INTERNATIONALCOURT017JUSTICE
TERRITORIAALNDMARITIMEDISPUTE
(NICARAGUv.COLOMBIA)
WRITTENSTATEMENTOFTHE
GOVERNMENTOFNBC1ARAGUA
26JANUARY2004 TABLEOFCONTlENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................1................................
CHAPTERI: THE LEGALSTATUSOF THE 1928TREATY ......
IINTRODUCT O.N....................................1.............
1.INVALIDI TFTHE1928 TREAT .......................................
A.THE 1928TREAT WASCONCLUD INDMQMFE VSOLATIONO TFE
NICARAGUC AONPV'STITU..I.N.........................I................
B.THEN~CARAGLMN GOVERNME DNIThrOHA VETHEINTERN TQNAL
CAPA~~ .TOBEBOUND BY TRE AIE........................5............
111THECONTEN AND JURIDICAALNALYSI SITHE 1928TREAT ...2
A.THEE.VENT OFTHEA RCI-JIPAOOF SA.ANDRE ...........2.....
R.REFEREN TOETHE^^ " ERIDIAINTHEPROTOCO OF
R4TIFICTIONOFTHE 1928TREATY........................3.................
1.Theunderstandinin1930..........................33.............
2.From 1930to1969.................................9..........
3.First roundof negotiation......................40............
4.Secondroundof negotiati1995....................41
5.Thirdroundof"negotiatio2001....................46.........
TV.BREAC HFTREAT Y.................................48.........
CHAPTER TI:PRELIMWARYOBJECTIONSRELATED TO
THEPACTOF BOGOT .A...............................51.................................
CHAPTER 111PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONSRELATED TO
THE OPTIONALCLAUSE ...............................85...............................
I.FIRSTPRELIMINA OBYJECTION:OLOMB CA NTENDSTHATBY
REASONOFTHE DISPUT BETWEEN NICARAGI AND COLOMBIA
HAVINGBEENSETTLED AND ENDED.THEREISNODISPUTEBEFORETHE COUR TOWHICHlURISDICTlONUNDERTHEOPTIONACLLAUSE
DECLARATIO COSLDATTACH ..........................................
11.SECONPDRELIMINA ORYJE~IOTNH: ERENO JURISDICTION
UNDER THEOPTIONA CLAUS BEECAUS EOLOMBIA D'SCLARATION
WAS NOT IFORC ENTHE DATEOFTHE FILINOFNICARAGUA'S
APPLICATI .........................................................
111.H~RPDRELIMINA ORBJECTIOINFOUNDTO BEINFORCE,THE
TERMSOFCOLOMBIA 1'37DECLARATI EXCLUDENICARAGUA'S
CLAIMS,BECAUSTHEALLEGED DISPUTEARISOUT OFFACTSPRIORTO
6JANUAR1 Y93......................................1.........
........
A.THESUBJEC MTATTEOF THEDISPUT.E......................
B,THERELEVAN RULESAPPLICAB LOTHEJURISD~CT OFONHE
COURT3RA TIONTEMPOR S.........................1................
IV. FOURTPHRELIMINA ORYJECTION:OLOMBI AC'CEPTAN CYE
CONDUC TFANOBLIGAT ION IVEREASONAB LOETICEF
TERMINATI ..........,........................................
A.THEPUBLI CTATEMENTRYPRFSJDENTALE MACNYOIN2001
................................................1.............
.....
B.NEGOTITILINSTFOREIG NINSTE REVE L2001.........1.8.
CHAPTERIV: THE EXISTENCEOFA DISPUTE INTHE
CONTEXTOFBOTH THE PACTOF BOGOT ANDTHE
OPTIONALCLAUSEJURISDICTION ..................,.133...
SUBMISSIONS .......................................141......................
LISTOFANNEXES ................................................WRITTENSTATEMENTOFTHE
GOVERNMENTOFNICARAGUA INTRODUCTION
1. The caseconcerningthe TerriforilrlandMaritimeDispute (Nicnrulguv.
Colombia) was broughtbeforethe Courtby means of an Application
filedbyTheRepublicof Nicaragua againstheRepublicof Colombiaon
6 December2001.The Orderof theCourtof 26 February 2002 fixed28
April2003 forthe filingoftheNicaraguan Memorialand28 June2004
for the filing theColombianCounter-MemoriulN . icaraguafiledher
Memoridwithin thetimelimitfixedby the CourtColombiaforherpart
on 21 July2003 fiIednotonly preliminaryobjectionstothejurisdiction
of theCourt butalso a requestthatthe Coua adjudge and declarethe
controversended.
2. TheOrderof the Courtof 24 September2003 fixed26 January2004 as
the timeIimitwithin which the Republicof Nicaraguamay presenta
writtestatementof herobservationsandsubmissionsonthepreliminary
objectionsmadebytheRepublicof Colombia.ThisWritten Statementis
filedpursuantothi Osrder.
3. The case filed by the Republic of Nicaragulagainstthe Republicof
Colombia concerns a dispute over titletrlterritoryand maritime
delimitatiointheCaribbean Sea.On 24 March 1928Nicaraguasigneda
treatywith Colombia concerningTerritorialQuestionat Issue between
the Parties.Thesequestions involved inter alia sovereigntover the
Archiwlago of San Andrks that was claimed by both Parties. The
NicaraguanCongressratifiedthisTreatyon 6 March 1930.Theposition
of Nicaraguais thatthis Treatywas invalidabinitiobecause itopenly
violated the Constitutioin force at that time that prohibitedany
dispositionof NicaraguanTerritory and also that this signatureand ratificatiowereconcludedwhilstNicaragua was undertheoccupationof
the UnitedStatesof America and herGovernmentwas deprived of its
internationalcapacity and could not freely consent to be bound by
treaties.Furthermoret,hatthe occupyingState hada specialnational
interestntheconclusion ofthef re at^.'
4. In the eventthatthisTreatywas found to havebeen validlyconcluded
then the positionof Nicaraguais that the unilateralinterpretation
Colombiamadeof itin1969 constitutea violationanda breachof the
Treatythat entitledNicaraguato invoke the breach as a ground for
termination .heseissuesaredealt withinparagraphs1.85to 1.92below,
andin the NicaraguanMemorialin paragraphs2.254 to 2.263, Section
ZV, Chapter II.In short,when the NicaraguanCongressratified the
Treatyin 1930,two yearsafterits signaturand morethan ayearafter
the ColombianCongresshadratifiedthe Treaty,it addedthat itwas
ratifyingit in theunderstandinthattheArchipelagoof SanAndrksdid
notextendwest of the Meridian82"W.ThereasonthattheNicaraguan
Congresshadforaddingthisunderstanding wasthat itwas afraithat if
thi issuewas not clarified,Colombiamightcontendinthefuturethatthe
Archipelagocomprehendedall islands and cays off the Nicaraguan
AtlanticCoast. ThisMeridianlies between70 and 100miles fiom the
Nicaraguancoast and around20 miles from San Andres.It is plainly
untenablethatin 1930thisunderstandin couldpossiblyhavebeenmade
withtheintentionof fixinglimitsinwhatatthetimewereconsideredto
bethe high seasover which no nationhadsovereigntyorotherexclusive
rights.The unilateral interpretationthat this Meridiaconstitutesa
maritimeboundary madeby Colombiain 1969,nearly40 yearsafterthe
ratificatioof the 1928 Treatyis anopen breachof a Treatythatin its
ISeebelowpara.1.15. own words aimed to resolvethe"territorilonflictpendingbetwee n"e
parties.
5. Thefurthercontention ofNicaraguais thatin theeventthattheTreatyis
considered stillin force -in spite of its original invalidity or its
subsequentbreach-then theunilateralinterpretatimade by Colombia
of the"understanding "dded bytheNicaraguanCongresswhenratifying
it,did not involve the fixing of maritimelimits but was merely an
aliment effectingtheallocationof islands.
6. At issueis alsothe determinationfthe extentof theArchipelagoof San
AndrCs.According to the interpretationmade by Colombia the
Archipelagoof 17squaremiles2extendsfor hundreds of miles from the
Islandof SanAndrks.NicaraguaconlendsthattheArchipelagoasdefined
in Article1of the 1928Treatydoes notincludecays and reefsthatwere
expresslyexcludedfrom the Treatyor to caysandreefs thatcouldnot
have been consideredas geographicallyformingpartof theArchipelago
in 192g3.
7. Colombia has triedtoportraythepositionof Yicaraguaas anew claim
stemmingfromtheGovernment inpowerinNicaraguaduringthe 1980s.
Thisis nottrue.Colombiaclaimed forthefirsttime inJune1969thatthe
line of allocationof islanthatwas understoodto be partof the 1928
Treatyat the momentof ratificationwas reallya lineofdelimitationof
maritimeareas. This was contradictedby Nicaraguajust a few days
later4The issueof thesovereigntyoverthe citysthatare notconsidered
partof the San Andr6 Archipelagoflaredup whenthenegotiationsof
According toEncyclop~diaBritunnica2001,StandardEd. CD-ROM, 1994-
2000,PublisheBritannica.comInc.
See belowparas. 1.21.31,1.33,1.35,1.41, 1.43,1.44and1.45.
See belowpara. 1.64and2.38. Colombia and theUnited StateofAmericaoverthe claimof sovereignty
overthecays beganin June 19715.The issueof the invalidityothe
Treatyalsostems frombefore 1980.On 8 September1972Colombia and
the UnitedStatesenteredintoa Treatyregardingthe Quitasueiiobank
andthesmallcaysemergingfromthebanksofRoncador andSerranaO , n
8 October 1972 the Foreign Ministerof Nicaragua,Mr. Lorenzo
Guerrero,sent two protesnotes to the signatoriesof thatTreatThe
textsof bothlettershavethefollowingparagraph:
"Without,for the moment,going intothe validisyofthe
BdrcenasMeneses-EsgeserraTreaty,its historicalandlegal
background, nor the circumstances surrounding its
conclusiaiz,Nicaraguareiteratesthatthe bankslocatedin
thatzoneare partof hercontinentalshelf,andbecauseof
this it is willing to use all peaceful procedures
contemplated by InternationalLaw to safeguardits
legitimatright^ (" ^phasisadded)
8. ThejurisdictionoftheCourtisfounded onArticle36,paragraphs1and2
of the StatutIn accordancewiththeprovisionsof Article36 paragraph
1 ofthe Statute,theCourthasjurisdictibasedonArticle XXXT of the
AmericanTreaty on Pacific Settlement pact of Bogota) adoptedin
Bogota, Colombiaon 30 April 1948 and to which Nicaragua and
Colombiaareparties.ThejurisdictiooftheCourtis alsofoundedonthe
Declarationsmadeby both.Partiesacceptinthecompulsoryjurisdiction
onthebasisof Article36 paragrap2 oftheStatuteof the Court.
%M, Vol.I,paras.2.158,2.159and2.165.
NM, Vol. 11Annexes34and35,9. ThejuncturethatdecidedtheGovernmentofNicaraguatobringthiscase
beforetheCourt was theratificationbyHonduras on30 November1999
of the 2 August 1986 Treaty of delimitationwith colombia7. The
NicaraguanGovernmen thenpubliclyannouncedatthehighestlevel that
itwouldbring a case againstColombia.Theonly reasonwhy it was not
doneimmediately was because itwas a heavyburden for Nicaragua in
human andeconomicresourcesto have two casesgoing simultaneously
inthe Courtat thesame pace.ThecaseagainstColombiawas originally
plannedto be broughttotheCourtat thebeginningof theyear 2001 after
Nicaragua had filed her Memtlriul against Hondurasin the case
concerningMaritimeDelimitationhemeen Rricaraguuand I-londuras in
theCurihbeanSea (Mcaragua vHonduras).
10. The casewas notbrought beforetheCourt as plannedatthebeginningof
the year 2001 because the ColombianForeignMinister requested his
Nicaraguan counterpartottobringthecaseimmediatelybutto tirstgive
an opportunityfor negotiations.Whatthe Nicaraguan Foreign Minister
did not know was that the real object orthe requestwas for the
ColombianAuthoritiesto gaintimeto go throughthe necessary internal
legal process for withdrawingthe acceptanceof thejurisdictionof the
Courtmadein herDeclaration of 30 October1937in accordancewith
Article36, paragraph2, of theStatuteof thC:ourt' Ineffect, less than
24 hours beforeNicaraguafiled herApplicationon 6 December2001,
Colombiaattemptedto withdrawher 1937 Ileclaration. In fact, when
Nicaraguafiled her Applicationshe was not aware thatthe Secretary
General of the United Nations had receivecla letter from Colombia
notifyingthe intentionof withdrawingtheDeclaration.Due to the time
7AppJicationofhricmapa, para.7.
8Thereasonsforthedelayaregivenin theAflridavof the ForeignMinisterof
Nicaraguadurintheyear200 1.SeeNWS, Vol. 11,Anne22. differencbetween The Hague andNew Yorkit is evenprobable thatas
the Registrarwas receivingthe Application,the SecretaryGeneralwas
onlyjust circulatingnoticeof this actionby Colombia.
11. TheotherbasisofjurisdictioninvokedbyNicaraguais Article XXXIof
thePact ofBogotti In asuigenerisinterpretationof the Pact, Colombia,
allegedly in application ofarticle79 of the Rules,requests the Courtto
adjudgeand declare that pursuantto Articles VI andXXXIV,the Court
does not have jurisdiction tohear the controversyand, furthermore,
declarethe controversyended. Nothingin the Pact of Bogotiiindicates
thatthis declaration,if it is foundby the Courtto be applicable,behould
madein the phase of ajudgment on preliminary objections.Preciselyin
application of article 79 of its Rules the Court cannot declare a
controversyendedin thepreliminaryobjectionsphase ofthis case.The
only way the Court'sRules allowit to declara controversyendedis by
goinginto the meritsofthecase.Colombiais well awareof this and that
is why,in spite of the expressmandateofArticle79, paragraph7, ofthe
Rulesof Court to theeffectthatthepleading shallbeconfined to those
mattersthatare relevantto theobjection,the ColombianPleading goes
extensively into the merits. A simple browse throughthe pleading
introduced by Colombia as preliminary objections will show that
considerably more than half of the substance of those pleadings is
devotedto arguments ontlremeritsofthe presentcase.
12. Colombia's akkemptto escapethejurisdictionof the Courtmustbe seen
againstthe background of the permanentthreats of the useof force to
maintain heralleged rights to thSan Andr6sarchipelago,the cays in
dispute andthe continentalshelf and the waters east of the 82" W
Meridian.Apart fromthe threateningreality of the permanentpatrolof
the ColombianNavy overthe area indispute,defacto barringtheuse by Nicaragua andher people of these resources,Colombiaatthe highest
levelthreatenedNicaraguawiththeuse of force.On24 April2003, that
isjustafewdaysbeforeNicmgua filed herMemorialagainstColombia,
herPresident,Mr.~lvaro Uribestated inan interviewthatif Nicaragua
startedoil explorations"we wouldproceedto stop it with theNavy, of
coursewe w~uld."~
13. Thefollowing day ViceAdmiralDavidRenthioreno, InspectorGeneral
oftheColombianNavy, stated:
"(T)hereis a securitymechanisinthearea ofSan Andrts
andProvidenc tiatpermits the count~tobar theillegal
useofourjurisdictional aritimewaters
6-.)
The officer added that the SpecificCommand of San
Andrks and Providencia,navalunits,navyinfantrytroops
and a componentof theAirForceguarrmtet ehesecurityof
San Andrks.
ElTiempostated thattheNavy patrolsSan Andrb witha
reconnaissancplane,severalpatrolborlttwo frigatesand
about600 troopsfromtheMarineCorps.
TheNavy plans the constructionof a coast guardstation
andaradarforSanAndr6s inorder toincreasethe scaleof
theoperations.""
9 NWS,Vol. 11,Annex8.
10NWS, Vol. 11,Annex9.14. TheColombianMinister ofDefence, Ms. MartaLuciaRamirez,during a
visittotheSanAndrisArchipelago a few month laterinthecompany of
ColombianPresidentUribe, reiterated theGovernment'sintention of
buildingacoastguardstation:
"Thisobjectiveisapriorityof theMinistryof Defencefor
the comingyear.Itis aplanin which we expectto work
togetherwiththe AuthoritieofSanAnd& and the local
leadersbecause thecoast guard stationhas an strategic
importanceforexertingmaritimesovereignty.""
These examplesare only some of the more recent cases ofmilitary
threatsby Colombia.Butthesemenaceshavebeena constantsince the
disputeeruptedin 1969.Thedetailof thisinitialphaseof thedisputeare
describedin theNicaraguan~ernorial'~. InbriefNicaraguagranted a
concessionforoilexploratioto WesternCaribbe aetroleumCo.on 17
February1967 thatextendedtomaritime areaseastofthe 82"Meridian
W. Colombiaprotested thisconcessionina diplomatic nodated4 June
1969. Thediplomaticnotewas fallowedbytheannouncemeno tf military
manoeuvres intheareaindispute;
"...the National Navy has ordered that two
destroyers...shouldpermanentpatrolthemaritimeareain
disputein orderto enforcerespectforthesovereigntyover
thecays..7-13
16. In orderto understandfullythe implicationsof this announcement,the
militarysituationmustbe understood.TheNicaraguanNational Army
IINWS, Vol.11,Annex10.
l2NM, Vol.I,paras.2.204,2.205 and2.212.
'3NWS, Vol.11,Annex11.
8 (GuardiaN'acional) did nothave in 1969,any patrolboatsthatcould go
beyondthe islandsandcays located nearto the mainland coast.The
presenceof two Colombiandestroyers,added to the usual patroboats
displayedin thearea,wasa formidable threatforNicaragua.
17. Theconductof Colombiaspeaks foritself.Ontheone hand Colombiais
attemptingto avoidthejurisdictionofthe Coul'talleging,interalia, that
the controversyhas been alreadysettled by mangement betweenthe
Partieswhenit obviouslyhasnot.Onthe otherhandColombia has been
using forceand the threatof theuse of force in orderto imposeher
unilateralinterpretatinf aTreatysheclaims tobe inforce.
18. The allegatioof Colombia hat the disputehiisalreadybeensettledby
arrangement between the Partiesis belied by her conduct.I1977 the
then Presidentof Colombia,Mr.Alfonso LbpezMichelsen,announced
publiclythat negotiationswould be started with Nicaraguain orderto
reach a maritimedelimitationin theCaribbeanT. hisannouncementwas
followedby severalvisits of ColombianAmbassadorJulio l,ondofioto
Managuato discusstheissues withthe ForeignMinisterof ~icara~ua".
Nearly 20 years later,in September 1995, the then Presidentof
Colombia,Mr. Ernesto SamperPizano,and his ForeignMinister,Mr.
RodrigoPardoGarcia-PeRa,announcedthat negotiations would begin
withNicaraguaon maritimedelimitatioandotherpendingissues.'5
19. Finally,therewere offersof diplomaticnegotiationsby the Colombian
Authoritiesin2001. Ofcourse,aspointedout inparagraph 10above,this
offerturnedoutto be simplya manoeuvreforgainingthenecessarytime
l4Seebelow,para.1-67.
l5See below,para-70. forattemptingto withdrawheracceptanceof theCourt" jurisdictionon
the basisoher optionalclausededarationI6.
20. Thi s rittenStatementdealswiththeColombianPP-eliminay bjections
inthe followingmanner:
Chapter IsummarizesNicaragua'spositiononthelegastatusofthe1928
Treaty.
ChapterI1dealswiththe Prelimi~zaryObjections relatto the Pactof
Bogot&
Chapter III dealswiththePreliminaryObjectiom relattotheOptional
ClauseDeclarations.
Chapter TVdealswiththeexistenceofadisputeinthe contexofboththe
Pactof Bogoti andtheOptionalClausejurisdiction.
16Seebelow,paras1.82-1.84.
10 CHAPTERI
THE LEGALSTATUSOFTHF, 1928 TREATY
I. Introduction
1.1 ChapterII of the NicaraguanMemorial deals atlengthwith the legal
statusof the Bkrcenas-EsguerraTreatyof 1928. Nicaraguawill not
reiteratthestatementsof factsandotherargumentson themeritsthatare
dealtwiththroughoutthemorethan 120pages of thatChapter.But as
pointed out in the Introduction,more than half the Colombian
Prelimina rbjections arereallyargumentson the facts andmeritsof
the case. Thismakes it necessaryto put the recordstraighteven if it
involvesgoingintofactsandarguments thatshouldproperlybelefttothe
merits.
SectionIof Chapter JIof theNicaraguanMemorialexplainsindetailthe
historical backgroundand contemporaneousevents that led to the
signatureandratificatioof the 1928Treaty.The contentsof this Section
will not be reiteratedin this Statementexcept by cross-reference.
Thereforethe presentChapterwill involve the following issues on the
meritsthatareraisedby ColombiainherPrdiminaiy Objections:(i) The
reasons for the invalidityof the 1928 Treaty;(ii) The contentand
juridical analysisthe Treaty;and,(iii)ThereasonswhytheTreaty,in
theeventuality-whichNicaraguadoes notaccept-that itis considereto
have enteredinto force, has been terminateclas a consequenceof its
breachbyColombia. IIInvalidityofthe1928 Treaty
1.3 IntheSubmissionsof theNicaraguanMemorial,theCourtis requesteto
adjudgeanddeclarethat,
"(4) the Barcenas-Esguerrareatysiped in Managuaon
24 March 1928was notlegallyvalid aninparticular,did
not provide a legal basis for Colombianclaimto San
Andrds andProvidencia."
1.4 The legalbasisfortheNicaraguanrequestis twofold. Firstly,withfull
Colombianknowledgeof the factthe Treatywas concluded inopen
violatioof the NicaraguanConstitutioof 1911 thatwas in force in
1928. Secondly,theNicaraguanGovernment atthetime theTreatywas
concluded,did nothave the internationlapacitto freelyexpressits
consenttobeboundbytreaties.
A.THE1928 TREAT WYASCONCLUD EDMANIFES VTIOLATIOONFTHE
NICARAGUA CONSTITUTION
1.5 Thequestionwhethertheconclusionof the 1928Treatywas inmanifest
violatiooftheNicaraguan Constitutiis dealtwitinparagraph2s.103
to2.121of theNicaraguan Memorial.Colombia dealwiththisquestion
inparagraphs1.lO So1.111ofherPreliminaryObjections.
1.6 The argument sfColombia againstthisNicaraguanclaimarethat:
(i) Yhe allegedviolationotheNicaraguanConstitutiowas not
onlynot((sic)manifetoColombiaor anythirdState-''; (ii] "theConstitution theninforce(didnot) specifythatthe San
AndrtsArchipelagowas partof theterritoryof Nicaragua; in
point of fact,no Constitution of Nicaragua has ever so
provided." (CPO,Vol. I,para.1.110:)
The NicaraguanConstitution in force in 1928was the Constitutionof
1911.Themeaningof theNicaraguanConstitutionap l rovisionsrelevant
to thiscase wereputbeforetheCentralAmericanCourtof Justicein a
case broughtby EI Salvador.El Salvadoralleged thatthe Chamorro-
BryanTreatyconcludedby Nicaraguawith the UnitedStatesin 1914,
wherebyNicaragualeased part of her territoryto the United States,
violatedthe NicaraguanConstitution.The Court on 9 January1917
concludedthat enteringintothe Treatyindeedviolatedthe Nicaraguan
Constitutiothat"requiredthemaintenanceof territoriailntegrity."I7
1.8 Thisdecision was we11 knownlocally md even internationally.twas
published,for example in its entirety in the American Journal of
Internationa~aw]' tinvolved a Treatyto whichthe United Stateswas
apartyand notjust aquestionof a minorlocal dispute.ThusColombia
was verywell informedof theseConstitutionalprovisions,as were third
Statelikethe UnitedStates,which was reallytheColombiancounterpart
inthenegotiationsandconclusionof the1928 'haty''.
1.9 The questionwhy theNicaraguanConstitution in forcein 1928 did not
specifythat San Andrks was part of the Nicaraguanterritoryis not
surprisingor meaningful.No Constitutionof Nicaragua has ever
expressly referredby name to any of the islandsappertainingto her
1NM, Vol. 1,par2.110.
18TheAnlei-icJotma1 of~n~ernationaL/aw.Val.11. 917,p.650 atpp.674-
730.
lNM, Vol.I,Sec.ICliap.11. territoryThe Nicaraguan Constitutions,includingthat of 1911,
traditionallyreferredin genertothe "adjacenty.here is no specific
mention ofSan Anws asthereis no specificmentionof anyotherisland
claimed by Nicaraguasuch asthe CornTslands(Islusdel Maiz) orthe
MiskitaCays.
1.10 But thepointis of norelevance.Colombia was perfectlyawareof the
Nicaraguanclaim toSan Andris.She cannotevenavoidrecognizing the
factinherPreliminaryObjections.Justbyreadingparagraph1s1to 13of
the Introductioto ColombianPreliminav Objections it becomesclear
thatColombia was awarethatNicaraguaconsideredSanAnMs to be
part of her territorand that this claimarose from her claim to
sovereigntyover the AtlanticCoastbasedon theutipussidetis iuris of
1821.
1.I1 Colombiamisleadingly states"In 1913 Nicaraguafor the firstime
advancedclaims to certainislandoftheArchipelagoof SanAr~dds."~'
Presumablythis statementis an attemptoset thefoundationsfor later
arguingthatthe 1911 Constitutionpreceded theclaimof Nicaraguato
San And& andthat was thenthe reasonwhy theseislandswere not
specificallymentioneintheConstitution.
1.12 One examplegivingthe lieto this statementis the ArbitralAwarof
FrenchPresidentLoubetof 1900.TheAwardconcernedterritoriac llaims
byColombia and CostaRica.ColombiahadincludedSan hdks among
her claimsagainstCostaRicaC.ostaKca hadno claims to SanAnWs
and didnotcontesttheissueandPresidentLoubet decidedforColombia.
Nicaragua was nota Part yothe Arbitratioandprotestedthe decision
declaringSanAndrksto be under Colombiansovereignty. The French
20
CPO, Vol.I,Introducti,ara.13.
14 Ministerof Foreign Affairs,ThCophileDelcasse,on 22 October 1900,
acknowledged the rightnessofthe protestand confirmed"therightsof
Nicaragua overtheseislandsstandunaltered and intacasheret~fore".~'
1.13 As statedin paragraph1.10 above, the claims of Nicaraguaover the
Archipelagoare basedon the uti possideiisiuriof 1821 andnaturally
datefrom thattime.Thisquestionwill of corn be addressedwhenthe
meritsof thiscase are beforethe Court. Atthispointtheexampleof the
Loerbeiaffairis givas simpleand incontrovertibleroofof thespecious
natureof theColombianstatements.
1.14 In sum,the Treaty,plainly and manifestlysurdto the knowledgeof
Colombia,violatedtheNicaraguan Constitution.
B.THE NICARAGUA GNOVERNMEN DIDNOT HAVE TIIEINTERNATICINAI,
CAPACI'I'YTBE BOI.INDBYTI~EATIES
1.I5 Thepositionof Nicaraguaon thequestionof the invalidityof the 1928
Treaty isthatatthe time of its conclusioNicaragua did nothavethe
legalcapacityto freelyexpressherconsent to be bound by thatTreaty.
The incapacity of the Nicaraguan Government 10 act freely is
documented in great detaiin Nicaragua'sMemorialin Section I of
ChapterI1andwill notbe repeatedinthisStatement.Suffice itto quote
paragraph2.132 of theNicaraguanMemorial:
"(T)hesituationofNicaraguaatthetimeof thesigningand
ratificationof the Barcenas-Esguerr'Treatywas that her
- -
'NM, Vol.1,para1.108atp.53,fn.89.territorwasunderthemilitary occupationandthede facto
financialand politicalcontrolof the United States. The
following facts, for example, are irrefutableabased
directlondocuments made publicbythe StateDepartment
of the United Statesand detailedabove in Section I,
paragraphs2.41-2-81:
-thereweremore than 5000 UnitedStatesmarines
occupyingNicaragua atthetimetheTreaty was concluded;
-thechiefoftheNationalGuardof Nicaragua was a
United StatesGeneral and theofficerswere UnitedStates
marines;
-theelectionswere run undertheabsolutecontrol
of theUnited Statesmarines. ThePresidentof Nicaragua
was forced to bypass Congress and dictate an
unconstitutionaExecutiveDecreegivingabsolutepowers
over the elections to the United States marines.This
unconstitutionaDecree was dictatedon 21 March1928
three days before the conclusion sf the also
unconstitutionaBl hcenas-EsguerraTreaty of 24 March
1928;
- customs revenueswere collected by an oMicer
appointedbytheStateDepartment;
-financeswerecontrolledby personsdesignatedde
fuctobyUnitedStatesGeneralMcCoy;and
-the only Bank andthe onlyrailroadin Nicaragua
were under the control of personsappointed with the
approvalofthe StateDepartment."(Footnotesomitted)1.16 The ColombianPreliminary Objections simply dismiss the historical
recordwithpoliticalinvective:
"On 19July1979,theSandinista Movementcame topower
inNicaragua.Thereaftera , processto increaseNicaragua's
militarypowerand armaments-unprecedented in Central
American history- beganand ..Someseven monthslater,
Nicaraguapurported to questiontheterritorilndmaritime
settlementreachedhalf a centuryearlierwiththeEsguerra-
BArcenas Treatyof 1928and its Protocol of Exchange of
Ratificationsof 930."'~
1.17 This portrayalis carriovertoNicaragua'sMemorial,
"In its Memorial,Nicaragua adopts and expands upon the
'patrioticand revolutionary'analysis in its White Paper'of
1980.'"~
1.18 Insum,theColombianargumentsaread homir~ema ,ttemptingtoportray
the whole issue of the invalidity of the Treaty as a matter of
"revolutionary"zeal: "The alleged nullity c~fthe 1928 Treaty was;
discoveredbytheRevolutionaryJuntain 1980.. .524
1.19 Inrelationtothe Colombianportrayalof theNicaraguan Governmentin
1980,Nicaraguamerelypointsout thatColombiamightget a betterfocus
uponthesituationby consideringthe 1986Jutlgmentof the Courtin the
case concerningMiditag and Paramilitary activities in and against
Nicaragua(Nicaragua v.UnitedStatesofAme~icu).Thismightalsogive
''CPO, Vol. I,para.1.93.
23CPO, VOI.I,para.1.99.
24CPO, VoI.I,para1.105.heran insightinto what was happeningin Nicaragua in1928 to 1930
when she was occupiedbytheUnitedStates.
Withrespect tothesubjectof theconductof thePartieiis necessarto
set the record straightand point out how differentthe conduct of
NicaraguaandColombia has been.AlthoughNicaraguais not apartyto
the ViennaConvention of 1969, she has respectedthenorms of that
Conventionthat reflect customarylaw. SpecificallyNicaraguawas
carefulwhere applicabletofollowtheprocedure set fortinarticle65
and 67of theViennaConvention on theLawof Treaties.Thus,whenthe
NicaraguanGovernment declaredtheinvalidityof theBircenas-Esguerra
Treaty,thestatementwasread beforeallthediplomaticcorpsaccredited
in the countryincludingthe Ambassadorof Colombia The Statement
alsoexplainedthe reasonson whichthedeclarationwasbased andthe
measuresthatitplannedto take.Thesemeasureswerespelledout inthe
announcementof the declarationof invalidityof the Treaty. The
announcemen otf theNicaraguanGovernmensttated:
"It is ourfirmdesireand purpose to solve this problem,
which unfortunatelseems to place atodds two brother
peoples,ina bilateralmannerandwithinthestrictenorms
of respectandfriendshiprecognizedby Internationalaw,
without implying in any way that Nicaragua gives an
validity to the Bacenas Meneses-EsguerraTreaty, but
insteadsimplythatwe aredefendersto theutmostof the
unity and harmony of Latin America, the regional
communityof whichourtwonations fom a part.''5
25Nicaragua'sWhitePaperonthecaseof SanAndks andProvidencia.Libro
Blancosobre elcasode SunAndrdsy PruvidencM iui,isterioRelaciones Itis truethatNicaragua unilateralldeclared thattheTreaty was null and
void but, aside from the declaration itself, Nicaragua hasnot takena
single unilateral stthat affectsthesituation.'fiat is tsay,Nicaragua
hasnot attemptedf,ollowingherdeclarationt ,o takeoverSanAndks or
dictatethepolicyof thoseislands.ItwasperfecflycleartoNicaraguathat
theonly way to achievethis goalwas through themechanisms provided
by internationallaw. If Nicaraguadid notdo this inthe 1980s,following
the declarationof invalidity, it was clearly because of the difficult
situationthecountry was goingthroughatthetime. Itwas verydificult
for the NicaraguanGovernmentin thatperiod to consider recourse to
judicial or arbitralsolutions,when it had its hands fullon all fronts,
includingseveral cases pendingbeforethe Court. Itwas not untilthe
nineties, and specifically after having concluded the last matter
NicaraguahadbeforetheCourtwhichendedwiththeJudgment in 1992
inthe case concerningLand,Islandand Mariiime FrontierDispute (El
SaEvador/HonduN ricaraguaintervening), that Nicaraguaforthe first
time was able to seriouslythink aboutconfrorlting this caseIn fact,in
1995 Nicaragua and Colombia began negotiaticrnthatwerefmstratedby
internalappositionin~olombia.~~
1.22 Theconductof Colombiahasbeenverydifferent from thatof Nicaragua.
Firstshc self-servinglyinterpretethe 1928Treaty-ineffect,inventing a
non-existentborderthatseversmorethanhalf ofNicaragua m'sritime
spacesalong her entire Caribbeancoast. Secondly, this interpretation,
whichhadradicaland seriousconsequencesthatviolentlyaffected the
situation,was notsubmittedto bilateraldialogueorresolutionby a third
party, but instead Colombia imposed respect for this self serving
. - - - - - - -- - - -
Exterioresde lRepiblicade Nicaragua,Managua.4 Feb.1980,p. 4. NM, Vol.
IIAnnex 73.
" Seebelowparas. 1.70-1.79. interpretationythe useofforce andbythe threatof theuseofforce.In
fact, the PrelirnimryObjectionsthemselvesarea continuatioof this
policyof refusingto solvethe disputein conformitywith international
law. There was nothing to prevent Colombia from submittingher
"interpretation"f thTreat ty athirdbodybeforeimposingit byforce.
Nicaragua,quiteto thecontrary, asnottriedto imposeherwillthrough
defacto actionsbutrathehasresortedto peacefumeansof
1.23 Again,Nicaragua whishesto make clearthatthese questionarebriefly
dealtwithinthisSection sinceColombia devotesmorethan90pagesout
of the 145 pages of textof her Prelimina Oryjectionto discussing
them; however, Nicaraguareiteratesthat they belong to the very
substanceofthe case,nottothepresentpreliminarystage.
1.24 Theother aspectof the Colombiancharacterizatioonf the Nicaraguan
Declarationof Invalidityof the 2928 Treatyis that it wassimplya
revolutionarymatterthatexplodedex nihiloby spontaneou sombustion
in 1980. This is simply not true .he Introductionto this Written
Statement quotes a DiplomaticNote sent by theNicaraguanForeign
Ministerin 1972to both Colombia and the UnitedStatesin whichhe
expressesNicaragua's positionthat there isa question pending with
respectto the '*validitof the Bkcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty,its
historicalandlegalbackground n,orthecircumstance surroundingits
conclusion"L. ater,whentherewasa discussionin Nicaraguaabut the
Colombianoffer of negotiations:*Dr. AlejandmMontielArgfiello, the
thenForeignMinister of Nicaragua,reiterateinapressinterviewon 30
27The questionoftheconductofthePartiescanbeseenbelowin paras1.46-
1.8and 3.91-3.104.
28See belowpara.1.67.January1977,thatthequestionof thevalidity oFthe1928Treatywasnot
aclosedsubject.
"Withregardsto the Bkcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty, this
Chancellerysubmitted itfor study,bothfromthehistoricalpoint
of view, aswell asthejudicialandgeographicalaspects.I cannot
say in advance what the resultsof that studywill be,as my
opinion is that on internationalaffairsthat affect the nation's
sovereignty, no anticipatedconclusions should be formulated
becausein manycases leadto a lost litigations.AHNicaraguans
who have knowledge of the subject,can collaboratewith this
study, or provide data and wgumenls. Besides, as you will
understand, Mr. Journalist, any opinion thatI may give as
Chancellorw, ill compromiseNicaragua'sposition;yet, a private
individual can express any opinion without causing any
The Nicaraguan Governmentin 1980 only drewthelogical conclusions
from the traditionallyexisting position on this issue. The three
Nicaraguan Governments that have followedthe Governmentsof the
1980s have maintainedthis position. It hasheen a consistentnational
policy.
MontielArgiielloAlejandro.Didogos con el Camciller. Ministerde
RelacionesExteriores.lmprentaNationaManagua,pp. 14-16.NWS, Vol. 11,
Annex 2. 111.TheContentand JuridicalAnalysisof The1928Treaty
ThisSectionis devotedto twcentraquestionsthaareatissuebetween
Nicaraguaand Colombia.Thefirstquestionreferstothe extent ofthe
Archipela of San And& thatwas recognizedas underColombian
sovereigntyinthe1928Treaty.ColombiacontendsthathisArchipelago,
withanareaof 17squaremiles3',extendsovehundredsof milesinthe
CaribbeanSea and that it generatesthousandsof squaremiles of
maritime areasto the benefit of Colombia and the detriment of
Nicaragua.Thisis dealtwithin SubsectionA below.Thesecoissueis
the Colombianinterpretation,made for the firsttime in 2969,thatthe
languageused in the Protocol of ExchaofeRatificatioofthe 1928
Treaty,implieda radicalchangeinthenatureof thisinstrumthawas
convertedfrom a treaty concerningsovereigntyover territointoa
treatof delimitatiinthehighseas;a maritimedelimitaticoveringa
distanceof morethan250nauticamiles.Thisis dealtwithinSubsection
B,below.
A. mE EXTEN OFTHEARCHIPELAG OOSAN ANDES
1.26 The Memorial ofNicaragua maintainsthat the Archipelagoof San
Andrksonly includ ehe islandsofSm Andrksand Providenciaand
adjacentisletsancays,butdoesnotinclude,amongothers,thefeatures
of Sermna,Roncador,Quitasuefio, Serranillaand Bajo ~uevo?' The
Memorial concludes that the features of Roncndor, Serrana and
30Seeabovefn2.
3'NM, Vol. I,par2.139ff. Quitasueiio,whichwere"explicitlexcludedfrom theBBrcenas-Esguerra
Treaty arenot legallor geographicallypartof theArchipelagoof San
Andres and ~rovidencia T'h?M~ emorialfurtherobservesthat,
"The Barcenas-Esguerr areatydid not mention Serranilla
or Bajo Nuetro, since atthat time Colombia was not
claimingthesefeatures.Thefactthatthesefeatureare not
mentioned in the treaty, and that they are located
respectively165 and 205 nauticalmiles fromthe nearest
island of the ArchipelagoofSan Anclrks,the Island of
Providencia,is proofthatthey are nor.geographicallyor
legally part ofthe 'Archipelagoof Sm AndrCs'.They
appertainto Nicaragua since tl~ey are located on her
continentalshelfand,asaresultof the applicatofthewfi
possidetis iuris, they also appertainto Nicaraguagiven
theirgreaterproximitytohermainland"33
1.27 On the otherhand,in the Preliminary Objeclions Colombia maintains
thatthe Archipelago of San Andks includesthe featuresof Serrana,
Roncador, QuitasueAo, Serranillaand Bajo ~uevo.~~Colombiaasserts
that her position is supportedby geographical, historicaland legal
arguments.'5As will be shown inthefollowingparagraphnsoneof these
arguments isconvincingorsupportedbyanytangibleevidence.
WM, Val.I, para.2.187.
" NM, Vol.I,para.2.188(footnoteomitted).
" See, foinstancCPO, Vol.1,paras.I.72,2.26 and2.27.
35CPO, Vol.1,paras.2.26an2.28.1.28 As far as geographicaland historicalargumentare concerned,the
PreliminaryObjectionsobservthat:
"Geographicallyandhistoricallythe Archipelagoof San
Andreswasunderstood ascomprisingthestringof islands,
cays, islets andbanksstretchifrom Albuquerque in the
south to Ser~anilandBajoNuevointhenorth-including
the Islas Mangles(Corn Islands)-and the appurtenant
maritime areas.It is apparentfroma glanatMapNo. 3
thatthose featuresconstitutea single islchain which
formsthe
1.29 Colombia doesnot adduceanyevidencethat historicaltheArchipelago
was understood in thissense.On the otherhand, Nicaragua in the
MemorialpresentsproofthattheArchipelagohistoricalwas considered
ta consistonlyof theislandsoSanAndks,ProvidenciaS , mtaCatalina
andthe Corn Islands,surroundeby severalisletsand cayof the same
typc3'
1.30 The ColombianassertionthattheArchipelagoof Sm Andrks asdefined
by Colombiais a stringofislands,isletsandbanksorconstituasingle
islandchain stretchesthe ordinarymeaningof the terms 'string'and
'singlechain'.Ascanbe apprecia fredMap No.3 towhichColombia
refers,thefeaturesof Serrana,Roncado, uitasueiio,Semnilla andBajo
Nuevo are scatteredfaandwide apartover alargeareaof theWestern
CaribbeanF. orinstance,thbank of Serranalies 80 nauticalmiles from
Providencia,he closestislandof theArchipelagand LowCayon the
36CPO, Vol.I,para.2.26. ThereferentoMap No. 3 concernMap No. 3
containedinCPO,Vol.111.
37NM,Vol.I,para.2,141. bank of Bajo Nuevolies 205nautical milesfromthatsameisland.3p As it
wasalreadypointedoutintheNicaraguanMemorial,allofthesefeatures
are situated on top of isolatedbanks?9 This is furtherproof that
geographicalIyandgeomorphologically,thesefeaturesare separateand
donot forma singleunit.
1.31 Practicecontemporary to the conclusionof the 1928 Treatyshowsthat
these featuresalsodid notconstituta singlearchipelagoin legalterms.
Thedefinitionoftheterm'archipelago' wasthesubjectof somedebate at
The HagueCodificationConferenceof the Leagueof Nationsof 1930.
The reportaftheSecondSub-Committen eotedin thirespect:
"Withregard to agroup of islands(archipelago)ndislands
situatedalongthecoast,themajorityof theSub-committee
was of[sic] opinionthata distanceof ten milesshould be
adoptedas a basisformeasuringtheterritoriasleaouhvavd
inthedirectionofthehigh sea.'"
1.32 The featuresof Semna, Roncador,Quitasueiia,Smanilla and Bajo
Nuevo are ata muchlargerdistancefromtheislandsof San And& and
Providenciathanthe 10miles proposedatTheHagueConference.
1.33 The legal conceptof archipelagos, and archipelagicStates,has been
furtherdevelopedunderthemodemlawof the sea. Thisdevelopment of
the law inet of relevanceforthe definitionof theArchipelagoof San
Andres under the 1928 Treaty. However,Yicaraguawould like to
38
Forfigureson the otherfeaturesconcerneseeNM, Vol. I,paras3.118-
3.123.
"NM, Vol.I,paras.3.11ff.
40 League of Nations,Acts of the Conference for .?heCod@cutiotv of
Inlernational Law, Vol. III Minutes of the Second Commiftee: Tmitorial
Waters,p.219. The subjecof archipelagowas not discussefurtherin the
plenaroftheConference. observe that none of the islands in the area of relevancefor the
delimitationcan be considered to form part ofan archipelagoin the
presentdaylegal senseandthattheestablishmen tfstraightarchipelagic
baselinesbetween any of the islandsinthe areaof relevancefor the
delimitationbetweenNicaragua andColombia is notpermitted.
1.34 Colombiaalso arguesthattraditianallyandhistorically"thecays" -no
specificationis given whichcaysareexactlyconcerned-havebeenthe
fishinggrounds forthepeopleof theArchipelagoof San~n&&s!' The
Preliminq Objectionsdo not corroborate thisstatement with any
evidence,justas theyfailto substantiatehattheseactivitihistorically
were regulatedby Colombia.In any case the mere fact of fishing
activitieof nationalin aspecificareais notrelevantforestablishina
titlto territory.
1.35 Finally,Colombiamaintains thatpublishedmapsshowthatthe islands
comprisingthe Archipela ofgoan AnMs also includethe featuresef
Serrana,Roncador,Quitasuefio,Semilla and Bajo~uevo.~' A first
point to be noted in respect of these maps is that they have been
publishedby ColombiaT . herewasno map annexed to the 1928Treaty,
whichdefmes the extentofthe Archipelagoof SanAndds. Itis thetext
of thisTreatythatfirstofallis relevantandnotthe mapsreferredto by
Colombia. As will be arguedbelow in paragraph 1.43,the textofthe
TreatyindicatesthattheArchipelagoof Sm And& as definedforthe
pwposes of the Treaty does not comprise the features of Serrana,
RoncadorQ , uitasuefi, erranilandBaioNuevo.
4'CPO, VoI.I,para1.15.
42CPO,VOI.I, para2.27.1.36 Carefulinspectionof themags presented by Colombia indicatethatitis
farfromclearfrom thesemapswhat islandsandotherfeaturesColombia
consideredtobe includedinthe Archipelagoof SanAndres.Forinstance,
the insertof the MappubIishedin 1931,to which Colombia refersin
paragraph 2.27of the Preliminay Objectionsand whichis reproducedas
Map4 bis in VolumeI11of the same,does not indicatewhichislandsare
includedin the archipelagoby attachinga label to each of the features
included in the mag. The placementof the IabeI 'Rep6bIicade
Nicaragua' tothewest of theislandsofSanAndrks and Providencia,and
not furtherto the north also suggests that Colombia at that time
consideredthatthe 1928Treatywas concernedwiththese islandsandnot
thevarious bankslocatedfurthertothenorth.
A noteincludedinthe inserttothe 1931Map makesit evenclearerthat
the insert does not prove whichislandsandcays were includedin the
Archipelagoof SanAndrks.The notestates that within the limitsof the
insertcertainislandsarenot included.This concernsamongothersthe
rockof Vigla to thenorth the mouthof theMagdalena Riverw , hichis
locatedontheColombianmainland coastborderingtheCaribbean Sea.If
the Colombianassertion that the insert sllows the extent of the
Archipelagoof SanAndrksis acceptedthis note wouldimply thatthe
rockof Vigia is partof the ArchipelaTghisclearlyisnotthe case,and
thisfactindicatesthatthe featuresincludedin theinsertalso do not of
necessityformpartoftheArchipelaT ghoeobservationsinrespectof the
insertreproducedas Map4 his also apply tothe insertof Colombian
mapsreproduced as Maps5 bis to 8 bi,~inVolume I1of thePreliminary
ObjectionsofColombia.
1.38 Theinsertsincludedin theColombianmapsreproducedas Maps9 bis to
II bis in Volume 111of the Preliminaty Objections do not makeany referencetothe Archipelagoof SanAnd& and ProvidenciaT.hus these
mapsdo not provideany indicationof the extentof the Archipelagoof
San Andrks.
1.39 Colombiaasserts that,legally,Nicaraguahad alreadyacknowledgedin
the 1928TreatythatRoncador,Quitasuefio andSerranawerepartof the
Archipelagoof SanAndris andProvidencia.To reachthisconclusion,
Colombiagives a specific interpretatiof the 1928 Treaty.Colombia
argues thatartic Ilef the Treatyreferstothe islandsofSan Andks,
Providenciaand alltheotherislands,isleandcaysthatform partof the
said archipelagoof San Andrds.Colombiafurtherarguesthat the
inclusionof a referenceto Roncador,Quitasueiioand Sema in the
followingparagraph of this articleimpliea recognitionby Nicaragua
thatthesefeaturesformedpartoftheArchipelago and would,butforthat
statement,havebeendealt with astheislandsmentionedinthe firstpart
of article
1.40 Inthe Memorial,Nicaraguaalreadyhas setoutthereasonsforrejecting
that she hadrenouncedher sovereignty overthe featuresof Serrana,
Roncadorand QuitasueAounderthe terms of the 1928 ~reaty.~ The
PrelimipsaryObjectionsof Colombianecessitatesome furthercomment
onthis point.
1-41 TheColombian argumentstartsfrom thepropositionthatthedefinitionof
theArchipelagoof SanAnd& inthe 1928 Treatyincludesthefeatureof
Roncador Q,uitasueiio and Serrana.Nicaragua considers that this
interpretatioof ArticleI ofthe 1928 Treatyis mistaken.As can be
appreciated,thisdefinitiononly refersto threeislandsby nameto wit
43CPO,Vol.I, para2.27.
44NM, Vol.1,paras2.149ff.SanAndrds,Providencia and SantaCatalina.Otherfeaturesareincluded
onthebasisof theirforminga partof theArchipelagoof San Andres.As
was arguedin paragraph1.29 above, historically,the Archipelagowas
not consideredto include the features of Serrana,Roncador and
Quitasueiio.Thismakes itimpossibleto acceptthattheyareincludedin
the definitionunderthe 1928Treatysolely by;Igeneralreferenceto the
Archipelago of SanAndrks.In this connectionit canbe notedthatthe
Courtin a similarsituation,involvingtheislets of Ligitan andSipadan,
observedthat,
"..th relationsbetweentheNetherlands andtheSultanate
of Bulunganwere governedbya series ofcontractsentered
intobetween them. The Contractsof 32 November 1850
and 2 June 1878 laid down the limits of the SuItanate.
Theselimitsextendedtothe northofthe landboundarythat
was finally agreedin 1891 between tl~eNetherlandsand
Great Britain. For this reason the Netherlands had
consulted the Sultan before concludi~~gthe Convention
with GreatBritainand was moreoverobliged in 1893 to
amendthe 1878Contractin order totake intoaccountthe
delimitationof 1891. The new text stipulatedthat the
islandsof TarakanandNanukan, and that portionof the
islandof Sebatiksituatedto thesouthotheboundaryline,
belonged to Bulungan,together with "the small islands
belongingtotheaboveislands,so far astheyaresituateto
the southof the boundary-line". he Courtobservesthat
thesethreeislandsaresurroundedby manysmallerislands
thatcouldbe saidto"belong"to themgeographicaI1y T.he
Court,however,considers thathiscannotapplyto Ligitan and Sipadan,which are situatedmore than 40 nautical
milesaway fromthethreeislandsinquestion.'"5
1.42 Roncador,QuitasueiioandSerranaare located at a similaror larger
distancefrom the islandsmentionedby name in ArticleI othe I928
TreatyasLigitanand Sipadanfrom Tarakan,Nanukan and Sebatik.
1.43 Havingconcludedthatthedefinitionofthe Archipelagoof SanAndrQin
Article1of the1928Treatydoesnot includeRoncador,Quitasueiioand
Senana,thequestionremainsif theexplicitreferenceto thesefeaturesin
the Treatybringsthem withinthisdefinition,as is arguedby Colombia.
Thereis nothingin thetreatyto suggestthatthis is thecase.As thetitle
ofthe treatyindicateitisconcerned withterritoril uestionsbetween
ColombiaandNicaragua.Similarly,thepreambleof thetreatyrefers to
theterritoril isputependingbetweenthem.Thisindicatethatthetreaty
was not onlyconcernedwithfeaturesformingpartof theArchipelagoof
San Andres,butalso with other territy.urthermoret,hesecondsection
of ArticlIofthe treatyprovide'TheRoncador, QuitasuefiandSerrana
caysarenotconsideredto beincludedinthiT sreaty'.Thus, itdoesnot
statethatthesethreefeaturesare includein theArchipelago.If ihad
been the intentioof the draftersof the Treatyto providethatthese
featuresformedpartof theArchipelago,the secondsectionof ArticlI
could be expected to have provided thatRoncador, QuitasueiIoand
Serranawere not considered'"tobe includedin the definitionof the
Archipelagoof SanAnd& forthepurposes ofthisTreaty.'"
1.44 These argumentsconcerningthe definitionof the Archipelagoof San
AndrCs applyafortio o SerranillaandBajoNuevo. These featureare
45 Case concernin Sovereignly over PulmLigitm and Pulau Sipadan
{Jndonssia/Maqs iad gmenpt,ra64.
46Emphasisadded. at anevengreaterdistancefromtheislandsmentionedbynameinArticle
I of the 1928Treaty,andhistoricallytheyalso were not consideredto be
part of the Archipelago.Unlike the otherthree featuresno reference
whatsoeveris made to Bajo Nuevo and Serraniliain the 1928 Treaty.
Consequentlyt ,heColombia1assertion thatthese featuresareincludedin
thedefinitionof theArchipelagoof SanAnd& of the 1928~reaty~~ has
to berejected.As was setoutintheMemor.ia2 t, roughapplicationof the
principleof utipossidetis iuris the featuresof bncador, Quitasuefio,
Serma, Serranillaand Baja Nuevo appertainto ~icara~ua.~*As was
argued, thew is noexplicitmentionof these features inthe actsof the
SpanishCrown.In this case, the applicationof the zitpossidefis iuris
principleshouldbe understoodin termsof attachmentto or dependence
ontheclosestcontinentatlerritory,hatof~icara~ua.~~
1.45 NicaraguaandColombiaalso differovertheeffectofthe referencetothe
features of Roncador, Quitasueiio and Semma in the 1928 Treaty.
Colombia considers that this provision implies that between them
Nicaragua and Colombiaagreed thattheydid not belongto ~icara~ua.~'
On the other hand,Nicaragua in the Memorialconcludes that this
provisiondidnothaveas aconsequencethere1inquishment byNicaragua
of herrightsbutrather thattherewas a third partyinvolved,the United
states.'This conclusion is based on the wording of the provision
concernedand its draftinghistory .5e2fact that Nicaraguadid not
intendto renounce herrightsoverthefeaturesof Roncador,Quitasueiio
and Serranaby the 1928 Treaty is confirmedby the circumstances
47
PCO,Vol.I,para.2.25.
4NM, Vol. I,paras.2.179-2.188.
4NM, Vol.I,para.2.79.
5CPO, Vol. 1para2.29.
"NM, Vol. Ipara2.156.
5NM, Vol.I,paras2.140-2.155. surroundingtheconclusionand ratificatofntheSaccio-VhzquezTreaty
of 1972betweenColombiaandtheUnitedStates underwhichthe United
Statesrenouncedherrightsto thesefeatures.As is recounin detailin
the Memorial,Nicaraguamade every effort to safeguardherrightsin
respectof the threefeaturesduringthiswholeprocess.53In conclusion,
theMemorialobservesthat,
"..theUnitedStatesrelinquishealherhypotheticarlights
over the caythroughthe Saccio-Vizquez Treaty,butshe
didnot do so byacknowledging Colombia'rsights.Tothe
contrarywhen ratifying thTreaty,theUnited Stateswas
carefuto expressher neutralityregardingthe legitimate
interestsof thirdparties,particularlyNicaraglla,stating
clearlythatthe treatydinotgrantColombiamore rights
thanthose she possessed before,nodid it prejudicethe
rightofNi~ara~ua''.~~
B.REFEREN COETHE82OMERIDIA INTHE PROTOCO OLRATIFICATI OFN
THE 1928TREATY
1.46 In herMemorialNicaraguadevotes more than30 pages (pages 146to
177)to explainingthehistoryandpurposeof thereferenceto Meridian
82"W thatwas madeby the NicaraguanCongresswhen itratifiedthe
1928Treaty.Nicaragua understandthatthequestionof theinterpretation
of thisreferencis anessentialpartof thedecisionon themeritsothe
caseand not onethatcan bedecidedduringthephaseof thequestionof
53NM, Vol.1,paras..1.62-78.
54NM, VoI.I,para.2.178, PreliminaryObjections.Nicaraguainthissection willfirstbrieflyreview
againthehistory and purposeof thisreferenceto Meridian82"W made
in 1930to showthatit was notintendedas adelimitationof maritime
areas, Thenit will be undeniablyshownthatthe subsequentpracticeof
the Partiesfarfromconfirmingtheallegations of Colombia(CPO,Vol.
I, para.2.56), completely contradictsthem:Two differentColombian
Governments-one in 1977 and another in 1995- negotiated with
Nicaraguathe issuesnow beforethe Courtand.in particular,recognized
publiclyandunambiguously thata maritimedelimitationwithNicaragua
was needed and hence that the 82" W Meridianwas not a line of
delimitation.
I. Tkeunderstandingi1930
1.47 The 1928 Treaty is crystalclear.IPreamble statesthe purposeof the
Treaty:
"The Republic ofColombia,andTheRepublicofNicaragua
dcsirousof puttinanend to theterritoril isputebetween
themand to strengthenthe traditionalties of friendship
which unite them, have decidedto conclude the present
Treaty .."
1.48 The unambiguoup surposewas to put anendto a territorial isputeand
nottoachievea maritimedelimitation.
1.49 The pertinentArticle of the Treaty does not in any way contradiits
Preamble.
"ArticleI. The Republicof Colombiarecognizes the
fulland entire sovereigntyof the Republic of Nicaragua overtheMosquito CoastbetweenCapeGracias n Diosand
the SanJuanRiver,andover Mangle Grand endMangle
ChicoIslandsintheAtlanticOcean(GreatCornIslandand
LittlCornIsland).The Republicof Nicaraguarecognizes
thefull andentiresovereigntyoftheRepublicof Colombia
over the islandsof San Andrks,Providencia,and Santa
Catrtliandover theotherislandsisletand reefsforming
part ofthe San AndresArchipelago.The presentTreaty
doesnot applyto the reefs of RoncadorQuitasueAoand
Serrana,sovereignty over which is in dispute between
ColombiaandtheUnitedStatesof ~merica."~'
1.50 The Treaty simplyrecognizessovereigntoverterritorand no mention
is madeofmaritime delimitation.
1.51 Itcould nothave beenothenvise. In 1930 Nicaraguaclaimeda 3-mile
territorileaandColombia had justraisedherclaimtoaterritorileaof
6 miles.NeitherPartyclaimedfishingrightsbeyondthisareaand much
less hadclaimstoa continentalhelfnortoany oftheotherentitlements
to sea areasthat developed afterthe 1945 TrumanProclamation.To
assertthatin1930NicaraguaandColombiawerefixing maritimelimits
thatwerelocatednearly60 milesfromthenearest territorof Nicaragua
and dozens of miles from the San AndrksArchipelago is simply a
historicalabsurdity.
1.52 Colombiaherself recognizesthis in her Preliminary Objections. In
paragraph2.53 Colombiaadmitsthat,"Nodoubt,in 1930Meridian82'
W couldnotbeunderstood as amaritime boundary in themodernsense
of theword."Andyet thisboundary,thatis not"amaritimeboundaryin
s5NM,Vol. 11Annex 19. the modernsense",is used by Colombiato take over morethanhalfof
thecontinentalshelfandtheexclusiveeconomiczone ofNicaragua.
1.53 Colombiatriesto seeka way outof thisconundrum inwhat she refersto
asthetrmaurcpr~parafoiresof theratificationprocessof the 1928Treaty
inthe NicaraguanCongress.The real travam-pre'paratoireswere the
negotiationsthatled tothesigning of the'Treatyon24 March 1928and
these neverreferreto my then inexislenmaritime disputebut onlyto
theterritoridispute.Colombiaattemptstobrushthisoff admittingthat,
"It is truthatthe 1928-1930settlementrelatedin the first
placeto sovereigntyoverland...However,if thissettIement
had been restrictedtoterritorialsovereigntyand had left
openthe issue of the maritimedivision,it wouldnothave
achievedthepurposeof thenegotiation.which was,as was
repeatedlyrecalledin the NicaraguanCongress,the final
and completesettlement of the dispute betweenthe two
countries.7356
1.54 This statementby Colombia issimply not true. The negotiationson
sovereigntyoverlandwere theonlynegotiationsthattookplaceunderthe
veryconstrainingauspicesof theUnited StatesColombiadoesnotoffer
andcannotofferrecords of any negotiationseverreferringto maritime
delimitation.Therewere discussionsin the ColombianCongresspriorto
the offer she madeto Nicaraguaof what finallycame to be the 1928
Treaty.Theseauthentic travam pr~parutoires of th1928 Treatydo not
haveany mention ofdisputesovermaritimeareasbutonly of territorial
sovereignty.In theperiodbetween 1928 and 1930therecouldnothave
been a maritimeissue whenSanAndr6sis located at adistanceof more
5CPO,Vol.1, para.2.41. than105milesfromthemainlandof Nicaraguaand 385milesfromthat
ofColombia.
1.55 In anycasethe whole approachof Colombiais preposterous. implyon
the basisof certainwordsusedby someNicaraguanSenatorsduringthe
ratificatidiscussionsColombiacannetdemonstrate thatthepurposeof
a Treatyputtinganendto a territoridisputein unambiguouswording
has beenchanged toa Treatyestablishing limiin whatwasconsidered
the highseas in 1930The wordsaf someNicaraguanSenatorsthatdo
notevenhavetherealmeaning readintothem byColombiais herwhole
basisforstatingthatthepurposeof Meridia82Wwasconceived as,
"adividingline, as a line separating whatrolombian
orNicaraguanjurisdictionsorclaimsthenexistedormight
existinthf~ture."~"
1.56 This is thewholeargumentof Colombia inherattempttoprovethatthe
Meridian was conceivedas a maritimedelimitation.Sheassertsthatthe
Partiesregardedthe Meridianas separatingwhateverjurisdictionsor
claimsthenexistedbetweenthem,butshe does not indicatewhatthese
claimsor jurisdictionofthe Partieswere in1930. There isno proof
whatsoever thatNicaragua or Colombiain 1930 had any claims to
maritime areas beyond their respectiveclaims to a territorialsea.
Colombiadoes not offer and cannot offerany proof to back this
contention.To salvagethis abysmalgap,Colombiagoes to theextreme
absurdityofallegingthatthe NicaraguanSenatorshad a crystaballto
the futureandthatthisMeridianwassetasa limitto anyjurisdictioor
claimsthatmightexistinthefuture.
57GPO,Vol. I,para.2.53.1-57 ColombiaassertsthatthedebateintheNicaraguan Congress,
"...leaves no doubtas to the meaning of the 82" W
Meridian within the 1930 Protocol of Exchange of
Ratifications:a bordera dividingline of the watersin
disputea delimitationa demarcationof the dividingline
(limite, linea divisoriude las apas en dispufcs,
delimifacih, demnrcacidnde bulinea divisoria)inother
words:a maritime
1.58 Theonly phrasecited thatmightbe construedas incompatiblewiththe
purposeof the Treatyis thatused by one Senatorwhen he imprecisely
spokeof a dividinglineofthewatersindispute.Thefact thaothersused
the worddelimitationor borderis perfectlyunderstandablet:heywere
putting a limitto thearchipela Thoemore precise modernEnglish
terminologythatwouldnow be usedto describeclearly the purposeof
the Meridianwould be thatof "a line of allocationof islandsme
NicaraguanSenatorswere notmodemexperts onthesematters andeven
nowadays itis quiteconceivablethatlaymeon thesemattersmightalso
usethiserroneous phrase.
1.59 Paragraph 2.192 of the NicaraguanMemorial deals with the moment
duringthe discussionsinthe NicaraguanSenatewhen the Nicaraguan
Ministerof Foreign Affairs was called to explain the purposeof the
understandinthatwas beingproposed be madeaspartof theratification
ofthe 1928Treaty. TheMinisterexplainedtorheSenators,
"thattheexplanationdoesnot reformthe Treaty,becauseit
only intendsto indicatea limit betweethearchipelagoes
CPO, Vol.1,para.2.41. thathadbeenreasonforthedisputeand thattheColombian
Governmenthad already accepted that explanationby
means ofits MinisterPlenipotentiary,nly declaring,hat
this explanationbe madein the ratificationact of the
Treaty:thatthisexplanationwas a necessityforthe future
of both nationsbecauseitcameto indicatethegeographic
limitbetweenthearchipelagoes indisputewithoutwhich it
would not be defined the matter completely; and that
thereforehe requested to the HonourableChamber the
approvalof theTreatywiththeproposedexplanation .59
1.60 The words usedbytheMinister indicatethatthepurpose oftheproposed
Declaration(or "explanation"to bemade uponratificationwasto put a
limit"betweenthe archipelagoes".Thisexpressionis probably agood
definitionofthemeaningofthephrase"alineof allocationof islands".
1.61 Thiscondition was includedinthe CongressionaD l ecreeof ratification
of 6 March f930,whichwas promulgated by thePresidentof Nicaragua
in the Gazette,theoficial bulletin otheRepublicof Nicaraguaon22
July1930.~ ThisdecreeratifiestheTreaty,
'"...ithe understandingthatthe San And& archipelago
mentioned inthefirstclause oftheTreatydoesnotextend
to the West of Meridian82 of Greenwich in the chart
published in October 1885 by the Washington
Hydrographic Officeunder theauthorityof theSecretaryof
theNavyoftheUnitedStatesof NorthAmerica."
59NM, Vol. 11,Annex80.NWS, Vol.11,Annex24b.
MILa Gaceia,DiariOficialAiio,XXXIV, ManaguaD , .N.,Wednesday2, July
1930No 144pp. 1145-1146.1.62 Itshouldnotgo unobservedthatColombia offersno records orfrclvawc
pr¶roires ofher ownbutreliesentirelyon thewordsusedbycertain
NicaraguanSenators.Colombiacannot producethese records because
neitherthose precedingthe signature of the 1928 Treatynor those
following theNicaraguanratificationwiththe understanding on the 82
Meridianprovoked any discussionsaboutmaritime delimitationin the
ColombianMinisterofForeignAffairsorinherCongress.
1.63 Duringthe next nearly40 yearsaftertheratification,Colombiadidnot
claimthattheMeridianwasa Iineof delimitationof maritimeareas.The
maps presented by Colonlbia are advanced as the only practice
purportedlyproving that Colombia understood the Meridianas a
maritimelimit.No proofis offered of any otherkind:no legislation,no
fishingpractice,nothingbutmaps.Thequestion of the maps isdealt in
paragraphs 1.36to 1.38. At thispointsufficeit tosay that noneof the
maps presentedat least up to 1958;have any indicationof a maritime
limit.
1.64 Thequestionof the interpretationof the meaningof the 82' Meridian
firscame out in the open when Nicaraguagrantedan oil exploration
concessionin 1967to WesternCaribbean PetroleumCo.Thisconcession
was partially located in maritimearea? to the east of the 82" West
Meridian.Colombiaprotestedthisconcessionon4 June1969andforthe
firstime assertedthatthisMeridian of longitudewas a delimitationline
of the maritimeareas of Nicaragua and Colombia.This Colombian
interpretatiowas imrnediatelrefutedby~icara~ua~'.
61NM,Vol. ITAnnex 29.1.65 Nonetheless,sincethatperiodColombiahasimposed thislimit byforce
of arms.To declareatreatyvoidisnot initselfaninternationailllegality
as Colombiaasserit nsparagraph 1.111 ofherPreliminmy Objections.
On the otherhand,to unilaterallyinterpa treatyon the flimsiestof
basis,40 yearsafterits ratificatandthenimposethatreinterpretation
byuseof forceisaninternationallegalitanda trueoutrage.
1.66 The truthinthiswholeissueis thatwiththedevelopmeno tf thelawof
the seaparticularlyfterthefirsUnitedNationsConference on theLaw
of the Sea in 1958, Colombiasaw a chance of gainingenormous
maritimeareas atthe expense ofNicaragua.Even if hertittltoSan
AndrCswere validand upheld Colombia decided thatto invoke the
Meridian wasa safebet comparedto whatmaritime areasshecouldhope
to getinanyequitabledelimitationbetweenthe 17 squaremilesb2of the
Archipelagoof SanAnd& and theextensive coastlineofNicaragua.
1.67 In1977 the Governmentof ColombiacommissionedAmbassador Julio
LondoiioParedesto negotiatewiththe Government of Nicaraguaon the
questionof theterritorialndfrontierdisputeinthe CaribbeanSea. In
carrying out this mandate, Ambassador Londoiio met on several
occasionswith the thenForeign Ministerof Nicaragua,Dr. Alejandro
MontielArgiiello.No agreement was reachedand Nicaraguadecidedto
bring to an end the negotiationsbecause the Colombian offerwas
unacceptabletoNicaraguaasis explainedintheaffidavitofDr.MontieI
Argkllo on the subjectof these negotiations.6The revolutionthat
62Seeabove,paragraph1.25.
NWS,VOI. 11,Annex20. beganin 1978 inNicaragua putthe lidonanypossibilityof revivingthe
subjectof negotiationwithColombiauntilthe I990s.
1.68 The natureand existenceof thesefirstnegotiationcan be verifiedwith
the declarationsgivenby the then Presidentof Colombia,Mr. Alfonso
L6pezMichelsen.In March1977PresidentL6pezstated:"Weaspire to
reachagreementson delimitationsby directnegotiation not only with
NicaraguabutalsowithVenezuelawhichis moredifficult.. .164
1.69 PresidentL6pez made thisstatement on the occasionofa Statevisit to
Nicaragua'sneighbour,Costa Rica,withtheobjectof signing atreatyof
maritime delimitation inthe Caribbean. Although this Treaty was
protestedby Nicaragua andhas not yetbeenratified by CostaRica the
fact thatthe statementwas made in this context makes it even more
forcefuland itmeaningperfectlyclear.
4.Secondroundofnegotiation1995
1.70 In 1995 Nicaraguan and Colombian delegationsheaded by their
respectiveMinistersof ForeignAffairswere attendinga meetingin the
headquartero sf the UnitedNationsin New York. On thatoccasion,the
ColombianForeignMinister,Mr.RodrigoPardoGarcia-Pefia i, vitedthe
Nicaraguan Foreign MinisterMr. Ernesto Leal Sanchez to n lunch
meeting.The Ambassadorof Colombiato the United Nationsat that
time, Mr.JulioLondofioParedes,was also present atthatlunch.Itmust
be recalled that AmbassadorLondoAohad been in charge of the
Colombiannegotiationswith Nicaraguain 1977 (see paragraph 1.63
above). The other participant was AmbassadorMauricio Herdocia
6NWS, Vol.ITA,nnex12. Sacasa, then legal and politicaladvisorto the NicaraguanForeign
Minister.
1.71 Anaffidavit of formerMinisterof ForeignAffairs,Mr.ErnestoLeal, is
joinedto thepresentWrittenStatement; itexplainsthe substancof the
negotiationsthattook placeinthatmeetingand at asubsequentmeeting
at the levelof the Presidentsof Nicaragua,Mrs. VioletaBarriosde
Charnono and thatof Colombia,Mr.ErnestoSamperPizano.Thistook
place inthecontextoftheIXSummitof Headsof StateandGovernment
of Latin AmericanCountries(Rio Group)that was held in Quito,
Ecuador,on4 September1995.
I.72 Thepurposeofthesemeetings, as expressedby theformer Minister,Mr.
Leal inhisaffidavit,
"wasto begindiscussionsaboutthe negotiationsrelatedto
theterritoril ndmaritimedifferencesbetweenColombia
andNicaragua inthe Caribbean Sea,in order to improve
thepoliticalenvironmentand removeallthe obstaclesthat
affectthe friendlyandcooperative relationshihatcould
existbetweenbothcountries.
In this opportunit, olombia was willingto reviewwith
NicaraguatheissuesrelatedtoMeridian 8Z0indicatingthat
this subjecwas easierto treatthantheSan Andks topic,
affirming that prominent Colombian personalities
recognizedthatthe Colombianthesisof Meridian82" was
questionableunderthe view of InternationalLaw and
InternationalCourts'judgments.Thatposition facilitated
thetreatmentof thesubject,TheNicaraguan representaticln
expressedthatthe SanAnd& issuewasas importanatsthe subjectof Meridian82",they also expressed that these
subjects where closely interconnected,but that the
conversationscould begin with the firstmatter,but ina
global context, and without implyingany renunciation,
having them in a very quiet environment far from the
pre~s.~*~~
1.73 The Colombian Foreign Minister explained the purpose of the
negotiationsin an article published on 10 September 1995 in the
newspaper "El Tiempo'', section 'Vnvited Editor",under the title
"Toward s GoodNeighbourhood" In thiscontext,hewrote:
"What isit about?It is aboutinitiatianampledialogue
over allthe mattersthatareobviouslypendingor require
mutualwork: on the issuesthatarenotdefinedor settled
by the agreementsin force, among them, the Esguerra-
BhrcenasTreaty. For two borderingcountries,such a
dialogueis simplye~sential."~
1.74 Mr.Pardo furthernotedthatthese negotiatiowill
"..,analyseina cordialand constructiseconversation,the
argumentsof thepartiesaboutthecharacter oftheMeridian
82.Theconversations thatthe Ministrieof ForeignAffairs
of both counnieswill soon begin, basedona Presidential
mandate, will consequently include this important
subject."h7
6NWS, Vol. 1Annex 21.
6 6 ~ ~Val. [Annex4.
6N WS, Vo1.11.Annex4.1.75 TheForeignMinisterendedhisnoteindicatingthat:
"From thepoint of view of the nationalinterestsandthe
cooperationbetweenbothcountries, toclearout my doubt
on the natureof Meridian82",will contributeto clearout
thes~ene~.'~'
The importance of these events andthese statementscannot be over
emphasized.At a distanceof nearly20 years,firstin 1977andthenin
1995,two differentColombianPresidentsand Governments,publicly
announcednegotiationswith Nicaragua on maritime delimitationand
otherissues presentlybeforethe Court.Colombianow deniesthatany
issueswere left pendingby the 1928 Treatyand yet two different
Colombian Governments tellaradicallydifferentstory.
1.76 ThedistinguishedColombian,JudgeRafaelNieto Navia,formerJudge
and presidentof the InteramericanCourtof HumanRights anduntil
recentlJudge of theTribunalforthe Former Yugoslavia inThe Hague,
hadthistosay aboutthepublicstatementsof thehighestauthoritiesfhis
country.
"I heardthe Presidentsayin the television ..that the
Ministersof ForeignAffairsof Colombia and Nicaragua
will havetomeet to talk'aboutthenatureofMeridian82'
west of Greenwich,indicated by the Esguem-Bhrcenas
Treatyasa boundaryof theArchipelagoof SanAndrks ...
And, ifthisis accepted,takingintoconsiderationthatthe
Treatysays thatthe Archipelagowill not extendto 'the
west',itis obviousthaif iis negotiated,iistodiscussto
the east,that is, the zone that has been traditionally
68NWS,Vol. 11,Annex4. Colombian.,. What did the Presidentmean with the
'nature'of the Meridian?Well, he is referring,as itis
obvious,to whethertheMeridianis or is nota limitHe is
doubtingthatcharacteristiH.eis givinganopportunityfor
theNicaraguanmaritime andsub-maritimeareas, to goeast
of theMeridian...Attention,Mr. President,whatyou are
saying represents the official position of Colornbia.
Tomorrow,Nicaragua willputoutthesedeclarationsbefore
theInternationa~lourt."'~
1.77 In fact,whatJudgeNietoanticipated ispreciselywhatNicaraguais now
doing:puttingthesedeclarationsbeforetheInternational ourt.
1-78 Unfortunately,the political pressurecreatedinside Colombiaby the
announcemeno tf thesenegotiationsapparentlyforcedtheGovernment of
Mr. Samper to go back on the agreement to negotiateand further
meetingswerecancelled.
1.79 This event was highlightedby Nicaragua in her Applicationof 6
December 2001:
"Diplomaticnegotiationshavefailed.The lastrealattempt
at the highest leveloccurred on 6 September 1995, on
occasion of the IX Meeting of Heads of States and
Governments of theGroupof Rio in Quito,Ecuador.At
that meeting,the Presidentof Coloml~ia,His Excellency
Mr.ErnestoSamper,declaredthat he was instructinghis
Minister of Foreign Affairstomeet with his Nicaraguan
counterpart beforetheend of thatmonthof Septemberin
6NWS, VOI.ISA,nnex3. orderto discuss the bilateralissues that separatedtheir
countries.In the wordof PresidentSamper,theseissues
included'possibledifferencthaexistedonthesubjectof
frontiers'CposibIdifeerencique existenen materiade
limites)This meeting was cancelled at the requestof
ColombianMinisterof ForeignAffairs,who statedon 12
September1995 thatColombia wouldneverdiscusswith
Nicaraguathe Caribbeanpossessions because'this wasa
matterthathad been totally decidedby an international
treaty F've days later, the Minister of Defence of
Colombia,accompanied by high-rankinmembersof the
Colombian military,members of Government and
Congress,presidedovera so-calleactof sovereigntythat
consisteof a navaldemonstrationon the82 Meridian at
thealtitudeof parallel12. OnAugust 1996 theMinister
of ForeignAffairsoColombia assertethatthequestionof
sovereigntyover Providenc aia San Andrks'is not
subjecto discussions'andonthe 14~o~f thatamemonth
reiterated"hat therwas nothing to talk about'inthis
affair."
5. Thirdrounof "negotiofi" 2001
1.80 Mentionis made of these conversations betwee the then recently
appointed Foreign Minister of Nicaragua,Mr. FranciscoX. Aguirre
SacasaandhisColombian counterparMr.GuillermoFemAndezde Soto,
notbecauseoftheirimportanceindemonstratingthatColombia agreedin
2001 that therewere pendingterritoriaand delimitatioissues to be
negotiatedwithNicaragua,buttobringto lighttheconductof Colombia towardsNicaraguain relationto the bringingof this case before the
Court.
1.81 The facts are as follows. A few weeks afterHondurasratifiedon 30
November 1999 the delimitationTreaty of 2 August 1986 the then
Presidentof NicaraguaMr.ArnoldoAlemhnLacayopubliclyannounced
that Nicaraguawould be filing an Application with the International
Courtof Justiceagainst~olornbia.~~hisannouncemen t asrepeatedon
several occasion^ A ^'bassadorLondoiio,Agent of Colombia,in an
interviewgiven shortlyafter the Applicationof this casewas filed,
recognizedthatthey were awarethatNicaraguawas goingto bringthis
casebecause"theyhadbeen announcing itforthe pasttwoyears".72
1.82 Thefactthatthiscasewasbeingbroughtto theCourt waswell knownby
Colombia.The NicaraguanForeignMinister duringtheyear 2001,Mr.
Aguirre, in an affidavit73tells the story of how his Colombian
counterpartMr. Fernhndez de Soto, requested thatthe filing of the
NicaraguanApplication he postponedin orderto giveanopportunityfor
negotiationsontheterritorilnddelimitationquestionspendingbetween
theirrespectiveStatesMr. Aguirreagreedin good faithonly to later
receive the surprise thatthe purposeof thatrequestand the offers of
negotiationswere only made in orderto gain time for Colombiato
completethe legal and politicalsteps she neededto take inorderto
withdrawher1937acceptanceof thejurisdictionoftheCourt.
1.83 These attemptsby Colombiato abuse the good faithof the Nicaraguan
Authoritiesin orderto gaintime forwithdrawingher acceptanceof her
7NWS,Vol. 11,Annex13.
7NWS, VOI.11,Annexes 14, and 16.
7NWS, VOI.11Annex7 andseebelow,paras3.103-3.104.
7NWS,VoI,lI, Annex22. optionalclause Declarationare -to borrowa Colombianself-righteous
statement74a-noutrage.
1.84 Theconsequenceof thisconductby theGovernment of Colombiais that
it was estoppedfrom changing the jurisdictionalstatus quo without
reasonable noticeIn theevent, a noticeoflessthan 24 hourscould not
by any definitionbe consideredreasonable.Thelegal consequencesof
theColombianconductaredealtwithbelowinChapterIII,SectionIV.
IV.Breachof Treaty
1.85 The 5'hSubmissionof the Nicaraguan Memorialrequeststhe Court to
adjudgeanddeclarethat:
"(I)n case the Court were to findthat the Bircenas-
Esguem Treaty had been validly concluded, then the
breach of this Treatyby ColombiaentitledNicaraguato
declareitstermination."
1.86 This question is dealt with in paragraphs2.254 to 2.263 of the
Nicaraguan Memorial.Thepremise for thisdeclaratioof terminationis
thattheMeridian 82O Wis not a lineofdelimitatioofmaritimeareasbut
a lineof allocatioofsovereigntyova islandsmTIfthispremiseis correct
thenthe questionis whetherthe unilateralinterpretatiof Colombia in
1969,thathas beenfollowedsince then withwhatamountsto a blockade
againstthe use by Nicaraguaand hexcitizens of the resources of the
74CPO, VOI.I,para.1.I1.
75SeeaboveSec. 111,ara.1.58. maritime areas eastof Meridian82"W, amounts to a materiabreach of
theTreaty.
1.87 The answerto this questionis anissueconcerning theinterpretatioonf a
treaty,which clearlyfalls within the jurisdictionof the Court.It is
preciselythe firsttype of legal disputeto which Article36 (2) of the
Statuteof the Court refers.If the answeriasNicaraguacontends, that
Colombia has interpretedthisTreaty in a self-servingmannerandnot
accordingto itobjectivesor theclearmeaningof itstext,thenwe enter
into thequestionof determiningif this interprt:tawouldconstitutea
breachof aninternationao lbligation.Thislasissue would fallunderthe
thirdtypeof legaldisputecontemplated byArticle36(2)of the Statute.
1,S8 Inanycase,what is clearis thatthis issue is patentlya matterthatmust
be decidedinthemeritsphaseof thiscase. At thisstage it will sufficeto
offea rrebuttalof certaiallegationof Colombia.
1.89 Firstly, Colombia asserts in paragraph 1.116 of her Preliminaqy
Objectionsthat,
"As a matterof law, even if it were truethatColombia
'unilaterallyconverted' the 82" W Meridian into a
maritime boundary, a party's advancing an argument
concerningthe constructionof atreatycannotconstituteof
itselfa 'materialbreach'of it."
19 The questionclearlyis thatColombia not only converteda Treaty that
was aimedat resolvingthe "territorialdisputependingbetweenthem''
intoanew territorialnddelimitationdispute,but thatColombiahasnot
limited her "construction"of the Treaty to paper and diplomatic
conversations. To take a Treaty involving the determination of sovereigntyover territorand by "construction"determinethatin fact
the Treaty was also a Treatyof delimitationof a 250 nauticalmile
maritimeborder,cmot beanythingotherthanamaterial breachofit.
1-91 Colombiaquotes,inparagraph 1.117,article45of theConventiononthe
Lawof Treatiesto attempttoprovethatNicaraguahaslostherrightto
invoke this groundof terminationbecauseshe has acquiescedin this
interpretatioT.hisinterpretatinas firstassertebyColombia in1969
and Nicaraguaimmediatelyprotested and hasreiteratedthis protesat
every adequate opportunity.There cannot be any question of
acquiescence.
f-92 Colombia sees thisacquiescenceia seriesofmapsshehasfiledwithher
PreliminaryObjections,This questionis dealtwith aboveinparagraphs
1.36to 1.38.Forpresentpurposes Nicaraguapointsoutthatthesemaps
provenoneof the assertionsof Colombia.Ontheotherhand itmustbe
reiteratethattheonlyevidenceforacquiescenceadvanced by Colombia
consistsof thosemaps.There areno actsof sovereigntyby Colombia
such as laws or decreesdefininghermaritimeareasor the grantingof
fishingoroil exploraticoncessionsbefore 1969. CHAPTERI1
PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONSRELATEDTO THEPACT OF
BOGOTA
2.1 In the Applicationof 6 December2001 theRepublic of Nicaragua
invoked,in accordancewithArticle36, paragraph1of the Statuteof the
Court,ArticleXXXI of theAmericanTreatyon PacificSettlement(Pact
ofBogoth),adopted on 30 April1948,as oneof thebasesofjurisdiction
inthedisputesubmittedto the~0u1-t'~.
2.2 AccordingtoArticleXXXI of thePactof Bogotb:
"Inconformity with Article36, paragraph2, of theStatute
of theInternationaCl ourtof Justice,the HighContracting
Partiesdcclarethattheyrecognize,in relationto anyother
AmericanState,thejurisdictionof theC'ourt scompulsory
ipsofucto,withoutthe necessitof anyspecialagreement
so longas thepresentTreaty isinforce,inall disputesoa
juridicalnaturethatariseamongthem concerning:a) the
interpretatioof a treatyb) any questionof international
law; c) the existenceof any fact which, if established,
wouldconstitutethe breachof an internationaolbligation;
or,d>thenatureorextentof the reparation tobe made for
the breachof aninternationalbligation".
2.3 BoththeRepublicofNicaraguaandtheRepublicofColombiaarepartics
tothe Pact of Bogoti. Nicaraguaratifiedthe Pact on 21 June 1950
7ApplicatioofNicaragua,para.I;NM, Vol.I,Introductio,ara3.
5 1 withoutany pertinenreservation,ndColombia ratifiediton 14October
1968withnoreservations.
2.4 Nevertheless,on21July 2003 theRepublicof Colombiasubmitted tothe
CourtPreliminary Objections, requestingthe Court to adjudge and
declarthat:
"...underthePactof Bogot&,andinparticularin pursuance
of ArticlesVIand XXXIV,the Court declaresitseltobe
withoutjurisdictiotohear thecontroversysubmittedto it
by Nicaragua under Article XXX, and declares that
controversyended"77.
2.5 Accordingto ArticlVI ofthePact ofBogoti, theproceduresestablished
inthatTreaty,
"...may not be applied to matters already settledby
arrangemenb tetweentheparties,orbyarbitraalwardor by
decisionofan internationalourtorwhicharegoverned by
agreemento srtreatieinforceon thedateof theconclusion
ofthepresentTreaty".
2.6 AccordingtoArticleXXXIVof thePactof Bogotil:
"IftheCourt,forthe reasonssetforth inArticlesV, VIand
VII ofthisTreaty,declaresitselfto bwithoutjurisdiction
tohem thecontroversys,uchcontroversyshallbe declared
ended".
77CPO,Vol.I,Chap. V,p. 145.2.7 Columbiaaffirmsthat"'matter sere definitivelysettled"bytheTreatyof
1928,andthus,"by institutingtheseproceedingsNicaraguais seekingto
reopenamatterwhichhaslongsincebeensettled"7R N.icaraguaconsiders
that that conclusion is completely erroneous and this will be
demonstrated inthefollowingparagraphs.
Themainargument presentedbyColombia inhereffortsto establishthat
theCourtlacksjurisdictionisbased on thejoin1interpretatioof Articles
VI, XXXI andXXXIVof the Pactof 80~0th''.Accordingto Colombia
theCourtshoulddeclare itselincompetentanddeclarethe controversy
endedas it concernsa matteralreadysettledby agreementbetweenthe
partiesandgovernedby agreementsortreaties inforcewhenthePact of
Bogotiiwas concluded.ColombiaaffirmsthatNicaraguaandColombia
hadsignedthe BArcenas-EsguerrT areatyin 1928andratifiedit through
the Protocol of Exchangeof Ratificationin 1930, in orderto resolve
territorimatters,includingtheirmaritimedelimitation,and thatthesc
agreements were inforcewhenthePactof BogotB was enteredintoa0.
2.9 TheColombianargumentis incorrectformany reasons; firamongthese
is thatof the very interpretatiof the pertinentarticlesof the Pact of
Bogota.
2.10 The textthatultimatelybecameArticleVI of the Pactwasnot part of the
lnteramericanPeace System Project adopted by the Interamerican
JuridicalCommittee,which was the basis Fordiscussion at the IX
78
CPO,Vol. I,Introductionara.8.
79JbidI,troduction,aras27 ff;andparas2.5ff.
Ibid I,troductiopa,ras.14and paras.1.44ff., 2.9, 2.2.50,2.63, 2.64;
4.6,4.13, 4.14.The text of theTreaty and the Protocol ofExchang ef
Ratificationarein Vol.11,Annex 10. These instrumentshavealreadybeen
reproducedintheNM.Vol, 11Annex 19.lntemtional Conferenceof Americanstates8',butratheremergedfroma
proposalforanadditionalarticleput forthby per$'.
Jt is clear from the text -and this is confirmed by the trnvawx
pre'paratoires-thatthelimitationimposedbyArticle VI ofthePactrefers
not to the jurisdiction of the Court, but rather to the operation of all
proceduresforeseenby thePact, as Colombia must recognizea3a, ndhas
for itsobjective to avoidtheuse of the procedures contemplatedin the
Pact, beingusedforthereviewof treatieor forbringingappealsagainst
finalandenforceable judgrnents.
The reservationsformulatedby countries such as Boliviaand Ecuador
whensigningthe Pact confirmsthatthiswas the purposeof ArticleVl.
These reservations,asColombia herselfrecognizes,intend '"t protect the
81
See the project, publishunder classificationCB-6inthe 1X [nternaiional
Conference of American States, Proceedings and DocumentsJNovena
ConferenciaInternacional Americana,Actas y Documentos,Vol. IV, MRE,
Actas y Docurnentos, Vol. IV, MRE, Bogoth, 1953, Third Commission,
CommissionDocuments p,p. 6-21. See pertinentpainNWS, Vol. 11,Annex
18.
82 Given that Article 11of the project hadrecognisedthe commitmentof the
parties to make use of the proceduresestablishedby the Treat in case a
controversycouldnot be resolved,intheopinionof oneof them, throughdirect
negotiations,the Peruvian delegation proposedtadd severalarticlesone of
whichreads asfollows:"These proceduresmay not beapplied eithetomatters
already settledby arrangement between the partiesoxby arbitraor judicial
decisions, orwhich are governed by internationalagreementin force on the
date of the conclusion ofthe present Treaty".(The text inSpanish reads:
"Tampocopodrhn aplicarse dichosprocedim ientosa 10sasuntosya resueltos
por atreglo de laspartes,o por solucion arbitroljudicialo que sehallan
regidos poracuerdos internacionaleen vigencia en la fechade la celebracibn
del presenteTratado" (Proposal forArnendmenrs to the InferarnericPeace
System Project, published under theclassifications CB-I9I/C.III-Iy CB-
991C. 11112, inIX InternationalConferenceofAmerican States, Proceedings
and DocumentsMovena Conferencia InternacionalAmericana, Actas y
Documentos, Vol.IV, citThirdCommission,CommissionDocuments,p. 69).
$3eNWS,Vol. 11,Annex 83,
CPO, Vol.1,paras.2.10,2.13 and2.20.possibilitythattheir existing territorial treaties with Chile and Peru,
respectively,mightbe openedto review"84.Bolivia intended to leave
open a means by which to apply the proceduresof the Pact to
"controversiesarising from matters settled by arrangementbetween
parties,when said umngements afecf the vita! interests ofa~tafe"~~
(emphasisadded).For its partthe Ecuadorian reservation"leavesopen
thepossibilityof thereviewof treaties" as statedin thereport of the
Ecuadorian Senate's InternationalRelationsC:ommittee, to which the
Pacthadbeen submitteds7.Th fact thatPeru putforth the proposalthat
resultedin ArticleV1, and Chilesupportedthe motion, was due toits
importance asa mechanism topreventthereviewof treatiesg8.
84
85CPO, Vol.1, para2.15.
86See BolivianReservatiotothePact ofBogot6.
"The Delegationof Ecuador,upon signing this Pact, makes an express
reservationwith regard to Article V [Vi] and also every provisionthat
contradictsor is notin harmonywith, the principlesproclaimedby or Ithe
stipulationcontainedin theCharterof the UnitedNations,theCharterof the
Organisationof American States or the Constitution of the Republic of
Ecuador"T . hetextin Spanishreads:"LaDelegaci6ndel Ecuador, alsuscribir
este Pacto,hace reservaexpresa del Articulo V PI], y,ademls, de toda
dispositionque est6 en puglia o no guarde amonia con 10s principios
proclamadoso las estipulaciocontenidasen laCattade laNaciones Unidas,
o en lCartade laOrganizaci6nde EstadosAmericanos, oen laConstitutionde
la Repcblicadel Ecuador" (IX InternationalConferenceofAmericanStates,
Proceedings and DocumentdNovena ConferenciaI nternacionalAmericana,
Actas yDoczrmentos, Vol. 1MRE,Bogota, 1943, Proceedings ofthe Seventh
PlenarySession,p.232. See NWS,Vol. 11,Annex 17).
Rec~rdof theafternoonsessionofthe HonourableChamberof the Senate of
the Ecuadorian Congress (Acta de la Sesidn Pesperfinade lu Honornble
Ccirnaradel Senado),October3I, 1949, ItemXXV, First Discussionof Bill
number 157,Pactof Bogoth, pp.1923 ff. ,itedby Colombiain CPO, Vol.I,
ara.2.15,fn. 110.
'CPO, Vol. I,paras.Z.l1,?.12and2.16.2.13 This is the only possible explanationfor the fact that althoughher
proposalwas acceptedg9,Peru formulated a reservation to Article
XXXTV, considering,interalia,thatthe cases,
"resolvedbysettlementbetweenthepartiesorgovernedby
agreementsandtreatiesin force, determine, in virtueof
their objective and peremptorynature, the exclusion of
thesecasesfrom the applicationof everyprocedure''w.
2.14 To the Peruviandelegatewho interpreted the quietanonmovere ieven
seemedinadmissible thatthereshouldbe an interventionby theCourt
declaringthecontroversy"ended"when, inaccordan wiehArticleVI, it
lackedjurisdiction.Obviouslythe Courtmay removefrom its list of
casesa disputeifit findsnobasisforitsjurisdiction,butit wouldexceed
itscompetenciesif itdeclaredthecontroversyas suchended.
2.15 Colombiahas nottaken intoaccounttheneedfor cautionwhenrecurring
tothetravauxprkparutoires of thePactof Bogot5calledforby theCourt
in the judgmenthandeddown on 20 December 1988 -Border and
Transborder Armed Actions.JurisdicfionandAdmissibility, (Nicaragua
v.Honduras )h-enit warned that "notallstagesof thedraftingof the
89Therewere only slighmodificationin form that in no way affectedthe
substanceof the articThus the referencto "arbitmlorjudicialdecisions"
was changed to"aarbitralardor ...decisionof aninternatiolourt(Inudo
arbiiralo ...sentencia de wl tribunailnternacionuf)", the expression
"internationalagreements (acuerdoiszternacionaies)"wassubstitutefor
"agreemen trtreaties(acuerdoso tpatados)",andthe fallusioto "Treaty
(Tpatado)"wasreplacedby"Pact(Patio)".
The text in Spanishreads:"resueltaporarreglode lparteso regidapar
acuerdoso tratadovigentesdeterminane,nvirtudde sunaturalezobjetivay
perentoriaa exclusi6de estoscasosde laaplicaciondetodo procedimiento-"
(IX Jntmational Conference of American States, Proceedings and
Documents/Novena ConferenciaInternationalAmerican, ctay Documentos,
Val.1, cit.Actade la SCptimaSesion Plenaria,p. 233)SeeNWS, Vol. TI,
Annex17.textsof the Bogoti Conferencewere thesubjectof detailedrec~rds"~'.
However,the samequotationsColombiauses to supporther thesisv2in
fact contradict it.Thus, when the delegate of Ecuador,Mr. Viteri,
suggestsin thedebatesof the Third Commissio~~ attheConferencethat a
formula be found tosoftenthe terms ofArticleVI,the delegateof Peru,
Mr.BeIaGnder ,ejectsthissuggestion as it concernsmattersgovernedby
agreementsor treatiesin force,arguingthat 1)"these'treatiesin force'
usually indicatethemanner to settlernatter~''~'',hichwould appear to
indicatethat forthe Peruviandelegatethe finalparagraph of ArticleVI is
intended to submitdifferencesregardingtreatiesin force to themeansof
settlement as set forth in the treatiesthem~elves~~ ;nd, that, 2) to
attenuatetheformula"wouldopen the door toprovokea dispute, which
is exactly what we wish to avoid'(emphasisadded)95" . AnAmerican
92lC.J Reporrs1988,p.86, para.37.
CPO,Vol. 1,paras.2.10ff.
93The text in Spanisreads:"esos"ratadosvigente generalmenteindican la
maneraderesolverlascuestiones".
91"There isa treaty;surelythattreatyhasitsprocedures.That is whythe last
part [ofAfiicleVIj is important..A] treatythatsettlesa problem generally
providesa procedureby virtueofwhichthosedifficultiescanbesettled..Inthis
way everythingis ready, because that which is subject to treatiesin force,
generallyhas itprocedure a,ndthatprocedurea ,swe Rave agreed,shouldtake
precedence overanyother",concludesMr.Belaunde(.TextinSpanish:"Hayun
tratado;seguramenteese tratadotiene sus proced~mientos.oreso esque la
ultimaparte[delArticuloVI] tienetantaimportanci..U)ntratadoqueresuelve
un problernageneralrnenteestablsceun procedimientoen virtuddel cual esas
dificultadespuedan resolvers.De maneraque esth todo listo, porqueloque
esthregidopor tratadosenvigenciageneralmente tienesu pmedimiento;y ese
procedimiento ,onforme lohemos acordado ,ebeprimar sobrecualquierotro")
(IX International Conference of American States, Proceeding and
Dacumen~ovena Conferencia InternationaAmericana,Actas yDucrrme~tos,
Vol. IV,Cornisi6nTercera,Sesi6nTercera, pp. 135136).NWS,Vol. 11, Annex
I8. SeealsoexcerptsinCPO,Vol. 11,Annex 2 1,
9s
Thetext in Spanishreads:"seriaabrirla puertaa provocarunlitigio,quees
precisamentelo quequeremosevitar"'. peacesystem",addsMr.Belainde,"shouldnotonly settledisputes,but
alsoprevent them7796.
2.16 Likewise,whenthedelegatefromCuba, Mr.Dihigo, afterreminding his
listeners that "the firstpart of Article WI] says: me aforesaid
procedures furthermore s, alnot beapplied tomattersalready settle..'
9,997
asksMr.Belsthde: "Tftheyarealreadysettled,what istheproblem. ,
Mr. Belalindereplies:"Thedangerlies in its beingreopened,inwanting
to reopenthem. Ifistheexceptionof resjudicata"(emphasisadded]98.
2.17 Thisinsistence uponres judicata invitesconsiderationof the frequent
inclusioninarbitratiotreatiesamongLatinAmericacountriesofclauses
prohibitingthe reopening of issues already settled.This is also the
intentionof Article VI of the Pact,as Colombiaherselfrecognizes:
Article VI "is meant as a shield against any possible use of the
proceduresprovidedforby thePact inorder toreopenpreviouslysettled
disputes"99.
% The text iSpanishreads"un sistemaamericanodepaz debeno s61oresolver
10slitigios,sinotambieniimpeque seprovoquen".
97The textin Spanishreads:"La primerapark del Articulodice:'Tampoca
pod& apliearsedichosprocedirn ientosa 10sasuntosya resuelto.'Siestan
98sueltos,cuaes el problema?".
Thetext inSpanishreads:"Elpeligroesthen quesereabra,enquese quiera
reabrir.Es laexcepcibn de cosa juzgada".IX InternationalCanferenceof
American Skates, Proceedings and DocumentdNovena Conferencia
lntemacionalAmericana, Actm y Docwmeiztos,Vol. IV,ComisibnTercera,
SesibnTercera,p. 136.NWS,Vol.11,Annex 18,seealsoExcerptsinCPO, Vol.
11Annex 21.
w CPO,Vol. 1,paras2.10,2.13and 2.20;seealsoIntroductiop,ara.34. Nicaragua doesnotseek areviewof theBhcenas-EsguerraTreatynorof
any otherinstrumentlinked to it, contrarto thatwhichis assertedby
~olornbia'~.Rather,Nicaraguaholds:1)thattheaforementioned Treaty,
for a numberof reasons asset forthin her~emorial'", is not a valid
instrument;2) that the Treaty, even if it were valid,which Nicaragua
does not accept,is affectedbyacauseof termination as a consequenceof
itsseriousbreachby ~olombia'~~3 ;)thattheTreatydoesnotincludethe
cays of Roncador, Serrana, Quitasuefio, Senmilla and Bajo ~uevo"~;
and 4) thata maritime delimitationis nothe purposeof theTreatynorof
theagreement reflectedintheProtocolof Exchangeof~atifications'~.
2.19 ThesedifferenceshadnotemergedatthedatethePactwasconcluded.As
Colombiarecognizes:"WhenthePactof BogoGwas concludedin 1948,
therewas a considerablenumberof outstanding disputesbetween various
American States but none whatsoever hetween Nicaragua and
~olornbia"'~~ H.owever,thesedifferences do existtoday,areundeniable,
havebeenobjectivelyestablished, havenot been settledandthelimitthat
ArticleVI imposes to the use of the procedures of the Pact,does not
apply
2.20 Clearly, upon examining the Colombianobjection,it is necessaryto
distinguishbetween the differentpoints that Colombia, in a self-
interestedfashion,attemptsto presentas asingleand soleissue.
looCPO,Val. I,Intrduction,paras8, 18and 4.t0,4.21
'*INM, Vol. I,Chap.[I,Sec.11,para.2.10ff.
103Ihici,Chap11,Sec.IV,paras.2.254ff.
Ibid,Chap.11,Sec.Illparas.2.140ff.
'04IbidChap.11,Sec.111 .aras2.189 ff.
105CPO, Vol.1,para.2.4.2.21 The firstsuchpointis thevaliditand effectivenessof the 1928Treaty
and the 1930 Protocolof Exchangeof ~atifications'~.Whateverthe
objectivemeaningone maywishto ascribetothephrase"matters already
settleby arrangements between theparties(asuntosya resueltospor
arreglos de las parfes)", to which ArticleVI of the Pact makes
reference10t,e imperativthat anagreement ortreatybein forceat the
dateof the conclusionof the Pact is explicit.This excludes fromthe
scope of theMide those controversiesthatrelate specificalto the
validityof the "arrangementsetwee the parties"and,as aresult,the
legal effecofthe 1928 Treaty andthe 1930 Protocolof Exchangeof
Ratifications.
2.22 Further,the controversyregardinthe invalidityof the Treatyemerged
afterthePactenteredintoforce,althoughsomeof theevents from which
itoriginatesprecedthatdate.Thevalidityof theTreatywas challenged
bythe Ministerof ForeigAffairsofNicaragua Mr.Loenzo Guerrero n
theNotes No 053and 054, of7 October1972Io8andthe controversonly
becameapparenton 5 February 1980, once Colombiarepliedto the
NicaraguanDeclarationofInvalidityoftheTreatyof thedaybeforelm.
2.23 Inany case,Nicaragua does not believe that the Courtcan reach a
conclusiononthispointwithoutgoing intothemeritsofthe case.Thisin
1[1SeeNM, Vol. I,Chap.11, Sec.I(paras.2.4-2.101and I1(paras2.102-
2,138).
loSeeabovepara.2.5.
lo4LWifh~f~o,r themoment,going inthe validiy ofthe Bbcenas Meneses-
Esguerra Tready,ihis~oricalrmdlegal background,nor the circumsiances
wowdi dingitsc~ncIusion,Nicaraguareiterathatthebankslocated ithat
zoneareparof herContinentalShf.. emphasisadded)S. eethNote iNM,
Vol.11Annexes34 and 35.See alsoMontielArgiiellAlejandroop.cit.p.
15.NWS, Vol.[I,Annex2.
'0See theColombianNoteof 5February1980inCPO,Vol. 11,Annex19.The
NicaraguaDeclarationo4 FebruaryI980inNM, Vol. 11Annex73. itselfwouldmakeit impossibleatthisjunctureto implementany ofthe
consequencesthatArticleXXXlV of the Pact imposes if and whenthe
assumptionsunderlyingArticleVI areverified.
For Colombia,the 1928 Treaty isnot only valid and in forcebut its
purposeand provisionsmustbe forciblyinterprete(andapparently there
is no room for discussion)inthe sense determinedby Colombia and
imposedon Nicaragua.A declaration oflack ofjurisdictionbytheCourt
on the validityof the 1928 Treatyandits complementaryinstruments
cannotencompass the other points of the controversy,which are not
"mattersalreadysettled"and, even lessso,those mattersthatwere not
even considered at the time said Treaty and its complementary
instrumentswereenteredinto.
2.25 The Colombianclaim is unfounded,and the Court should reject an
exegesis of Article VI of the Pact that considers settled those
controversiesregardingthe scope and interpretationof a treatythat
emerge, asin thepresentcase, afiertheconclusionof thePact,alleging
that said controversiewere the object of the agreementbetween the
partiesIf thenegotiatorsof thePact had intendedto excludefromits
scopeof applicationthose"new'" controversiesthatmightemerge, and
that are relateto mattersalreadysettled,they would have expressly
statedsuchan intention,somethingtheyclearlydidnotdo.
2.26 Thatthis is thecase is indirectlyconfirmedbythe declaraformulated
bythe delegationof theRepublicof Argentinatojustifyherreservations
tothePactasconcernsjudicialproceduresandarbitration:
"[Tlhe Delegationcannot accept the form in which the
procedures fortheirapplicationhavebeen regulated,since, in its opinion,[heyshouldhave beep1establishedonlyfor
conlroversiesarisinigthefuture andnotoriginatinginor
havingany relation tocauses, situationsorfactsexisting
beforethesigningof[hisinstrument7('emphasisaddedjllo.
2.27 ThusArticleVIdid not coverthesedifferences ,sArgentinawouldhave
liked.
Itis obviousthatthepurposeof ArticleVIof thePact cannot havebeen
toremovefromthescope of application of ArticleXXXIalldifferences
regardingthevalidityof atreatyinforce.ArticleXXXI followsliterally
thewording ofArticle36, paragraph 2,of the Statuo tfthe Cour hat
includesamongthe legal disputes thatfall underits jurisdictio"the
existenceof any factwhich,if established,wouldconstitutea breachof
an internationalobligation".Apartfromthistype of disputeit mustbe
recalledthatthisArticlealso admitsthejurisdictionof the Courtin all
legal disputesconcerning"the interpretationof a treaty"or of "any
questionof internationlaw".
2.29 Taking the above as a startingpoint, it is worth noting that the
terminationofthe Bkenas-Esguem Treatyas a resultof a material
breachby Colombia istheoutcome ofsomething thatoccurredlongafter
the conclusionof the Treaty andof the Pact of Bogotii, namelythe
Colombianclaimin 1969 thatthe 82"MeridianW, agreed in 1930 asthe
westernlimitof theSan AndrbsArchipelago.constitutedthe maritime
border between herself and Nicaragua.According to Nicaragua,this
'IPactof Bogoth.ThetextinSpanishreads"laDelegacibnno puedeaceptarla
formaen quesehanpeglamentado losprocedimientoparasuaplicaci6nyaque
asujuicio debieroestablecerss6lo paralascontroversiquese origineen
elfuturoyque notengan suorigennirelacibnafguncon causassituacioneo
hechos preexistentea la firma de este instrumento". See Argentina's
reservatitothe PactofBogoth. radicalshiftin the common and authenticinterpretationof the Treaty
constitutesa materialbreach whichfulfilsthe conditionsestablishedby
the generalprinciplesof internationallaw andArticle 60 of the Vienna
ConventionontheLawof Treaties,according towhichNicaraguahas the
righttoterminatethe ~reat~l''.
2.30 Issues of internationaaw linkedto the interpretatioof treatieattract
theotherpointsin the NicaraguanApplication,namelythedetermination
of the insular components of the San Anrlres Archipelago in the
frameworkof the 1928 Treaty,and the interpretationof the reference
made to the 82' MeridianW in the 1930 l'rotocolof Exchangeof
Ratifications.
2.31 Thesearedifferences thatareverymuchaliveandclearlyraisequestions
ofinternationallawrelated tothe interpretatioof Treatiesthatemerged
after the conclusionof the Pact in 1948. The claim that the Courtis
incompetent to hear the case by invoking Article VI of the Pact is
unfounded.
2.32 It is be recalledthatinthe pastColombiadid notrejectoutof handthe
holding of negotiationswithNicaraguaby alleging thatthe 1928Treaty
hadsettledall controversies.n ChapterI, Section111p, aragraphs1.67to
1.79 above, there is a detailed account of the statementsmade by
ColombianHeads of StateandMinistersof ForeignAffairsprovingthat
Colombiadidnot consider theissueof the 82"W Meridian as a line of
delimitationfinallysettledFurthermore, therewere at leasttwo serious
offers of negotiationsmade by CoIomhiathat openly included the
questionof maritimedelimitationC. olombianPresidentsLopez, in 1977,
andSamper,in 1995,made publicannouncementsthat negotiationson
liNM, Vol.1,Chap.11,Sec.1V(paras.2.254-2.2611).
63 delimitationin the CaribbeanSea would beginwith Nicaragua.That
these negotiationsfailedto produceresults was due to the internal
oppositionin Nicaraguain1977'12and to the internalopposition in
Colombia in 1995'13.
2.33 Theneighbouring countrieshaverecognizedthe lackof definitionof a
maritimelimit and the existence of a disputebetweenNicaraguaand
Colombia.Colombiadaresto pointto thetreatysignedwithCostaRica
on 17 March1977 as one af the successfulresults of her maritime
delimitationpolicy in theCaribbean ,sserting,"(1) hasbeen applied
bona$des by the parties since the very moment of its signature""4.
Colombiapretendsto ignore the fact that nineteen years after its
signaturein 1996,theCostaRicanMinisterof Foreign Affairs,Fernando
Naranjo,statedin publicthat hiscountrqwf ould not ratifythatTreaty
whilst Colombia did not settle her differenceswith ~icara~ua"~.
Colombiadoes not reveal the factthatin order to makepossible the
ratificatiby CostaKca ofthemaritimedelimitationtreatyconcerning
the Pacific, of 6 April 1984, its Article11had to be modified,This
Articleprovided for the simultaneous ratificationof both delimitation
Treaties:thatof 1977concerning theAtlanticandthat1984concerning
thePacific(seeexchangeof notesof 29May 2000)"~.
'INWS,Vol. 31,Annex 20.
114WS, Vol. 11,Annex21.
CPO,Vol.I,para.1.6.The textofthetreatyinCPO,Vol.11,Annex Ic.
'lNWS, Vol. 11,Annex 5Ei Especiador,15de rnarzode 1996,p.9-A.Later
on, intheFinalDocumento:ftheBinationalCommissionNicaragua-CostaRica
(May 1997) MinisterNamjo reiterate"hisGovernment'sfim commitment
not to act about its boundaryclaimin the NorthernCaribteanuntil the
Governments ofNicaraguaandColombiareachan agreementthatwill allow
them to overcome the differences originated between thostwo friendly
nations"SeeNWS, Vol. 11Annex26.
'INWS, WOI . I,nnex27.2.34 Thecontroversyregardingthemeaning of"SanAndrds~rckipela~o""~
tothe effect of consideringthe Caysof Roncador,Serrana,Quitasuefia,
Serranilla, ajoNuevo, Cayosde Albuquerque,Este or Sudesteto be
includedin the archipelago,only emerged in the late 1960s, once
ColombiaentereduponnegotiationswiththeUnitedStateswiththe aim
of appropriatinthese territories"'.Thesenegotiationsbecamepressing
duetotheunexpectedColombiandoctrineof claimingMeridian82"Wto
be themaritime border withNicaragua,thus breakingwith the peaceful
considerationforfourdecadesof thisMeridianas a lineforpurposesof
attributiooftitlto islands.
2.35 Inthe 1928Treaty,whosevalidityNicaragua challenges,sherecognized
Colombiansovereigntyover theArchipelago ofSanAndrkstotheeastof
Meridian82' W or, expressedin otherterms, thattherewere no islands
belonging tothe Archipelago tothe west of the MeridianOn theother
hand,this didnotimplyacceplancethat allislandsintheCaribbean tothe
eastofMeridian 82')formpartof theArchipelagoandarepresumed tobe
~olombian"~I .tis worthreadingArticle1of theTreaty,firstparagraph,
withcare:
"...theRepublicof Nicaraguarecognizesthefullandentire
sovereigntyoftheRepublicof Colombiaover the islandof
SanAndrks,Providencia,SantaCatalina,andall the other
islands, isleis and cays that form part of the said
Archipekgo ofSanAndris"(emphasisr~dded).
11See aboveparas.1.26-1.45.
"%M. Vol.1,Chap. 11,Sec.111, (paras2.140-2.88); andVol11,Annexes
31,34 and35.
'"'bid,paras.2.249ff.2.36 Thegeographicandhistorical descriptionpresentedby Colombia of the
San AnWs Archipelago today120is not canonicalnor was itrelevant
yesterday,asdemonstratedintheMemorialof~icaragua'~'.
2.37
Itis revealinthatwhen,in thelatespringof 1969,Colombiaobjectedto
the concessions foroilexplorationmade by Nicaraguato the eastof
Meridian82'W,theColombiandiplomatic noteof4 June1969expressly
distinguishedbetween theconcessionofthe"Quitasuefioblock"andthe
otherconcessions,reservingforthelattertheinvocatioof Meridian82'
Wasthemaritime border'22.
2.38 The delimitationof maritimeareasbetweenNicaraguaandColombiais
theobjectof a disputebetweenthePartiesthathasnot been resolvedby
any treaty'2andit veryclearlyfallsunderthejurisdictionof theCourt,
in accordance with ArticleXXXZ of the Pact of Bogoti. Colombia
claimed Meridian82"Was a maritime borderforthefirsttimeinNote
No. 092 of 4 June 1969,when sheattemptedto reservethesesupposed
rights Yis-A-v ties Nicaraguan exercise of jurisdictionover the
continentalshelftothe eastofthe ~eridian'~~T.o thiNote Nicaragua
gaveanimmediateandfullanswerinNote No. 0021,on 12 Juneof that
same year"5.
2.39 In herPreliminary Objecfium of 21 July2003 Colombiais unableto
provideanyproofwhatsoeverof anypriorclaim, or evenofherdogmatic
120
121CPO,Vol. I,paras.1.8and2.26.
NM, Vol.I,paras.2.14ff2.179ff.
"123eethisNote iNM, Vol.11,Annex28;excerptsinCPO,Vol.11Annex1 8.
NM, Vol.1,Chap.11Sec.111,,paras2.189-2.253.
124NM, Vol. I, para. 2.ff.See the NotNo. 092 of Colombia,of4June
1969, iNM, Vol.11,Annex28;excerptsofthisNote inGPO,Vol,IT ,nnex
18,Colombiainsist4on thipointina Note of 22 September1969(sethe
Note inNM, Vol.II,Annex30).
'I5NM, Vol. I,paras.122K Text ofthNote NM, Val. [I,Annex29. affirmationthat sincethe 1928to 1930agreemtntsshe bas alwaysacted
onthe basisthatthis wastheagreedmaritimeborder'".
2.40 The wearisomeinsistence upon linking the Sandinista Government,
which came to power in 1979, to the objecticmagainst the "maritime
settlementthatwassupposedlyagreeduponin 1930' ~~esnot coincide
withthefact thatit was Nicaragua,notColombia,whouponexercising
herjurisdictionover the continentalshelfto the eof Meridian 82' in
thenineteensixties,awakenedColombian greed.
2.41 IftheCourtconsiders,as itindeedshould,thattheProtocolof Exchange
of Ratificationof 1930 has nothingto do with the establishmentofa
maritimedividingline, then ArticleVI of thePactilostin irrelevance.
Obviouslythisis notamatterresolvedby aTreatyin force.
It must be pointed out in particularthat the Colombiandiscnurse
regardingthemeaningof Meridian82"Was a maritime dividinglineis
as grandiloquentas itis empty, and mmelp reflects a circularand
repetitiverhctoricbeliein advanceby the Memorid of Nicaragua,in
whichthe rules regardingthe interpretation of treatiessupporbydthe
jurisprudenceof theCourthavebeencorrectlyapplied'28A . t theend of
thedaythe Colombianallegationsare reducedto an allusionmadeby a
Nicaraguan senatorto "thedividinglineof thewaterin dispute(laEinea
divisoria dspas en disputa)"inthe parliamentarydebateratifyingthe
'2CPO,VOI.I, Introductioparas15, 17,40,46. andparas1.29,1.30,1.34,
1.89 ,.91,2.56,4.7,4.8.
'"7bid paras1.93ff.
12NM, Vol. paras.2.225ff. 1928 ~reat~l~~and the mentionof Meridian 82" in Colombianmaps
startingin 19313'.
2'43 One sentenceutteredby a senatorinthethroesof a parliamentarydebate
lacks the weight to alter the grammatical,logical and systematic
interpretatioof the Protocolof Exchangeof Ratifications,or even to
alterthe sense of the travauxpriparatoiresthat Colombiaintendsto
exploit'3Itis absolutelfalsethatfromthe travaux-which,inany case,
area complementarymeansof interpretation13 2-an beinferredthatthe
Nicaraguanintentionuponproposinga provisionregardingMeridian 82'
W was "to define a limit in the seas betweenthejurisdictionof both
co~ntries"""~T.heverydeclarationby theMinisterof ForeignAffairs in
the processof authorizingthe 1928 Treatyin the ColombianSenate,
which Colombia quotes, revealsmost clearlyhow far removed the
Colombian authoritieswere from the idea of drawing a maritime
boundary withNicaragua. "Thi arrangemenf" ,aidtheMinister,
"..forever consolidaies the Republic's siduationin /he
Archiplugu ofSunAndris and Pr.ovidenciae ,rasingany
claim to the conbary, and perpetuallyrecognizing the
sovereigntyandrightof fulldomainof our country over
thatimportanstectionofthe~e~ublic"'~~.
129
CPO,Vol.I,paras.1.61,2.37,2.48,2.56,2.63.
I3Ihid,Introductio, aras.46; 1.92,1.I 15,2.47,2.56,4.8.
"'See,forinstance,ibipara.2.56.
'j2Article 32 of the ViennaConvention the Law of Treatiesof23 May
1969.TheConvention was ratifiedbyCdombiaon 10 April1985.Nicaraguais
nota party.However, she acceptsthat,with respectto the interpretofion
treatie(Articles 31and 32), the Convention codifies existing rules of
customaryinternationallaw(SeeNM,Vol.1,para.2.3).
GPO, VOI.I,paras2.49,2.50,2.53,2.57.
13Ibi dara1.47.2.44 Inorderto arriveat an authenticinterpretatioof theTreaty,an analysis
must be madeof all parliamentary recordsandpublic statements of the
NicaraguanExecutiveBranchregardingthe inclusion of a referenceto
Meridian82' W, as well asthe negotiationwiththe ColombianMinister
in Managua, which Colombia herself cites in her Preliminary
~bjecrions'~~and partiallyrecordsinthe annexes'a 3sa,lsothetexts of
the Decree authorizingtheratificationof theTreatythatemanatedfrom
the Nicaraguan~on~ress"~ andthe text of the 1930 Protocol of
Exchangeof ~atifications'".All of theseconfilmthat itspurposewas to
establish"thegeographicab loundary betweenthearchipelagosindispute
(el limite geogrdjko enwe 20s archipiila enosi~~ura)"'~~a,nd nota
delimitationof maritime areas.A delimitationof the high seas was
somethingwhichwas not imagined by any of'them, and whichin any
case would have presupposed a qualitativealterationof the Treaty's
purpose'4o . s Colombiacannot finddocuments to supportherassertions
shehasnoqualmsinusingarguments to distortphrases or statementsthat
haveanothermeaning'4'.
135CPO, Vol. Iparas1.52ff.
'36Ibid, Vol11,Annexes 7-9, whichreproduceexcerptof theRecords ofthe
SessionsXLVIII(Annex 7)and XLIX (Annex8)of tliChamber of the Senate
(4and 5 March 19301,and ofthe SessionLVlII(Annex 9) ofthe Chamberof
Deputies(1 April1930) of theNicaraguanCongress.Texts inSpanishin La
Gacefa,Diario OJicia lM, ay1930,No. 94,pp. 746ff. ,May 1930, No. 98,
pp. 777 ff., and20August 1930, No. 182, pp. 1457ff.Excerptsfrom the
Records ofthe Sessionsof theChamber ofthe Senateare alsto befound in
NM, Vol.TI,Annex80.Nicaraguareproducesnow therecordsofthementioned
sessionsof thChambers inN WS,Vol.I IAnnexes24a,24b, 25.
'j7CPO,Vol. 1,para.1.67Vol.11,Annex10.
Jbidpara. 1.69Seethe InstrumentfRatificatioandProtocolof Exchange
of RatificationsoftheBarcenas-EsguewaTreatinNM, Vol. 11,Annex 19.
13'CPO.YO!. I,para.1.67Vol.11,Annex 10.
141~, Vol. Iparas.2.191ff.
See,forexample,GPO, Vol.I,Introductiopants.38and40.2.45 The referenceto Meridian82' came up in the debateheld in the
NicaraguanSenateduetotheperceptionthatColombiamightlaterclaim
thata11islandsnotrecognisedeopromineas beingpart ofNicaragua (the
ManglesTslands)formpartof the Archipelagoof San And&. At that
time, in the wordsof senatorDernetrioCuadra"it is urgentfor usto
clarifyourightsovertheMosquitotenitoryandovertheislandsgranted
by the Bryan-Cborro Treaty as belongingto Nicaragua for the
constructionofthe anal'"^^ T.hisconcernwas justifiedbecausethe
Mangles Islands had been claimed by Colombia as partof the
Archipelagopriorto the Bbcenas-EsguerraTreaty.Even now, in her
PreliminaryObjections,Colombia'sreferencestotheArchipelago of San
Andrks sometimes do and sometimesdo not includereferencesto the
Mangles Islands, depending upon the perspectiveshe wishes to
highlight1".
2.46 The Colombianstatementthat it was the NicaraguanSenate Study
Committeethat had the idea that to put an end to the disputewith
Colombia,it was necessary to define the bordersbetweenthe two
countries,sregardsboth landand sea'44 acksanybasisinreality.The
literalwordingof the agreementreachedby the Committee, and which
Colombiarecordsin thePreliminary ~bjecrions'~'(ad reproduces
partiallyin aannex'4 i6)eryexplicit.TheCommitteenotesthat"The
Treaty bringsto anend the question pending between both States
regardingthe Archipelagoof San And& and Providenciaand the
Nicaraguan Mosquitia", and recommends ratification "in the
14CPO,Vol.I,para.1-64and Vol.11Annex8.
'"]bid, Introducti,aras8; andparas1.1, 1.11.19,1.231.24,1.26,1.29-
1.321.34,1.351.38,1.71,2.26.
'MIbidp,aras2.44and1.114.
14Ibidpa,ra.1.59.
14Ibid,Vol11,Annex7. understandintghattheArchipelagoof San And& mentioned inthefirst
clauseof the Treatydoes notextendwest of GreenwichMeridian82 O..."
The Ministerof ForeignAffairs,ManuelCorderoReyes, is clearin his
explanationstothe Senate:'?theexplanationdoes not reformtheTreaty,
becauseit only intendsto indicatea limitbetmeenthearchipelagosthat
havebeenreasonforthedispute ...,1.7
2.47 If,as Colombiamaintains,"thedetermination ofthe 82"W Meridian asa
maritimelimit was a fundamentalelementof rhe thenit
becomes inexplicablethat the ColombianCongressdid not hearof it.
Constitutionaland parliamentarypractice in Colombia proves that
Congress, as a matterof law, compulsorilyintervenedwhenever an
alreadyauthorizedtreatywas the objectof modificationsby the other
Party-
2.48 Thiswas thecase, for example,with the treaty signedbyColombia and
the United States an 6 April 1914 "for purposes of solving their
differencesstemmingfromeventsoccurring ontheIsthmus ofPanama in
November1903".Approvedin Colombiaby Law 14 of 9 Juneof that
sameyear,thetreaty was sent back totheColo~nbian Congressfollowing
aresolutionof 20 April1921 inwhichtheUnitedStatesSenateagreedto
andrecommended theratificatioof the treaty,though withanumber of
modifications.The ColombianCongressapprovedthe modifiedtreaty
throughLaw 56 of 22 December1921,andthe ProtocolOFExchangeof
14'NM, Val. 11Annex 80 andNWS, Vol. 11,Annex 24b (Minutes ofthe
SessionsoftheChamber of theSenateof Nicaragua4 and5 March1930. Text
in Spanish:"laaclaraci nbonreformaeltratado;pues sbloteniapor objeto
seiialaun lirnitentre 10sarchipiklagosque habian sido motivo de la
disput..."Colombiatranslateas follows:"'tclarificatididnot revisthe
Treaty,asitonlypurposewas to establiahboundarybetweenthearchipelagos
whichhadbeenthereasonforthedispute...(CPO,Vol.I I,Annex8).
14Ibid p,ra2.47. Ratificationincludeda declaratioof conformitywiththeUnitedStates'
demandof excluding a free right of passage for Colombiantroops,
materialandwarships throughthePanamaCanal incaseof warwith any
other country.This was accepted by the ColombianSenate,in the
understanding("enla ir~teli~encia")'h'atColombiawouldherself not
be placedin a disadvantageous situationregardinganyothernationin
similarcircumstance^'^^.
2.49 From1928to1930therewere no"watersin dispute" ,ndthereforethere
was no reasonto conclude, as Colombia now claims, that maritime
delimitationwas necessarytosatisfytheaimof thetreaty,which wasto
settleallterritorialdisputesthenpendingbetweenthparties151.
2.50 The Explanatoty Preamble(Exposici6nde Motivos) ofthebill senttothe
Colombian Senate on September 1928 submits for the Senate's
consideration"a treaty concerningterritorialissues (tratadu sobre
cuestionesterritorialesbetween ColombiaandNicaragua,in the spirit
of "puttinanend totheterritorialispute pendingbetweenthemboner
tkrmino a1 litigtieoritorial entre eNos pendimre)"", an expression
14'In passing, "this understanding"added bythe Colombian Senate on
ratificatiwas not consideretohavealteredthe objecofthetreatyandthe
United States' Governmentsaw no need for furtheraction. Equallythe
"understanding"added by theNicaraguanSenate upon ratiQingthe 1928
Treatydidnot alteriobjectandnofurtheractionwastakebnytheColombian
150ernment.
Seein G.Cavalier,Tratadode Colombia,Vol.2, 1911-1936Kelly,Bogoth,
1984,pp.85 K
15CPO, Vol.I,para.2.41.
152RepGblicade Colombia,Historide lasbyes, Vol.XI, 1928,Legislature.
EditionorderedbytheChamber ofRepresentativesaneditedby itSecretary
FernandoRestrepoBricefio,Bogotl lrnprenNational,1930,p. 523. NWS,
Vol.11Annex 1. takenfrom thepreamble of the ~reaty'"itselfand which isreiteratedin
Law93of 17November1928passedbythe Colombian~on~ress'~~.
2.51 Whatthe disputeconsisted of and what its solutionwas is reflectedin
ArticleI of theTreaty and was subsequentlyparaphrased in successive
documentsthat formalizedthe parliamentaryproceduresleading to its
ratificatibyColombia.Thisarrangementi,t isstatedintheExplanatory
Preambleof theaforementioned bill,
'"..definitivelyconsolidatesthestatusof the RepubIicin
the Archipelagoof San Andr6 and Providencia ... In
exchange,NicaraguansovereigntyintheMosquitia ...and
theManglesIslands.. .isre~ognised"'~~.
2.52 The Senate Foreign Affairs CommitteeReport of 18 October 1928
expresses itself in very similar terms: "This Pact consolidates in
perpetuityour sovereigndominionover the Archipelago'bnd'buts an
end toa prolonged md annoyingdispute 915. Likewise,thereportissued
by the equivalentCommittee inthe Chamber of Representativesdeclares
that,
"bymeansof this Treaty the Government of the Republic
has wished tobring toa fiendly conclusiontheold dispute
between the High Contractingparlies regarding the
sovereignty of the Mosquito Coast and the Mangles
'5"~~, Vol.11Annex 1.a.
154Repdblicade Colombia,Hisdoriade1a.Leyes, Vol.XI,1928 Legislaturep.
534.See NWS, Vol.11Annex 1.
155bid,p.523.See NWS,Vol. ITAnnex 1.
lSbIbidp,530. SeeNWS, Vol.11,Annex 1. Islands,as wellas the Nicaraguanpretensionsover the
ArchipelagoofSan Andrds and~ovidence".'~~.
2.53 AlthoughColombiadares make referenceto "appurtenanm t aritime
areas"of theislandscaysand banksof theArchipelagoa,swellasof the
cays from Albuquerque to Serranilland Bajo ~uevo~~~C , olombian
legislatio-aswellasinternationalaw-didnot atthetimerecognize the
notion of an archipelagoas a legally relevant concept fareas of
maritimesovereignty and jurisdiction.The same is truefor maritime
areasthathaveonlydevelopedoverthepastfiftyyears.
2.54 On this samepointColombiabetraysherself whenin the Preliminary
Objectionshe recognizethat"nodoubt, in1930,Meridian82"W could
not be understoodas a maritimeboundaryin the modernsense of the
However, Colombianow claims that in 1930 a maritime
boundary on thehighseaswas agreedupon"governingwhateverchanges
theremight havebeensince theninthelawofthe sea"'@ .pparentlythe
partieswereunwittinglyspeculatorswhoinvested inthefuturesmarket.
Colombianot only transformsthe Bhcenas-EsguerraTreatyinto a
maritimedelimitationtreaty,butalso pretendsto interpreit withthe
contemporaneous Internationalaw of theSea.Itisclearthatatthevery
least thereis a dispute between the Partiesinvolvinga conflicof
interpretationof the Bhenas-Esguerra Treaty and its subsequent
instruments.
t5ReptblicadeColombia,HistorideJmLeyes,Voi,XI, 1928Legislatp u.re,
531. SeeNWS,Vol. I1,Annex 1.
15CPO,Vol.I,paras.2.26and-89.
Ibid,para.2.53.
160
Ibid, pa2.55.2.55 The factthatColombianmapsstartingin 1931mentionMeridian82' W
isnot of itselfproofthattheMeridianwas beingconceivedasa maritime
boundary andthere isno legend or otherindication inthe maps to that
effect.By logic, if the boundaryof the archipelagofor purposes of
attributioof sovereigntyovertheislands andcays were atMeridian 82',
itwouldhavebeenopportune to indicatethisinthe maps.As thisis the
extent of the informationprovided in these maps, it is perfectly
understandable thatNicaraguaissuedno protestinrelationto a factthat
was in accordancewiththestipulationsofthefreaty.
2.56 It must be stressed that the convention;il Colombian maritime
delimitationpolicy,ascanbededucedfromthecopiousdataand annexes
shepmffers16'b, eganinthe 1970s, inthewakeof an evolutionin thelaw
of theseacharacterized by theexpansionof sovereigntyandjurisdiction
of coastalstatesAccording to the suddenColombian thesis'6,he 1928
Treatywith Nicaraguawas aprecociousand solitarytreaty thatforforty
years silentlyprovided,ina dormant statefor a maritimedelimitation.
However,theBarcenas-Esguerra Treatywas termed a"treaty concerning
territorialatters (irutado sobre cuestione.~fe~ritoriales) at issue
betweenColombiaand Nicaragua".Even eo rlornine "boundar yreaties
(tratados de linzites)"contemporarywith the 1928 Barcenas-Esguerra,
suchas, forexample,theColombia-PanamT areatyof 20August1924163,
had tobecompletedhalf a centurylaterwiththedelimitation ofmaritime
spaces'64.
162CPO,Vol. I,para..SandinVol. 11,Annex 1.
163bid,paras.2.60and 2.61.
SeeinG. Cavalier,opcil.pp.102 ff.
'64Treatyon the DelimitationofMarine and Submarine Areas and Related
Mattersbetweenthe Republicof Colombia and theRepublicof Panama,20
November1976(CPO, Vol. 11AnnexI, b).The 1928 Treaty is not the fingerwith whichColombiacan cover the
blazing sun of controversythatseparatesthe Parties.Thereason why
Nicaragua isnow beforethe Courtis preciselydueto thefailureof her
variouseffortstoreachanagreement through bilateranlegotiations.The
ColombianclaimthattheCourtshould declare thecontroversyended is
equivalentto invitingit to ignore extant controversiesthat endanger
peace. Thiswouldbe a perverseresukconsidering that theobjective,
mentioned on several occasions in the Pact, was that there be"a
procedureof a mandatory nature,thatconcludeswith a finalresolution,
in sucha waythatnocontroversy can be lefwithoutresolutionwithina
reasonabletime period".Thisis an optionforwhich theparticipantat
the Conferencevoted unanimously 'n65whichis inall aspectsin
accordancewith the provisionsof the Charterof the Organization of
AmericanStates, whichin its Articl26 (currentArticle27) provided
that,
"A special Treaty (the Pact) will establish adequate
proceduresfor the pacific settlementof disputesandwill
determinethe appropriatemeans for their application,so
that no dispute between American States shall fail of
definitivesettlementwithinareasonablperiod"'66.
See Infurme de la Subcomisidn encargaddaeJ estudide unafhmula
fundamenalsobre el SistemaInterumericandePaz (CB-381tC.1I-SubA-7),
1X International onferenceof AmericanStates,ProceedingsandDocumeJts
Novena ConferencialnternacionaAmericana,Actas y Dommbos, Vol. IV,
MRE, Bogotk 1953,Comisibn Tercera,CuartaSesibn,pp. 79-80; 187See
WWS, Vol.11Annex18.
16The textinSpanishreads:"Un Tratadaespecial (el Pacto)estable10s
medios adecuados para resolve ras mntroversias y determind los
procedimientopertinentescada unode 10smediospaclficos,enformde no
dejarque ningunacontroversiaquesurjaentrlosEstadosAmericanospueda
quedarsinsolucibndefinitivadendeounplazorazonable".2.58 Ina reporton theoutcome oftheConferencepresented totheCouncilof
the Organizationof American States by the Secretary-Generalon 3
November 1948 a reminderis issued that no system of peaceful
settlementofdisputesthatdoes not includea finalmandatory stage,will,
in the futurebe inharmony with the will of'the AmericanStates as
expressedinthe Inajudgmenthandeddownon 20 Decemkr
1988 (Border and Transbo~ader Armed Acbtions.Jivrisdiction and
Admissibility3Nicaragua v. Honduras)the Court observed that itwas
"quiteclear from the Pact thatthe purpose of the AmericanStates in
draftingitwas to reinforcetheirmutual commitments with regardto
judicial~ettlernent"'~~.
2.59 It is interesttogrecallthatthePactwascalled"Pactof ~o~otk'''~a ~s a
consequence of aNicaraguan motion put forthattheconclusionoftheIX
InternationaClonferenceof American States,intendedto honourtherole
played by the host country'70. At this event, in effect, Colombia
distinguished herselbythe specialvigourwith whichshe defendedthe
mandatoryjudicial procedureas the definitiveway in which to settle
contr~versies'~'.
2.60 To affirm the principleof definitivesolutionof controversies,only to
immediatelyhamperit by meansof an abusiveinterpretation of Article
167Ninth InternationalConference of American StatesAnnals of the
Ovganizadionof AnlericanStates,WashingtonI1.C. Department of Public
Information, Pan-Americannion, 1949-958, Vo1.1,N. 2, 1949p. 48. See
NWS,Val. 11,Annex 19.
I.C.JR.eports 1988,p.90, para.46.
ArticleLXof theAmericanTreatyon PacificSettlement("Pactof BogotP).
IX International Conference of American States, Proceedings and
Documents/Novena ConferencianternacionalAmericana, ctay Documentos,
vol.IV,MRE,Bogoth, 1953,Comisi6n TerceraCuartaSesion,pp.204 ff.See
NWS, Vol.IIAnnex 18,
''NinthInternationaClonferenceof AmericanStates.opcilp.50.See NWS,
Vol.11,Annex 19. VT runscountertotheobjectandpurposeof thePact.The Pact,whichis
at the service of a peacefulandfinal solutionof controversies,should
thereforenot be interpretin sucha way thatcontroversiethatdo not
concernthe review of treatiesor challenges to rejudicatu remain
unsettled.Furthermore, it must be recalledwhat was stated bythe
Peruvian delegate(whoproposedwhatbecameArticleVIof thePactof
Bogotii)in relationtothe referencein thisArticleto"agreements or
treatiesin force".He indicatedthatmost treatiesprovidedtheir own
mechanisms for settling disputes arising from the applicationor
interpretatioandthesewouldnot be affectedby the Pact. Clearlythe
1928Treatydoesnotfallintothiscategory.
2,61 As wasopportunely pointedoutbytheSecretary-Genera ql,uotedearlier
in theReporton the Resultsof theBogoti Conference presentedtothe
CounciloftheOrganization ofAmerican States:
"Inthehistoryof thelaw between nationsthecompulsory
solutionof controversiehas beenclosely linked to the
conceptof sovereignty,fora simplereason,whichis, the
decisionploto resolvea disputebypacificmeans always
leaves open the possibilitof a resortto force. Weak
nationshavealways championed arbitratioand juridical
settlementThe strongones have hesitatedto takea step
that would amount to divesting themselvesbefore the
judges and the courts of allthe prerogativesof their
physicalpower,descendingtothelevelof anothernationin
the presentationof the factsof the case andthejuridical exposition of the circumstancesthat gave rise to the
2.62 The Court must in any event rqiect the objections formulatedby
Colombiaregardingitsjurisdiction, but whatit cannotin anycase do,is
to admitthem atthis preliminarystage of theproceedings. Itis difficult
to finda betterexample of an objection that "does not possess, in the
circumstances of the case,an exclusivelypreliminary ~haracter"'~T ~.
pronounceitselfinthetermsrequiredby Colombia, the Courtmustfirst
considerthe case on its merits,since the Courtcouldonly declarethe
controversyendedbydecidingthemerits of thecase.
AlthoughColombiacouches her reasoning in respect of the Pact of
Bogoti interms of apreliminary objection,whatshereallyis seekingto
achieve by askingthe Court to upholdthis objectionis lorule in her
favouron themeritsof themattersNicaragua has submittedto theCourt.
Thisconcerns the disputesover thevalidityandterminationof the 1928
Treaty andthe interpretation of its provisions.In this connection,it is
appropriateto quote an observation of the Courtin its Judgmenton
preliminary objectionsintheLockerhie cases:
"5Q.TheCourtmust thereforeascertainwhether,in the
presentcase, theUnited Kingdom'sobjectionbased on the
Security Council decisions contains 'both preliminary
aspectsandotheraspectsrelatingtothemerits'ornot.
-- - -
NinthInternationaConferenceof AmericanStates.op. cip.47. SeeNWS,
Vol, 11.Annex19.
Rules ofCourt, Art.79, para.9. SeeLockerbieCase (Prel. Objs.),I.C.J
Reports1998, pp.26-29, paras46-51;Cameroon v.Nigeri Caase(Prel. Ohjs.)
1.C.J Reporis1998,pp.322-325,paras.112-117.Thatobjectionrelatesto many aspectsof thedispute.By
maintainingthatSecurityCouncilresolutions748 (1992)
and 883 (1993) have renderedthe Libyanclaimswithout
object,theUnitedKingdomseeks to obtainfiomtheCourt
a decisionnottoproceedtojudgment anthemerits,which
would immediatelyterminatetheproceedings.However,by
requesting such a decision, the United Kingdom is
requestinginreality,aleasttwo otherswhichthedecision
nottoproceedtojudgmenton themeritswould necessarily
postulate:on the one handa decisionestablishingththe
rightsclaimedby LibyaundertheMontrealConvention are
incompatiblewith its obligations under the Security
Councilresolutions;and, ontheotherhand,a decisionthat
those obligationsprevail over those rights by virtof
Articles25and 103of theCharter,
The Court thereforhasno doubt thatLibya'srighton the
merits would not only be affectedby adecision,at this
stageoftheproceedings,not toproceedtojudgmentonthe
merits,but would constitute, in manyrespects, the very
subject-matteof thatdecision.Theobjectionraisedbythe
United Kingdom on that point has thecharacter of a
defense an the merits. In the view of the Court, this
objectiondoes much more than 'touchIing]uponsubjects
belonging to the merits of the case' (Certain German
Interests inPolish UpperSilesi Jaurisdiction,Judgment
No. 6, 1925, P.C.LJ, Series A, No, 6, p. 15); it is
'inextricablyinterwoven' with the merits (Barcelona Tmcrion,Lighl and Power Compuny,LimitedPreliminav
Objections,Judgment,I.C.J Reports196.4,p.46).
TheCourt notesfurthermortehattheUnitedKingdomitself
broached manysubstantive problemisn itswrittenandoral
pleadingsinthisphase,andpointed out thatthoseproblems
had been the subjectof exhaustiveexchangesbefore the
Court; the United KingdomGovernment thus implicitly
acknowledgedthatthe objectionraisedand the meritsof
the casewere 'closely interconnected'(BarcelonaTraction,
Lighi and Power Company, Limited, Preliminary
Objections,Judgment,I.C.J Reports 1!364,p. 46, andthe
referenceto Pajzs, Cshky,Esterhe, Order of23 May
1936,P.C.I.JJSeriesA/BJNo. 66,p.9).
If the Court were to rule on that objection, it would
thereforeinevitablybe rulingonthe merits;in relyingon
the provisions of Article79 of the Rules of Court,the
Respondenthas setin motion a procedurethepreciseaim
ofwhich IstopreventtheCourtfrom sodoing.
The Courtconcludesfromthe foregoingthattheobjection
of the United Kingdomaccording to which the Libyan
claimshavebeenrenderedwithoutobjectdoesnot have 'an
exclusively preliminarycharacter*withinthe meaning of
thatArtic~e"'~~.
17I.C.J.Report1998,pp.28-29.2.64 That the Colombianexception is intimately bound to the merits is
confirmed by the very contents of the Preliminny Objections of
Colombiaof 21 July 2003. Although the Rules of Court declare
rigorouslythathe presentatioof facts andlawin thevariousstagesof
the proceedingsregardingan objection'"shallbe confined to those
mattersthatarerelevanttotheobjecti~n"'~~,olombiadevotesmorethan
halfofherdocument onPreliminaryObjecfh responding tosubstantial
aspectsputforthinthe Memorialof ~icara~ua"~. Her purposeappears
obvious:to anticipateand trivializethe debonthe meritsby way of
herPreliminaryObjections.
2.65 Underthetitle"Background of theCase", ChapterI ofthePreliminary
ObjectionsColombia presentsa heap of dogmaticaffirmationslacking
alldocumentarybasisor proof'n.Much thesamecanbesaid forSections
IV andVI of the Chaptertitled"In accordancewith ArticIesVI and
XXXIV ofthePact of Bogoth theCourtis 'withoutjurisdictionto hear
the controvers'andthereforeshall declare the'controversy..nded5".
Nicaraguamanifestshermostabsolute reservatiornegardingColombia's
B~rmationson themeritsof thecaseand standsby thatwhichshestated
andproved inherMemoujal.
2.66
Accordingto Colombia,once the Courtdeclaresthecontroversyended
on the basisof Articles VI and XXXTV of the Pact of BogoG, the
declarationofacceptanceofthe Court'sjurisdictionbasedonArticle36,
paragraph2 of theStatutemadeby the~arties"~,and which Nicaragua
dso invokedinher~~~licationl'~b, ecomeineffective.
17RulesofCOW,Art.79,para. 7.
"'CPO,VOI.I, Chap.1,pp.23-72.
17Ibid,paras.1.26,f21,whichfailtomentionthesource;1.431.83,1.91.
17CPO,Vol. I.Introductioparas.50,51; 3.2-3.11,3.50,4.15.
17ApplicationofMcaragua,para1;NM, Vol.I,para.3.2.67 However,it cannot be admittedthatthe factthatthe Pact "governs"the
jurisdiction,destroysthe value of the OptionalClausedeclarationsas an
independentbasisofjurisdiction.Thedeclarationshavean intrinsivalue
inand of themselves, and theiroperationis not predeterminedby other
titles of jurisdictiThis was statedby the Court itself in the case
concerning Bo~rderand Transborder Armed Actions (Njcarapa v.
Hondurus), Jurisdictu iodnAdmissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1988,page 69, in whichthe CourtstatedthatthePact'sprovisions were
independentof the declarations ex Article 36, paragraph2, of the
statutebs0an autonomythat,logically,also runs the otherwayi8'. The
partieto the Pactof Bogotahaveneitherexplicitlynorimplicitlyagreed
uponanythingdifferent.AccordingtothePact,~fthesituationforeseenin
ArticleVI shouldoccur,the Court in declaringitselfwithoutjurisdiction
isto declarethecontroversyended(ArticleXEUV), butthelattermust
be understoodwithintheframework of thePactitself:thecontroversyis
ended onIy asconcernsthepossibilityof invokingthePactasa basisof
jurisdiction.
186C.J Repurrs 1988,pp.84-88,paras32-41,inparticulainparas.36and41.
See also S.Rosenne,1997,IIpp.670-677.
18'See belowparas.4.15-4I7.
83 CHAPTER111
PRELIMINARYORJF,CTIONS RELATEDTOTHEOPTIONAL
CLAUSE
3.2 In relatiototheOptionalClausejurisdictionColombiapresentsseveral
preliminaryobjections. The presentationof these objections is flawed
and acertainamountof constrtrctiisnecessary.
I.FirstPreliminaryObjection
Colombiacontends thatby reasonofthe Dispute between
Nicaraguaand Colombiahavingbeensettled and ended,
thereisno disputebefore theCourt to whichjurisdictianunder
the OptionalClauseDeclarationscould attach
32 This objectiorestsuponthe premisethatthePactof Bogotilprovisions
dominatein allrespects and for all purposeThis premisehas been
challengedin ChapterI1above. It hasalso ken pointed out that the
wordingof ArticleVIof thePactof Bogotainvolvesthedeterminatioof
issueswhicharenot t11emselvesreliminarincharacter.
3.3 This objection also involves a similarlyawkwardreadingof Article
XXXIVof thePactof Bogota. IT. SecondPreliminary0 bjection
ThereIs No JurisdictionUnder The OptionalClause Because
Colombia'sDeclarationWasNot inForce on The Dateof The
Filingof Nicaragua'sAppIication
3.4 Colombiapurported to terminateherDeclaratiodated30 October1937
'withimmediateeffect' on 5 December 2001. The Declarationisas
follows:
"TheRepublicofColombiarecognizes ascompulsory,ipso
factoandwithout special agreement,on condition of
reciprocity,in relatito any other State acceptingthe
sameobligation,thejurisdictionof thePermanenCourtof
Internationalustice,in accordancewithArticle36 of the
Statute.
The presentdeclaratioappliesonlyto disputesarisingout
of factssubsequento6 Januaryf932."
3.5 TheDeclarationhasno temporalclause and Colombiaassertsthatsucha
declarationmay beterminatedwithoutnotice:PreliminaryObjectiom,
Volume I,pages114 to115.
3.6 ThejurisprudenceoftheCourtdecisivelycontradictsthisassertioInits
Judgment in the Nicaragua case the Court made the following
determination:
"Themaintenanceinforceofthe United StatesDeclaration
for six monthsafternotice of terminationis a positive
undertaking,flowing fromthe time-limitclause,butthe
NicaraguanDeclarationcontainsno expressrestrictionat all. It isthereforclear thatthe United States is not an
position toinvokereciprocity as a basisfor itsactionin
making the 1984 notificationwhich purported to modify
the contentof the 1946Declaration. On thecontraryit is
Nicaraguathat can invokethe six months' notice against
the United States-notof courseon the basisofreciprocity
butbecauseitis anundertaking whichis an integralpartof
the instrumentthatcontainsit.
63. Moreover, sincethe UnitedStatespurportedto acton 6
April1984insuchaway as to modify i~s1946Declaration
with sufficientlyimmediateeffect to bar an Application
fifedon 9 April 1984,it wouldbe necessary,if reciprocity
is to be reliedon, for the Nicaraguan Declarationto be
terminable with immediate effect. But the right qf
immediate terwinnfion of declarations with indeflplite
duration is far +fromestablished It appears fromthe
requirements ofgood faith that they shouldbe treated, by
unnlogy,according to thelaw qf treaties, whicrequir es
reasonable time for wirhdrmd porn or termination of
treaties [hatcontainnoprovision regarditngeduratio ofn
rheirvalidity. SinceNicaraguahas infact not manifested
any intentioto withdraw its owndeclarationt,hequestion
of what reasonabIeperiod of notice would legally be
requireddoesnot needto befurtherexamined: ineed only
be observedthatfrom 6 to 9 Aprilwould not amountto a
'reasonabltime'."(emphasis
18I;C.J Reports1984,pp.419-420.3.7 Thedecisionof theCourtwas elevenvotes tofive (paragrap1(a)ofthe
Dispositif). Ofthefivenegativevotesonlythree Judgesdisagreedwith
the reasoningset outin thabove passage: see theDissenting Opinions
of JudgesOda,JenningsandSchwebel.
3.8 The jurisprudenceof the Court has codrmed the requirementof a
reasonabletime for withdrawalfromor termination of treatieswhich
contain no provision regardingduration. Thus in the Preliminary
Objectionsphaseof theCameroon vNigeria case,the Courtreferredto
thisreasoninginthesepassages:
"'30 .he Court notes thatthe rkgimefor depositinand
transmittingdeclarationsof acceptance of compulsory
jurisdictionlaid down in Article36, paragrap4, of the
Statuteof the Courtis distinctfromtheregimeenvisaged
fortreatiesbytheViennaConvention.Thustheprovisions
of thatConventionmay only be appliedto declaratioby
analogy (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and
againstNicaragua(Nicaragua v UnitedStaresofAmerica),
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment,I.C.J. Repurts
1984,p. 420,para63).
32. Nigeria maintains however that, in any event,
Camerooncould notfife an applicationbeforethe Court
withoutallowinga reasonableperiodto elapse 'as would
...have enabledthe Secretary-Generatlo take the action
requiredofhi in relationto Cameroon'Declarationof 3
March 1994*. Compliance with that time period isessential,the more so because,accordingto Nigeria, the
Court, in its judgmentof 26 November1984 in the case
concerningMilitmy and Paramilitary Activities in und
againsr Nicaragua, requireda reasonabletime for the
withdrawalof declarationsundertheOp1 ionalClause.
33, Tl~eCourt, in the above Judgment, noted that the
UnitedStateshad,in 1984, depositedwith the Secretary-
General, threc days before the filing of Nicaragua's
Application, a notification limiting the scope of its
Declarationof acceptanceof the Court"jurisdiction. 'fie
Court noted that the Declarationcontained a clause
requiringsix months'noticeof termination. It considered
that thatcondition shouIdbe complied with in casesof
eithertermination or modificationof the Declarationand
concluded thatthe 1984notificationof modificationcould
not,withimmediate effect,overridetheobligationentered
into by the United States beforehand(Milirary and
Parurnilfiury Activities in and againsf Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v UniledStates ofAmer icli)Jurisdicfinnand
AdmissibilityI.C.J.Reports1984, p.42 1,para.65).
The Court noted, moreover, in relation to Nicaragua's
Declarationuponwhich the United Statesws relyingon
thegroundsof reciprocity,that,iany event,
'therightof immediate terminationof declarations
with indefinitedurationis farfrom established. It
appears from the requirementsof good faiththat
theyshould be treated,by analogy,accordingtothe law of treaties,whichrequiredreasonabletimefor
withdrawal from or termination of treatiesthat
containno provisionregardingthedurationof their
validity(ibidp. 420,para.63).
TheCourt added: ''thquestionof whatreasonableperiod
of noticewould legallbe requireddoes not need to be
furtheexamined: itneed onlybe observedthat[thr e eys]
would notamount toa 'reasonabletime."(biid)
34. The Courtconsidersthat the foregoingconclusionin
respect of the withdrawalof declarationsunder the
OptionalClauseis not applicableto the depositof those
declarations.Withdrawal ends existingconsensuabonds,
while deposit establishessuch bonds. The effect of
withdrawa s thereforepurelyandsimply todepriveother
Stateswhichhavealreadyacceptedthejurisdiction ofthe
Courtof the righttheyhad to bringproceedingsbeforeit
againstthewithdrawing State. Incontrast,thedepositof a
declarationdoes notdeprivethose Statesof any accrued
right. Accordingly no time period is requiredfor the
establishmentof a consensual bond following such a
period.
35. The Courtnotesmoreover thattorequir aereasonable
timetoelapsebeforea declarationcantakeeffectwouldbe
tointroduceanelementof uncertaintyintotheoperationof
the OptionalClausesystem. As set out in paragraph26
above,in thecase concerningRightof PassageoverIndian
Territory,theCourthad consideredthatit couldnotcreate such uncertainty. The conclusions it had reacbed then
remainvalid and applyallthemoresincethe growthin the
numberof Statesparty to theStatuteand theintensification
of inter-Staterelationssince 1957 have increased the
possibilitiesof legaldisputescapableof beingsubmitteto
the Court. The Courtcannot introduceinto the Optional
Clause an additional time requirement which is not
there."'83
3.9 This reasoningwas not the subjectof criticism in the Separateand
DissentingOpinionswhichwerewritten.
3.10 Itisto be emphasizedthat in both lhesecases the issues of good faith,
and the requirementof reasonabletime, had been the object of full
argument.
3.11 Faced withthisjurisprudenceColombia,not very surprisingly,isforced
toresortto a series ofessaysin reductionism and simplisticconjuring
tricks.Thesewillnowbereviewed.
(a) It isstated that the holding in the Nicarapu case was not
upraaimous:there were three Judges holdinga difierentview
(see the Preliminary Objections,Vol. I,p. 116, para. 3.17).
However, inresponseto this undoubtedfact,it mustbe pointed
out thatthirteenJudgeseithersupportedthemajoritypositionor
omitted tosingleout thepointforcriticism.Inthe Cameroon v
Nigeria case the reasoning in questionwas adopted by all
seventeen Judges.
I.C.JR.eport1998,pp.293,294-296.
91 (b) TheopinionofSirHumphreyWaldock us Specia Rappovteo ufr
theInternationalLawCommission.
Colombiastatesthat
"The Special Rapporteur of the InternationalLaw
Commissionon the Lawof Treaties,andlaterJudgeand
Presidenof theCourt,SirHumphrey Waldock,concluded
thatState practiceunderthe OptionalClauseas well as
under treaties of arbitration,conciliatiandjudicial
settlement,supportsterminationno~ice"'~
ThisreferstoWaldock'sSecondReportonthe Lawof Treaties:
Yearbook,InternationalawCommission,1963,VoEume 11,page
68.
3.12 In responseit mustbe pointedout thatthe Reportsof the International
Law Commissionto the General Assembly are not legislative in
charactera,nd,stillless, theRepoofstheSpecialRapporteurhs,owever
distinguished. Thefact is thatdraftArticle 17 in Waldock'sSecond
Report on theLawof Treatiesof 1963didnotsurvive. In theReportof
the Commission to the GeneralAssembly in 1966 the counterpart
provisionhasa substantialdifferentcontent,asfollows:
"Article 53 Denunciation of a treaty containing no
provisionregardintermination:
1. A treatywhichcontainsno provisionregardingits
termination and which does not provide for
denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciationor withdrawalunlessit is establishedthat
the parties intended to admit the possibility of
denunciationorwithdrawal.
2. A party shall give not less thantwelve months'
noticeof itsintentionto denounceor withdrawfrom a
treatunder paragraph 1ofthisarticle."
The Commentary tothe draft Articlemakes no referenceto treatieof
3.13
arbitration,onciliationor judicialsettlement,and no referencto the
OptionalClause. Inanyeventthe Commentar iycludestwo paragraphs
of relevanceforpresentpurposes:
"(5) The article statesthat a treaty not making any
provision for its terminationor for denunciationor
withdrawalis not subjectfor denunciation or withdrawal
unless 'itis establishedthatthe partiesintendeto admit
the possibilityof denunciatioor withdrawal'.Under this
rule,the characterof thetreatyis only onof theelements
to be taken into account,and a rightof denunciationor
withdrawalwill not be impliedunless itappearsfromthe
generalcircumstance of thecase thatthe partiesintended
to allow the possibility of unilateral denunciationor
withdrawal.
(6) The Commissionconsidered it essential that any
impliedrighttodenounceorwithdrawIhm atreatyshould
be subjecto thegivingof areasonableperiodof notice. A
period of six months' notice is sometimes found in
terminatioclauses,butthisis usually wherethetreatisof
the renewabletypeandis open todenunciationby a notice givenbeforeor atthetimeof renewal,Wherethetreatyis
to continueindefinitelysubjectto a rightof denunciation,
theperiod ofnoticeismore usuallytwelvemonths,though
admittedlyinsomecasesnoperiodof noticeis required. In
formulatinga generalrule,theCommissionconsidereditto
be desirableto lay down a longer ratherthan a shorter
periodin orderta give adequateprotectioto the interests
of theatherpartiesto thetreaty. Accordinglyi,t preferred
inparagraph 2 tospecifythatnot lesthan twelve months'
notice must be given of an intentionto denounce or
withdraw from atreatyunderthepresentarticle."185
3.14 In thestwo paragraphtsheCommissionshows a strongdisinclinatioto
favourunilateradenunciationorwithdrawal.
3.15 The provision eventuallyadopted (as Article 56) in the Vienna
ConventionontheLawof Treatiesis asfollows:
" Denunciation ofor withdrawal froma treatcontaining
no provision regarding termination, denunciation or
withdrawal,
1. A treatywhichcontains no provisionregarding its
terminationand whichdoesnotprovide fordenunciationor
withdrawal is not subjectto denunciationor withdrawal
unless:
(a) it isestablishedthat the partiesintendedto
admit the possibility of denunciation or
withdrawalo ;r
18Yearbook,LL.C.,1966,11,251. (b) a rightof denunciationor witlldrawnlmay be
impIied by thenatureof thetreaty.
2. A party shall give not less than twelve months'
priornoticeof itsintentionto denounceorwithdrawfrom a
treatyunderparagraph1 .'"
3.16 The Governmentof Colombiaseeks to rely upon the opinionof Sir
HumphreyWaldockas expressedin his Reportin 1963. Thisrelianceis
unrealisticin several distinct respects. First,the InternationalLaw
Commission functions collectiveIy and the SpeciaI Rapporteursare
responsiveto thecollegiatewill. Secondly,asappearsfrom thematerials
quotedabove,the finalproductsof the workof the Commissiondid not
refertotheOptionalClauseandshowed littlefavourtoward denunciation
withoutnotice.
(e) Geizerd referenceismade to public~rtionsby 'stzadents ofthe
Court's procedures and jlrrisprwdeme ' (see Preliminmy
Objecrions,Val.I,p. I16).
3.17 The referencesappearin a long footnote but no attempt is made to
examine the passages supposed to be relevant. To give some
illustrations.Thereis areferenceto Professorlireismajor articleinthe
BritishYearBook,Volume62 (1994),page 119,butno specificpassage
is indicated. However,thepointis thatin genera[ProfessorGreigis not
dissatisfiedwith theCourt'sreasoningonthenatureof declarations.The
commentsby ProfessorOrregoVicufiaontheprecise issue of reasonable
noticearemoderateandthe writeravoids dogmatism: see Oda,Liber
Amicorum, 2002,Volume I,page463atpages475 to 476. (d) ColombiacontendsthattheCourt S referencesfo a'reasonable
rim ewere obiter dicta(PreliminaryObjections,Vol.I,p. 117)
3.18 The adoption of this mode of defence on the part of Colombia is
conspicuouslyweak. The passages relatingtthe questionof 'reasonable
time' constituta major formulation concerning the legal character of
declarationsnd the legal consequences which follow. The passages
were reliedupon by the full Court in the Cameroon v.Nigeric ase
precisely because of their importance. To seek to minimize the
importance of the Court3reasoningby resorttothe Common Law term
obifer dictismaladroit and inappropriate tan effective discussionof
the issuesofjurisdiction.
3.19 Professor Orrego Vicuiia states that the 'remarks' about termination
'were considered obiter dicta' and cites Professor Merrills. In fact
Merrillsuses carefullychosen language. What he actually saysis as
follows:
'"n viewof the Court'srulingon the issueof reciprocity, its
discussion of the hypotheticaltermination of Nicaragua's
declarationis strictly speakingno morethan obiferdicIt
is nevertheless clear'ly of some significance T.he
conclusion that declarations which are silent as to
termination canbe terminatedon reasonable notice, though
controversial, avoids the uncertainties of rebus sic
stantibus,while at the same time emphasizingthe concept
of goad faith and givingsome meaningto the idea ofan
indefinitecommitment. It wouldno doubthavebeenuseful
if more could have been said on the question of what
constitutesa"reasonabletime', but to expect thisaicase wherethepointwas not inissue wouldhardlybe realistic.
For the thirteen States with declarationsof indefinite
durationthe precisescopeof theircommitmentis therefore
stialmatterof ~ncertainty."'~(emphasissupplied)
3.20 Inany event,inthe lightoftheinteractivenaturcof theCourt'sreasoning
it is farfromclearthat 'the Court'srulingon the issue of reciprocity'
justifies the descriptionof the reasonong theissue of terminationas
'obiterdicta'. The Court's finding on the characterof Nicaragua's
Declarationin thiscontextwas a responseto a significantelemenin the
UnitedStatesargument. The referencetothecharacterof theDeclaration
was not 'hypotheticalin any proper sense,but wasa necessarypartof
theanalysis.
3.21 Inthis connectiontherelevantpassagesofthe Judgmentin 1984reveal
theweaknessin theanalysisof ProfessorMerrills. Whatthe Courtsaid
was this:
"61.The most importantquestionrelatingto the effect of
the 1984notificationis whetherthe UnitedStateswas free
to disregardtheclause of six months'notice which,freely
and by its own choice, it had appended to its 1946
Declaration.In so doingtheUnitedStatesenteredinto an
obligationwhich is bindingupon itvis-his other States
partiesto the Optional-Clausystem. AlthoughtheUnited
Statesretainedthe righto modifythe contentsof the 1946
Declarationorto terminateit,a powerwhichis inherentin
anyunilateralactof a Stateihas ,everthelessassumedan
inescapableobligationtowardsotherStates acceptingthe
BritishYearBook,Vol.64, p.197atpp.208-209.OptionalClause,by stating formallyand solemnlythat any
such change shouldtake effectonlyafter six monthshave
elapsedasfromthedateofnotice.
62. The United Stateshasarguedthatthe Nicaraguan1929
Declaration, being of undefined duration, is liable to
immediate termination,without previous notice, and that
thereforeNicaraguahasnotaccepted"the sameobligation"
as itself for the purposes of Article 36, paragraph 2, and
consequently may not rely on the six months' notice
proviso against the United States. The Court does not
however consider that this argument entitles the United
States validlyto act in non-applicationof the time-limit
proviso included inthe 1946 Declaration. The notion of
reciprocity is concernedwith the scopeand substanceof
the commitments enteredinto, including reservations,and
not with the formal conditionsof their creation, durationor
extinction. It appears clearly that reciprocity cannorbe
invoked in order to excuse departure fromthe terms ofa
State'sown declaration,whatever its scope, limitations or
conditions...
The maintenance inforce ofthe lJnited States Declaration
for six months afternotice of termination is a positive
undertaking, flowingfrom the time-limit clause but the
Nicaraguan Declarationcontains no express restrictionat
all. Itis therefore clear thatthe United States is not in a
positionto invokereciproc istybasis for its action in
making the 1984 notificationwhich purported to modify
thecontentof the 1946Declaration. On the contrary it is Nicaraguathatcan invokethe six months'noticeagainst
theUnitedStates-notof course onthebasisof reciprocity,
butbecause itisan undertakingwhichis anintegralpartof
theinstrumentthatcontainsit.
63. Moreover,sincethe UnitedStatespurported to acton 6
April1984 in sucha way asto modifyits 1946 Declaration
with suficiently immediateeffect to baran Application
filed on 9 April1984, itwouldbe necessary,if reciprocity
is to be reliedon, for the NicaraguanDeclarationto be
terminablewith immediateeffect. But the right of
immediate terminationof declarationswith indefinite
durationis farfram established. It appears from the
requirementsof good faiththatthey should be treated,by
anaIogy,according tothelaw of treaties,whichrequiresa
reasonabletime for withdrawalfrom or termination of
treatiesthatcontainno provisionregardingthedurationof
theirvalidity. Since Nicaraguahas in factnot manifested
anyintentionto withdrawits own declaration, thequestion
of what reasonableperiod of notice would legally be
requireddoes notneed to be furtherexamined:it needonly
be observedthatfrom6 to 9 Aprilwo~rld not amount toa
'reasonablteime3.'87
3.22 Thereasoningfromparagraph 61 throughto paragraph 63 focuses upon
thequestionof thecharacterof therelationshipbetweentheStatesparties
to the Optional-Clausesystem as consistingof the unilateraacts or as
creatingsome othertype of relationship.This issue was centralto the
Court'sreasoning.
"'7C.J Reporfs 1984,pp.419-420.Before leavingthis questionone othermattercalls for attention. The
reasoningof theCourt,with itsreferencetotheanalogywiththe lawof
treaties,is by nomeansnovel or radicalin characterIt is unfortunate
thatthe PreliminaryObjectionsgives no picture of the antecedents.
Thus, the PermanentCourtrecognisedthe contractualnatureof the
obIigationinthe Electrici?yCompanyofSo$a case:(1938),SeriesA/B,
No. 74 at page22. Moreover,Waldock was entirelycomfortablewith
this view andin the nineteen-fiftieshe analysedtheAnglo-IranianOil
Companycase inthefollowing terms:
"IntheAnglo-IranianOil Company casethenewCourt had
occasionto considerthelegalnatureof declarationunder
theOptionalClauseinconnexion withtheinterpretationof
the Iranian declaration. Iran contended that the
declarationdonot setup acontractualrelationbetweenthe
States concernedbut that, tothe extent to which they
coincide,theycreateobligationsforeachStatevis-dr-vhe
Court.TheUnitedKingdomo , n theotherhand,contended
thatany given pairof declarationssets up an essentially
contractualrelationbetween the statesconcerned. The
Court,indealingwith aUnitedKingdomargumentthat the
Iraniandeclaratiomust ifpossible,be so interpretasto
give meaningto allthewords, commented:
'Itmaybe saidthatthisprincipleshouldin general
be appliedwhen interpretingthe text of a treaty.
But thetextoftheIranianDeclarationisnota treaty
text resulting from negotiationsbetween two or
moreStates. Itistheresultof unilaterdraftingby
the Governmentof Iran,which appears to have shown aparticulardegreeof cautionwhendrafting
the text of the Declaration. Itappears to have
insertedex ahudanti ccautelaw, ordswhich,strictly
speaking,mayseem tohaveken superfluous.'
It will be noted that the Court,while emphasizingthe
unilateradraflirlof theinstrument,did not deny itslegal
characterasa treatytext.Nevertheless, itdoes seemfiom
thispassageand fromthe passage from thePhosphatesin
Moroccojudgmentwhichhas alreadyheen cited,thatfor
the purpose of interpretingtheir terms the unilateral
original of the individualdeclarationswill be taken into
account.'"
3.24 Waldock'sconclusions on 'thenature of the juridicalbond underthe
OptionalClause'includethefollowingstrikingpassage:
"The origins and the treaty characterof the Optional
Clause,the role of the Secretary-Generao lf the United
Nations in receivinand registeringnoticesof declarations
underthe OptionalClause,thepracticeof Statesin making
theirdeclarations,nd thejurisprudence of the Court,itis
considered,leaveno real doub otf theconsensualnatureof
the juridicalbond established between States by their
declarations.'Thisis noto denytheunilaterac lharacterof
the act by which a State gives its adherence to the
obligationsof the OptionalClause. The settlementof the
termsof its declarationinot a matterfornegotiationwith
lS~ritish YeorBook,Vol.32 (955-1956)p.244 alpp.252-253. otherStatesbutis entirelywithinits own discretionsolong
as it keeps within the frameworkof the Statute. The
unilateralmakingof the instrumentt,he Courthas said,
may affecttheapplicationto itof the ordinyrinciplesof
treatyinterpretatio. utthemaking of theinstrumen ts a
unilateralct onlyinthesamesensethatadhering toa pre-
existingtreatyor ratifyina previouslynegotiatedtreaty
text is a unilateralact. JudgeAlvarez,indeed,termeda
declaratioundertheOptional Clausea 'multilateralct of
a specialcharacter'.It is multilateinlthe sense thait
resultin relations wiahnumberof States;buttherelation
between any given pair of States which have made
declarationsis not, it is believprecise of the same
characteras that which existsbetween the partieto a
multilateratreaty.Therelationbetweentwo Statesunder
the OptionalClauseappearsto be more a bilateralthaa
mu1tilaterarelation."'89
3.25 These antecedentsprovidethe analyticalmilieuin whichthe issue of
terminationwas considered in1984. Inthis milieuthe charactof the
obligationwas centralto the legal analysIntheresultitcanbe seen
that the obiter dictum approachis superficialandinvolves a curious
insistenceon focusiupon theperipheryofthingsratherthan thecentre. (e) Colombia contends that Nicaragua and Colombia have in
practice treated their declarationsus terminable on notice
(P~elimin~tyObjections,Vol.I,p. 118).
3.26 Thelegaleffectof thepracticeinvokedby Colombiaremains obscure:in
particular,there is no evidencthat the intentionin each case was to
terminate, ramend,thepertinentdeclaration withimmediateeffect.
3.27 Inthe first placthetestis theintentionof therespectiveStates:see the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case (Prelim iwry Objections), LC.J
Reports 1952,pages 103 to107.
3.28 Withrespect to the Declarationfiledby Colonlbiaon 30 October1937
the text doesnot statthatthe instrumentmaybe terminatedon notice.
Moreover,whentheDeclarationwasterminated on 5 December2001the
Colombian Governmentmade no statement relating to the question
whethertheterminationhadimmediateeffect orotherwise.
3.29 Similarly,when Nicaragua notifiedtheSecretary-Genera olf theinclusion
of a reservationin the NicaraguanDeclarationof 1929, the notification
(dated7 November2001) containedno reference to the questionof its
havingimmediate effect:see the Prelirninqv Objections, Volwne 11,
Annexes23 and24.
3.30 Finally,whenColombiapurported to terminateher1937Declaration on 5
December2001,no statement was madeclarifyingthelegalposition.As
notedalready,the 2937Declarationmakesno referenceto themodalities
oftermination.
3.31 Thepracticeinvokedby Colombiadoesnotproducesufficientevidence
of the intentionlying Mind these few episocles. In the circumstances thereisnoproofof a patternofclearandconsistentconductwhichcould,
inlaw,amount toa practicebindinguponNicaragua.And,in particulartr,
thereis no proofthatNicaraguahaswaivedthebenefitof the analysis
providedby the Court in the Judgmentof 1984, that is to say, the
requiremenotf a reasonabletime forwithdrawalfromor termination of
declarationthatcontain no provisionregardingthetermination oftheir
validity.
3.32 Inany event, there is recent cogent evidence that in her practice
Nicaraguadoesnotacceptthatdeclarations aresubjecttomodificationor
terminationon notice. ThusintheAgreementconcluded between Costa
Rica and Nicaraguaon 26 September2002 paragraph3 providesas
follows:
"TheGovernmentof Nicaraguacommitsitselfto maintain
thelegalsituationasitexistsatpresentforaperiodof three
years startingthis day as concernsits declaratioof the
acceptanceof thejurisdictionof theInternational ourtof
Justice. For its part, and during the same period, the
Government of CostaRicacommitsitselftonotcommence
any internationalactionor claimagainstNicaraguabefore
the said Court, nor at any other internationalentity
regardingany matter or claim regardingthe Treatiesor
Agreements presently in force between the two
countrie~.~'~
3.33 Thebackground to thisprovisionisthebeliefonthe part ofCostaKca
thatthereservatiomadebyNicaraguaon 7November 2001 wouldcome
intoeffectone yearlater. Thus,in September2002 the Costa Rican
19NWS,Val. 11Annex 28. Governmentfaced the apparent difficultythat, if litigation was not
initiatedagainstNicaragubefore1November 2002,thenthereservation
wouldcome into effect and any litigationafterthatdate would place
CostaRca ata disadvantage.Intheresulttheintentionof theparagraph
wasto freezethesituationof theNicaraguanDeclarationas it wasonthe
dayof signature.
3.34 TheAgreementwithCostaRicawas concludedon behalfof Nicaragua
by Mr.Caldera,the Ministerof ForeignAffairsatthematerialtime. The
motivationlyingbehindparagraph 3of theAgreementwithCostaRicais
describedclearlyintheAffidavitof Mr.
3.35 It is abundantly clethatin the circumstancesofthepresentcase, the
Government of Colombia has by itsconductcreatedanobligationnotto
tenninateits acceptancofjurisdictiowithoutreasonablenotice. This
questionwillbeexaminedfurtherin SectionIV, below.
111.ThirdPreliminaryObjection
Iffoundto be inforce,the termsof Colombia's1937 Declaration
excludeNicaragua'sclaims, becausethe allegeddispute
arisenut offacts priorto6 January 1932
3.36 Nicaraguahas shown intheaboveSectionsof thepresentChapterthat
the 1937 ColombianOptional Declarationwas still in force when
Nicaragua filed her Application. Probably conscious of this fact,
Colombiaassertsthat,
19NWS,Vol. TI,Annex 23. '"[ifcontraryto thepositionof Colombia,the Court were
to find that both the Declarationof Colombiaand of
Nicaragua were in force on the date of the filing of
Nicaragua" Application, that Application would
nevertheless fall outside the scope of Colombia's
Declarationandthe Court would lackjurisdictionto pass
upon the merits of the case,due to the effect:ofthe
reservationwhich excludes disputesarisingout of facts
priorto6January1932."192
3.37 The objection of Colombiain this respect is basedon an erroneous
interpretatiofthe case-lawoftheCourtandon acompletedistortion of
thesubjectmatterofthedispute.
A.THESUBJECT MATTE ORFTHEDISPUTE
3.38 Thecore of the disputerelatetothe maritimedelimitationbetweenthe
Parties,Thisisclearlyso inview of both Nicaragua'sApplicationand
Memorial. And, as the PermanentCourt made clear inthe case
concerningtheP~oinc eOPIPEessAdministraion (PreliminaryObjecfion):
"under Articl40 of the StatuteitistheApplicationwhich setsoutthe
subjsctofthedispute."'93
193PO,VoI. 1,para.3.30.
Order,4 February1933,SeriesA/BNo 52,p. 14;seealso I.C.J.,Judgment,
21March 9 59,Interhandel(PreliminaryObjections),J.C.J. Re1957,p.
21.3.39 Forits part,theMemorial"mayelucidatethe terms of the Application"
provided "it does not go beyond the limits as set out" in the
~~~lication'~.
3.40 InherApplicationof 6December2001,Nicaraguaindicatedthat:
"theCourt isasked toadjudge anddeclare:
First,thattheRepublicof Nicaraguahassovereigntyover
theislandsof ProvidenciaS, an Andes and SantaCatalina
and alltheappurtenanitslandsandkeys, andalso over the
Roncador,Serrana,SerranillaandQuit;isuefio keys (inso
farastheyarecapableof appropriation);
Second, in the light of the determinatioconcerning title
requestedabove,the Courtis askedfurtherto determinethe
courseof the singlemaritime boundarybetween theareas
of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone
appertainingrespectivelyto Nicaraguaand Colombia, in
accordance with equitable principles and relevant
circumstancesrecognizedby generalinternational law as
applicable to such a delimitation of a single maritime
boundary" (para.8).
3.41 The draftingof these requestsmight, if takenin isolation, have been
slightlyclumsy inthatitseems toindicatethat he "first'>equestmadeto
the Court is toadjudicate on the title overthe islandsand cays and,
'94Ibidseealso,e.g.:P.C.I.J.,Judgment,June1939,SociCtCcommercialede
Belgique, Series A/B, Na 78p. 73; I.C.J.,Judbment,26 November 1984,
Military and PuramilitcAcriviiesinand agaiasrNicaragua,1.CJ. Reports
1984, p.427, para.80; Judgment.26 June1992, Certain PhosphatesLand in
Nauru,I.C.J.Reports1992,p. 267,para69. "second'to delimittherespectivemaritimeareasof the Parties. But, in
view of boththecontext inthe Applicationitselandthe clarifications
madein theMemorial, itwillbecomeapparent:
- thatthesubject-matterof thedisputeis the determinationoa
single maritimeboundarybetween the areas of continentalshelf and
exclusive economic zones appertainingrespectivelyto Colombia and
Nicaraguaa;nd
- that, tothis effect, the Court cannot but decide on the
sovereigntyovertheislandsandcaysmentionedin theApplication.
3.42 As is indicated in the paragraphof the Applicationimmediately
followingtheonequotedabove:
"...the principalpurposeofthis Applicationisto obtain
declarations concerning titlandthe deierminafion of
maritimeboundaries..."(para.9-emphasisadded).
3.43 Moreover,asmadeclear inparagraph3of theApplication:
"Thequestions ofthetitleindicateabove havea particular
significanceinso faras the definitivesettlementof such
issuesof title mustconstitutea conditionprecedeto the
completeanddefinitivedeterminationof themaritimeareas
appertainingtoNicaraguaandfor any eventualdelimitation
thatmightbe necessarywiththosethat could appertainto
Colombia".
3.44 Thereisthereforeno doubtthattheissue oftitleis notthesubject-matter
ofthedisputebuta necessaryprerequisite",aconditionprecedentto the complete and definitivedeterminatioof the maritimeareas"(para.33,
whichcan only be made"inthe lightof the determinationc soncerning
title"(para,8).
3.45 This is further confirmedby the accountof Iherelevantfacts in the
Application,whichmakes extremelyclearthatNicaraguabasesherself
onthedevelopmentof generalinternationa law since 1945which,
"hasdevelopedin such a way as to encompass sovereign
rights to explore and exploit the resources of thc
continentalshelf together with rights to an exclusive
economic zone 200 milesin breadth. he provisionsof the
1982 Law of the Sea Conventionhave recognizedand
confirmedtheselegalinterestsof coastalStates"(para.3).
3.46 The Applicationfurtherexplainsthattheclaims by Colombia overhuge
maritime spaces appertainingto Nicaragua seriously imperils the
livelihood of the Nicaraguanpeople and gave riseto serious naval
incidentsinthe1990s.
3.47 Similarly,theApplicationexplainsthatthe negotiationsbetweenthetwo
countriesdefinitelyfailedin 1995(para.6) andthatthe launchingfactor
for the lodging of Nicaragua'sApplication was thc ratificationby
Colombia,in 1999,of the Treaty signed in 1986 withHondurasw , hich
violatesherterritorilovereignlyandrights(pma.7).
3.48 XnherMemorial,Nicaragua has furtherstressedtbelinks betweenthe
claim of sovereigntyover the Archipelago of San Andres and other
relevantislets andcayon theonehand,andthemaritimedelimitationon
theotherhand. As explainedinparagraph 3.1: "The present part of the Memorialwill assess the
delimitationof maritimeboundariesbetween Nicaragua
and Colombia, in the light of the outcome of the
determinationof sovereigntyto be madeby the Court. A
number of possibilitiescabe envisagedin this respect.
The Court can make a determinationthatallof the San
Andrks andProvidenciagroupis NicaraguanorColombian.
Apartfromthat,the Courtmay alsodeterminethat the
islandsreferredto inArticleI,para.1, ofthe1928Treaty
are Colombianandthattheotherfeaturesnot included in
this TreatyareNicaraguan.The factthatthe outcomeof
the territoridisputeis not knownmakesit necessary to
addresstheseandotherpossibleoutcomesand thiswillbe
doneintherelevantsectionbelow".
3.49 Inthe subsequentSections of herMrnorial, Nicaraguaarguesher case
on thebasisof the applicablrulesand principlesofthe lawof the sea,
takingintoaccounttherelevantlegislatioand claimsofthePartiessince
thelate1950s'~~ Then,Nicaraguaexamines themaritime delimitatioin
theregionof SanAndrGs
-"onthebasis of Nicaraguantitle7"%;
-then"onthe basisoftheallegedColombian title""'.
3.50 Nicaraguathengoes on to discusstheimpactof "[tlhe presenceof small
cays in the maritimedelimitation area$"'98Here again, Nicaragua
NM, V01.I,paras.3.25-3.36.
19aid,paras.3.93-3.96.
14Ibi daras.3-97-3.3.
19Ibidparas.3.14-3.136. maintainsthatshe has sovereigntyoverthesemaritime featuresbutshe
adds:
"However,it cannotbe excluded thatthe Courtreachesdifferent
conclusions in respect of this issue. l'he presentsection will
address therole of thecaysin themaritime delimitationbetween
Nicaragua and Colombia, taking inlo account the different
outcomes that are possible in respect of the question of
sovereignty"'99.
3.51 Nicaraguaconcludesthis partof herMemorid by explainingthat her
assessment of the coasts defining the delimitation area "is not
substantiallyaffected by the question whether SanAndres and its
dependencies are determined to be Nicaraguanor ~olornbian''".
However,sheenvisagesseparatelythehypothesiswheretheCourtwould
findthateitherNicaragua or Colombiahassovereigntyin respectof the
islandsof San Andrdsand~rovidencia~~ a'ndover variouscays or other
maritimefeatures202.
3.52 This isconfirmed intheSubmissionswhichmake a seriesof distinctions
inmattersof maritimedelimitationdepending:
-onwhetherornot theBarcenas-Esguerra Treatyhas hen validly
concludedandis stillinforce;and
-onwhetherNicaragua orColombiahas sovereigntyever the
islandsof SanAndrCs and Providenciaonthe one hand,andthe cays on
theotherhand (NM, Vol. I,p. 266).
19NM, Vol.I, paras.3.122an3.126.
loIbid,para.3.139.
20Zbid,para3.143.
2"ibid paras3.144-3.47.3.53 This allshows,withouttheshadowof a doubtthat:
a) the very subject-matteof the presentdispute is the maritime
delimitatioof the respectivemaritimemas belongingeitherto
Colombiaor toNicaragua a;nd
b) thiscrucialissue cannotbe decidedwithoutdeterminifirswthich
of thetwo Stateshassovereigntover theislandandcays lyingin
therelevantarea.
B.THERELEVANT RULEA SPPLICABT LETHE
JUR DICTIONOF THECOURT' S4TIOhrTEMPORIS
3.54 The relevantrules applicableto the jurisdictionof the Courtratione
temporismust becheckedagainst thisbackground -of whichColombia
takes no accountwhen she endeavours todescribethecase-law of the
Cowt and itapplicatiotothepresentcase.
3.55 Colombiaattachesgreatimportanceto the Judgmentof the Permanent
Court of 14 June 1938 on preliminaryobjections in the case of
Phosphates inMoroccobetween Italyand France(SeriesNB, No 74)to
which it devotes six 111 pages of her Preliminary 0bjectiodo3.
Nicaraguadoes not questionthat thatJudgment is relevantin several
respectsforthe presentcase. However,Colombia'sinterpretatof that
decisionisbiasedfrom severalpointsof view andColombiaignoresthe
crucialpaintthatthefactsof thatcasewere differenfrom thoseof the
presentcaseinvariousfundamentaa lspects.
203CPO, Vol.I,paras,3.34-3.39.3.56 Nicaraguawishesto make clearstraightaway thrdshe does notdeny that
thejurisdictioof theCourt"onlyexists withinthelimits withinwhich it
has been ac~epted"~".This means that she fully accepts that the
ColombianOptionalDeclaration"appliesonly 10 disputesarisingout of
factssubsequent to 6January 1932'20'.Therefore,
"theonly ...factsfallingunderthe corn~ulsoryjurisdiction
are those which are subsequent to [6 January 19321and
whichregard towhich the dispute arose, that isto say,
those whichmustbe consideredas being the source of the
dispute''rc'est-h-dire ceux quidoivent Stre considkrks
comme ginPrateurs du difle'rend' in the French
authoritativtext)206.
3.57 However, imustbenotedthat:
"'Thequestionwhether a given situationor factis prioror
subsequentto a particulardate is one to be decidedin
regard toeach specific case,justas thesituationsor facts
withregard to which thedisputearose must be decided in
regardto eachspecificcase"2o7.
3.58 It ispreciselyin thisrespectthatthe presentcase isentirelydifferent
fromthatof thePhosphatesinMorocco.
204Judgmeno tf1938,p.23.
105
Ibid, seealso:I.C.J.,Judgment4 December 1998,FisheriesJurisdiction
(PrelinlinaryObjections),1C.J Reports 1998453,para.44 or,Order,2 June
1999, Legalityof Use ofForce (Yargoslavbv.BeJgium n) nter inersures),
1.C.J Reporfs1999,p.135,para.30.
"' series AJNo 73,p.23.
lo'Ihidp.24.3.59 In that case, the ItalianGovernmenthad presentedthe subjectof the
dispute"under two separateaspects: a general aspect, ...which is
concernedwith whatthatGovernment describesas the'monopolization
of theMoroccan phosphates"'a,nda 'morelimitedaspect'relating "to
thedecision of January8'" 1925, in whichthe Departmentof Mines
rejectedM. Tassara's and to the allegeddenialof justicto
him and his su~cessorsI "~ ~.th respects,theCourt foundthatthe
dispute"didnotarisewith regardto situatioof factssubsequen to"the
"criticl ate"fixedintheFrenchOptional~eclaration~'~.
3.60 Thesefindingswereobvious:
- regardingthe "general aspect'bof the dispute, the Italian
Government had consistently presentedthe "monopolization of the
Moroccanphosphates" "as akgime institutedby ...dahirsof 1920"~";
and
- in respect with the more limited aspect "[tlhe Italian
Governmen did]notdenythattheallegeddispossession of M. Tassara
[resulted]fromtheMinesDepartment's decisionof 1925'd'2.
3.61 Therecouldthereforebe no doubtthatthe dispute had arisenafterwhat
theCourt hadnamedthe "criticaldateq213 t,hatis thedate afterwhich
Francehad accepted the compulsoryjurisdictionof the Court'Gth
20Mr. Tassarawasthe ltalianownerothelicenseto prospecforphosphates
inMorocco.
20Ibid,p25.
21SeriesMB, NO74,p.29.
'"'bid, p.25.
"']bid, 27.
21ibid, 23. regardto situationsor facts subsequentto" the ratificationof her
Declarationwhichoccurredon 25 April 19312'4
3.62 The presentcase is factually(and,by way of consequence, legally)
entireldifferen.
3.63 As explained above, the very subject-matterof the dispute is the
delimitationof the respectivemaritimeareas onwhich Colombiaand
Nicaraguahavejurisdiction.This issue could simply not arisebefore
1932.
3.64 Accordingto Colombia,
"...theconclusionof the 1928Treaty andits 1930Protocol
of Exchange of Ratifications ...settled the dispute
regarding sovereignty over certain territories and
estahlished rhe maritime boundaries between the hyo
~ounrrje,~~5~~
3.65 Thiscansimply not beso. AsNicaraguahasexplainedinherMemorial:
"Notonly was thereno need fordelimitationbetweenthe
two countries[in 1928 or 19301,but,at thetime,thiswas
simply unthinkable: the usually accepted maximum
permissiblebreadth of theterritorileawas threemiles,at
most six (as Colombiadecidedin 1930)andthere was no
question of continental shelf, a concept which only
-
"'Ibid,p22.
21GPO, Vol.I,para.3.39. appearedin the legal spherein 1945,andeven less thaof
anexclusiveeconomiczoneW2l6.
3.66 The issue put beforethe Courtis precisely todetermine thismaritime
boundary, a boundarythat has not been and couldnot have been the
objectofthe1928Treaty.Thisis theissue onwhichthe Partieshavenot
been ableto agreesince 1969 anditis thislackofdeteminakion thathas
givenriseto numerousnavalincidentssincethen2".
Contraryto Colombianallegationsandby contrastwithItaly'sargument
in the Phosphates inMorocco case, itis not Nicaragua'scase that
"becausethe 1928 Treaty and its 1930 Protocol of Exchange of
Ratificationhave continuing effects,jurisdiction Nicaragua
simply notesthather case bearsupon the delimitatioof therespective
continentalshelfandeconomicexclusivezoneof theParties and thatthis
issue, which could not have arisenbeforethe mid-1960s atbesth ,as
dividedthePartiessince 1969, whenColombianotifiedNicaragua, on 4
Juneofthat thatthe1928Treatyestablisheda maritime boundary
and that, therefore, Nicaragua had no maritimeareas, including
continentalshelf and exclusive economic zone, east of the 82"d
~eridian~~'.
216NM, Vol. I, paras.2.24and 2.246; seealso,e.g.:the ArbirrnlAward
between Guinea-Bissauand Senegalof 31July 1989,quoted inNM, Vol.1,
-17a.2.245.
NM, Vol. I, paras.2.203-2.224;see alsoNicaraguApplicationparas.3
and5-7.
219PO,Vo1. I,para.3.38.
Nicaraguaapologiz feratypingrnistakeshemadeinherMemorial,Vol. I,
(p .,para1S),whereshedatesthatNote 6lune 1969insteaof 4.
20NU, Vol.11Annex28.3.68 Farfrombeing in thepresenceof "a continuing;md progressiveunlawful
action"since 192g2'',theGovernment of Nicaragua was confronted with
an entirelynew claim by Colombia, a radicalchange, a novationof the
legalsituationThisnovationis the factfrom which thepresentdispute
has arisen,well later than 6 January1932, Contrary to Colombia's
assertions,itis not Nicaragua thattries to n:vive an alreadysettled
dispute222b,utColombia thathascreatedanentirelynewdisputein 1969.
3.69 By contrast, in the Phosphates in Morocco case, the breachof the
existingsituationwasthe factof the1920 dahirsand of the1925 decision
astheItalianGovernmeni ttselfhadrecognized,
"Inthosedahirs[andin thatdecision]areto be soughtthe
essentialfactsconstitutingtheallegedmonopolization and,
consequently. the facts which really gave rise to the
dispute*"23.
3.70 Similarly,in the case concerning the Legality of[he Use of Force
(Yugosluviu v.Belgium),thelegaldispute"araro" "when thebornbings in
questionbeganon 24 March1999", that is "wellbefore25 April 1999",
the date of the signatureof the Declarationby which Yugoslaviahad
accepted the jurisdictionof theCour tin all disputesarisingor which
may arise ...with regard to the situationsor facts subsequentto this
signature''u4. nthe contrary,inthepresentcase, "the essentialfact ...
which really gave rise to the dispute"is the denial by Colombia,
beginning in 1969, of any maritimeareaon whichNicaraguaenjoyed
'2'See P.C.I.J.,Pho.phates inMorocco,SeriesA/B, No 74,p. 26;see also:
I.C.J.,Order,2 June1999, Legalivof Use ofForce (Yugoslaviav.Belgium)
(InrerimMeasures),J.C.J.Reporls 1999,134,para.28.
22"~~, Vol.1,para.3.49 andpara.3.50(g).
223SerieA/B, No 74,p.26;seealsop.27.
"' I.C.JOrder onInferirr easures1C.J Reports 1999,p. 133,para25. sovereig rights eastof the 82" Meridian. Contrary to Colombian
allegations225,hiswas just the oppositeof "[c]onfirmation,afterthe
crucialdate, of factsanteriorto the Declarations"it was theirvery
negation,
3.71 Colombiacannot therefo escapeacceptanceof the jurisdictionof the
Court by relying on the temporalreservation made in her Optional
Declarationof 1937.It was indeedherrightto excludecertainanterior
disputesfromheracceptanceb, utis nowboundby itinthetermsshehas
freelychosen (tpatere legernquemfecista in),sheis not entitledto
artificiallyexpaher reservatioto subsequentfactswhich clearlycalf
intoquestiontheexistingsituation.
3.72 Thisconclusionis confirmedby othercases settledbytheCourtand its
predecessorcertaiof which-but notdl- arecalleupm by Colombia.
3.73 Thisisthecase inthefirsplace oftheJudgmeno tf thePermanent Court
on thePreliminaryObjectionin the caseof theElectricitofSoju and
~lrl~c~rii?~.s aptly notedby AmbassadorRosenne,it can be argued
that,in thePhosphafein Moroccocase, '?hePermanentCourtmayhave
over simplified the issues" resulting from a temporalreservation
containedinanOptionalDeclaration such astheone made by Francein
thatcaseorby Colombia inthepresentcase;theElectricitof Soja and
Bulgariacase,judge he followingyear, was the occasionthe Court
seizedinordertoclarifthe remaininguncertaintiesz7.
- - -
22CPO, Vol.I,para.339.
22SeriesdB,No 77,4 Apri1939.
22TheLaw md Practice of the InrertratioZourt1920-1996,Nihoff ,he
HagueJBostonlLondon1,97,Vol.11Jurisdiction,pp.793-794.3.74 In thatcase, Belgiumhadrecognizedthecompulsoryjurisdictionof the
Courtby aDeclaration ratifiedon 10March1926 "in anydisputesarising
aftertheratificationofthepresentdeclarationwith regardto situationsor
facts subsequent to this ratification...".As a consequence of the
conditionofreciprocity,theBulgarian Government allegedthat,
"Althoughthe facts complained of by the Belgian
Government in the submissionsof its Application ...all
date from a periodsubsequentto Marchloih, 1926, the
situationwas createdby theawardsof theBelgo-Eulgarian
Mixed ArbitralTribunaland in particularby the formula
establishedby theawardsof July5th,1923,andMay27'h,
1925... Ithas also been arguedthat,sincethe situation
resultingfrom thatformuladatesfrom before thematerial
date,namely,March 10"',1926,theBulgarian Government
isjustifiedin holdingthatthe disputewhichhas arisenin
regard toit falls outsidetheCourt'sjurisdictionby reason
of the limitationratione remporilrcontamedin theBelgian
de~laration''*~~.
3.75 As Colombiaherselfconcedes inpassing, "[tjhe Courtdid not accept
Bulgaria'sview"229B . ut,iitistruethatthePermanentCourtrecalled its
Judgment in thePhosphates ofMoroccocase,Colombiaomitsto quote
the relevant passage in which gives extremely important
clarificationonthescopeofthepreviousJudgment:
""8eriesA/B, No 77,p.81.
22PCPO,Vol. I.para.3.30.
230Idem. "Itis truethata disputemaypresupposethe existenceof
some priorsituationor fact,butit doesnot followthatthe
disputearisesin regardto thatsituationorfact.A situation
or factin regardto whicha disputeis said to havearisen
mustbe thereal causeof thedispute.In thepresentcase it
is thesubsequent actswithwhichtheBelgianGovernment
reproachesthe Bulgarianauthoritieswith regardto a
particularapplicationof the formula ..which form the
centre point of the argumentand must be regardedas
constitutingthe facts with regard to which the dispute
arose. The complaints made in this connectionby the
BelgianGovernmentrelateto thedecisionof theBulgarian
Sbte Administration of Minesof November24", 1934, and
to thejudgmentsof the Bulgariancourtsof October 24',
1936, and March 27", 1937. Accordingly, the Court
considersthatthe argument based on thelimitationratione
temporisintheBelgiandeclaration is notwell-founded"23'.
3.76 Thisargumentcan be transposedmutarismutandis inthe presentcase,
nearlywordbyword,byjustchangingthedatesandthefacts:
"In thepresentcase itisthesubsequent actswithwhich the
Nicaraguan Government reproaches the Colombian
authoritieswith regard to a particularapplicationofthe
1928Treaty ..which formthe centrepointoftheargument
andmustbe regardedas constitutinthefacts withregard
to whichthe disputearose. The complaintsmade in this
21
Series A/BNo 77, p82;see alsothe DissentingOpinioofJonkheerVan
Eysingaand the SeparateOpinionof Mr. Cheng Tien-Hsiappended to the
P.C.I.J.JudgmeninthePhosphatesinMorocco case,SeriesMB,No 74, p.35
and37,which alsonotthe ambiguityoftheCourt'Judgment inthacase. connectionby the NicaraguanGovernnzentrelat te the
decision of theColombianGovernmentof June 4Ih,1969.
Accordingly,the Courtmust considerthat the argument
based on theli~rzitatinaione temporis in the Colombian
declarationinotwell-founded"
3.77 Such a clarificationwas not necessary in the case concerningthe
Phosphates in Moracco, where, clearly, the "causal acts" (faits
gknkraceurs )f thedisputewere anteriorto the"criticaldate"resulting
fromthe FrenchDeclarationunderthe optionalclause(the same istrue
concerning the Order of the present Court on the Request for the
Indicationof InterimMeasuresinthe case concerninthe Legal@ offhe
Use of Force (Yugo~.imiu v. ~el~iu~n} Itwas.,on the otherhand,
indispensablin theE/ecfriciryofSo$aandBwlgc~ri aase,as it iinthe
presentcase,wherethe "facts fromwhich thedispute arose" precisely
result fromthe callinginto question,afterthe "criticaldate",of the
previoussituatioby the Responden ttate.
3.78 The narrowed-and,indeed,logical-interpretationof thePhosphates of
Morocco principle made in Electricify of Sofia has been firmly
maintainedby the present Court.In the Intt~rhandecase, the Court
laconicallystatedthat'"thefactsand situationswhich have led to a
disputemust not beconfused withthe disputeitself'Z33. histatement
was expanded and made explicit the following year in the case
concerningRight ufPassage over IndianTerritory,in whichthe Court
declaredinrespectof themeaning of thewords "source"wc"real cause*'
ofthedisputeinitspredecessor'sJudgmentof 1939:
233 June1999,LC.JReports1999,pp. 132-135paras.22-30.
JudgmentonPreliminaryObjections,1March 1959,L C.JR.eport1959,p.
22; see also, I.C.J.,Judgm12November 1991,ArbitralAward of3IJuly
1989,IC.J. Repor1991,p. 42para.24. "The Permanent Courtthus drewa distinctionbetweenthe
situationsorfacts whichconstitutethe sourceof therights
claimedby one of the Partiesandthe situationsor facts
whicharethesource ofthe dispute.Onlythelatteraretobe
taken into accountfor the purpose of applying the
Declarationacceptingthejurisdictionoft~0Iu-t"'~~.
3.79 In thepresentcase,'"hesituationsorfactswhichconstitutethesourceof
the rights"of Nicaragua are apattern offacts, decisionsand treaties
datingback as earlyas theearly1800sasNicaragua hasexplainedinher
Memorial.But thefactswhicharethe sourceof thedispute,from which
thedisputearises,areconstitutedbythe decisionof Colombiaof 1969,
subsequentlmaintainedt,o denyany sovereir inhtsofNicaraguaover
the continentalshelf(andan exclusiveeconomiczone)eastof the 82nd
Meridian.
3.80 Colombia wrongfullyallegethat,
"[iln theinstantproceedings,the source of the alleged
dispute,its real cause is constitutedby the differences
between thetwo countriesregardingsovereigntyoverthe
MosquitoCoast,the IslasMangles(CornIslands),and the
1913 claimofNicaragua totheArchipelago ofSanAndris,
allof whichwere disposedof in 1928,andtheexistenceof
a treaty in forceratifiedin 1930thatdefinitelysettledthe
dispute ...establishinga maritime boundarybetween
Colombiaand~icara~ua'"~~,
2M I.C.JJudgmentontheMerits,12April1960,LC.J Reports1960,p. 35.
235GPO,Vol. 1para.3.44,
1223.81 Butthis issimplynot true:as recalledabovein Subsection B of Section
Ill, Chapter1 and inparas. 3.65-3.66, and explainedmore fully in
Nicaragua'sMemorial the 1928 Treaty could not have establisheda
maritimeboundary between the Parties and itis because Colombia
allegedthecontraryfrom 1969 onwards thatthe disputearose.
3.82 What istrueonthe otherhandisthat,ontheoccasion ofthisdispute,the
Court must takeinto accountthe situationregardingthesovereigntyover
theArchipelagoandvariouscays in thearea and has theinherentpower
todo so. Butthis is anothermatter,aboutwhichthe1960Judgmentinthe
Right ofPassuge case castsa lightvery differenfrom the CoIombian
views.
3.83 Inthat case, the Courtfoundthatitwasonlyin 1954 -thatis well after5
February 1930, the date limiting India's acceptance of the Court's
jurisdictiothatthedisputearosein respectwith"boththeexistenceof a
rightof passageto go into theenclavedterritorandto India'sfailureto
complywithobligationswhich,according to Portugal,werebindingupon
itinthisconnection".Andthe Courtadded:
"Thiswhole,whatever may have beenlheearlieroriginof
one ofits parts,cameinto existenceonly after5 February
1930. The time-condition towhich acceptanceof the
jurisdiction of the Court was made subject by the
Declarationof Indiaisthereforecompliedwitrub.
- -
23"~.~ Reports1960, p.35.3.84 Italsomadeclearthat:
"Itwouldbe idleto arguethatthecontentionsputforward
withregardto therightof passagewould,if thatquestion
hadbeenargued before1930,havebeenthesameaswhen
it is today. Apartfrom the factthat thatconsideration
relatesonlytoapartof thepresentdispute,itoverlooksthe
fact thatthe conditionto whichthe Court'sjurisdictionis
subject does not relate tthe nature of thearguments
susceptibleof being advanced.The fact thaa treaty,of
greateror lesserantiquitthata ruleofinternationallaw,
establishefora greaterorlesserperiod,areinvoked,is not
theyardstickforthejurisdictioofthe Courtaccordingto
the IndianDeclaration.ThatDeclarationis limiteto the
requirementthat thedisputeshall concerna situationor
facts subsequentto 5February1930:the presentdisputes
satisfiesthat
exactlyinthe same way as thedisputenow beforetheCour tatisfithe
requiremenitmposedintheColombian Declaration.
3.85 HavingthusdismissedthesixthIndian Preliminar ybjection,theCourt,
in itsJudgmentof 1960,proceeded toconsiderthemeritsof thcase.To
thateffect,itconsideredfirstthequestionof"[tlheexistence1954of a
right of passagein Portugal'sfavour"238F.or that matter,the Court
discussedtheargumentsof bothPartiesconcerningthevalidi ofa treaty
concludedin 1779togetherwith thatof decreesissuedin 1783ad 1 785 by the MarathaRuler(thatis 150years beforethe "critical date")239It
then consideredthe argumentsof the Parties ilsto the scope of these
instrumentsand,moreprecisely,thequestionof'whether ornotthey had
transferred sovereign@ over the enclaves to ~ortu~al~~';the Court
concludedthatthis was not thecase, but'"tatthesituationunderwent a
change with the adventof the Britishas sovereignof thatpart of the
countryin place of the ~arathas'"",thatis, again, for the most part,
befire 1930.Itthenappearsthat, inthatcase, theCourtconsidereddl the
historicalfactspertaininto thedisputewith a view to appreciatingtheir
validityandlegalscope.
3.86 In doing so, as theCourt madeclear, it did not give "anyretroactive
effecttoIndia'sacceptanceof thecompulsory jurisdiction"242x,actlyas,
inthepresentcase, itwillnotoverlookthetemporalconditionincludedin
Colombia'sOptionalDeclaration byconsidering thevalidityandscope of
the Barnenas-Esguerra Treaty in so far as such a determination is
necessaryin orderto determinethemaritimeareasbelongingrespectively
to the Parties-thatis in settiing the disputewhichhasarisen fromthe
Colombianclaims tohugepartsof maritime mas over whichNicaragua
hasrightsandjurisdiction.
3.87 In conclusiononthis aspectof the ColombianPreliminary Objection,
Nicaragua wishes to stress that her position in this respect must be
understood notwithstandingthe jurisdictionof the Court on all the
NicaraguanSubmissionsanthe basisofthe Pactof BogotA.
'"Ibid p.37.
24Ibid p.38.
''Ibid,p.39.
'"Ihid,p.35.3.88 As thePermanent Court,stressedintheElectricityofSo$aandBulgaria
case:
"themultiplicityof agreementsconcludedaccepting the
compulsoryjurisdictionis evidence that the contracting
Partiesintendedto open up new ways of accessto the
Courtrather than to closeold ways or to allowthemto
cancel each other out with the ultimate result thano
jurisdictiowouldremain"243.
3.89 In thepresentcase,thejurisdictiooftheCourtis based on thePactof
Bog& andtheOptionalClause Declaration ofthePartiesthat,farfrom
beingexclusiveof eachother,arecomplementary t is fortheCourtto
decidewhich ofthose two legalbasis ismorerelevant in the present
case2Morto combine them.ItisNicaragua'sconvictionthateachof them
"confersjurisdictionupontheCourtto entertaithedisputesubmittedto
p245
IV. FourthPreliminaryObjection
Colombia's Acceptance by Conduct ofan Obligationto Give
ReasonableNoticeof Termination
3.90 Thepoliticalcircumstancesprevailingintheregionprovidthe necessary
backgroundto the contentionof NicaraguathatColombiahas by her
24SerieA&,rlr 7",p.76.
244 See e.g.:I.C.J., Judgment,Border and Transborder Armed Actions,
Nicaragua v.Hondwar (Jwisdicttmofthe Court and Adnlissibilig the
Application),I.C.J.Reports1988,p.para.48.
Ibid. conductacceptedan obligation togive reasonat~leoticeoftermination
of herDeclarationunderthe OptionalClause,and thatconsequently,the
Colombia notificatioof 5 December2001 could not have the legal
consequencesassertedbyColombia.
3.91 A fewweeksafterHondurason 30 November1999ratifiedtheTreaty of
delimitationof 2 August 1986,Mr. AmoldoAleman, then Presidentof
Nicaraguaannounced thata case wouldbe filedwith the Courlagainst
Colombia. This announcemen wtasmadeon23 December1999246 (see
belowparagraphs 3.93and 3.102).
3.92 This decisionby PresidentAlemhnwas reiteratedpubliclyon different
occasions.Forexample,afierreturningfkoma ~neetingof theI1Summit
oftheAmericasthattookplaceinCanada, he stated"We arealso going
tobringa caseagainstColombia aswe have dot^with ~onduras."~'
3.93 Later on in that same year, on 9 October2001, PresidentAIemin
announced thatthe case againstColombiawas going tobe filed ithe
Court.
"We aregoing tofile thcase againstColombia.We will
also guaranteein the nationalbudgetthocontinuationof
thiscase, becauseyou must know that thesecases are
contended before international courtand this implies
246NWS V,al. Annex 13.
"'NWS, VOI.11,Annex 14. enormous expenses. But as 1 have pointedout, the
sovereigntyof ourCountrymustprevailaboveany other
thing."'48
3.94 TheColombianpress pickedupthesestatements.Forexample, thelatter
announcement read as follows in the Colombian newspaper El
Espectado :r
"The Presidentof Nicaragua, rnoldoAlemin, announced
yesterdaythapriorto 10Januaryw, henhe musthand over
power,anapplicationagainstColombia will be filwith
the Internationl ourtof Justice in The Hague,over a
boundary treatysigned with Honduras thatwould affect
Ni~ara~ua.''~~~
0.NEGOT~ATION ASTFOREIGNMINISTER LEVE ILN2001
3.95 This was the political backgroundwhen Mr. FranciscoAguirre was
appointedForeignMinisterof Nicaragua inOctober 2000.Mr. Aguirre,
in an affida~i~~~ellsthe storyof howhis Colombiancounterpart, r.
Fe-dez de Soto, requested thatthe filing of the Nicaraguan
Applicationbe postponedinorderto give anopportunitfornegotiations
on the territorialand delimitationquestions pending between their
respectiveStates.
24gNWS, VOI .1Annex 15.
249NWS,V01.11,Annex6.
250NWS,Vol. 11Annex22.3.96 This offerwas not receivedas coming out of theblueby hh. Aguirre.
There hadbeen previousattemptsatnegotiationsthatwentbacka quarter
of acentury(seeaboveChap.I,paras,1.67- 1.84).
3.97 Mr.Aguirreagreedingoodfaithonly to laterreceivethesurpristhathe
purposeof thatrequestandtheoffersof negotiationswereonlymadein
order togaintimeforColombiato completethe legal andpolitical steps
sheneededto take in order to withdrawher 1937 acceptanceof the
jurisdictionof theCourt.
3.98 In the outcome the Government of Nicaraguahad been placed in a
situatioin which the Government of Colombia had, by its conduct,
undertakennot to changethejurisdictionalstatusquoin relationto the
International ourtof JusticThis was thenecessarylegalconsequence
ofrequestingapostponemeno tfthefilingoftheNicaraguan Application.
The conduct of Colombia must be interpretedinthe light of a
presumptionof good faith. The request by the ColombianForeign
Ministerfora postponementof the filingof thcNicaraguanApplication
includedan implicitundertakinnotto withdrawColombia'sDeclaration
acceptingjurisdictionwithoutreasonabnotice
3.99 In the resultthe Governmenof Colombia was estopped fromchanging
the jurisdictionstatus quo without reasonable notice. There is a
considerableweight of authorityfotheview thatestoppel is a general
principlof internationlawrestingessentialljon theprincipleof good
faith.
3.100 The Courthasdefinedtheconditionsfortheexistenceof an estoppel on
severaloccasions.Thus, in its Judgmentin the NorthSea Continental
She& $asestheCourt observed: "Having regard to these considerationsof principlit
appearstotheCourtthatonlythe existenceoa situatioof
estoppelcouldsufficetolendsubstancto thiscontentio-,
thatis to say theFederalRepublicwere now precluded
fromdenyingtheapplicabilityoftheconventionalregime,
byreasonof pastconduct,declaration,tc.,whichnot only
clearlyandconsistentlyevincedacceptanceof thatregime,
but also had caused Denmarkor the Netherlands,in
relianceonsuchconduct,detrimentallytochangeposition
or suffersome prejudice, Of this thereis noevidence
whateverinthepresentcase."25'
3.101 This defmitionwasadoptedby the Chamber of theCourtinthe Gzslfof
Maine Case, 1.C.J Reports1984, page 309, paragrap145; andby the
MI Courtin theCase ConcerningMilitaryandParamilitaryActivities in
andagains Nticaragua(Nicaragua v.UnitedStafes ofAmerica),1 C.J
Reporis 1984,pages414to 415, paragraph51,andthe Case Concerning
theLandandMaritimeBoundaryBetweenCameroora and NigeriIa.,.J
Reporrs 1998,page303,paragraph 57.
3.102 In thecircumstanceosf thpresentcase,boththePresidentofNicaragua
and the Foreign Ministerhad made public announcements of the
intentionof Nicaraguato file aApplicationwiththe Courtin which
Colombia was to be the RespondentState. These public statemenl
coveredtheperiod from December1999 untitheendof November2001
andwerereportedin the pressofbotR NicaraguaandColombia. There
can be no questionthat Colombiawas not aware of Nicaragua's
251I.C.J.Repor1969,p.26,para.30.
130 intention,moreespeciallinview of thenegotiationsatForeignMinister
levelinthesame period.
3.103 TheColombian Agent,Ambassador JulioLondoiio,inaninterviewgiven
shortlyafter the Applicationof this case was filed, recognized that
Colombiahadbeen awareforthe previoustwo yearsof theNicaraguan
decision of bringingthis case before theCourt. The comments of
AmbassadorLondofio were made in the context of answeringthe
questionaskedby many whetheritwas a coincidenceor somethingelse
thatNicaraguafiledherApplicationon 6 December 2001 andColombia
hadwithdrawn heracceptancethedaybefore.
"The Colombian explanation is only one: it was a
coinciden che.Ambassadorin Cuba, Julio Londoiio,
charged with coordinatingthe group that will defend
Colombia beforethe Courtsaidthatthewithdrawal of the
declarationthat came about on 5 Decemberwas made
without knowing exactly the date in which Nicaragua
wouldfile the case. Whatwas knownwasthat itwouldbe
filedatsome moment,since they had heenannouncingit
forthepasttwo years."252
3.104 Itwas againstthis backgroundthattheColombianForeignMinister,Mr
Femhndezde Soto, requested the NicaraguaForeign Minister, Mr
Aguirre,to postponethe filing of the Application. No referewas
made by him to any modification or withdrawalof the Colombia
acceptanceoftheCourt'jurisdiction.
25NWS,Vol. TIA,nnex7. CHAPTERIV
THE EXISTENCEOFA DISPUTEINTHECONTEXTOF BOTH
THE PACTOFBOGOTA
AND THE OPTIONALCLAUSEJL'RTSDTCTION
4.1 ArticleVIofthePactofBogotaprovides asfollows:
"The aforesa prdcedures,furthermore, aynotbeapplied
in matters already settled by arrangementbetween the
parties, orby arbitral award or by decision of an
internationalourt,orwhicharegovernedbyagreementsor
treatieinforceonthedateof theconclusionofthepresent
Treaty"(emphasissupplied)
4.2 In herPreliminaryOBjectionsColombiaarguesthatthe issuesraisedin
the Applicationof Nicaragua are 'alreadysettled' by the Esguerra-
BarcenasTreatyof 1928and theProtocolof Exchangeof Ratificatiofs
1930: seethePreliminmyObjections,VolumeI, paragraph2s.1to 2.35,
2.63to 2.64and3.1to 3.9.
4.3 Colombiaalso invokes ArticleXXXIVof the Pact of Bogotriwhich
providesasfollows:
"IftheCourt, forthereasonssetforthinArticlesV, and
VIIof this Treaty,declaresitselfto be withoutjurisdiction
to hearthe controversy,suchcontroversyshallbe declared
ended."
4.4 Colombiainvokesthetravataxpriparatoires of ArticVTand XXXIV
of the Pact of Bogotk Preliminary Objecfions,VolumeIparagraphs 2.10 to 2.14. Inrealitythe materialsdeployedintheseparagraphleave
the issue entire. The irmam prdpamtoires of the two Articlesdo
nothingbutconfirmthatthe workingsof theseprovisionsstand in need
ofclarificatioThe travaeuc erelyconfirmthisfact.
4.5 In the finalanalysisthe term 'alreadysettled' hasto be appliedin
concrero and is inevitablyquestion-begging. The question which
remains is whether the subject-matterof the Applicationhas been
'alreadysettlebyarrangemenb tetweentheparties'.
4-6 In analyticterms the preliminarybutthe determiningissue is whether
thereis a dispute betweetheparties.The contentof thedisputewould
includethe questionwhetherthe mattershad been 'alreadysettled...'.
Thisquestionclearlypertaintothemeritsof thecase.
4.7 In any event, there ia logical presumptionthat the phrase'already
settled'connotesa settlementinaccordancewiththeprinciplesof public
internationalw. Thus, thelocution'settled'callsforrecensioand the
recensionitselfmayconstitutea dispute.
4.8 Inthiscontextinternationatribunals,andthe Court,in particular,have
approachedthe identificationof a disputeiaspiritof realism. Fairly
typicalin this respect are the following passagfrom the Advisory
Opinionin theHeadquarterAs greementcase:
"34.Inorderto answerthequestionputto it,theCourthas
to determinewhetherthereexists a dispute between the
UnitedNationsandthe UnitedStates,andif so whetheror
not that disputeis one 'concerningthe interpretationor
application of the Headquarters Agreementwithin the
meaningof section 21 thereof.Ifitfind hatthereis sucha disputeitmust also,pursuan to thatsectionsatisfyitself
that it ione 'not settled bynegotiationor otheragreed
modeof settlement'.
35. As the Court observed in the case concerning
Interpretat ofoPeace Treaties with Ilulgaria, Hmga~y
andRomania, 'whetherthereexists aninternationadispute
is a matter for objective determination'(1.C.J Reports
1950, p, 74). In this respect the Permanent Court of
Internationa lustice,inthecase concerningMuvrommutis
Palestine Concessions, had defined a dispute as 'a
disagreementon a point of law or fact,a conflictof legal
views or ofinterestbetweentwo persons'(P.C.LJ.,Series
A,No. 2,p. 11). Thisdefinitionhas sincebeenappliedand
clarified on a number of occasions. In the Advisory
Opinionof 30 March 1950the Court,afterexaminingthe
diplomaticexchangesbetweenthe Statesconcerned,noted
that 'the twosideshold clearlyoppositt:views concerning
the question of the performance or non-performanco ef
certaintreaty obligations'andconcludedthat 'international
disputeshave arisen'(InferpretationofPeace Trerrfeswith
Bulgaria, Hungcrry and Romania, First Phase, 1-C.J.
Reports 1950, p.74). Furthermore ,nitsJudgmentof 21
December1962 in the South WestAfrica cases,the Court
made it dear that in order to prove the existence of a
dispute
'itis notsuficient for one partyto a contentious
caseto assertthata disputeexists with the other
party. A mere assertion is notsufliciento prove the existenceof a disputeany more thana mere
denialof theexistenceofthedispute proves itsnon-
existence. Nor is it adequateto show that the
interestsof thetwo partiesto such a case we in
conflict. It mustbe shown thatthe claimof one
partyis positivelyopposed by the other' (1C.J.
Reports1962,p. 328).
TheCourtfoundthatthe opposing attitudesoftheparties
clearly establishtheexistenceof a dispute(ibid;see also
NorthernCameroons, I.C,J Reports1963,p.27)."253
4.9 AndintheNorthernCameroonscase the Courthadobservedthat:
"TheCourtis not concernedwiththe questionwhetheror
not any dispute in relation to the same subject-matter
existed betweentheRepublicof CameroonandtheUnited
NationsortheGeneralAssembly. Inthe view of theCorn
itis sufficientsay that,havingregard tothe factsalready
statedin this Judgment,the opposingviews of the Parties
as totheinterpretationandapplicationof relevantArticles
of the TrusteeshipAgreement,reveal the existence of a
disputein thesenserecognizedbythejurisprudenceof the
Court and of its predecessors,between the Republicof
Cameroonand the United Kingdom at the date of the
~~~licatio."'54
4.10 These passagesapplyveryappositely tothecircumstancesof thepresent
case. The opposingattitudesof thepartiesclearly establitheexistence
251C.J Reports1988, p.27.
25I.C.J.Reports1963,p.27. of a dispute. Thisdisputehas a variedsubjectmatter butthis subject
matterincludes questions as tothe legalstatus of the treatyobligations
(seeaboveChap.I).
4.11 The subject-matterof theNicaraguanMemoriulstudied inconjunction
withthe text of Volume1 of the Preliminary Objections of Colombia
providesampleproofof theopposingattitudesof thepartiesinrespectof
a whole series of issues of law and fact. This is demonstratedby
referenceto the subject-matter of Chapters Iand I1ofthePreliminary
Objecfions.
4.12 TheColombianargumentseeksto buildupon thefindingsoftheCourt in
theBorderandTransborderArmedAcrions cast:inordertocontendthat,
even ifthere isjurisdictioninaccordance withArticle36, paragrap2 h, of
the Statute, the Court is still bound to make a determinationin
accordance with Article VI of the Pact of Bogoti, On this basis,
Colombiaconcludes:
"Therefore, even if Colombiahad still been boundby its
Declaration of 30 October1937 whenNicaraguafiled its
Application -quad non- the Pact of Bogoti -the lex
specialis- wouldstill be governing;the Courtwould still
have to "declare itselto be withoutjurisdiction';and the
controversywouldstillhave to be 'declaredended s.9255
4.13 This submissionbyColombiainvolvesa misunderstandino gf theCourt's
determination in the Armed Actions case. In that case Hondurashad
arguedasfollows:
- - - -. .. .
255CPO,VOI.I,para.3.6. "Under the most literal,andthereforethe most simple,
interpretationof the termsof the Pact, ArticleXXXI, in
establishingtheobligatoryjurisdictioofthe Court,at the
sametime requirestheadditionalsubscriptionb ,y each of
the Parties,oa unilateraldeclaratioofacknowledgement
of its jurisdiction,as providedfor by Article 36.2 of the
Statuteof the Court,to which ArticleXXXl of the Pact
makes expressreference.The reservationsttachedtosuch
declarations, s inthecaseof the declaratioof Honduras
of 22 May 1986 [quotedin paragraph 24 aboveJ,therefore
apply both in the context of the applicationof Article
XXXIandon thesole basisof theHondurandeclaration
itself."256
4.14 TheCourtrejectedthecontentionand came totheconclusionthat:
"...the Court has to conclude that the commitment in
Article XXXI of the Pact is independent of such
declarationsof acceptanceof ~ompulsoryjurisdictionas
may havebeen madeunderArticle36, paragraph 2, ofthe
Statuteand depositedwith the UnitedNationsSecretary-
General pursuantto paragraph4 of that same Article.
Consequently,it is not necessary ta decidewhether the
1986DeclarationofHondurasis opposableto Nicaraguain
this case;itcannotin any event restrictthe commitment
whichHondurasentered intoby virtue of ArticleXXXI.
TheHonduran argument as to theeffectof the reservation
25IC.J.Reports1988,p.82. to its 1986 Declarationon itscommitnlentunderArticle
XXXIof thePactthereforecannotbeaccepted."257
4.15 This determinationby the Court is, quite si~nply,to the effect that
jurisdictionon the basis of ArticleXXXI of he Pact resultsfroman
autonomouscommitmentof the parties,independently of the Optional
Clausejurisdiction2S8.owever,this decisiondidnotestablisha general
hegemonyof thePact,andtheprincipleof autonomy,appliedlogically,
would militateagainst such a hegemony. The position is that the
obligationsby virtueof the Pact cannot be modifiedby means of a
unilate declaration ade subsequentlyunderthe~tatute.~~'
4.16 The inferencetobe drawnis that,unlessthereisa clearindicatioto the
contrary,theconceptof disputeapplicableis identicalinrespectof both
sourcesofjurisdiction.Thereis noreasonto assumethatthephrasingof
ArticIe VI of the Pact of Bogotii results in the confection of an
independent and specialisedcriterionfor the existenceof a dispute.
Tndeed ,hewordingof ArticleXXXIof thePact ofBogotarulesoutsuch
anassumption.Thusitprovidesasfollows:
"ArticleXXXI. In conformitywithArticle36, paragraph
2, of the Statuteof the InternationalCourtof Justice,the
High ContractingPartiesdeclarethat they recognize, in
relationto anyotherAmericanState,thejurisdictionof the
Courtas compulsoryips0faeto ,ithouithenecessityof an
specialgreementso longasthepresentTreatyis in force,
251C.J Reports1988,p. 88.
251C.J Reports1988,p.85,para.36.
25gSeethe JudgmentitheArmedActionscase, I.CJ Report1988,p. 84,para.
34. inall disputesofajuridicalnaturethatariseamongthem
concerning:
(a) Theinterpretationfa treaty;
(b) Anyquestion ofinternationallw;
(c) The existence of any fact which,if establishedwould
constitutethbreachof aninternationaolbligation;or
(d) The natureorextentof the reparatioto be made forthe
breachofaninternationaolbligation."
4.17 This form of draftingstrongly suggeststhat the two sources of
jurisdictiosharethe same universeof concepts. Moreover,there cabe
no presumptionthat the concept of disputeis tobe a variedcontent
dependingonthesourceofjurisdiction. SUBMISSIONS
1. Forthe reasonsadvanced,the Republicof Nicaragua requeststhe Court
to adjudgeanddeclare thatthePreliminaryObjections submittedbythe
Republicof Colombia,both in respectof thejurisdictionbaseduponthe
Pactof Rogoth, andin respectof thejurisdictionbaseduponArticle36,
paragraph2, oftheStatutof theCourt,areinvalid.
2 In the alternative,the Courtis requesteto adjudge and declare,in
accordance withtheprovisionsof Article79, paragra7,of theRulesof
Courtthattheobjectionssubmittedby theRep~~blio cf Colombiado not
have an exclusivelypreliminacharacter.
3 In addition,the Rcpublicof Nicaraguarequeststhe Court to rejectthe
requestof theRepublicof Colombiato declarehe controversysubmitted
to itbyNicaraguaunderArticleXXXl of the Pactof Bogoth'ended', in
accordance withArticlesVIandXXXIV ofthe sameinstrument.
4 Any other matters not explicitly dealt withthe foregoing Written
Statementare expresslyreservedforthmeritsphaseofthisproceeding.
TheHague,26 January2004
CarlosJ. ARGUELL G OMEZ
Agentof theRepublicofNicaragua LIST OFANNEXES
(VOLUMEII)
BOOKS
ANNEX 1 RepublicsdeColombia,Historiade lasLeyes,
Vol.XI, 1928,LegislatureE. ditionordereby
theChamber of Representativeandeditedby
itsSecretaryFernandoRestrepoBriceiio,
Bogota,ImprentaNacional,1930.pp.523-525,
530,531,534.. .............................
ANNEX2 MontielArgitello,AlejandroD. idlogosconel
Ca~lcillrMinisteriodeRelacionesExieriores.
ImprentaNacional. Managua,pp.14-1 6..........
COLOMBIANNEWSPAPERS
ANNEX3 ElNuevoSiglo,Sincelejo,7September 1995....
ANNEX 4 ElTiempo,Bogoth, 10 September 1995.............
ANNEX 5 ElEspectador,Bogoti, 15 March1996 ......,........
ANNEX 6 El EspectadorB, ogoth10 October 2001............
ANNEX 7 ElTiempo,Bogoth, 16 Decemlxr2001 ........,
ANNEX8 El Tiempo,Bogoti, 24April :!003............
ANNEX 9 El Tiempo,Bogotii,25 April2003 ......................
ANNEX 10 ElTiempo,Bogoth,13June2003 .......................
NICARAGUANNEWSPAPERS
ANNEX11 LaPrensa,Managua, 15June 1969,.............
ANNEX12 Novedades,Managua, 18March 1977. ........
ANNEX 13 El Nuevo Diaro,Managua ,4 December 1999.. ANNEX 14 LaPrensa,Managua2 , 4April2001.............5
ANNEX 15 ElNuevoDiario,Managua9 , October2001.... 3 7
ANNEX 16 LaPrensa,Managua, 30November2001 ........39..
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THENINTHINTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
ANNEX 17 MinutesoftheSeventhPlenarySession.Ninth
Internationalonferenceof AmericanStates.
March 30-May2, 1948.pp.231-233........... 43
ANNEX 18 Documents Correspondingtothe Third
Commission.NinthInternationaCl onferencof
American StatesMarch30-May 2,1948. pp.6,
69,79-80, 134-136, 87,204..................45
ANNEX 19 NinthInternational onferencofAmerican
StatesAnnalsof theOrganizationofAmerican
StafesWashingtonD , .C.Dept.ofPublic
InformationP,anAmerican Union,1949-1958.
Val.INo. 2. 1949.pp,44,47-48, 5...............
AFFIDAVITS
ANNEX 20 Affidavitof Mr.AlejandroMantielArgiiello.. 57
ANNEX 21 AfY~davo itf Mr.ErnesLealShchez.. ....... 59
ANNEX 22 Affidavitof Mr.FranciscoAguirrSacasa......
63
ANNEX 23 Affidavitof Mr.NormanCaldera Cardena l.... 65OTHERDOCUMF,NTS
ANNEX 24 RecordsoftheSessionsof theChamberofthe
SenateofNicaragua.........................69......
Annex24 a RecordsoftheXLVJISessiontlflhe Chm~berof
theSenate4 March1930.....................69......
RecordsoftheXUTSessionofiheChamber of
Anna 24 b
theSenate.5March1930.....................70......
ANNEX25 RecordsoftheLVIIISessionof theChamberof
DeputiesofNicaragua.1and3 April1930.......73
ANNEX 26 FinalRecordof Proceedingsofthe IV
Binational eetingNicaragua-CostRica.
GranadaN, icaragua12and1 :May 1997 ..........
ANNEX 27 Exchange ofNotesbetweentheGovernmen of
CostaRica andthe GovernmentofColombia.
29 May 2000................................3.........
ANNEX 28 Agreementconcludedbetween CostaRicaand
Nicaraguaon26 September2002..................
Written Statement of Nicaragua