times larger than SanAndrés and

Providencia/Santa Catalina put together.

38. Now, from these cases, Professor Crawford labours to draw out two so-called principles,

each of them questionable. First is that you must always start by placing an equidistance line

halfway between the coasts of the two parties 128. We say, this may be the case where the entire

area to be delimited, where the entirety of th e parties’ potential entitlements overlap, lies in

between the two States. But that conclusion do es not follow when, as in this case, the potential

128
CR 2012/13, pp. 11-12, paras. 10-12 (Crawford). - 50 -

entitlements of one party extend beyond, past, the coast of the other party, such that the other party

lies in the middle of the area of overlapping entitlements, rather than at its extremity.

39. It is more logical to understand Jan Mayen and Libya/Malta as requiring that the

provisional delimitation line be placed in the middle of the area of overlapping potential

entitlements, dividing the area of overlap equally be tween the parties, because that is what the

Court actually did in both cases. If we were to follow the approach taken in Jan Mayen and

Libya/Malta here, this is how a provisional delimitation line would look. If this looks different

from the provisional lines drawn in Jan Mayen and Libya/Malta it is because here, unlike in those

cases, the area of overlapping entitlements extends 100miles beyond SanAndrés and

Providencia/Santa Catalina. They are in the middle of the area of overlapping entitlements, not at

its extremity. This illustrates why we think st arting with a provisional equidistance line is not

appropriate in this case, and why it is not required by the Court’s holdings in Jan Mayen or

Libya/Malta, where the geographic circumstances were significantly different.

40. Here, the provisional line dividing in e qual shares the area of overlapping entitlements

inevitably leaves SanAndrés and Providencia/Santa Catalina on the wrong side of the line, and it

arbitrarily cuts off the seaward projection of Nicaragua’s coast well short of its potential

200-mileEEZ entitlement. In the Gulf of Maine case, the Chamber emphasized that an equitable

solution entailed “preventing, as far as possible, an y cut-off of the seaward projection of the coast

or of part of the coast of either of the States concerned” ( Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in

the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J.Reports1984

(hereinafter “Gulf of Maine”), p. 313, para. 157).

41. The second lesson that Professor Crawford attempts to draw from these two cases is that,

where there is a substantial disparity in coastal lengths, the provisional line must be adjusted in

129
favour of the Party with the longer coast, but ⎯ he adds ⎯ the adjustment must be “modest” .

Well, what else would he concede, as advocate for the Party with the shorter coast? We say two

things about this. First, the adjustment must be made in favour of the Party with the longer coast,

so that it receives a larger share of the area of overlap than the Party with the shorter coast.

129
CR 2012/13, p. 54, para. 63 (4) (Crawford). - 51 -

Second, the size of the adjustment is dependent on what the Court deems appropriate in order to

achieve an equitable solution in the particular circumstances of the case at hand.

42. So if, for the sake of argument, we were to start with a provisional delimitation line that

divides the area of overlapping entitlements betw een Nicaragua and Colombia equally, we know

we would have to adjust it in a manner favourable to Nicaragua because the coastal ratio is 21:1 in

Nicaragua’s favour, or even allowing, quod non, for Colombia’s double counting of its insular

coasts, it is still11:1 in Nicaragua’s favour. In either case, bigger than the disparity in either

Jan Mayen or Libya/Malta.

43. Professor Crawford accuses us of arguing for “redistributive justice” and the

130
“refashioning of geography” . But Nicaragua makes no such argument. What we do say is that

the goal of maritime delimitation must be an equitable solution, and that the method of delimitation

that is adopted must be one that leads to an equ itable result. Equidistance certainly has its place.

But it is not the alpha and omega of maritime delimitation. In many cases it will lead to an

equitable solution. But, as ProfessorCrawford tellingly admitted, in some situations “geography

can produce unwarranted results” 131.

44. In this case, equidistance inevitably produces just such unwarranted results. This is at

tab 19. As we have shown, it would allow Colombia’s small islands to entirely cut off the maritime

entitlements of Nicaragua’s geographically predomin ant mainland coast, and allocate to Colombia

100 per cent of the area east of those islands, despite the overlapping potential entitlements of both

Parties in that entire area.

45. The only practical way to apply the teachings of Jan Mayen and Libya/Malta, and ensure

that Nicaragua receives the larger share of the area of overlap, to which it is entitled by the coastal

ratio, is to enclave Colombia’s islands within appropriately sized territorial seas.

46. The solution this achieves is manifestly an equitable one. Unlike Colombia’s proposed

solution, Nicaragua’s satisfies the Court’s proportionality/disproportionality test. This is not an

exercise in redistributive justice, or a case of working backwards from a preconceived outcome.

It is the end result of a proper application of the delimitation methodology developed by the Court

130
CR 2012/13, p. 14, para. 18; p. 48, para. 44 (Crawford).
13CR 2012/13, p. 14, para. 18 (Crawford). - 52 -

through its jurisprudence, and followed by other in ternational tribunals including, most recently,

the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

47. Moving on to the other cases Professor Cr awford discussed, I regret that I must disagree

with the lessons he would like you to draw from those cases as well. These are also delimitation

cases involving mainland coasts and islands ⎯ the Anglo-French arbitration, the St. Pierre and

Miquelon case, and the Dubai/Sharjah arbitration, where islands similar to ⎯ or more significant

than ⎯ Colombia’s islands were enclaved.

48. These are all very difficult cases for Colombia, which has to find a way to distinguish

them. And it quite fittingly resorts to the great mind of Professor Crawford to come up with a way.

But what he says, notwithstanding his customary eloquence, wit, and erudition, does not stand up.

Here is his theory: that the tribunals enclaved the islands solely because they were close to the

coast of the other State. For Professor Crawford , it was the “adjacency” of these islands to that

132
other coast that alone accounted for their enclavement .

49. But this interpretation cannot be squared w ith either the decisions or the logic behind

them. To be sure, in the cases he selected, the islands were closer to the other State’s coast than

Colombia’s islands are to Nicaragua. But that turn s out to be a distinction without a difference.

It is not why the islands were enclaved.

50. They were enclaved because of their geographical detachment from their own States, and

especially the blocking effects they produced on the other State’s maritime entitlements. In some

cases, the closeness of the island to the other State’ s coast contributed to the blocking effect; but

what mattered was the blocking effect, not the distance from the coast. I am afraid that my

distinguished friend has confused cause and effect.

51. In the Anglo-French Arbitration, for instance, the Court of Arbitration did not allow the

UK’s Channel Islands to cut off th e maritime entitlements of France. This is at tab 20. As shown

here, the tribunal recognized that France’s en titlements extended northward beyond, past, the

Channel Islands, which were not allowed to f unction as a brick wall cutting off France’s seaward

projection. True, the islands were close to France, but what the Court of Arbitration emphasized in

132
CR 2012/13, p. 44, para. 35; p. 46, para. 39 (Crawford). - 53 -

enclaving them was their “substantial diminution of the area of continental shelf which would

otherwise accrue to the French Republic” which, if those islands had not been enclaved would

133
“effect a radical distortion of the boundary creative of inequity” . In regard to geographic

location, the tribunal emphasized that the Channel Islands “are not only on the wrong side of the

mid-Channel median line but wholly detached geographically from the United Kingdom” 134.

52. The case of St. Pierre and Miquelon is to the same effect. This is at tab 21. The western

and south-western coasts of the two French islands were not close to the opposite facing coast of

Nova Scotia lying at the distance of 143 miles. Yet the arbitral tribunal nevertheless enclaved them

within 24 miles on those sides, because they otherwise would have blocked the seaward extension

of Newfoundland’s southern coast 135. Even more interesting, the southern coasts of the two French

islands faced away from Canada’s coast, toward an entirel y open expanse of sea. The tribunal’s

solution, and its reasoning, are worth quoting:

“The French islands have a coasta l opening towards the south which is

unobstructed by any opposite or laterally aligned Canadian coast. Having such a
coastal opening, France is fully entitled to a frontal seaward projection towards the
south until it reaches the outer limit of 200 nautical miles . . . On the other hand, such

a seaward projection must not be allowed to encroach upon or cut off a parallel fron136
projection of the adjacent segments of the Newfoundland southern coast.”

As a result, in order to prevent a cut-off of Ca nada’s maritime entitlements, the maritime zones

awarded to St. Pierre and Miquelon were constricted, as shown, to only 10.5 miles in breadth.

53. We see, again, that the focus is not on how close the island is to the other State’s

mainland, but on the effects produced on the ot her State’s maritime entitlements, as well as the

geographical detachment of the island from the mainland of its own State.

54. This is also reflected in the Dubai/Sharjah arbitration, another case ProfessorCrawford

137
attempted to explain away . In that case, Sharjah’s island of AbuMusa was enclaved within a

12-mile arc. This is at tab 22. It is worth noting that Abu Musa was more than 30 miles offshore,

133
Delimitation of the Continental Shelbetween France and the United Kingdom , Decision, 30June1977,
reprinted in 18 RIAA 3 (hereinafter “Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case”), paras. 196, 199.
134
Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case, para. 199.
135Case concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada and France (St. Pierre et Miquelon),

Decision, 10 June 1992, reprinted in 31 ILM 1149, (hereinafter “St.Pierre and Miquelon”), paras. 67, 69.
136St.Pierre and Miquelon, para. 70.

137CR 2012/13, pp. 48-49, paras. 47-48 (Crawford). - 54 -

not adjacent to Dubai’s coast. It comprised 12sqkm, and had a permanent population of800.

It was also important economically: its red oxide deposits and Mubarek oil field lying just offshore

138
contributed hugely to Sharjah’s revenue . If AbuMusa is the “incidental” feature that

Professor Crawford said it is, then so are all of Co lombia’s islands. The arbitral tribunal observed

that “ the equidistance principle of delimitation... must be subject to the overriding aim of

achieving an equitable apportionment of shelf areas between adjacent and opposite States ” 139. It

then concluded that: “to allow to the island of Abu Musa any entitlement to an area of the

continental shelf of the Gulf beyond the extent of its belt of territo rial sea would indeed produce a

distorting effect upon neighbouring shelf areas” 140.

55. Professor Crawford, of course, did not refer to these aspects of the arbitral award, nor did

he mention the award in the Newfoundland/Nova Scotia arbitration, or the treatment given by the

distinguished tribunal to Nova Scotia’s Sabl e Island, even though I discussed this case in

Nicaragua’s first round. Sable Island, as you w ill recall, was given no effect because of its

blocking effects on the seaward projection of Newfo undland’s coast. This is at tab23. What is

important to point out here is that Sable Island, 34km long, is 88miles offshore, and it was the

island’s very “remote location”, as well as its distorting effects, not its proximity to

141
Newfoundland’s coast, that caused the tribunal to disregard it .

56. Another case that disproves ProfessorCrawford’s theory is Eritrea/Yemen. This is at

tab24. The two Yemeni islands that were disregarded in the delimitation, because of their

distorting effects on the median line were located 71 and 58 miles from Eritrea’s coast. They were

not in close proximity to that coast. They were considered to have distorting effects because of

their geographical detachment from Yemen’s coast, lying, respectively, 62 and 26 miles from it.

57. With these cases in mind, let us look one more time at the blocking effects produced by

Colombia’s islands on Nicaragua’s entitlements. Th is is a more complete cut-off of a mainland

coast’s maritime entitlements than in any of the cases we have been discussing. In the

138
Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration, Award, 19 Oct. 1981, reprinted in 91 ILR 543 (hereinafter
“Dubai/Sharjah”), p. 668, para. 246.
139
Dubai/Sharjah, p. 676, para. 263; emphasis added.
140Dubai/Sharjah, p. 677, para. 265; emphasis added.

141Limits of the Offshore Areas between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, Second Phase, Award of
26 March 2002, ILR, Vol. 128, (hereinafter “Newfoundland/Nova Scotia”), paras. 5.14-5.15. - 55 -

Anglo-French Arbitration only a small portion of France’s coast was blocked by the Channel

Islands. Colombia’s islands, by comparison, block the entire length of Nicaragua’s mainland coast.

This is the epitome of an inequitable result. An equitable solution requires that Nicaragua be

relieved of this cut-off effect.

58. ProfessorCrawford told you he has been unable to find a case where islands 100miles

offshore have been enclaved 14. There is another side to that coin. He has also been unable to

identify a case where islands causing such severe bl ocking effects have been allowed to do so.

Whether 10 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles or more, isla nds that produce these cut-off effects are either

enclaved, or disregarded.

59. Remarkably, Colombia’s counsel had absolutely nothing to say last week about the

blocking effects of small islands, and the fact that, when they have these effects, they are either

enclaved or otherwise discounted in the delimitation process. This was another challenge we made

in the first round, from which they conspicuously retreated.

60. Mr. President, let us take a closer look, w ith your permission, at the insular features that,

under Colombia’s delimitation scenario, so severely block and cut off Nicaragua’s maritime

entitlements.

61. Mr. President, I began this speech talking ab out the mortal sin of gluttony. Maybe I am

guilty of it. When I look at this Colombian graphic, I see breakfast. Every morning, I start out

with two fried eggs. Usually, if I am staying in a good hotel, they are not blue. I always sprinkle a

few grains of pepper on top.

62. Now this graphic, which ProfessorCrawford and Mr.Bundy displayed over and over

143
again last week , makes it appear as though Colombia has a number of very large eggs. But it is

an optical illusion. If we take away the blue paint, all we are left with is... my few grains of

144
pepper. Professor Crawford said that Nicaragua needs an optician . He was right, at least in my

case. With these glasses I can barely make out any of Colombia’s insular features.

142
CR 2012/13, p. 54, para. 63 (2) (Crawford).
143
See, e.g., CR 2012/13, p. 35, para. 4 (Crawford).
14CR 2012/13, p. 19, para. 35 (Crawford). - 56 -

63. What you see here is a very clever piece of creative cartography. What it is intended to

do is make tiny and insignificant features appear much larger than they are. Not only does

Colombia frame them within a 12-mile territorial sea ⎯ the yolk of the egg; but to enhance the

illusion, they add a 12-mile contiguous zone ⎯ the egg white.

64. To really see these features for what they are, we have to go to a much smaller-scale

map. Fortunately, Colombia has provided these as well. These are the ones used by

Professor Crawford to defend Colombia’s placement of base points on insignificant features 145.

65. Rather remarkably, Colombia places not just one but four base points on Quitasueño.

Even my worthy opponent admits that three of them are on what he says are “low-tide elevations”.

That is another way of saying they are under wa ter. The fourth base point on Quitasueño,

according to ProfessorCrawford, is on the feature identified as QS4 14. This is the one my

colleague Mr.OudeElferink has demonstrated so convincingly to be below water at high tide.

Four base points on Quitasueño, all below water. Yet ProfessorCrawford stands by them. Or

maybe it is more accurate to say he swims by them.

66. Let us look at another of their base points. This one, supposedly on Providencia, is

actually on Low Cay. If this is above water, it is only barely so. It is no more than a sand bar

300 metres long. It makes Serpents’ Island look like a brontosaurus.

67. At the southern end of th is so-called “chain” of islands ⎯ the opposite end from

Quitasueño ⎯ is the uninhabited and economically lifeless feature of Albuquerque Cay. Colombia

has placed base points, not even on the small cay itself, but on two low-tide elevations lying to the

west of anything that is permanently above water.

68. This is the so-called “chain” of islands that Colombia says should cut off Nicaragua’s

maritime entitlements approximately one quarter of the way toward the natural limit of its

200-mile EEZ entitlement.

69. Mr.President, I do not want to exaggera te. SanAndrés and Providencia are indeed

islands, although small ones. The rest of Colombia’s insular features ⎯ if they belong to Colombia

at all ⎯ are tiny, uninhabitable, economically lifeless rocks. They are equivalent to, if not smaller

145
CR 2012/13, p. 16, paras. 25-30 (Crawford).
14Ibid., p. 16, para. 26 (Crawford). - 57 -

than, Venezuela’s Monjes Islands, which Colombia insists on disregarding entirely in any maritime

delimitation with Venezuela because of what Colo mbia considers their small size and distorting

effects on a delimitation line. This is an example of Colombia’s double standard ⎯ one for itself,

another for everybody else. But it cannot hope to place any base points on its own similar features,

especially after the Court’s treatment of Serpents’ Island in the Black Sea case, and ITLOS’

treatment of St. Martin’s Island in Bangladesh v. Myanmar.

70. Mr. President, your Court’s unwillingness to allow the placement of base points on tiny

insular features goes back at least as far as the Gulf of Maine case. In that Judgment, the Chamber

warned of

“the potential disadvantages inherent in any method which takes tiny islands,
uninhabited rocks or low-tide elevations, some times lying at a considerable distance

from terra firma, as basepoint for the drawing of a line intended to effect an equal
division of a given area” (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Main
Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984 , pp. 329-330,

para. 201).

The Chamber expressly objected to: “making a series of such minor features the very basis for the

determination of the dividing line, or for transforming them into a succession of basepoints for the

geometrical construction of the entire line” ( ibid., p.330, para.201). But that is exactly what

Colombia asks you to do here.

71. With the exception of San Andrés and Providencia/Santa Catalina, Colombia cannot

even hope to persuade the Court that any of its f eatures is entitled to affect the delimitation line, or

to get anything more than a territorial sea. They have all but admitted this. On several occasions,

counsel referred to these three features as signifi cant islands, distinguishing them from the rest.

ProfessorCrawford said that the San Andrés Archipelago consists of “at least three main

147
islands” . We all know that in legal-speak this me ans “at most” three main islands. We accept

that SanAndrés and Providencia/Santa Catalina are the only islands that may have potential

maritime entitlements beyond 12 miles.

72. What we object to is the very unsubtle effort to convert these three small islands, and a

smattering of pepper grains, into an insular behemo th, a kind of Caribbean Australia. Last week,

we were subjected to a barrage of references to the SanAndrés Archipelago as “a significant

147
CR 2012/13, p. 50, para. 49 (Crawford). - 58 -

148 149
historical, political and geographical unit” and “a major feature of the Western Caribbean” .

This, from counsel who accused Nicaragua of an “absurdly inflated maritime claim” 15.

73. But even those three islands cannot be used as the basis of any delimitation line. This is

an equidistance line drawn between SanAndrés a nd Providencia/Santa Catalina on the one hand,

and the Nicaraguan coast on the other, ignoring all the minor insular features. It is at tab 25. As

we demonstrated last week, it creates just as severe and inequitable a cut-off effect as the line that

Colombia proposes. It still gives Colombia all of the area east of the line, and 63percent of the

entire area of overlap between Nicaragua’s coast and its 200-mile EEZ limit, almost twice as much

area as Nicaragua, despite a coastal ratio, of 21:1 in Nicaragua’s favour.

74. Colombia had no answer for this during its first round of oral pleading. They know this

line is inequitable. That is why they hinted, repeatedly, that the line will have to be adjusted to take

account of Nicaragua’s vastly longer relevant co ast. That is why they have spoken openly of

“modest” adjustments to their provisional equidistance line 151.

75. What do they mean by “modest adjustme nts”? We presume they will tell you in the

second round, and it is only then that you, and we, will learn what they really want. But that puts

Nicaragua at a serious disadvantage. Colombia gets to tell you why their “modest adjustments”

lead to an equitable solution, and Nicaragua has no chance to demonstrate that they do not. So, to

protect Nicaragua’s interests, we have no choice but to try to anticipate what Colombia might

propose.

76. One possibility, and this would be the most “modest”, is that Colombia will propose

moving its provisional equidistance line to the east, but still keeping it to the west of its so-called

“chain” of islands. For reasons we have alread y explained, this could not possibly solve the

problem. Merely moving the line a few miles to the east does not begin to cure the inequity.

It would, in effect, give Colombia the 82nd meridian boundary that the Court already said was not

part of the 1928Treaty. It would still allow Colombia’s small islands to block Nicaragua’s

148CR 2012/13, p. 54, para. 63; p. 50, para. 49 (Crawford). CR 2012/12, p. 10, para. 3, p.19, para. 45 (Bundy).
149
Ibid., p. 36, para. 5 (Crawford).
150CR 2012/11, p. 23, para. 18 (Crawford).

151CR 2012/13, p.54, para. 63(4) (Crawford). - 59 -

seaward extension very far short of ⎯ in fact, less than half way to ⎯ the limit of its 200-mile EEZ

entitlement, and leave the overwhelming majority of the area to Colombia, despite Nicaragua’s

vastly longer relevant coast.

77. Another proposal Colombia might make is to follow the example of the

Anglo-French case in regard to the treatment of the Scilly Isl es. This is at tab 26. In that case, the

Court of Arbitration found that the equidistance line west of the Channel was distorted by the

United Kingdom’s Scilly Isles, to the point that it caused a cut-off effect on a portion of France’s

west-facing coast. The Scilly Isles are located 102 miles from France, almost the same distance as

Colombia’s islands are from Nicaragua. As you can see, the effect of the Scilly Isles on France’s

seaward projection was not very great to begin with, and the only part of the French coast that was

affected was the portion between Portsall and PointPenmarch, covering just 97km. None of the

rest of France’s very extensive Atlantic coastal front was cut off. In these circumstances, the Court

of Arbitration decided to give the Scilly Isles half effect. Your Court itself gave half effect to

islands in the Tunisia/Libya case and the Gulf of Maine 152.

78. Nicaragua opposes a similar approach here. It would be inequitable to Nicaragua to give

even half weight to San Andrés and Providencia. Th e effects are shown in this graphic. Together

with the 3-mile-territorial-sea enclaves surroundi ng the area this line gives to Colombia, the

relevant area where the Parties’ potential entitlements overlap would be divided in this manner:

Nicaragua 149,000sqkm; Colombia 65,000sqkm. This is a ratio of only 2.3:1 in favour of

Nicaragua, despite the21:1 ratio of coastal lengt hs in Nicaragua’s favour. The result is not

equitable to Nicaragua. For these reasons, Nicaragua submits that the only equitable solution is the

one it has proposed: territorial-sea enclaves for all of Colombia’s insular features within 200 miles

of Nicaragua’s coast. For the benefit of our intrepid interpreters, I am moving to paragraph 82.

79. Mr.President, it is not uncommon in this Great Hall for advocates to make literary

references in their speeches: Rousseau; Montaign e; Shakespeare; Dostoyevsky; Confucius;

Cervantes; Mark Twain; Saramago. But Winnie the Pooh ? Much as I would prefer to avoid

perpetuating a discussion on that level, there is a useful legal point to be made. The fictional

15Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, .eports982 (hereinafter

“Tunisia/Libya”), pp. 88-89, paras. 128-129; Gulf of Maine, pp. 336-337, para. 222. - 60 -

animal had no legal entitlements under the Law of the Sea Convention to either condensed milk or

honey, both of which, according to ProfessorCrawford, he gluttonously demanded. By contrast,

Nicaragua does have legal entitlements under the Law of the Sea Convention to both a

200-mile EEZ, and a continental shelf based on the natural prolongation of its continental landmass

well beyond 200miles. And, yes, Nicaragua wants both. What sovereign State would not?

Mr.President, we think the Law of the Sea Convention is stronger legal authority than

Walt Disney.

80. Another comment by ProfessorCrawford to which I will respond is that, in my first

round speech, I “assiduously avoided” discussing diplomatic practice 153. This is incorrect. I spoke

154
at length about this. I refer the Court to paragraphs 59 to 70 of my speech on Tuesday, 24 April.

The Court will recall that I quoted several times from the work of SirDerekBowett, in regard to

the treatment of small islands in maritime agreements, and showed that the practice largely

supports Nicaragua’s position in this case. I think it is interesting that Professor Crawford referred

155
to these agreements as “diplomatic” practice . This reinforces one of the points I emphasized last

week: these are negotiated agreements often based as much on political and economic factors as on

legal ones. And even where they say they are b ased on legal principles, they do not often specify

which principles, or how the parties chose to apply them. Diplomatic practice is a very shaky basis

on which to base a maritime delimitation claim.

81. However, because Professor Crawford challenged me to respond to some of the specific

examples he cited, which supposedly support Colombia’s position, I will do so. My friend

whipped through so many maps so quickly that it seemed like a condensed version of “Around the

World in 80 Seconds”. Time, and I am sure the patience of the Court, do not allow me to do more

than respond to a few of his carefully picked examples.

82. Let us start with the so-called “agreem ent” between the Dominican Republic and the

United Kingdom in regard to the Turks and Caicos Islands 156. What Professor Crawford neglected

15CR 2012/13, p. 18, para. 34 (Crawford).
154
CR 2012/10, pp.48-51, paras. 59-70 (Reichler).
15CR 2012/13, p. 18, para. 34 (Crawford).

15CR 2012/13, p. 39, para. 22 (Crawford). - 61 -

to tell you is that the treaty was never ratified, and has been publicly denounced by the

DominicanRepublic, precisely because it rejects eq uidistance as inequitable between the large

Caribbean island of Hispaniola, and the tiny islets of the Turks and Caicos.

83. In the agreement between India and the Maldives, the eastern half of the boundary

discussed by Professor Crawford on Friday is, as he said, a median line between the Maldives and a

157
segment of India’s mainland coast . But this does not help Colomb ia. The Maldives is an island

State. Your Court gave special deference to Malta for this reason, in Libya/Malta: “it might well

be that the sea boundaries in this region would be different if the islands of Malta did not constitute

an independent State, but formed a part of the territory of one of the surrounding countries”

Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I.C.J.Reports 1985 ( hereinafter

“Libya/Malta”), p.42, para.53). According to Bowett “the Court seems to imply that, as a

158
dependent territory, Malta’s entitlement would have been reduced” . The India/Maldives

agreement is cited by Bowett as reflec ting a practice of giving island States ⎯ States entirely

composed of a group of islands ⎯ equal treatment in a delimitation with another State’s mainland

159
coast . Colombia derives no benefit from such practice.

84. The Cape Verde/Senegal agreement, a nd the SaoTome/Equatorial Guinea agreement,

also mentioned by Professor Crawford can be distinguished from the present case on the very same

basis 160.

85. The agreement concerning Venezuela’s Aves Island was also cited 161. According to

Bowett, the Netherlands appears to have accepted full effect in return for the same treatment of its

157
CR 2012/13, p. 39, para. 19 (Crawford).
158
D. Bowett, “ Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevati ons in Maritime Boundar y Delimitations,” in
J. Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, 1993, Vol. I, pp.133-134.
159
Ibid., p. 138.
160CR 2012/13, p. 39, paras. 20-21 (Crawford).

161CR 2012/13, p. 38, para. 14 (Crawford). - 62 -

own Saba Island 162. In any event, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, and CARICOM as

163
well, have registered their objections to the weight given to Aves Island .

86. The delimitation agreement between Australia and France is equally unhelpful to

Colombia 164. This is at tab 27; it was displayed by Professor Crawford. The boundary is a median

line between islands and reefs on both sides that are far removed from the main coasts of either

party. According to Bowett, “the islands balance each other so as to eliminate distortion” because

“the islands and reefs to the west of New Caledonia [lie] about as far offshore as the Australian

165
reefs to the east of the mainland” . This is apparent when the small islands and reefs on both

sides of the delimitation line, which the parties u sed in constructing it, are shown on the map. For

whatever reason, they were not depicted on the map displayed by Professor Crawford last week.

87. Mr.President, as I said last week, Colombia has cherry-picked a few diplomatic

agreements that it considers favourable to its position. Here are some that are not, as cited in

Bowett’s study of the practice. In these agreem ents, the States concerned reduced the distorting

effects of small islands by enclaving them within what Bowett calls “a 3- or 12-mile arc of

166
territorial sea” . He mentions in particular, the isla nd of Daiyina in the Qatar/UAE agreement

of1969; the island of Pelagruz in the Italy/Y ugoslavia agreement of1968; and the islands of

Pantellaria, Linosa, and Lampedusa in the Italy/Tunisia agreement of 1971, the latter of which were

167
enclaved within 13 miles .

16D. Bowett, “ Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevati ons in Maritime Boundar y Delimitations,” in
J. Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, 1993, Vol. I, p. 142.

16Ibid., p.142, and footnote 82. Communiqué Issued at the Conclusion of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the
Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (J5 u2l.001)
(http://www.caricom.org/jsp/communications/communiques/22hgc_2001_commun…);
B. Wilkinson, “OECS raps Caracas’ claim to island ,” Barbados Nation News (1S1e2p. 05)

(http://web.archive.org/web/20070930154742/http://www.nationnews.com/353…); “CARICOM may
ask UN to settle Las Aves dispute,” Latin American Herald Tribune (11 Aug. 2005)
(http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=203478); “OECS searching for Bird
Island solution,” Caribbean News (16 Mar. 2006) (http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/caribnet/cgi-script/
csArticles/articles/000008/000874.htm).

16CR 2012/13, p. 40, para. 23 (Crawford).
165
D. Bowett, “Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevati ons in Maritime Boundar y Delimitations,” in
J.Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, 1993, Vol.I, pp.138-139 and footnote 52 at
p. 138.

16Ibid., p. 143.
167
Ibid., p. 143. - 63 -

88. Mr.President, diplomatic practice does not support Colombia’s argum ents in this case.

That practice is best summed up by Bowett, and I will complete my discussion of this subject and

my speech by reading his conclusion:

“where the island is remote or not in a lignment with the general coastal façade, a
different treatment is usually adopted. Th is will lie either in a method different from

equidistance, or in modifying the equidistance method. These variants upon
equidistance have great flexibility: the islands may be given ‘partial’ effect
(half-effect or some other fractional weighting), or they may be partially or fully

enclaved, or simply allowed such an area that there will be no impinging on a
neighbouring claim. Or they may be partially or fully enclaved or simply allowed
such an area that they will be no impinging on a neighbouring claim.” 168

89. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my speech. Since it is my last one

in these proceedings, I want to thank you again fo r your kind patience and courtesy in putting up

with me for as long as you have had to, and to underscore what an honour and a privilege it has

been for me to appear before you. And I wish you all a nice lunch. Bon appétit.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Reichler, for your pleading and also for your

wish. I extend the same wish to the Parties’ t eams and to the public observing this hearing.

TheCourt will meet this afternoon, from 3p.m. to 5p.m., to hear the conclusion of Nicaragua’s

second round of oral argument and final submissi ons in the case. Thank you. The Court is

adjourned.

The Court rose at 12.55 p.m.

___________

16D. Bowett, “Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevatons in Maritime Boundar y Delimitations,” in
J. Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, 1993, Vol. I, p. 151.