INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
____________________________________________
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE
(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)
REJOINDER OF THE
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
VOLUME II
APPENDICES, ANNEXES & MAPS
18 JUNE 2010
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Expert Report by Dr. Robert Smith “Mapping the Islands of Quitasueño
(Colombia) – Their Baselines, Territorial Sea, and Contiguous Zone”,
February 2010. ........................................................................................................... 2
Appendix 2 Colombia’s Official Nautical Charting of the San Andrés Archipelago................... 66
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Diplomatic Note DM 14082-2000 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, 29 May 2000.............. 71
Annex 2 Diplomatic Note DM 073-2000 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, 29 May 2000.............. 73
Annex 3 Report to Congress by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
2000 - 2001............................................................................................................... 74
Annex 4 1997 Agreement to Suppress Illicit Traffic by Sea between Colombia and
the United States of America. .................................................................................. 80
MAPS
I. FIGURE IN CHAPTER 2
R-2.1 Islands Claimed by Nicaragua in its 1900 Note with regard to the
Loubet Award............................................................................................................ 92
II. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 3
R-3.1 Quitasueño - Islands and Low Tide Elevations Identified During Site Visit
by Doctor Smith........................................................................................................ 93
R-3.2 Quitasueño - 12 M Territorial Sea Limits
(Measured From All 54 Identified Features and the Fringing Reef)......................... 94
IV
III. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 4
R-4.1 Nicaragua’s Maritime Claim Divides an Area where It has No Maritime
Entitlement................................................................................................................ 95
R-4.2 Nicaragua’s Encroachment on Colombia’s 200 M Entitlements.............................. 96
R-4.3 Nicaragua’s Claims: One More Extreme than the Other.......................................... 97
R-4.4 200 M Maritime Entitlements Completely Overlap in the Western Caribbean........ 98
R-4.5 Continental Shelf Areas Identified in Submissions to the UN,
as of 10th June 2009................................................................................................... 99
R-4.6 Japan’s Extended Continental Shelf Claim in the Southern Kyushu-Palau
Ridge Region.......................................................................................................... 100
R-4.7 New Caledonia’s Extended Continental Shelf Claim in the Loyalty Ridge
& Lord Howe Rise Regions.................................................................................... 101
R-4.8 New Zealand’s Extended Continental Shelf Claim Does Not Trespass into the
200 M EEZ Entitlements of Neighboring States.................................................... 102
R-4.9 Sri Lanka’s Extended Continental Shelf Claim Does Not Trespass into the
200 M EEZ Entitlements of Neighboring States.................................................... 103
R-4.10 France, United Kingdom, Spain, & Ireland’s Extended Continental Shelf Claim
in the Celtic Sea & Bay of Biscay Area.................................................................. 104
IV. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 5
R-5.1a Alburquerque Cays / Serrana Cay........................................................................... 105
R-5.1b Roncador Cay / East-Southeast Cays...................................................................... 106
R-5.1c Serranilla Cay / Bajo Nuevo Cay............................................................................ 107
R-5.1d San Andrés.............................................................................................................. 108
R-5.1e San Andrés & Providencia...................................................................................... 109
R-5.2 Quitasueño Cay - Landsat V Image........................................................................ 110
R-5.3 200 M Maritime Entitlements of Colombia’s Islands............................................. 111
V
R-5.4 Relevant Area between the San Andrés Archipelago and Nicaragua..................... 112
R-5.5 Central Portion of the Western Caribbean Sea........................................................ 113
V. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 6
R-6.1 Libya – Malta
ICJ Continental Shelf Boundary Judgment: 1985.................................................. 114
R-6.2 Greenland / Jan Mayen
ICJ Continental Shelf Boundary Judgment: 1993.................................................. 115
R-6.3 The Median Line..................................................................................................... 116
R-6.4 The Median Line If Nicaragua’s Islands are Ignored............................................. 117
VI. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 7
R-7.1 Proximity of the Islands in the San Andrés Archipelago........................................ 118
R-7.2 Libya – Malta
ICJ Judgment: 1985................................................................................................ 119
R-7.3 Canada – France
Arbitration Award: 1992......................................................................................... 120
R-7.4 India – Maldives
Boundary Agreement: 1978.................................................................................... 121
R-7.5 Australia – France
Boundary Agreement: 1983.................................................................................... 121
R-7.6 India – Thailand
Boundary Agreement: 1978.................................................................................... 122
R-7.7 São Tomé & Príncipe
Boundary Agreements /
Equatorial Guinea: 1999
Gabon: 2001............................................................................................................ 122
R-7.8 Cape Verde – Mauritania: 2003
Cape Verde – Senegal: 1993
Boundary Agreements............................................................................................. 123
VI
R-7.9 Dominican Republic – United Kingdom
Boundary Agreement: 1996.................................................................................... 123
R-7.10 Indonesia – Malaysia (Strait of Malacca Area)
Continental Shelf Agreement: 1969........................................................................ 124
VII. FIGURES IN CHAPTER 8
R-8.1 Comparison of the Median Line to the 82° W Longitude Line.............................. 125
R-8.2 Colombian and Nicaraguan Naval Interdictions..................................................... 126
R-8.3 Colombia’s Median Line Proposal.......................................................................... 127
APPENDICES
2
Appendix 1
EXPERT REPORT BY DR. ROBERT SMITH
“MAPPING THE ISLANDS OF QUITASUEÑO (COLOMBIA) – THEIR BASELINES,
TERRITORIAL SEA, AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE”,
FEBRUARY 2010
Document on pages to follow
3
Appendix 1
Mapping the Islands of Quitasueño
(Colombia)
Their Baselines, Territorial Sea, and Contiguous Zone
Prepared for the
Government of Colombia
February 2010
4
Appendix 1
2
Table of Contents
Section Title
1
Introduction
2
Logistics of the Quitasueño Survey Trip
3
Geographical facts of Quitasueño’s Islands and Reefs
4
The Law
5
Charts
6
Application of the Law of the Sea
And Geographical Facts to Quitasueño
7
Conclusion
Annexes
1
Resume of Dr. Robert W. Smith
2
Colombian personnel on December 2010 on Quitasueño Survey Trip
3 Geodetic Positioning System (GPS) Equipment used on Quitasueño
Survey Trip
4 Technical Report by the Colombia Hydrographic Office On the Tidal
Datum in Quitasueño
5 Survey Data
6 Four Maps Produced by the Office of Hydrographic Services Showing
Photos of QS 1 – QS 54
7 Colombia Charts: 215, 630, 631
8 Excerpts from the Report on an “Explanation of the Symbols used in
the Nautical Charts COL 215, COL 630, COL 631 and COL 416 Related
to Quitasueño Cay”, Colombia’s Office of Hydrographic Services
9 Excerpt from Colombia Chart No. 1 (Section K)
10 Distances of QuitaSueño Low-Tide Elevations To Quitasueño Islands
5
Appendix 1
3
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Figures Title
1
Colombia Chart No. 416 [copy of chart]
2
Aerial reconnaissance over Quitasueño [map with photos]
3
ARC Malpelo [photo]
4 Survey Team at Southern Light Tower, with the Drying Fringing Reef
in Background [photo]
5 Colombia’s Symbol for “Breakers”
6 IHO Definition and Symbol for “Breakers”
7 Quitasueño: Islands and Low tide elevations Identified During Site
Visit [map]
8 Quitasueño: 12 M Territorial Sea Limits (Measured from all 54
Identified features) [Map]
9 Quitasueño: 12 M Territorial Sea Limits (Measured from all relevant
baselines: islands, low tide elevations, drying fringing reefs and
closing lines) [Map]
10 Quitasueño; 12 M Territorial Sea and 24 M Contiguous Zone
(Measured from all relevant baselines: islands, low tide elevations,
drying fringing reefs and closing lines) [Map]
10 Poster Poster map of Figure 10 is located in jacket pocket at the back of
Report
6
Appendix 1
4
1. Introduction
1.1 On November 12, 2009, the Government of Colombia retained my
services to provide an independent geographical assessment of (1) what features
exist, particularly islands and low-tide elevations, on Quitasueño, and (2) how
the principles of the law of the sea may apply to determining maritime
jurisdiction from their baselines. This report represents my conclusions after
having spent 3 days, 30 November through 2 December 2009, on Quitasueño
surveying the reef system with the Colombian Navy and Coast Guard, and
having reviewed the results of survey work conducted by the Colombian Navy
during the summer of 2008. While I gratefully acknowledged the assistance of
the Colombian Government on this survey trip, all the assessments and
conclusions made in this report are mine, made as an independent geographic
consultant.
1.2 I feel qualified to make such assessments as I served almost 31 years as
the United States Government’s geographical and technical expert on maritime
boundary and jurisdictional issues. As a geographer with the U.S. Department
of State, until I retired in March 2006, I assisted in the development and
implementation of U.S. ocean policy. I was responsible for the technical and
geographical aspects of establishing United States claims to marine jurisdiction
and negotiating and arbitrating U.S. bilateral maritime boundaries. In this role,
I coordinated the U.S. federal government inter-agency effort to develop
technically accurate and precise baselines from which to determine the territorial
sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone. I assured that all United
States maritime claims were in accordance to international law of the sea
principles using modern charting techniques.
1.3 I represented the United States Government at international meetings
and conferences. In particular, I was one of the technical experts who
participated in the United Nations meeting in 1987 to examine the relevant
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS
Convention) pertaining to the baseline. The result of this meeting of experts was
the production of one of the “blue books” produced by the United Nations “to
ensure that State practice develops in a manner consistent with the relevant
provisions of the Convention.”1
1.4 Since my retirement from the U.S. Department of State in 2006, I have
been an Independent Geographic Consultant providing foreign governments, oil
and gas companies, and international law firms with geographical and technical
expertise on matters pertaining to maritime boundary delimitation and
1 Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations, The Law of the Sea: Baselines, No.
E.88.V.5, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Baseline book).
7
Appendix 1
5
arbitrations, maritime jurisdictional claims and the development of offshore
energy resources. I have researched and written analytical reports on offshore
issues and served as an expert witness on behalf of Guyana in its international
maritime boundary arbitration against Suriname. (See Annex 1 for my resume).
2. Logistics of the Quitasueño Survey Trip
2.1 With the assistance of the Colombian military (Navy, Coast Guard,
and Air Force) I spent three full days on site at Quitasueño, which includes a reef
system that extends approximately 22 miles2 in a generally north-south direction
and surrounds relatively shallow water with coral throughout the area (Figure 1
is a reduction in size of one of Colombia’s charts of the area, No. 416). On
Sunday 29 November the Colombian Air Force flew three of us (Capt. Leon and
Capt. Poveda, and me) in a C90 from San Andrés over the reef system (about an
hour flight each way) to gain an appreciation of the area we were about to survey.
Figure 2 provides several views we had of the Quitasueño bank and reefs from
the plane. It was clear, even from the air, that this area was relatively shallow,
included reefs on which waves broke, and generally was not a safe area for
navigation.
2.2 We departed Sunday evening 29 November from San Andrés Island
on the ARC Malpelo (Figure 3) and by the morning of 30 November we were
about 6 miles west of the reef’s eastern fringe.3 Annex 2 provides a list of
Colombian officials that participated on this trip. Each morning it took the
survey team about 30 minutes to get from the ARC Malpelo to the survey area at
the reef on board a 30 foot vessel. 4 Figure 4 shows the survey team in front of the
southern light tower, with the drying fringing reef in the background.
2.3 Due to highly variable winds and currents, and compounded by
shallow water depths, measurements for several of the features had to be taken
from the boat, several 10s of meters away.5 Navigation in the area of the coral
was done with great care as coral was found throughout the area very near the
surface (it can be seen on several of the photos that follow Section 3 below that
the waters surrounding many of the features are quite shallow). For twenty two
features a team of between 3 and 6 people went directly to the island, or low-tide
2 Unless otherwise specified, all miles in this report are nautical miles. One nautical mile equals 1,852
meters.
3 Due to the shallow water and presence of coral throughout Quitasueño the ARC Malpelo remained
about 6 miles from the reefs.
4 We used what the Colombians call a “lobster boat”, a small Coast Guard craft boat, with two 200 HP
Yahama motors.
5 For several of the features (QS 30, 43, 49, 50, and 54) readings were also taken by plane in the July 2008
survey conducted by the Colombian Navy. Then, the positions taken from the plane were done with
pointers and telescopic view using the NOVATEL DGPS.
COLOMBIAN NAUTICAL CHART 416
Figure No. 1
AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE OF QUITASUEÑO
(29 November 2009)
5) Quitasueño’s southern light tower
(viewed from east to west)
5
6) Quitasueño’s interior western reef
(viewed from southwest to northeast)
6
3) Quitasueño’s eastern fringing reef
(viewed from north to south)
4) Shipwreck on the eastern reef
(viewed from south to north)
4
2) Quitasueño’s northern light tower
(viewed from northeast to southwest)
1) Quitasueño’s northern light tower
(viewed from west to east)
1
2
3
Figure No. 2
8
Appendix 1
ARC Malpelo
Figure 3
Figure 4
The Survey Team at the Southern Light Tower
(with a shipwreck on Quitasueño’s drying fringing reef in the background)
Foreground: Dr. Robert W. Smith
Second Row: Diego Pulido Nossa, Manual Antonio Forero Cubillos, Hermann León Rincón, Fabio Alberto Rubio Londoño
Third Row: Oscar Javier Pinto Luna, Jorge Uricoechea Pérez, Eulalio Ruiz Márquez
9
Appendix 1
6
elevation, to take measurements which included using geodetic positioning
system (GPS) equipment to calculate the geographical position and a leveling
rule to determine the height above water level. Up to seven GPS receivers (three
Differential GPS receivers which gave more precise measurements and four GPS
receivers) were used on any given location. Annex 3 lists the equipment used on
this survey trip.
2.4 We had with us tide tables for the area from which we were able to
determine whether or not the feature was an island, or merely a low-tide
elevation. Captain Leon and the Office of Hydrographic Services of the
Colombian National Maritime Directorate (DIMAR) had determined the tidal
datum for Quitasueño (see Annex 4 for their report on the tides). The maximum
difference between high tide and low tide in this area, measured over a period of
19 years, was calculated to be approximately 561.90 millimeters (mms), with
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) estimated at 272.99 mms, with reference to
Mean Sea Level (MSL). The Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) was estimated to
be – 288.91 mms, with reference to Mean Sea Level. Thus, any feature that
measured higher than 272.99 mms (0.273 meters), with reference to MSL, was
considered always above water, even at the HAT.
2.5 For the three days that we were on site, high tide occurred between 10
am and noon. As the table in Annex 4 indicates, on our first day surveying,
November 30, 2009, the tide was at its highest (200.31 mms, 72.68 mms less than
HAT) with reference to MSL at approximately 10 am. It was at low tide at 1800
(6:00 pm), when the height, with reference to MSL, was -162.41 (126.50 higher
than LAT). On December 1, 2009, high tide was encountered at about 11 am
when the tide reached 217.56 mms, referenced to MSL (55.43 mms less than
HAT) and low tide occurred at 1900 (7:00 pm) when the tide was at -201.27 mms,
referenced to MSL, (87.64 mms higher than LAT). And, on December 2, 2009, our
last day on site, high tide occurred at approximately noon when the tide reached
229.14 mms, referenced to MSL (43.85 mms less than HAT) and low tide occurred
at 20:00 (8:00 pm) when the tide was at -231.71 mms, referenced to MSL (57.20
mms higher than LAT).
2.6 Thus, during our 3 days on site, the high tides were not at the Highest
Astronomical Tide levels, but rather between 43.85 mms to 72.68 mms lower than
the highest level estimated over a 19 year period. And low tides during our 3-
day survey trip were between 57.20 and 126.50 mms higher than the estimated
lowest Astronomical tides. When determining whether or not a feature was an
island or a low-tide elevation, however, I took into account the HAT. I took a
very conservative approach to determining whether or not a feature was an
island or a low-tide elevation. I decided that regardless when observations and
measurements were taken any feature that measured less than 272.99 mms in
height (0.273 meters) was considered a low-tide elevation. There were a few
10
Appendix 1
7
features that given more observation, at exactly high tide (and adjusting for
HAT) could possibly have been considered islands. 6
2.7 It should be noted that due to the danger of navigating close to the
breaking waves at the eastern reef, as evidenced by the several wrecked ships
that clearly are visible at different locations along the reef, on site measurements
were not possible. Visual inspection from our boat about 50+ meters from this
area caused us to firmly believe that many features were at or slightly above tidal
datum all along the reef. To me, the Quitasueño reef is similar in nature to many
others throughout the world and to those used when discussing reefs as legal
baselines.7
2.8 During the course of our visit to Quitasueño our team identified 54
features that can be classified as islands or low-tide elevations under LOS
Convention Article 13 and Article 121 (1). Although several features were seen as
being above water, due to their height and the time of day the measurements
were taken, it was felt that at the time of the highest astronomical tide (HAT)
they would be either at or below tidal datum. These features (particularly QS23,
QS43, and QS46) were categorized as low-tide elevations.
3. Geographical facts of Quitasueño’s Islands and Reefs
3.1 The following table provides geographical information for the 54
islands and low-tide elevations identified on this trip, with geographical
coordinates given, height, and time of day measurements were taken, along with
a picture of the feature. The features have been labeled QS 1 (beginning in the
north, near the light tower) to QS 54, in the south, near the southern light tower.
[In the table, MSL= Mean Sea Level and geographical coordinates are on World
Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)].
3.2 In summary, 34 of the 54 features are islands in accordance with
international law: QS Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10,15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 52, and 53 (those listed in bold
were measured on site, at the feature.) The other 20 features are low-tide
elevations. In many cases, there were numerous features in proximity to each
other and the largest (and highest) feature was the one that was measured. As
can be seen in the following photos, examples of where several features were
6 It is possible that QS 23, QS 43, and QS 46 may be considered islands, but due to how close their heights
were to tidal datum they were deemed to be low-tide elevations. This determination, however, does not
affect the legal status of measuring the territorial sea or contiguous zone from any of the features identified
on this trip.
7 See Baseline book and P.B. Beazley, “Reefs and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea,”
International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1991, pp. 281-312 (hereinafter cited
as , “Beazley, Reefs”. Peter Beazley, the U.K. Hydrographer during the Third UN conference on the law of
the sea, was one of technical experts that developed the terms that appear in Article 6 on reefs.
11
Appendix 1
8
located at one numbered site are at QS Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 27, 30, 32, 35,
36, 38, 39, and 46. In addition, it will be seen in many of the photos, the area
around the features was quite shallow; had our survey occurred closer to low
tide more features would have been above the surface. It should be noted that
up to about 30 minutes was spent at any given site. Thus, the time shown on the
photo may not be exactly the same time shown in the box, which reflects when
the measurements were taken for that feature. Annex 5 provides more survey
details of these 54 features.
3.3 The four maps in Annex 6 serve as locator maps that include photos
showing where on Quitasueño the features were surveyed.
Photos and description of QS 1- QS 54
QS 1:
14º 28’ 57.6” N;
81º 07 19.8” W
Coral approx. 0.299
meters above MSLposition
was taken
on site, but exact
height
measurements, due
to wave conditions,
were taken about 10
meters from QS 1.
Time 12:09
Date 30 Nov 09
12
Appendix 1
9
QS 2:
14º 28’ 56.1” N;
81º 07’ 19.8” W
Coral at 0.329 meters
above MSL.
Time 11:53
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 3:
14º 28’ 31.5”N;
81º 07’ 05.3” W
Coral approx. 0.288
above MSL- exact
height not available
due to wave
conditions.
Time 13:25
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 4:
14º 28’ 13.4” N;
81º 07’ 02.0” W
Coral at 0.277 meters
above MSL.
Time 13:47
Date 30 Nov 09
13
Appendix 1
10
QS 5:
14º 28’ 12.3” N;
81º 07’ 05.0” W
Coral at 0.297 meters
above MSL.
Time 14:09
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 6:
14º 27’ 58.8” N;
81º 07’ 01.5” W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.198 meters
above MSL. Recorded,
about 10 meters from
the boat using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 14:40
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 7:
14º 27’ 15.0”N;
81º 07’ 03.9” W
Low-tide elevation
reef approx. 0.198
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 60
meters from the
feature using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 14:54
Date 30 Nov 09
14
Appendix 1
11
QS 8:
14º 26’ 27.1”N;
81º 07’ 02.9”W
Coral approx. 0.448
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 100
meters from the boat
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 15:15
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 9:
14º 26’ 14.6”N;
81º 08’ 35.6”W
Low-tide elevation
reef approx 0.189
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 40
meters from the
feature using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 16:11
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 10:
14º 25’ 57.6”N;
81º 06’ 57.6” W
Coral approx. 0.348
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 100
meters distant using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 15:18
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 11:
15
Appendix 1
12
14º 25’ 46.6”N;
81º 08’ 08.3”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.089 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 30 meters away
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 16:03
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 12:
14º 25’ 46.4”N;
81º 06’ 59.8”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.198 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 120 meters
distant using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 15:25
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 13:
14º 25’ 24.9”N;
81º 06’ 59.2”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.189 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 50 meters away
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 15:34
Date 30 Nov 09
16
Appendix 1
13
QS 14:
14º 25’ 19.2”N;
81º 06’ 59.5”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.139 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 40 meters
distant using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 15:42
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 15:
14º 25’ 07.0”N;
81º 08’ 37.9”W
Coral 0.350 meters
above MSL.
Time 16:28
Date 30 Nov 09
[15 meters from QS 15]
Photo taken 20 July
2008 at 10:57
QS 16:
14º 25’ 02.8”N;
81º 09’ 08.8W
Coral 0.312 meters
above MSL.
Time 16:54
Date 30 Nov 09
17
Appendix 1
14
QS 17:
14º 24’ 38.5”N;
81º 08’ 41.9”W
Coral 0.500 meters
above MSL.
Time 16:34
Date 30 Nov 09
Photo from on site on
20 July 2008 at 11:29
QS 18:
14º 24’ 38.4” N;
81º 08’ 54.9” W
Low tide elevation
approx. 0.089 above
MSL.
Recorded about 30
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 16:21
Date 30 Nov 09
QS 19:
14º 24’ 24.0”N;
81º 08’ 51.7”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.261 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 15 meters away
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 8:25
Date 1 Dec. 09
18
Appendix 1
15
QS 20:
14º 24’ 23.8”N;
81º 08’ 43.8”W
Coral 0.337 meters
above MSL.
Time 11:52
Date 20 July 08
[photo taken in 2008]
In Dec. 2009 we
approached within
about 30 meters of the
feature.
QS 21:
14º 24’ 22.6”N;
81º 08’ 43.2”W
Coral approx. 0.361
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 25
meters from the
feature using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 8:29
Date 1 Dec 09
19
Appendix 1
16
QS 22:
14º 24’ 20.1”N;
81º 08’ 48.2”W
Coral 0.461 meters
above MSL
Time 8:00
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 23:
14º 24’ 16.7”N;
81º 08’ 44.3”W
Low tide elevation
approx. 0.267 meters
above MSL. Recorded
about 25 meters from
the feature using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 8:35
Date 1 Dec 09
20
Appendix 1
17
QS 24:
14º 23’ 57.5”N;
81º 08’ 24.8”W
Coral 0.667 meters
above MSL.
Time 8:55
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 25:
14º 23’ 41.0”N;
81º 08’ 19.1” W
Low-tide elevation
0.124 meters above
MSL.
Time 13:10
Date 20 July 08
21
Appendix 1
18
QS 26:
14º 23’ 27.1”N;
81º 08’ 21.3”W
Coral 0.405 meters
above MSL
Time 13:43
Date 20 July 2008
QS 27:
14º 23’ 24.1”N’;
81º 08’ 06.7”W
Coral 0.405 meters
above MSL
Time 14:21
Date 1 Dec. 09
QS 28:
14º 23’ 14.7”N;
81º 08’ 14.3”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.217 meters
above MSL.
Recorded about 20
meters from the
feature using video
and cameras due to
wave conditions.
Time 9:27
Date 1 Dec 09
22
Appendix 1
19
QS 29:
14º 22’ 45.6”N;
81º 08’ 19.6”W
Coral approx. 0.405
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 35
meters distant using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 9:34
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 30:
14º 22’ 35.7”N;
81º 08’ 22.3” W
Coral approx. 0.505
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 8
meters from the
feature using video
and cameras from boat
and plane due to wave
conditions.
Time 9:37
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 31:
14º 22’ 18.2”N;
81º 08’ 23.5”W
Coral approx. 0.355
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 5
meters distant using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 9:57
Date 1 Dec 09
23
Appendix 1
20
QS 32:
14º 22’ 07.2”N;
81º 08’ 31.5”W
Coral 1.505 meters
above MSL.
Time 10:25
Date 1 Dec 09
Note the white guano
on the rock indicating
that it is above water
at all times.
QS 33:
14º 22’ 04.4”N;
81º 08’ 32.9”W
Coral approx. 0.421
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 7
meters from feature
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 9:19
Date 2 Dec 09
QS 34:
14º 21’ 57.6”N;
81º 07’ 38.4”W
Coral approx. 0.467
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 15
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 11:04
Date 1 Dec 09
24
Appendix 1
21
QS 35:
14º 21’ 49.2”N;
81º 08’ 37.5”W
Coral 0.532 meters
above MSL.
Time 15:32
Date 20 July 08
QS 36:
14º 21’ 44.9”N;
81º 08’ 38.8”W
Coral approx. 0.367
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 6
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 10:45
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 37:
14º 21’ 38.9”N;
81º 08’ 39.8”W
Coral approx. 0.317
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 30
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 10:48
Date 1 Dec 09
25
Appendix 1
22
QS 38:
14º 21’ 32.4”N;
81º 08’ 40.9”W
Coral approx. 0.317
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 15
meters from feature
using video and
cameras due to wave
conditions.
Time 10:53
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 39:
14º 21’ 07.7”N;
81º 08’ 20.8”W
Coral approx. 0.397
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 25
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 11:43
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 40:
14º 21’ 00.8”N;
81º 08’ 22.2”W
Coral approx. 0.347
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 15
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 11:46
Date 1 Dec 09
26
Appendix 1
23
QS 41:
14º 20’ 52.9”N;
81º 08’ 39.3”W
Coral approx. 0.347
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 18
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 11:51
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 42:
14º 19’ 19.2”N;
81º 11’ 00”W
Coral approx. 0.347
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 8
meters distant using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 12:03
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 43:
14º 18’ 57.9”N;
81º 10’ 56.6”W
Coral approx. 0.247
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 12
meters from feature
using video and
cameras from boat and
plane due to wave
conditions.
Time 12:25
Date 1 Dec 09
27
Appendix 1
24
QS 44:
14º 18’ 46.0”N;
81º 12’ 41.0”W
Low-tide elevation -
0.035 meters at MSL.
Time 8:15
Date 20 July 08
QS 45:
14º 18’ 04.5”N;
81º 11’ 10.3” W
Coral 0.497 meters
above MSL
Time 12:59
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 46:
14º 15’ 53.2”N;
81º 09’ 56.4”W
Coral approx. 0.247
meters above MSL.
Recorded about 10
meters away using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 13:26
Date 1 Dec 09
28
Appendix 1
25
QS 47:
14º 15’ 24.4”N;
81º 10’ 03.5”W
Coral 0.374 meters
above MSL.
Time 13:59
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 48:
14º 12’ 30.6”N;
81º 09’ 56.1”W
Low tide elevation
approx. 0.192 meters
above MSL.
Recorded about 100
meters distant using
video and cameras due
to wave conditions.
Time 14:40
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 49:
14º 11’ 45.5”N’;
81º 10’ 32.2”W
Low-tide elevation
approx. 0.042 meters
above MSL.
Recorded about 20
meters away using
video and cameras
from boat and plane
due to wave
conditions.
Time 14:58
Date 1 Dec 09
29
Appendix 1
26
QS 50:
14º 11’ 34.0”N;
81º 10’ 37.0”W
Coral which emerges
but height was not
able to be taken from
either the boat or plane
and the wave
conditions prevented
on site inspection.
Time 10:03
Date 12 July 08
QS 51:
14º 11’ 21.9”N;
81º 10’ 04.8”W
Low-tide elevation
0.272 meters above
MSL. (Labeled
“Octopus”). Just below
HAT.
Time 15:17
Date 1 Dec 09
QS 52:
14º 11’ 01.5”N;
81º 10’ 05.2” W
Coral 0.369 meters
above MSL.
Time 10:57
Date 2 Dec 09
30
Appendix 1
27
QS 53:
14º 09’ 51.1” N;
81º 09’ 42.3”W
Coral 0.529 meters
above MSL.
Time 11:37
Date 2 Dec 09
QS 54:
14º 07’ 58”N;
81º 09’ 59.0”W
Low-tide elevation
which emerges but
height was not able to
be taken from either
the boat or plane and
the wave conditions
prevented on site
inspection.
Time 9:18
Date 12 July 08
31
Appendix 1
28
4. The Law
4.1 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS
Convention), which entered into force 16 November 1994 for those States Party
to it, reflects customary international law, according to Colombia, on the
question of determining baselines from which to measure the outer limit of the
territorial sea.8 There are several articles in the LOS Convention that are relevant
to the present circumstances of determining the baselines of the islands, low-tide
elevations and drying fringing reefs that comprise Quitasueño.
4.2 First, there is Article 3 that allows Colombia to establish a territorial
sea not to exceed 12 miles, “measured from baselines determined in accordance
with this Convention.” Article 33 allows a coastal State to claim a zone
contiguous to the territorial sea, the outer limits of which are not to exceed 24
miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
4.3 Article 121 (2) states that an island, save for the exception noted in
Article 121 (3), is afforded the same maritime jurisdiction that is applicable to
other land territory.9 Thus, at a very minimum, Colombia may claim a territorial
sea and contiguous zone from baselines of the islands identified on Quitasueño.
4.4 Article 5 of the LOS Convention provides that “except where
otherwise provided in this Convention the normal baseline for measuring the
breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on
large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.”
4.5 And, the article in the Convention most relevant to Colombia at
Quitasueño is Article 6 on reefs which states: “In the case of islands situated on
atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth
of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the
appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State.”
4.6 Throughout Quitasueño there are features that are low-tide elevations
which, according to Article 13 of the LOS Convention, are naturally formed areas
of land which are surrounded “by and above water at low tide but submerged at
8 While Colombia is not Party to the LOS Convention I have been given a quote by the Colombian team,
from its Counter-Memorial filed at the ICJ in November 2008 in this case. It has stated, in paragraph 4 in
the Introduction to Part Three—The Maritime Delimitation, that “In these circumstances, the applicable
law in the present case with respect to maritime delimitation is customary international law as mainly
developed by the jurisprudence of the Court and by international arbitral tribunals. While the provisions of
the 1982 Convention are not applicable as a source of conventional law, per se, the relevant provisions of
the Convention dealing with a coastal State’s baselines and its entitlement to maritime areas, as well as the
provisions of articles 74 and 83 dealing with the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf respectively, reflect well-established principles of customary international law.”
9 Article 121 (3) goes on to state that, “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”
32
Appendix 1
29
high tide.” And, where these low-tide elevations are situated “wholly or partly
at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or
an island, the low-water line on that elevation may be used as the baseline for
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.” In the case of Quitasueño, all the
low-tide elevations found were situated within 12 miles of islands and thus 12-
mile territorial seas and 24-mile contiguous zones could be drawn from them, as
well.
4.7 One issue pertaining to reef baselines that went unanswered during
the third United Nations conference that produced the 1982 LOS Convention was
reef closing lines. Very few reef systems in the world have a continuous reef
without breaks. When the Informal Single Negotiating Text appeared in May
1975 it was noted at that time that no article provided for reef closing lines.10
Unfortunately, the conference did not correct this omission.
4.8 Following the completion of the LOS Convention the United Nations
published several “blue books” to assist States apply the provisions of the
Convention. In its book on Baselines the United Nations stated,11
“The United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea has
as one of its major responsibilities to ensure that State practice develops
in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the
Convention….To that end, the Office convened a Group of Technical
Experts on Baselines….”
4.9 Among the many topics associated with baselines, the book addresses
reefs and acknowledges two terms in Article 6, “islands situated on atolls” and
“islands having fringing reefs”. For the former, of which Quitasueño is one, it
states that,12
“Geomorphologists reserve the term atoll for reefs which surround a
lagoon and are surmounted by one or more islands. The reefs are usually
interrupted by channels, generally on the lee side of the atoll, and the
water in the lagoon has an average depth of 45 metres.”
Numerous examples are then given in the Baselines book for different types of
atolls throughout the world.
10 Robert D. Hodgson and Robert W. Smith, “The Informal Single Negotiating Text (Committee II): A
Geographical Perspective,” Ocean Development and International Law Journal, Volume 3, Number 3,
p.230.
11 Baseline book.
12 For this comment, this study references Shepard, Francis P., Submarine Geology (New York, Harper and
Row, 1963), p. 358.
33
Appendix 1
30
4.10 The study does address the situation where there is a break in the
atoll, where channels exist.13 Key to the idea that closing lines are needed is that
the waters inside an atoll are internal waters. This study states, “If the lagoon
waters of the atolls are to be considered as internal waters it follows that it will
be necessary to construct closing lines across the entrance channels.”14
4.11 The study then cites Tokelau’s 1977 Territorial Seas and Exclusive
Economic Zone Act which describes its baseline in the following way: 15
“The baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured
shall be the low-water line along the seaward edge of the reef, except that
where there is a break or passage through or over the reef, the baseline
shall be a straight line joining the extreme points of that break or passage.”
4.12 The Federated States of Micronesia (not cited in the UN study)
enacted legislation in 1988 with similar language. In Section 101 (2) its law states,
“The baseline of an atoll or island or portion of an island having a barrier
reef, fringing reef or other reef system is a line following the contour of the
seaward edge of the reef system which line connects those outermost
elevations of the reef which are above at low tide….” (emphasis added)16
4.13 In 1983, Kiribati, another Pacific island State, enacted its Marine
Zones (Declaration) Act 1983 (No. 7 of 1983) in which in para. 2(1) it claims that,
“the baseline of Kiribati means the low-water line of the seaward side of
the reef fronting the coast of any part of Kiribati or bounding any lagoon
waters adjacent to any part of that coast, or where a reef is not present the
coast the low-water line of the coast itself.”17
While no closing line is specified in that paragaph, later in the law at Part
II, para. 4 (2),
“The Minister may, in accordance with the rules of international law,
declare, by reference to physical features marked on official charts or to
lists of geographical co-ordinates specifying the geodetic datums, the
points between which closing lines are to be drawn for the purpose of
13 Baseline book, paras. 26-28, pp.11-12.
14 Ibid,. para. 26, p.12.
15 Ibid. The text of the full law may be found in Robert W. Smith, Exclusive Economic Zone Claims, An
Analysis and Primary Documents, (Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986), pp. 341-46. (hereinafter,
Smith, EEZ).
16 Law found at
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/FSM_1988_Ac…
17 Law found at Smith, EEZ, p.245.
34
Appendix 1
31
determining the outer limits of internal waters of Kiribati, in the case of
the mouths of or entrances to lagoons.” (emphasis added) 18
4.14 Closer to Quitasueño geographically, is the country of Belize which
included the following reef closing line provision in its legislation:
“(4) (b) Where there is a break or passage through the fringing reefs
referred to in sub-section (4) (a) of this Section, the baseline from which
the breadth of the territorial sea is measured shall be a straight line joining
the seaward entrance points of that break or passage.”19
4.15 Thus, it is quite clear that although the LOS Convention drafters did
not specifically include language for a reef closing line, the intent was there.
How else would the internal waters of an atoll be distinguished from the
territorial sea if some type of closing line were not permitted? And, evidenced
by the United Nations Baseline book and some state practice, reef closing lines
are in accordance with the LOS Convention and customary international law.
5. Charts
5.1 According to Colombian Law 2324 of 1984 the National Maritime
Directorate of Colombia (DIMAR) has been given the responsibility to “[i]nstall
and maintain the aids to navigation service, to do the hydrographic surveys and
to produce the national nautical cartography.” As such it has published the
following charts of Quitasueño:
COL 416- Banco Quitasueño 1: 100,000 (1st ed, Sept 2000) (see Figure 1)
COL 215- Cayo Quitasueño 1: 25,000 (1st ed., March 2000)
COL 630- Banco Quitasueño (Sector Sur): 1: 50,000 (1st ed., Sept. 2000)
COL 631- Banco Quitasueño (Sector Norte): 1: 50,000 (1st ed., Sept.
2000)
See Annex 7 for a reproduction of COL charts 215, 630 and 631.
5.2 At my request, Captain León of the Hydrographic Service of
Colombia’s DIMAR prepared a report describing Colombia’s practice for
producing charts, including the use of symbols (see Annex 8 for an excerpt of this
report). According to this report, Colombia uses the same chart symbols adopted
by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO).20 Specifically,
18 Law found in Smith, EEZ, pp. 245-49.
19 Law found in
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/BLZ_1992_MA…
20 Colombia was admitted as an IHO member in 1998. The latest IHO publication on charts is Regulations
of the IHO for International (INT) Charts and Chart Specifications of the IHO, Edition 3.006 April 2009.
35
Appendix 1
32
Colombia’s Chart No. 1, 2nd edition (1991) used the information found in IHO
Chart INT 1 published in 1988.21 The purpose of Chart No.1 is to describe the
meaning of the symbols, terms, and abbreviations used on the charts. According
the DIMAR report, “[c]urrently, Colombia publish[es] all national charts based
on these [IHO] publications and also international charts according to the scheme
of IHO INT chart.”
5.3 The 2nd edition of Colombia’s Chart No. 1 was used to produce the
four Quitasueño charts listed in the previous paragraph. An important symbol
on these charts is the one depicting breakers, where the waves of the open ocean
meet the drying coral reef of Quitasueño. Colombia’s symbol, shown below as
Figure 5, is taken from Section K of its Chart No. 1 (the full page is shown at
Annex 9). According to the IHO manual, this symbol is to be used in unsurveyed
areas that approximate the area of the breakers (Figure 6):22
5.4 The IHO recognizes that it is impossible for a coastal State to be able to
chart all the coral that exists around a reef system. In its manual the IHO states:
“Usually, coral reefs are generalized since it is impossible to chart all the
individual lumps and heads, and the area is for practical purposes not
navigable.” 23
Then, the IHO quotes Article 6 of the LOS Convention on reefs:
“In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs,
the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward
low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts
officially recognized by the coastal State.”
21 This chart No. 1 is not actually a chart, but a booklet defining and illustrating the various symbols used
on Colombian charts. Most, if not all, national hydrographic services produce a similar “Chart No. 1”.
22 Ibid, Section 423-2, p. 7.
23 Ibid, Section B-440.4, p. 2.
36
Appendix 1
33
5.5 When discussing the charting practice of reefs, the distinguished
British hydrographer Cdr. Peter Beazley stated,
“…Such reefs cannot be safely crossed by anything but very small boats,
and particularly around an oceanic atoll or barrier reef the ocean swell
breaking on the seaward edge of the reef will make it unapproachable.
Customarily such areas forming constituents of a single reef are charted as
a single drying reef using the symbol for coral which dries…..When
consulting the chart it may not be possible to distinguish between what
rises well above the level of low tide and what may only just reach it…”24
5.6 Given the dangers for large hydrographic survey ships to approach
close to these fringing reefs it is understandable why Colombia has used the reef
symbol that indicates it is approximate. The entire area of Quitasueño is
dangerous to navigation, as is evidenced by the several viewable ship wrecks
along this reef.
5.7 It is recommended that with this new survey data the Colombian
Government, on the next cycle for reviewing and revising the four Quitasueño
charts, update them by showing these features. And, it is also recommended
24 Beazley, Reefs, p. 286. He also cites one of his earlier works in which he makes this same point, Beazley,
Maritime Limits and Baselines (2nd ed, 1978, p. 6.
37
Appendix 1
34
that Colombia depict, on COL 416, the reef closing lines and territorial sea limit,
as described in the next section.
6. Application of the Law of the Sea
And Geographical Facts to Quitasueño
6.1 In the first instance, there are islands and low-tide elevations on
Quitasueño. The survey conducted on this bank from 30 November to 2
December 2009 verified that there existed at least 34 islands and 20 low-tide
elevations (see Figure 7). In addition, there is a fringing drying reef. Given the
dangers to navigation in the immediate vicinity of the fringing reef, with the
breaking of waves on the coral that were either slightly above or at tidal datum,
an “on site” measurement of many of the features was not possible. But visual
inspection of the fringing reef area during the time near or at high tide indicated
that coral features were either at or slightly above tidal datum. It should be
noted that several of the surveyed islands (QS 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 46, 47, 52, and 53) and
low-tide elevations (QS 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 46, 48, and 51) are basically a part of, or
immediately adjacent to, the breakers.
6.2 The fact that 54 features have been identified as islands and low-tide
elevations on Quitasueño in the two surveys taken by the Colombian
Government (Navy, Coast Guard, and DIMAR) in 2008 and 2009, since the first
edition of the charts of the area were produced, in no way precludes Colombia
from being able to assert valid maritime claims from these features. It is likely
that the next time Colombia revises and publishes these charts, it will show these
features.
6.3 Countries have finite budgets to allocate to their hydrographic
surveys and charting efforts. And, given the numerous ports, long mainland
coastline, many islands, and large maritime areas in both the Caribbean Sea and
Pacific Ocean, Colombia has taken great strides in its attempt to make navigation
safe in its waters. Charts are first and foremost aids to navigation and Colombia
has shown clearly on the charts that cover Quitasueño where the prudent
mariner should avoid.
6.4 Coastal States that produce their own charts usually develop a
calendar for which to update their charts. And, often there is a national
committee that reviews new features to determine if changes should be made to
the charts. Since the early 1970s, for example, the United States Government has
had a federal inter-agency baseline committee that has reviewed the United
States baseline and provided recommendations to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which is the official charting agency for
the U.S. The baseline changes all the time, either due to erosion or accretion
resulting from storms and other natural phenomenon. Periodically new features
Southern light tower
(14°09’18”N - 81°09’48”W)
Northern light tower
(14°28’57”N - 81°07’20”W)
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS13
QS12
QS11
QS28
QS25
QS23
QS18
QS14
QS46
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS3
QS53
QS52
QS47
QS45
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS38
QS37
QS36
QS35
QS33 QS34
QS32
QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26 QS27
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS15
QS10
Q
81°20’W 81°10’W
81°20’W 81°10’W
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
101010
10101010
10101010
20202020
20202020
2020202020
20202020
30303030
30303030
30303030
30303030
Caribbean
Sea
Quitasueño
0 1 2 3 4 5
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°20’N)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Prepared by: International Mapping
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
Drying fringing reefs
Light towers
QUITASUEÑO
Islands and Low Tide Elevations Identified
During Site Visit
Figure No. 7
38
Appendix 1
35
are discovered as a result of survey work. As changes are recognized and the
baseline altered, the territorial sea, contiguous zone and perhaps even the
exclusive economic zone limits may be changed. And, when the date for the new
printing of that chart occurs, the new depiction of the maritime zones will be
shown.25
6.5 As noted in Section 4 above, a State may claim a territorial sea from a
low-tide elevation only if it is situated 12 miles or less from an island or
mainland. All of the low-tide elevations on Quitasueño are well within 12 miles
of the nearest island. As shown in the list at Annex 10, the furthest any of the
low-tide elevations is from land is QS 44 which is only 1.62 miles from QS 45.
Most of the low-tide elevations are less than a mile distant from the nearest
island. Thus, having met the requirement set forth in Article 13 (1) of the LOS
Convention, all of the low-tide elevations would receive a 12-mile territorial sea
and a 24-mile contiguous zone.
6.6 Setting aside, for a moment, the existence of the drying fringing reef
Colombia, at a minimum, can make a claim to a 12-mile territorial sea and 24-
mile contiguous zone from all the features surveyed on this last trip, 30
November- 2 December 2009 (QS 1- QS 54). Figure 8 illustrates the territorial sea
drawn just from the islands and low-tide elevations. The area enclosed by the
12-mile territorial sea is 1,015 square nautical miles (3,477 square kilometers).
6.7 However, Colombia is allowed, under the provisions of customary
international law, to use the drying fringing reef, as depicted on its nautical
charts, and closing lines between the reefs where there are openings in the reef
system. One proposal for the Colombian baseline for Quitasueño would be,
-- starting in the south, at the drying fringing reef, at approximately
14º 07.25’ N, 81º 09.90’ W (position taken from the fringing reef symbol shown on
COL 416) and continuing along the seaward edge of the reef symbol until
approximately 14º 29.30’ N, 81º 07.24’ W (position taken from COL 631). This
drying reef segment is about 22.1 miles in length, with a few breaks. The largest
break in the reef, situated approximately 14º 18’ N, is about 0.1 miles wide. A
closing line connecting the shortest distance would be used.
--from the northern point of the drying fringing reef a straight closing line
would be drawn to QS 1- and from this point closing lines would be drawn
from:
25 Now that charts are being produced digitally and mariners are using electronic nautical charts these
changes can be made much quicker and updated charts can be printed “on demand.”
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS14
QS13
QS12
QS11
QS19
QS23
QS18
QS25
QS28
QS46
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS5
QS4
QS3
QS2
QS1
QS53
QS52
QS47
QS45
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS37
QS38
QS36
QS35
QS34
QS27
QS33
QS32
QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS16 QS15
QS10
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
14°30’N
14°40’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
Quitasueño
3,477.3 sq. km.
12 M Territorial Sea
(measured from 54 identified features)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°N)
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
0 5 10 15
QUITASUEÑO
12 M Territorial Sea Limits
(Measured from all 54 identified features)
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Prepared by: International Mapping
Drying fringing reefs
Light towers
Figure No. 8
39
Appendix 1
36
Island points Distance between points
Meters Nautical miles
QS 1 – QS 6 665.4 0.36
QS 6 – QS 22 1870.8 1.01
QS 22 – QS 26 7442.7 4.02
QS 26 - QS 30 1580.0 0.85
QS 30 - QS 31 539.0 0.29
QS 31 - QS 32 414.4 0.22
QS 32 - QS 33 95.7 0.05
QS 33 - QS 35 487.1 0.26
QS 35 - QS 36 137.8 0.07
QS 36 - QS 37 184.4 0.10
QS 37 - QS 42 6027.9 3.25
QS 42 - QS 45 2316.5 1.25
QS 45 - QS 47 5312.2 2.87
-- from QS 47 continue south along the western side of the reef to the
starting point, about 8.5 miles.
6.8 It is from the baseline defined in para. 6.7, as well as from the low-tide
elevations situated seaward of this baseline, but well within 12 miles (QS 44, QS
49, QS 50, and QS 54) that the 12-mile territorial sea would be determined (Figure
9). It should be noted that using all relevant baselines permitted under
international law Colombia has 24.2 square nautical miles (83.2 square
kilometers) of internal waters, that area inside of the drying reef and closing lines.
6.9 For this report, I was not asked to judge on whether or not the islands
on Quitasueño are Article 121 (3) “rocks”. Even in the event that judgment is
made by others that they are “rocks” in this regard, all 54 features identified on
this survey would still be entitled to a territorial sea and contiguous zone. Figure
10 illustrates what these two zones would look like. Beyond the territorial sea
limit, the contiguous zone would place another 1,922 square nautical miles (6,588
square kilometers) under Colombian jurisdiction. At the back of this report is a
large fold-out version of Figure 10.
7. Conclusion
7.1 Colombia clearly has the legal right to use the 54 features surveyed on
the 30 Nov- 2 Dec trip as the basis from which to establish a territorial sea and
contiguous zone. The fact that these features are not specifically shown on
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS14
QS13
QS12
QS11
QS19
QS23
QS18
QS25
QS28
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS5
QS4
QS3
QS2
QS1
QS53
QS52
QS47
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS37
QS38
QS36
QS35
QS34
QS27
QS33
QS32
QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS16 QS15
QS10
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
14°30’N
14°40’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
Quitasueño
3,576.8 sq. km.
Area Gain:
182.7 sq. km.
3,477.3 sq. km.
(As shown on Figure 8: where no internal
waters were enclosed by reef closing lines)
12 M Territorial Sea
(measured from all relevant baselines)
12 M Territorial Sea
(measured from 54 identified features)
83.2 sq. km.
QS45
Internal Waters
0 2 4 6 8 10
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°N)
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
Reef closing lines
0 5 10 15
QUITASUEÑO
12 M Territorial Sea Limits
(Measured from all relevant baselines: islands, low tide elevations,
drying fringing reefs and closing lines)
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Prepared by: International Mapping
Drying fringing reefs
Light towers
Figure No. 9
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS14
QS13
QS12
QS11
QS19
QS23
QS18
QS25
QS28
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS5
QS4
QS3
QS2
QS1
QS53
QS52
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS37
QS38
QS36
QS35
QS34
QS27
QS33
QS32
QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS16 QS15
QS10
81°10’W 81°00’W 80°50’W
80°50’W
81°30’W 81°20’W
81°30’W 81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
14°30’N
14°40’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
13°50’N
14°30’N
14°40’N
14°50’N
15°00’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
13°50’N
Caribbean
Sea
Quitasueño
12 M Territorial Sea
24 M Contiguous Zone
6,588.4 sq. km.
Total Area (TS + CZ):
10,165.2 sq. km.
3,576.8 sq. km.
43
83.2 sq. km.
QS45
Internal Waters
0 3 6 9 12 15
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°N)
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
Drying fringing reefs
0 5 10 15 20 25
QUITASUEÑO
12 M Territorial Sea and 24 M Contiguous Zone
(Measured from all relevant baselines: islands, low tide elevations,
drying fringing reefs and closing lines)
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Prepared by: International Mapping
Reef closing lines
Light towers
Exposed ship wrecks
Figure No. 10
40
Appendix 1
37
current Colombian charts is irrelevant—they do, in fact, exist, and it is expected
that in future editions of the four relevant charts Colombia will show them.
7.2 Further, Colombia is entitled, under the principles of the law of the sea,
to use the drying fringing reef as depicted on its official charts to measure its
territorial sea and contiguous zone. Within and immediately adjacent to this reef,
in the area of the “breakers”, are nine of the islands and eight of the low-tide
elevations that were identified on this survey trip. In addition, there were
numerous areas where features were seen within the breakers that ranged from
being at tidal datum to perhaps slightly above. Thus, I consider this reef system
to be of the type considered by the negotiators of the LOS Convention as being a
valid baseline (in terms of Article 6) from which to measure the territorial sea.
Thus, in addition to the islands and low-tide elevations identified on this survey,
the drying fringing reefs along with reef closing lines would comprise a legally
valid baseline.
41
Appendix 1
38
Annex 1
Resume of Dr. Robert W. Smith
Dr. Robert W. Smith
Independent Geographic Consultant
[U.S. Dept of State, ret.]
1498 Paradise Point Rd. Phone: 703-434-0829 (cell)
Oakland,MD 21550 E-mail: [email protected]
February 2010
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
CURRENT: GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANT AND ADVISOR
Advise on all aspects of ocean policies and planning including developing strategies for
exploring and exploiting offshore resources in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner.
Provide geographical and technical expertise for maritime boundary delimitation and arbitration,
offshore jurisdictional claims, sovereignty disputes, and the development of offshore energy
resources. Write position papers to support policy decisions on the rational development and
management of marine resources. Provide technical and geographical expert testimony in
domestic and international courts. Teach the geographical aspects of the law of the sea and world
regional geography. Clients include the Governments of Guyana, Bangladesh and Colombia,
British Gas-Thailand, ExxonMobil, International Mapping Associates, the Rhodes Academy, U.S.
Department of Justice, Univ. of Virginia’s Semester at Sea program, and several international law
firms.
1975-2006 GEOGRAPHER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
As the U.S. government expert on maritime boundary and jurisdictional issues, I assisted in
the development and implementation of U.S. ocean policy. I was responsible for the technical and
geographical aspects of negotiating U.S. bilateral maritime boundaries and establishing U.S. claims to
marine jurisdiction. In this role, I coordinated the U.S. effort to develop technically accurate and
precise boundaries and outer limits for the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone,
and the continental shelf. For the establishment of U.S. maritime limits, I assured that all U.S. claims
were in accordance to the international law of the sea principles using modern charting techniques. I
represented the U.S. Government at international meetings and conferences, including United Nations
meetings, on subjects of my expertise.
My State Department career was spent in two offices: in the Office of The Geographer (1975-
87) I served as the Chief of the International Boundary and Resource where I managed several
geographic analysts and then I became the Special Assistant of Ocean Affairs and Policy Planning.
From 1987 to March 2006 I was the geographer for the Office of Oceans Affairs in the Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Throughout my State Department
career I oversaw and was the principle author of the State Department’s Limits in the Seas studies, in
which analyses is given on the state practice of maritime claims and boundaries. Other related
experiences during my State Department career included:
United States Representative to:
United Nations 13th States Parties Meeting for the Law of the Sea Convention, 2003
Caribbean Maritime Boundary Conference (Mexico City), 2003
United Nations Conference on Maritime Boundary Delimitation, 1999
United Nations Conference on the Continental Shelf, 1993 and 1995
42
Appendix 1
39
United Nations Conference on the Maritime Baseline, 1987
International Hydrographic Organization Law of the Sea Group of
Technical Experts, 1985
United States Department of State Representative to Department of the Interior’s Outer
Continental Shelf Advisory Committee, 2002-2006
Member, National Security Council Interagency Committee on the U.S. Baseline, 1975-2006
United States Delegations
Head of Delegation: Major Maritime Powers Meeting: 1998-Tokyo,
1997-London
Delegation Member: numerous bilateral and multilateral
negotiations, including maritime boundaries, International Court
of Justice Boundary case (U.S. vs. Canada Gulf of Maine case,
1984), fisheries, and law of the sea meetings.
United States Expert Witness in Supreme Court cases:
U.S. vs. Alaska (1985, 1980)
U.S. vs. Louisiana (Mississippi, 1986)
U.S. vs. Maine (Mass., 1982)
U.S. vs. Maine (R.I., 1981)
United States Department of State Deputy Member: United States
Board on Geographic Names (1979-83)
TEACHING
2004 – 2005: Georgetown University, Adjunct Professor
Course taught: Political Geography of the Oceans
2005-09, 2002 Rhodes Academy, Lecturer
(Law of the Sea course, Rhodes, Greece)
1991- 2005 International Boundary Research Unit, Instructor: maritime boundary
workshops (Durham, England and London, England—about 7 times)
1994 World Affairs Program, Royal Viking Cruise Line, Lecturer
1976- 1980 George Mason University, Adjunct Professor
Courses taught: Marine resource management, world
geography
1974-75 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Instructor
Course taught: cultural geography
1972 University of Rhode Island, Instructor
Course taught: political geography
43
Appendix 1
40
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Expert Witness, on behalf of the U.S. Government, U.S. vs. Marshalls 201, (2007-09)
Scientific participant, the USCGC Healy month-long seafloor mapping of the U.S. Arctic (Aug-
Sept 2007)
Expert Witness, on behalf of the Government of Guyana, in the Republic of Guyana vs. Republic
of Suriname Maritime Boundary Arbitration, under Annex VII of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (March-December 2006)
Board of Advisors: International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU), University of
Durham, England (1990-2001)
Advisory Board, Geopolitics (1989-1995)
Secretary, International Geographical Union Marine Geography Study Group (1986-87)
Editorial Board, The Virginia Geographer (1982-86)
Member, Advisory Council at the Conference of International Straits of the World,
Bellagio, Italy (1976)
HONORS
U.S. Department of State Superior Honor Award; 2000, 1984
U.S. Department of State Meritorious Honor Award; 1988, 1977
U.S. Department of Justice Commendation; 1989
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
PhD, Geography, 1980
Dissertation: “A Geographical Analysis of the North Sea
Continental Shelf Cases”
University of Rhode Island
MA, Geography, 1973
Thesis: An Analysis of the Concept “Strategic Quality of
International Straits”: A Geographical Perspective with
Focus on Petroleum Tanker Transit and on the Malacca Strait
Bucknell University
BA, Political Science, 1971
LECTURES AND SPEECHES
“United States Maritime Boundaries: Negotiated and Arbitrated Solutions,” West Virginia
University Geographic Symposium, September 2009.
“Maritime Delimitation in the South China Sea: Potentiality and Challenges,” International
Conference on the Issues of the South China Sea, Taiwan, August 2009.
44
Appendix 1
41
Commentator, “Dokdo, Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks: History, Territory, and Sovereignty in
Northeast Asia,” Johns Hopkins University SAIS, June 2009.
“United States Maritime Boundary Delimitation Experience: Negotiated and Arbitrated
Solutions,” International Conference on Maritime Delimitation, Taipei Taiwan, June 2008.
“Islands: Disputes and Delimitation,” 21st Annual U.S. Pacific Command International Law
Conference, Singapore, April 2008.
“The United States- Mexico ‘Western Gap” Treaty”, Law of the Sea Institute conference, Harte
Institute, Texas A&M, Corpus Christi, March 2007.
“Issues in International Oceans Policy”, University of Virginia School of Law (March-
2002-07).
“The Need for Offshore Certainty: The State of Affairs of Maritime Boundaries in the
Caribbean,” International Conference on Achieving Fiscal Stability in Upstream Oil and Gas,
Houston, November 2006.
“Maritime Boundary Negotiations: National Considerations and the U.S.- Mexico Experience,”
International Conference on Advanced International Boundary Disputes in Oil and Gas,
London, June 2006.
“Maritime Claims and Boundaries in the Arctic”, Columbia University (January 2006)
“Hot Spots of Maritime Boundary Disputes—Global Impact on Oil and Gas Interests,”
Conference on International Border Dispute Resolution, Houston, (September 2004)
“Maritime Boundary Negotiations: National Considerations”, Advisory Board on the Law of the
Sea Conference, International Hydrographic Organization, Monaco (October, 2003)
“Political Geography of the Oceans”, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, Princeton University, (November 2002)
“Future of Islands: Delimitation and Development,” SEAPOL conference on Ocean Governance
and Sustainable Development, Bangkok (March 2001)
“International Maritime Boundaries: Impact on Oil and Gas Interests,” Resolving International
Border Disputes, Global Business Network Ltd, London, 2000.
“Geography and U.S. ocean policy”, Bucknell University (March 2002, April 1989)
“Baselines: Normal, Straight, and Archipelagic”, Institute of Petroleum, International
conference on “Oil Under Troubled Waters: An Introduction to Maritime
Jurisdiction and Boundary Disputes”, London (November 2000)
“International Maritime Boundaries: Impact on Oil and Gas Interests,” Global Business
Network Limited, “Resolving International Border Disputes”, (London, July 2000)
“United States – Canada Maritime Boundaries: A Study of Negotiations, Arbitration, and
Management”, Korea Maritime Institute Conference on Marine Policy and the
Korea Economy: Issues and Opportunities, (Seoul, Korea, October 1998)
“Navigation Considerations in East Asian Waters,” Geopolitics and International
45
Appendix 1
42
Boundaries Research Centre’s Conference on Island and Maritime Disputes of
South East Asia (London, May 1993)
“United States – Russia Maritime Boundary”, International Boundary Conference,
Durham University (Durham, England, July 1991)
“The State Practice of National Maritime Claims and the Law of the Sea,” University of
Virginia School of Law conference on “State Practice and the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention, (Cascais, Portugal, April 1990)
“Navigation and Overflight Rights in the Law of the Sea,” Cannon Air Force Base (April 1986)
“Law of the Sea and the United States,” Bucknell University (April 1986)
“The Geopolitics of the Arctic,” 52nd annual meeting of the Assoc. of American Geographers
(Detroit, April 1985)
“National Claims and the Geography of the Arctic,” Law of the Sea Institute Conference
(San Francisco, September 1984)
“U.S.-Canadian Maritime Relations” and “Geographical Aspects of Foreign Affairs,” Bucknell
University (October 1984)
“Political Geography and the law of the sea,” East Stroudsburg State College (Sept. 1980)
“Geographic influences on the political and economic development in the Pacific,” Bucknell
University (October 1979)
“National Maritime Claims,” International Studies Association 20th annual conference (Toronto,
March 1979)
“Geography of Maritime boundary delimitation,” Assoc. of American Geographers’ annual
meeting (New Orleans, April 1978)
PUBLICATIONS
Books
David A. Colson and Robert W. Smith (eds). International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V, The
American Society of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, March 2005
Jonathan I. Charney and Robert W. Smith (eds). International Maritime Boundaries,
Vol. IV, The American Society of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002.
J. Ashley Roach and Robert W. Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime
Claims, 2nd edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996.
J. Ashley Roach and Robert W. Smith, Excessive Maritime Claims. International Law
Studies Vol. 66, U.S. Naval War College, 1994.
Robert W. Smith. Exclusive Economic Zone Claims, An Analysis and Primary
Documents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986.
46
Appendix 1
43
Monographs
Robert W. Smith and Bradford L. Thomas, Island Disputes and the Law of the Sea: An
Examination of Sovereignty and Delimitation Disputes. Maritime Briefing Volume
2 Number 4, International Boundaries Research Unit, 1998.
Robert W. Smith, “National Maritime Claims: 1958-85,” Geographic Research Study
No. 20, 1985, Office of The Geographer, U.S. Department of State
Book Chapters
With J. Ashley Roach, “Caspian Sea Boundaries,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V,
Colson and Smith (eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005
With J. Ashley Roach, “Kazakhstan – Russia”, “Azerbaijan – Russia”, “Azerbaijan - Kazakhstan”,
“Azerbaijan - Kazakhstan – Russia” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V, Colson and
Smith (eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005
With George Taft, “Legal Aspects of the Continental Shelf” (chapter 3) in, Peter J. Cook and Chris
M. Carleton (eds), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface. Oxford
University Press, 2000.
With J. Ashley Roach, “Navigational Rights and Responsibilities in International Straits,”
(Chapter 14) in The Straits of Malacca, Hamzah Ahmad (ed), Pelanduk Publications, 1997.
“Joint Development Zones: A Review of Past Practice and Thoughts on the Future,” in
Sustainable Development and Preservation of the Oceans: The Challenges of UNCLOS and
Agenda 21. Mochtar Kusuma-Atmadja, Thomas A. Mensah, and Bernard Oxman (eds). The
Law of the Sea Institute, 1995.
“United States – Russia Maritime Boundary,” In Maritime Boundaries, Volume 5 of World
Boundaries, Gerald H. Blake (ed) (Routledge, 1994), 91-102.
“Cuba-United States,” “Mexico-United States,” “Cook Islands- United States,” “New Zealand
(Tokelau) – United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, Charney and
Alexander (eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
“Navigational Issues in the Law of the Sea,” (Chapter 6) in Maritime Issues in the 1990s,
Dalchoong Kim et al (eds). Institute of East ad West Studies, Yonsei University, 1992.
“United States – Russia Maritime Boundary,” International Boundary Research Unit
international conference, 1991.
“Establishing Maritime Boundaries: The United States Experience,” In International Boundaries
and Boundary Conflict Resolution, C.Grundy-Warr (ed), International Boundary Research
Unit, Durham, England, 1990.
“Geographic Considerations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations” (Chapter1) in Dorinda G.
Dallmeyer and Louis DeVorsey, Jr (eds). Rights to Oceanic Resources. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1989.
47
Appendix 1
44
“Global Maritime Claims: The Current Status,” (Chapter 1) in Global Ocean Politics, Dalchoong
Kim, Choon-ho Park and Seo-Hang Lee (eds), Institute of East and West Studies, Yonsei
University, 1989.
“National Claims and the Geography of the Arctic,” Law of the Sea Institute’s San Francisco
conference, 1984.
“The Effect of Extended Maritime Jurisdiction on Land Sovereignty Disputes,” in The 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Albert Koers and Bernard Oxman (eds), Law of the Sea
Institute, 1983.
With Robert D. Hodgson, “Unilateralism: The Wave of the Future?” (Chapter 9) in Law of the
Sea: Conference Outcomes and Problem of Implementation. Edward Miles and John King
Gamble (eds) Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.
With Robert D. HodgsonRobert W. Smith, “Boundaries of the Economic Zone” (Chapter 10) in
Law of the Sea: Conference Outcomes and Problem of Implementation. Edward Miles and
John King Gamble (eds) Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.
“Coastal Planning and Carteret (North Carolina) Fishermen,” in Carrying Capacity: A Basis for
Coastal Planning. D Godschalk and F. Parker (eds), Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1974.
Articles
With J. Ashley Roach “Straight Baselines: The Need for a Universally Applied Norm,” Ocean
Development and International Law, 31: 47-80, 2000
“National Maritime Claims,” Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 20, 1989, 83-103.
“A Geographical Primer to Maritime Boundary-Making,” Ocean Development and International
Law, Vol. 12:1/2, 1982, 1-22.
“Maritime Boundaries of the United States,” The Geographical Review, Vol. 71, 1981, 395-410.
“Trends in National Maritime Claims,” Professional Geographer, 32(2), 1980, 216-223.
With Robert D. Hodgson, “Boundary Issues Created By Extended National Marine Jurisdictions,”
The Geographical Review. Vol. 69, No. 4, October 1979, 423-433.
With Robert D. Hodgson, “The Informal Single Negotiating Text (Committee II): A Geographical
Perspective,” Ocean Development and International Law Journal, Volume 3, Number 3, 1976,
225-259.
“The Political Geography of the Marine Environment,” The Geographical Bulletin, Vol 10, 1975.
“An Analysis of the Strategic Attributes of International Straits: A Geographical Perspective,”
Maritime Studies and Management, 1974.
“Oceanborne Shipment of Petroleum and the Impact of Straits on VLCC Transit, Maritime
Studies and Management, 1973.
Author (or co-author) of following U.S. Department of State, Limits in the Seas studies:
48
Appendix 1
45
No. 36- National Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction (4th-8th revisions)
No. 62- Continental Shelf Boundary: India-Indonesia, August 25, 1975.
No. 63- Continental Shelf Boundary: Iran- UAE (Dubai), September 30, 1975.
No. 64- Continental Shelf Boundary: Argentina-Uruguay, October 24, 1975.
No. 67- Continental Shelf Boundary: Iran-Oman, January 1, 1976.
No. 68- Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Boundary: Guinea-Bissau – Senegal,
March 15, 1976.
No. 69- Maritime Boundary: Colombia-Ecuador, April 1, 1976.
No. 71- Continental Shelf Boundary: Finland-Sweden, June 16, 1976.
No. 73- Maritime Boundary: Brazil-Uruguay, September 30, 1976.
No. 74- Maritime Boundary: FRG-GDR, October 5, 1976.
No. 75- Continental Shelf Boundary and Joint Development Zone: Japan – Republic of
Korea, September 2, 1977.
No. 76- Straight Baselines: Cuba, October 28, 1977.
No. 77- Maritime Boundaries: India-Sri Lanka, February 16, 1978.
No. 78- Maritime Boundary: India-Maldives and Maldives’ Claimed Economic Zone,
July 24, 1978.
No. 79- Maritime Boundaries: Colombia-Panama, November 3, 1978.
No. 82- Straight Baselines: Korea, January 22, 1979.
No. 84- Maritime Boundary: Colombia-Costa Rica, February 15, 1979.
No. 85- Maritime Boundary: The Gambia-Senegal, March 23, 1979.
No. 86- Maritime Boundary: Chile-Peru, July 2, 1979.
No. 88- Maritime Boundary: Ecuador-Peru, October 2, 1979.
No. 90- Continental Shelf Boundary: Italy-Spain, May 14, 1980.
No. 91- Maritime Boundary: United States-Venezuela, December 16, 1980.
No. 92- Territorial Waters Boundary: Kenya-Tanzania, May 15, 1981.
No. 93- Continental Shelf Boundaries: India-Indonesia-Thailand, August 17, 1981.
No. 94- Continental Shelf Boundaries: The Persian Gulf, September 11, 1981.
No. 95- Maritime Boundary: France (Reunion) –Mauritius, April 16, 1982.
No. 97- Maritime Boundaries: Costa Rica – Panama, December 6, 1982.
No. 98- Archipelagic Straight Baselines: Sao Tome and Principe, November 1, 1983.
No. 100- Maritime Boundaries- United States- Cook Islands and United States- New Zealand
(Tokelau), December 30, 1983.
No. 101- Fiji’s Maritime Claims, November 30, 1984.
No. 103- Straight Baselines, Colombia, April 30, 1985.
No. 104- Maritime Boundary: Cuba-Mexico, September 10, 1985.
No. 105- Maritime Boundaries: Colombia- Dominican Republic and Netherlands-Venezuela,
January 22, 1986.
No. 106- Developing Standard Guidelines for Evaluating Straight Baselines, with P. Bernhardt
and G. Greiveldinger, August 31, 1987.
No. 107- Straight Baselines: U.S.S.R. (Pacific, Sea of Japan, Sea of Okhotsk, and Bering Sea),
September 30, 1987.
No. 108- Maritime Boundaries of the World (rev.1), November 30, 1990.
No. 109- Continental Shelf Boundary: Turkey-USSR and Straight Baselines: USSR (Black Sea),
with D.Dzurek, September 28, 1988.
No. 110- Maritime Boundary: Cuba-United States, February 21, 1990.
No. 111- Straight Baseline: Costa Rica, August 17, 1990.
No. 112- United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims, with A. Roach, March 9, 1992.
49
Appendix 1
46
No. 113- Straight Baseline Claims: Djibouti and Oman, April 22, 1992.
No. 114- Iran’s Maritime Claims, March 16, 1994.
No. 115- United States- United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean, April 11, 1994.
No. 116- Straight Baseline Claims: Albania and Egypt, May 6, 1994.
No. 117- Straight Baseline Claim: China, July 9, 1196.
No. 118: Straight Baseline Claim: Pakistan, December 20, 1996.
No. 119: Maritime Boundary: Niue- United States, July 30, 1997.
No. 120: Straight Baseline and Territorial Sea Claim: Japan, April 30, 1998.
No. 121: Straight Baseline and Territorial Sea Claim: South Korea, September 30, 1998.
No. 122: Straight Baseline Claim: Thailand, with S. Morison, September 8, 2000.
No. 123: Uruguay’s Maritime Claims, with S. Morison, November 27, 2000.
No. 124: Straight Baseline Claim: Honduras, June 28, 2001.
No. 125: Jamaica’s Maritime Claims and Boundaries, February 4, 2004.
No. 126: Maldives Maritime Claims and Boundaries, September 8, 2005.
No. 127: Taiwan’s Maritime Claims with A. Roach, November 15, 2005.
50
Appendix 1
47
Annex 2
Colombian personnel on December 2010
Quitasueño Survey Trip
National Maritime Directorate (DIMAR)
CF Fernando Parra Silguero -- Commander of ARC “MALPELO”
CN Esteban Uribe Álzate -- Director of Oceanographic and Hydrographic
Research Center
CF Julio Cesar Poveda Ortega -- Harbor Master of San Andres Island
CC Herman León Rincón -- Expedition Chief
S3 Diego Pulido Nossa -- Hydrographer
MA2 Juan Santana Mejía -- Hydrographer
San Andrés and Providencia Naval Command (CESYP)
CESYP Staff
CN Evelio Enrique Ramírez Gafaro -- Commander of CESYP
TN Tomas Contreras Castro -- San Andrés Island Coast Guard Commander
TK Jorge Ivan Roncancio Abadía – Chief of CESYP Operations Department
Providence Island Coast Guard Command (CEGPROV)
TN Jorge Uricoechea Pérez -- Providence Island Coast Guard Commander
S3 Oscar Javier Pinto Luna -- Providence Island Coast Guard Pilot
S3 Mauricio Gómez Gutiérrez -- Providence Island Coast Guard Pilot
MA2 Diego Valbuena Rodríquez – Providence Island Coast Guard Sailor
IMAR Eulalio Ruiz Márquez – Providence Island Coast Guard Marine
Colombia Navy Salvage and Dive (EBUSA)
CF Harry Ernesto Reyna Niño - Colombian Navy Salvage and Dive Director
JT Manual Antonio Forero Cubillos – Master Chief Diver
S3 Fabio Alberto Rubio Londoño – Second Class Diver
Colombia Air Force
TC Luis Encisco Sáenz – C90 Pilot
ST Mario Quintero Garzón - C90 Copilot
TP Andrés Castro Hernández – C90 Technician
51
Appendix 1
48
Annex 3
Geodetic Positioning System (GPS)
Equipment used on Quitasueño Survey Trip
Equipment References
(Brand)
Horizontal Precision
(meters)
DGPS Fugro Seastar 8200 HP < 0.10
DGPS Trimble PRO XRS 4000 < 1
DGPS Novatel PROPAK- V3 < 0.6
GPS Garmin ETREX < 10
GPS Garmin GPS MAP 76S < 15
GPS Garmin 12 XL < 15
GPS Magellan EXPLORIST 210 < 3
52
Appendix 1
49
Annex 4
Technical Report by the Colombia Office of Hydrographic Service
On the Tidal Datum in Quitasueño
ANALYSIS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL TIDE PRESENT IN SAN ANDRÉS AND
PROVIDENCIA ARCHIPELAGO DURING THE SURVEY
For the generation of 1 year of an hourly astronomical tide series nearby to San Andrés
Archipelago, the Grenoble Tide Model FES 95.2 was used, adding the ocean tide
correction using Andersen (1995)26 adjusted model, which uses 13 tidal harmonics to
generate data worldwide.
Using the Tidal Analysis Toolbox27, the 1 year time series was used to evaluate the
harmonics values and generate a 19 year time series of astronomical tide with hourly
data.
To the 19 year time series the following values were calculated, according to its
probability curve (figure 1), all of them referenced to the mean sea level:
¥ Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) = 272.99 millimetres ref. MSL.
¥ Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) = -288.91 millimetres ref. MSL.
¥ The range between HAT and LAT is 561.90 millimetres.
Using the same harmonics, an hourly tide prediction for San Andres Island was
calculated for June and July of 2008, November and December of 2009, time in which the
field campaign was performed. This astronomical tide level is referenced all the time to
mean sea level.
During the field campaign, all the geographical features above sea level were measured,
from the sea level at the time to their highest level, which corresponds in the calculus to
the “in-situ height observation”. Depending on the time of the observation, and a 5 hours
correction to Universal Time Coordinated, on the tide prediction table, the level of the
astronomical tide for the moment was searched. This was the “height of the astronomical
tide” at the moment of the “in-situ height observation”, referred to mean sea level.
Adding these last two values, the “height of the feature referred to mean sea level” was
founded.
26 Andersen, O. B. (1995), Global ocean tides from ERS 1 and TOPEX/POSEIDON altimetry, J. Geophys.
Res., 100(C12), 25,249–25,259.
27 Pawlowicz, R., B. Beardsley, and S. Lentz, "Classical Tidal Harmonic Analysis Including Error
Estimates in MATLAB using T_TIDE", Computers and Geosciences, 28 (2002), 929-937.
53
Appendix 1
50
Figure 1. Cumulative probability curve for the 19 years of astronomical tide at San Andrés
Archipelago
Example: Quitasueño position QS32.
In-situ height observation: 1,300 meters referred to sea level during observation.
Height of astronomical tide at the moment of the observation: 0,205 meters referred to
MSL at the moment of the observation (10:25 Local Time o 15:25 UTC, December 1th,
2009).
Height of the feature referred to mean sea level: 1,300 + (0,205) = 1,505 meters referred
to MSL.
The followings figures and tables correspond to the tide table for the days in which was
carried out the survey in 2009:
54
Appendix 1
51
55
Appendix 1
52
56
Appendix 1
53
Annex 5
Survey Data
Annex 5 (cont’d)
57
Appendix 1
Annex 6
Four Maps
Produced by the Office of Hydrographic Services
DIMAR
Showing Photos of the QS 1 to QS 54
58
Appendix 1
57
Annex 7
Colombia Charts
215, 630, 631
COLOMBIAN NAUTICAL CHART 215
COLOMBIAN NAUTICAL CHART 630
COLOMBIAN NAUTICAL CHART 631
59
Appendix 1
58
Annex 8
Excerpts from the
Report on an Explanation of the Symbols used in the
Nautical Charts COL 215, COL 630, COL 631 and COL 416
Related to Quitasueño Cay
Produced by Colombia’s Office of Hydrographic Service
National Maritime Directorate
[English Version]
The National Maritime Directorate - DIMAR is the institution responsible to do the
nautical cartography of Colombia according to numeral 4, article 5 (Functions and
Attributions) of the Law 2324 from 1984: The National Maritime Directorate has the
following functions “Install and maintain the aids to navigation service, to do the
hydrographic surveys and to produce the national nautical cartography”.
The first hydrographical activities begin in 1947, when Colombia signed the HYSAR
Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of National Defense represented by the
Colombian General Maritime Directorate and the Oceanographic and Hydrographic
Research Center – CIOH, and the US Department of Defense represented by The Naval
Oceanographic Office - NAVOCEANO. ….
When Colombia was admitted as an IHO member in 1998, it was recognized that to
fulfill the regulations, standards and specifications established by the IHO, nautical
charts would be produced for the Colombia National Maritime Directorate – DIMAR by
the Oceanographic and Hydrographic Research Center – CIOH.
References of the Nautical Charts published for Colombia related to Quitasueño
Cay
The Colombian nautical charts named Cayo Quitasueño COL 215 (2000), Banco
Quitasueño (Sector Sur) COL 630 (2000), Banco Quitasueño (Sector Norte) COL 631
(2000) and Banco Quitasueño COL 416 (2000) related to Quitasueño Cay were made
following the Regulations of the IHO for International (INT) Charts and Chart
Specifications - M4 (1988), and the Colombian nautical publication named COL 001-
Symbols, ABBREVIATIONS and Terms Used in the Colombian Nautical Charts, 2nd
edition (1991).
Chart COL 001. SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THE
COLOMBIAN NAUTICAL CHARTS: Colombian nautical publication which
describes the meaning of symbols, abbreviations and terms used in the national nautical
charts. The basic information is gathered from the IHO Chart INT1 and the Chart
Specifications and Regulations of the IHO for International (INT) Charts – MP 004
(1988). The COL 001, 2nd edition (1991), was used to do the Colombian nautical charts
COL 215 (2000), COL 630 (2000), COL 631 (2000) AND COL 416 (2000).
60
Appendix 1
59
MP 004 (M4, S-4). Chart Specifications and Regulations of the IHO for
International (INT) Charts (1988): IHO publication which describes in detail the
meaning of symbols, terms and abbreviations used in the international charts. The
description of each concept permits the selection of the most appropriate symbol for each
situation. This publication is the document required for the edition of the international
charts. Currently, Colombia publishes all national charts based on these publications and
also international charts according to the scheme of IHO INT chart.
…
Nautical Chart Definition
The main definition of the meaning of the nautical charts is found in the page 40 of the
IHO special publication S-32, Hydrographic Dictionary, Spanish version of the Fifth
Edition (1996):
735 Chart: nautical. Carta náutica. A CHART specifically designed to meet the
requirements of MARINE NAVIGATION, showing DEPTHS of water, NATURE
OF BOTTOM, ELEVATIONS, configuration or characteristics of COAST,
dangers and AIDS TO NAVIGATION. Also called marine chart, navigation chart
or simply CHART. See PAPER.
Therefore, it is inferred that the main purposes of the Colombian nautical charts Col 215,
Col 630, Col 631 and Col 416 related to Quitasueño Cay is to permit safe navigation for
all classes of vessels, throughout coastal national waters, and the other is showing the
detailed configuration of the seabed. In this aspect, hydrographic offices have a de facto
responsibility for their national waters similar to that of topographic mapping agencies
for land areas.
These functions are according to the Regulations of the IHO for International (INT)
Charts and Chart Specifications - M4 (2009). Section 100. A-101 Purpose of the
International Charts. A-102 International Charting Principles.
Chart Name
The name of the chart is related to the predominant geographic feature, which in this
case is the Bank composed for the totally of the seabed elevation that have
approximately 31 nautical miles long and 11 nautical miles wide.
Over this bank there are groups of emerging coral reefs, rocks, heads of coral and others
geographical features that are permanently above sea level, as Quitasueño Cay and the
others 54 features which are described in the technical report.
61
Appendix 1
60
Symbols Used in the Chart COL 416
In the chart COL 416, as in the Colombian nautical cartography, there are symbols that
clearly define the geographical character of the Quitasueño Bank and the Cays, shoals,
wrecks, lights, coral heads, rocks, and other geographical features that are important for
the safety maritime navigation:
1. Cay: This place name is referred to the cay or islet located in the north area of the
bank, near to place where was built the light tower, according to the Chart COL 416, 1st
Edition. September 2000. The Cay or Islet is named Quitasueño. See map 1, numeral 1.
According to the IHO special publication S-32, Hydrographic Dictionary, Spanish
version of the Fifth Edition (1996), pages 37 and 130, there are definitions that apply for
this geographical feature:
665 cay (also kay, key). cayo. A low, flat ISLAND of SAND, CORAL, etc. awash
or drying at LOW WATER; a term originally applied to the coral islets around the
COAST and ISLANDS of Caribbean Sea.
2555 islet. Islote. A small ISLAND.
…..
2. Danger Line: Was used a dotted line to indicate the area of the bank which don’t
have enough deep for safety navigation and that take navigator´s attention to a danger
which would not stand out clearly enough if it were represented solely by the symbol for
the feature (e.g. isolated rock); or delimits a danger zone for navigation because of
existence of numerous dangers according to Chart COL 001, 2nd edition (1991), Section
K - Rocks, Wrecks and Obstructions, numeral 1, page 24.
In the Chart Specifications and Regulations of the IHO for International (INT) Charts –
MP 004 (1988), Part I - Chart Specifications o f the IHO for National and International
(INT) Medium and Large Scale Charts, Section 400 - Hydrography and Navigational
Aids, there are the next definition:
Numeral 420.1. A danger line, consisting of a line of dots, must be used to draw the
navigator’s attention to a danger which would not stand out clearly enough if it were
represented solely by the symbol for the feature. The danger line must also be used to
delimit areas containing numerous dangers, through which it is unsafe to navigate at the
scale of the chart.
According to the scale of the chart is necessary to generalize particular features and
dangers as areas, therefore in the letter COL 416 was used the danger line to delimit the
area with less than 5 meters depths. This line of dots (danger line) was used to delimit the
entire external edge of the reef in the east side that have 23 nautical miles long and in the
external edge of the reef in the west side too.
62
Appendix 1
61
Inside of this danger line are contained the most part of cays or islets detailed in the
technical report, including which are in the external edge of the reef. See map 1, numeral
3. Breakers: This symbol was used to draw navigator’s attention to the obstructions or
dangers on the shore where the waves are breaking, which don’t permit an adequate
hydrographic survey according to Chart COL 001, 2nd edition (1991), Section K - Rocks,
Wrecks and Obstructions, numeral 17, page 25. See Map 1, numeral 4.
In the Chart Specifications and Regulations of the IHO for International (INT) Charts –
MP 004 (1988), Part I - Chart Specifications o f the IHO for National and International
(INT) Medium and Large Scale Charts, Section 400 - Hydrography and Navigational
Aids, there are the next definition:
Numeral 423.2. Breakers in unsurveyed areas must be represented by lines of dotted
semicircles covering approximately the area of the breakers.
Image 4. Breakers Symbol
The breakers are directly related to the existence of particular geographical features on
the drying edge of the coral reefs and foreshore as heads of coral, rocks, coral reef, etc.,
that are permanently emerged or emerging in low tide.
These geographical features produce disintegration of the wave which breaks with foam
in the shallows.
According to the IHO special publication S-32, Hydrographic Dictionary, Spanish
version of the Fifth Edition (1996), page 30, there are the next definition:
540 breaker. rompiente. A WAVE breaking on the SHORE, over a REEF, etc.
Breakers may be roughly classified into three kinds, although the categories may
overlap: spilling breakers break gradually over a considerable distance; plunging
breakers tend to curl over and break with a crash; and surging breakers peak up,
but then instead of spilling or plunging they surge up on the beach face.
….
4. Lines for inadequately survey areas: To demarcate an inadequately survey areas,
which cannot be survey, was used a bold segmented line with the legend “Inadequately
surveyed” according to Chart COL 001, 2nd edition (1991), Section I - Depths, numeral
25, page 21.
63
Appendix 1
62
In the Chart Specifications and Regulations of the IHO for International (INT) Charts –
MP 004 (1988), Part I - Chart Specifications o f the IHO for National and International
(INT) Medium and Large Scale Charts, Section 400 - Hydrography and Navigational
Aids, there are the next definition:
Numeral 417.6 Areas delimited by a bold line. In some rocky or coral reef waters,
depth information may be so inadequate that a very positive form of warning is
required. The most effective technique is to delimit the area by a by bold black or
magenta line (preferably segmented), with a note of caution.
This treatment is likely to be most appropriate in inshore waters such as coastal
archipelagos and barrier reefs; it may be reinforced by the omission or insertion of
colour tints within the bold line.
….
Capitán de Corbeta HERMANN LEÓN RINCON
ÁREA INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA MARINA
DIRECCION GENERAL MARÍTIMA DE COLOMBIA
64
Appendix 1
63
Annex 9
Colombia Chart Symbols
[Excerpt from Colombia Chart No. 1, 2nd edition 1991 ]
65
Appendix 1
64
Annex 10
Distances of
Quitasueño Low-Tide Elevations
To Quitasueño Islands
Distances (nautical miles)
Low-tide elevations to Quitasueño Islands
Low-tide
elevation
Nearest
island
Distance Low-tide
elevation
Nearest
island
Distance
QS-6 QS-5 0.23 QS-25 QS-26 0.23
QS-7 QS-8 0.80 QS-28 QS-27 0.20
QS-9 QS-15 1.12 QS-43 QS-42 0.36
QS-11 QS-15 0.81 QS-44 QS-45 1.62
QS-12 QS-10 0.19 QS-46 QS-47 0.49
QS-13 QS-10 0.54 QS-48 QS-52 1.49
QS-14 QS-10 0.64 QS-49 QS-52 0.85
QS-18 QS-17 0.21 QS-50 QS-52 0.75
QS-19 QS-20 0.13 QS-51 QS-52 0.34
QS- 23 QS-22 0.08 QS-54 QS-53 1.90
66
Appendix 2
COLOMBIA’S OFFICIAL NAUTICAL CHARTING OF THE SAN ANDRÉS
ARCHIPELAGO
Document on pages to follow
67
Appendix 2
Appendix 2
COLOMBIA’S OFFICIAL NAUTICAL CHARTING OF THE SAN ANDRÉS ARCHIPELAGO
In its Reply, Nicaragua critiques several of the large-scale base maps that Colombia
presented in its Counter-Memorial. These maps included Quitasueño Cay (Figure 2.8),
Serranilla Cay (Figure 2.9), and Bajo Nuevo Cay (Figure 2.10). The following comments
address the technical issues that were raised by Nicaragua in its Reply.
At paragraph 4.9 of its Reply, Nicaragua notes that the blue dotted line surrounding
most of the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago, along with an area of lighter shading,
were not identified in the map legends. The dotted line is the standard nautical charting
symbol used to delimit areas of “hazardous navigation,” which in this case tracks the 10-
meter isobath. The lighter shading indicates the general configuration of the bank, which
in this case tracks the 20-meter isobath. These mapping elements were used for
illustrative purposes only and neither one played any role in establishing the baselines or
relevant coastlines of the islands.
In the case of Quitasueño, Nicaragua observed that there were no low-water lines
(islands) represented on Colombian nautical charts 630, 631 & 215, a point that was
illustrated in their Reply at Figure 4-2. By way of contrast, Figure 2.8 from the Colombian
Counter-Memorial depicted a total of eight islands and 15 low tide features. The map
legend for Figure 2.8 does cite Colombian nautical charts 215, 630 and 631 as the source
of coastal information for this map, but it also cites the findings from the Colombian
Navy’s 2008 reconnaissance survey of the archipelago as a supplementary source of
information. While Colombian charting of the area does not reflect any islands, the islands
and low-tide features that are depicted on Figure 2.8 were all taken directly from the
findings that were documented in detail by the Colombian Navy. The implication by
Nicaragua that insular features that have yet to be charted somehow do not exist is
misguided. All nautical charts are ‘works in progress’ and when new information comes to
light they are routinely updated. In fact, charting authorities worldwide provide their
contact information on every chart so that inaccuracies and new findings can be reported
quickly. Colombia’s charting authority is no exception. The note below is printed on every
Colombian nautical chart so that new information can be reported directly to the National
Maritime Directorate of Colombia (DIMAR) for verification.
Translation:
Users may send corrections, additions and comments to: Center for Oceanographic and Hydrographic
Research. P.O. Box 982 Cartagena de Indias – Colombia. E-mail: [email protected]
68
Appendix 2
When DIMAR published the latest editions of the nautical charts for this area (215,
630 & 631), they did not have the benefit of detailed observations from site visits that
would have provided the information necessary to reflect more accurately the true
physical character of the bank. The recent findings of the Colombian Navy and those
resulting from Dr. Smith’s survey will, in due course, be incorporated into future editions
of the charts covering Quitasueño.
In the case of Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo Cays, Nicaragua points out the
inconsistency between the charted low water lines for islands and the depiction of the 12
M territorial sea, which in both cases was rendered from a single point location that
corresponded to the main islands located on each bank. This portrayal reflects an overly
conservative territorial sea limit for both features since there are other small islands or
exposed rocks also shown on the nautical charts. On Serranilla Bank these islands are
Cayo del Medio and Cayo del Este and on Bajo Nuevo there is unnamed exposed rock
charted slightly south of the main island. In fact, the survey by the Colombian Navy in
2008 found two exposed rocks at Bajo Nuevo and these features were identified on Figure
2.10 as BN-2 and BN-3. Collectively, these islands and exposed rocks allow Colombia to
calculate its depiction of the 12 M territorial sea limit in accordance with international
law, as has been done on Figure 2.1 of the Counter-Memorial.
The decision by DIMAR to keep the charted 12 M territorial sea limit based solely
on the main islands of Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo reflects Colombia’s joint development
zone agreement with Jamaica, where the territorial seas for these features are both shown
as a single circle with 24 M diameters centered on the main islands. The variance between
these two depictions is clearly illustrated by Colombia in Figure 4.3 of the Counter-
Memorial.
Nicaragua also noted that areas charted as “breakers” on COL-046 were illustrated
in the Counter-Memorial as areas of “drying reefs” or “low tide elevations.” Figure 2.10
does interpret the breaker symbols on COL-046 as two drying fringing reefs, one on East
Reef and the other on West Reef. This interpretation was made in conjunction with an
analysis of Landsat imagery of this bank, which clearly shows two prominent reefs on Bajo
Nuevo bank.
Dr. Smith, in his description of Quitasueño, referred to the “breakers” symbol on
Colombian charts in the following way: “[a]n important symbol on these charts is the one
depicting breakers, where the waves of the open ocean meet the drying coral reef of
Quitasueño.” This interpretation of the breakers symbol for Quitasueño was also applied
to the interpretation of the charted features on Bajo Nuevo. In any event, even if this
interpretation were proven to be incorrect, the depiction of the reefs was for illustrative
purposes only and neither one was used in determining the 12 M limit of the territorial
sea or the 24 M limit of a contiguous zone entitlement. For Nicaragua to infer that this
depiction was done to overinflate the significance of Bajo Nuevo is simply not true as the
side-by-side comparison of the nautical chart, the satellite image, and map from the
Counter-Memorial reveals.
69
Appendix 2
Col-046 Landsat Figure 2.10 CC-M
ANNEXES
71
Annex 1
Annex 1
DIPLOMATIC NOTE N° DM 14082-2000 FROM THE COLOMBIAN FOREIGN
MINISTER TO THE COSTA RICAN FOREIGN MINISTER,
29 MAY 2000
(Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia)
Republic of Colombia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Bogotá, 29 May 2000.
DM 14082-2000
Mr. Minister:
I am honoured to acknowledge receipt of your kind note N° DM 073-2000 of 29th of
the current month and year, whereby Your Excellency fixes the position of the Enlightened
Government of Costa Rica, to the effect that, being – as always – observant of the rules and
principles of international law and of the respect for international treaties, it has complied
with and will continue to comply in good faith, until their entry into force, with the treaties
of 17 March 1977 and 6 April 1984.
I am pleased to convey to Your Excellency that the fact that, for 23 years – in the
case of the delimitation Treaty in the Caribbean Sea – and for 16 in that of the delimitation
in the Pacific – there has never been an incident, despite the intense and continuous
activities of control, fishing and commercial navigation that ships from our respective
States carry out in those areas, is testimony of the beneficial character and efficacy of the
aforesaid instruments.
To His Excellency
Roberto Rojas
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
72
Annex 1
Republic of Costa Rica
The position of the Government of Costa Rica – that my Government is honoured to
share – is moreover, a reflection of its unwavering adherence by the principles of
international law, and in particular, to the observance and respect for international treaties,
that has always distinguished it in the hemisphere and worldwide.
I take this opportunity to state to Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest and
most distinguished consideration.
[signed illegibly]
GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO
73
Annex 2
Annex 2
DIPLOMATIC NOTE N° DM 073-2000 FROM THE COSTA RICAN FOREIGN
MINISTER TO THE COLOMBIAN FOREIGN MINISTER,
29 MAY 2000
(Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San José, 29 May 2000.
DM 073-2000
Your Excellency:
As the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly is setting out to consider, for its approval,
the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation
signed between our two countries on 6 April 1984, I am pleased to convey to Your
Excellency that my country, always observant of the principles and rules of international
law and in particular those framing the conclusion of international treaties, has complied
with and will continue to comply with that instrument in good faith, as well as the Treaty on
Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation of 17 March 1977.
It is evident that throughout these years, both treaties have shown their beneficial
character, have facilitated cooperation and contributed to mutual understanding, the
preservation of peace and trust between our two States, becoming an example for the region
and the continent.
The Government of Costa Rica therefore, will continue the required procedures for
the ratification and exchange of corresponding instruments, once approved by the
Legislative Power.
May this serve to state to Your Excellency, the assurances of my utmost
consideration and esteem, sincerely.
[signed illegibly]
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Guillermo Fernández de Soto
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Colombia
74
Annex 3
Annex 3
REPORT TO CONGRESS BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
WORSHIP OF COSTA RICA
2000-2001
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, pp. 1, 11-15)
[p. 1]
REPORT
BY THE MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP
2000-2001
Submitted to the Legislative Assembly by Eng. Roberto Rojas Lopez, Government
Minister in the Bureau of foreign Affairs and Worship
[p. 11]
CHAPTER I
RELATIONS WITH BORDERING COUNTRIES: COLOMBIA
I.- BORDER ISSUES
Although as a consequence of the independence of Panama, recognized by Costa
Rica on 29 December 1903, there is no longer a land border between our country and
Colombia, they still share a considerable maritime boundary.
On 17 March 1977, the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica Mr. Gonzalo J. Facio and
the Ambassador of Colombia in San José, Mr. Heraclio Fernández Sandoval, signed a
treaty wherein the delimitation of the Costa Rican waters and those that appertain to
Colombia off the Archipelago of San Andrés:
“A.- Starting on the intersection of a straight line drawn with an azimuth of
225º (45º Southwest) from a point located on latitude 11º 00' 00'' North and
longitude 81º 15' 00'' West, with parallel 10º 49' 00'' North.
Along the cited parallel towards the West, until its intersection with
meridian 82º 14' 00'' West.
75
Annex 3
B.- From the intersection of parallel 10º 49' 00'' North and the meridian 82º
14' 00'' West, the boundary continues along the cited meridian towards the
North up to where the delimitation shall be done with a third State.”
For the maritime delimitation in the Pacific, the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica,
Mr. Carlos José Gutiérrez Gutiérrez and his Colombian colleague Rodrigo Lloreda
Caicedo, signed [a Treaty] in Bogotá on 6 April 1984, in which both countries agreed
the following:
(…)
Originally, the exchange of instruments of ratification of the 1977 Facio-
Fernández and the 1984 Gutiérrez-Lloreda treaties was to be carried simultaneously.
However, with the purpose of facilitating the congressional approval, it was decided to
propose to Colombia – that has already approved both agreements –, the possibility of
doing so separately. To that effect, on 29 May 2000, Foreign Minster Rojas addressed
the following note to his Colombian colleague, Guillermo Fernández de Soto:
[p. 12]
“No. 396-UAT-PE
San José, 29 May 2000.
Your Excellency,
I have the honor to address Your Excellency with reference to the
process of ratification of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and Submarine
Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia
and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed in Bogotá on 6 April 1984.
The opinion of the Government of Costa Rica is that in accordance
with the terms of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, the entry into force of the Treaty in question will be that
on which instruments of ratifications are exchanged; and that this procedure
will be undertaken on the date and in the manner which our Governments
deem convenient. In this regard, it considers that the change of the date
fixed in Article III of the said Treaty of 6 April 1984 in no way alters its
object and purpose. Likewise, the Government of Costa Rica states that the
internal process of approval of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and
Sub-marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of
Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed on 17 March 1977 and
referred to in the Treaty of 6 April 1984, will continue in the same situation
as before until the internal constitutional requirements for the approval of
treaties have been satisfied and ratification instruments are exchanged at the
appropriate time.
76
Annex 3
The Government of Costa Rica wishes to know whether the
Illustrious Government of Colombia agrees with the contents of this note.
I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my highest
esteem.
Roberto Rojas.”
On the same date, Foreign Minister Fernández de Soto replied to the Costa Rican
proposal with the following note:
“DM-M 14081.
Mr. Minister:
I have the honor to address Your Excellency with regard to your
Note 396-UAT-PE of 29 May 2000.
I am pleased to state to Your Excellency that the Government of
Colombia shares the criterion that in accordance with the terms of Article
24, paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the entry
into force of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and Sub-marine Areas
and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the
Republic of Colombia signed in Bogotá on 6 April 1984, will be that on
which instruments of ratifications are exchanged; and that this procedure
will be undertaken on the date and in the manner which our Governments
deem convenient.
My Government also considers that the change of the date
established in Article III of the said Treaty in no way alters its object and
purpose.
My Government also shares the position of the Illustrious
Government of Costa Rica that the observance and application of the Treaty
on Delimitation of Marine and Sub-marine Areas and Maritime
Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa
Rica signed on
[p. 13]
17 March 1977, will continue in the same situation as before until internal
constitutional requirements for the approval of treaties have been satisfied
and ratification instruments are exchanged at the appropriate time.
Nonetheless, the Government of Colombia trusts that the procedures for the
approval by the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica of the
abovementioned Treaty of 1977 will continue to progress and that in due
time the instruments of ratification will be exchanged in a manner similar to
77
Annex 3
that in which the Illustrious Government of Costa Rica has proceeded with
regard to the Treaty of 1984.
I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my highest
esteem.
Guillermo Fernández de Soto
Minister of Foreign Affairs”
On 30 July 2001, the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica voted in favor of a bill
that in its first article, approved the Gutiérrez-Lloreda Treaty, the Rojas-Fernández
Exchange of Notes and the nautical chart.
On the basis of this law, on the following 16 February, Foreign Ministers Rojas
and Fernández de Soto, in the presence of the President, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, the
diplomatic corps, [former] foreign ministers Gonzalo J. Facio, Rodrigo Madrigal and
Fernando Naranjo and other special guests, carried out the exchange of ratification
instruments of the Gutiérrez-Lloreda Treaty in the Salon Dorado of the Casa Amarilla.
At the event, the Costa Rican Foreign Minister gave the following speech:
“Mr. President of the Republic,
His Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia and
distinguished delegates joining him,
His Excellency, the Ambassador of Colombia,
Excellencies, Ambassadors and Chiefs of Mission,
Messrs. Deputies, Messrs. Former Ministers,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Costa Rican territory, and, in particular, the hall where we are
today, have been, on multiple occasions, the scene for the signing of
agreements and exchange of ratification instruments. However, today for
the first time in Costa Rican history, the exchange of a border treaty takes
place in its territory. Without grandiloquence, we must acknowledge that
we are living a historic moment and that we should feel privileged to share
it.
Historical, cultural, economic and even familial links entangle the
destinies of both countries, as indissolubly as the waters of Balboa’s ocean
mingle at our boundaries. Therefore, for the Government of Costa Rica,
and for me personally, for this act to confirm and consolidate the friendship
that has joined Costa Rica and Colombia from time immemorial, is a reason
for the greatest satisfaction. Because the Gutiérrez-Lloreda [Treaty] is not
only an agreement on maritime delimitation, but also on cooperation. The
negotiations that led it to fruition were presided over
[p. 14]
78
Annex 3
by a spirit of cordiality and mutual understanding, in harmony with the
authentic kinship that is the common inner sap [flowing] between
Colombians and Costa Ricans.
The joyous culmination of the diplomatic journey to define our
boundary lines in the Pacific is the best homage we can pay to the memory
of the agreement’s signatories, Foreign Ministers Carlos José Gutiérrez
Gutiérrez and Rodrigo Lloreda Caicedo. Both of them were jurists of
singular value, prominent public personae, but, moreover and most
importantly, good men who set their efforts and will, even to the detriment
of their health, in order to contribute to the understanding between nations
and for freedom and democracy to reign in every American corner. It is
worth noting that they also shared common family roots, originating in the
city of Cartago, former capital of Costa Rica. In fulfilling the mission
entrusted to them by the Presidents, don Luis Alberto Monge and don
Belisario Betancur, don Carlos José and don Rodrigo combined their talent
and their knowledge to conduct the negotiation of the agreement that bears
their hyphenated names and that enters into force as of this moment.
I would also like to express our gratitude to all those individuals
who, in one way or another, contributed to make this moment possible:
Officials of the Foreign Ministries, Diplomats on a Mission, Congressmen,
Supreme Justices, public opinion leaders and national and foreign jurists. It
is especially pleasant for me to highlight, in particular, the dedication with
which His Excellency the Ambassador of Colombia, don Julio Aníbal
Riaño, has worked in this task of mutual interest. He has also worked
fervently with the purpose of strengthening the friendly links between both
nations in many other fields.
The Gutiérrez-Lloreda Treaty, in addition to what it represents for
our two countries, is a testimony to the world, that it is possible to work in
brotherhood when borders are seen as points of convergence and not of
division. Prominent international law experts, such as the French professor
Daniel Bardonett, have already made it the subject of valuable studies, and
we harbor the hope that it may also serve as inspiration for other nations to
define their marine boundaries, under the sign of harmony.
For nearly seventeen years, this agreement of wills has been
complied with by both parties, with the good faith and the spirit of
consultation that is reflected in so many other avenues of the Colombia-
Costa Rica relations. In the same sense, Costa Rica also wishes to reiterate
to Colombia its decision to continue complying, as it has up to now, in
accordance with the provisions of international law, with the terms of the
Facio-Fernández Treaty, concluded for the maritime delimitation of both
countries in the Caribbean Sea.
[p. 15]
The presence of the distinguished delegation that visits us confirms
that an analogous desire to observe the law and a fraternal solidarity that
79
Annex 3
has never been belied, continue to be plowed in the task of jointly opening
up new horizons. With the awareness of our shared identity, Costa Rica
also wishes to express its optimism in light of the recent developments of
the peace negotiations in Colombia and its firm hope that the efforts of
President Pastrana and his people’s decided vocation towards harmony will
soon reap venturous rewards.
Mr. President of the Republic,
His Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It was nearly 145 years ago, that the first diplomatic agent of the
then New Granada came to Costa Rica, General Pedro Alcántara Herrán.
General Herrán, former president of his country and already a veteran in
diplomatic battles, gave sincere shows of affection to Costa Rica, made a
generous donation for the families of Costa Rican soldiers perished in the
campaign against the filibusters, and even volunteered for combat to serve
the Central-American cause. In the treaty he signed with the Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, the oldest one concluded by our two nations, it was
enshrined that there would be perpetual peace and loyal friendship between
them and that they would benefit each other as much as possible, by reason
of their vicinity.
This beautiful triad, perpetual peace, loyal friendship, mutual
benefit, has presided over the road that Colombia and Costa Rica have
travelled together since those remote days. With those thoughts in our
minds and hearts, Colombians and Costa Ricans shall know how to
continue, with a steady step, the march towards a bright and shared future.
Thank you.”
The Fernández-Facio Treaty has not yet been ratified by Costa Rica; however, in
accordance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, our
country must refrain of any acts by virtue of which the object and purpose of that
agreement may be compromised, as long as it does not manifest its intention to not
become a party to it.
In the course of the III Binational Meeting that was held in San José between 19 and 21
February 2001, a sub-committee was organized to deal with matters relating to Drug
Trafficking, Arms Smuggling and Management of Common Maritime Boundaries.
80
Annex 4
Annex 4
1997 AGREEMENT TO SUPPRESS ILLICIT TRAFFIC BY SEA BETWEEN
COLOMBIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(USTIAS 12835)
Document on pages to follow
81
Annex 4
82
Annex 4
83
Annex 4
84
Annex 4
85
Annex 4
86
Annex 4
87
Annex 4
88
Annex 4
89
Annex 4
90
Annex 4
MAPS
92
Car ibbean
Sea
COSTA
RICA PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Islas del
Rosario
Islas de San
Bernardo
Isla Fuerte
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Middle Bank
Bank
Cabo San
Juan de Guía
Punta de la Garita
Punta Canoas
Punta de
San Bernardo
Punta Broqueles
Punta Arboletes
Punta
de
Perlas
Tubuala
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Cusapin
Santa Marta
Barranquilla Ciénaga
Cartagena
Pasacaballos
Paso Nuevo
Coveñas
Cedro
Puerto Escondido
Arboletes
Punta de
Canoas
Puerto
Colombia
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Dacura
Barra de Caratasca
San José
Panamá
84°W 82°W 80°W 78°W 76°W 74°W
84°W 82°W 80°W 78°W 76°W 74°W
16°N
14°N
12°N
10°N
16°N
14°N
12°N
15°N
11°N
82°09’45.975”W
Note: 82°09’45.975”W of Greenwich
is equivalent to 84°30’00”W of Paris
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources:
NGA nautical charts: 24480, 24490, 26050, 26060, 26070, 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130, 28140, 28150.
Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634,
supplemented with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
ISLANDS CLAIMED BY NICARAGUA
IN ITS 1900 NOTE WITH REGARD
TO THE LOUBET AWARD
Figure R-2.1
93
Southern light tower
(14°09’18”N - 81°09’48”W)
Northern light tower
(14°28’57”N - 81°07’20”W)
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS13
QS12
QS11
QS28
QS25
QS19
QS23
QS18
QS14
QS46
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS5
QS4
QS3
QS2
QS1
QS53
QS52
QS47
QS45
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS38
QS37
QS36
QS35
QS33 QS34
QS32
QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26 QS27
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS16 QS15
QS10
81°20’W 81°10’W
81°20’W 81°10’W
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
10
Caribbean
Sea
Quitasueño
Figure R-3.1
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
Drying fringing reefs
Light towers
QUITASUEÑO
Islands and Low Tide Elevations Identified
During Site Visit by Dr. Smith
0 1 2 3 4
0 2 4 6 8
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°20’N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
5
10
94
QS9
QS7
QS6
QS14
QS13
QS11 QS12
QS19
QS23
QS18
QS25
QS28
QS46
QS44 QS43
QS54
QS51
QS50
QS49
QS48
QS8
QS5
QS4
QS3
QS2
QS1
QS53
QS52
QS47
QS45
QS42
QS41
QS39
QS40
QS37
QS38
QS36
QS35 QS34
QS27
QS33
QS32 QS31
QS30
QS29
QS26
QS24
QS22
QS20
QS21
QS17
QS16 QS15
QS10
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
81°20’W 81°10’W 81°00’W
14°30’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
14°30’N
14°40’N
14°20’N
14°10’N
14°00’N
Quitasueño
3,577 sq. km.
12 M Territorial Sea
(measured from 54 identified features and the fringing reef)
Figure R-3.2
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Source of bathymetric information: Colombian nautical chart 416.
Legend:
Islands
Low tide elevations
Drying fringing reefs
Light towers
QUITASUEÑO
12 M Territorial Sea Limits
(Measured from all 54 identified features and the fringing reef)
0 2 4 6 8
0 5 10 15 20
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
10
95
Nicaragua
Colombia
Median Line
The Delimitation Area
© Crown Copyright 2003
E-Mail [email protected]
DMIRALTY
CONSULTANCY SERVICES
UK HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE
LAW OF THE SEA DIVISION
Tel + 44 (0)1823 337900
Fax +44 (0)1823 353075
Law of the Sea
200 M EEZ entitlement drawn
from Colombia’s mainland coast
Hypothetical 200 M EEZ entitlement
drawn from Nicaragua’s mainland coast
NICARAGUA’S MARITIME CLAIM DIVIDES AN
AREA WHERE IT HAS NO MARITIME ENTITLEMENT
Figure I from the Nicaraguan Memorial
Figure R-4.1
96
Golfo de
Venezuela
Lago de
Maracaibo
Lago
de
Nicaragua
Car ibbean
Sea
PACI F IC
OCEAN
Punta de la Garita
Punta Faro
Punta Canoas
LBT with Panama
Roatan I.
Bay Islands
Guanaja I.
San Andrés I.
Little
Corn I.
Great
Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
Roncador Cay
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Gorda I.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Pedro Bank
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
Colón
Tubuala
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Portabelo
Calovébora
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Barra de Río Grande
Dacura
Managua
San José
Panamá
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDU RAS
C O L OMB I A
N I C A R A G U A
VENEZUELA
15°N
10°N
15°N
10°N
85°W 80°W 75°W
85°W 80°W 75°W
Nicaragua’s new extended Continental Shelf claim
26.8 M
36.2 M
69.5 M
80.6 M
Colombia’s 200 M Entitlements
Figure R-4.2
NICARAGUA’S ENCROACHMENT ON
COLOMBIA’S 200 M ENTITLEMENTS
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources:
NGA nautical charts: 24460, 24470, 24480, 24490, 26050, 26060, 26070, 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130, 28140, 28150.
Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634, supplemented
with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
Figure 3.10 from the Nicaraguan Reply
97
Golfo de
Venezuela
Lago de
Maracaibo
Lago
de
Nicaragua
Car ibbean
Sea
Punta Gallínas
Cabo de La Vela
Península
de la Guajira
Cabo San
Juan de Guía
Punta de la Garita
Punta Canoas
Punta de San Bernardo
Punta Broqueles
Punta Arboletes
Swan Islands
San Andrés I.
Los
Monjes
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Low Cay
Providencia I.
Roncador Cay
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Gorda I.
Serranilla Bajo Nuevo Cay
Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Pedro Bank
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
JAMAICA
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
HAITI
COLOMBIA
NICARAGUA
VENEZUELA
Carrizal
Manaure
Montego Bay
Maracaibo
Colón
Riohacha
Santa Marta Río Cañas
Ciénaga
Cartagena
Pasacaballos
Paso Nuevo
Arboletes
Zapata
Puerto
Colombia
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Barra de Río Grande
Dacura
Managua
San José
Panamá
Kingston
Port-au-Prince
15°N
10°N
80°W 75°W
80°W 75°W
85°W
Nicaragua
Colombia
Median Line
The Delimitation Area
E-Mail [email protected]
DMIRALTY
CONSULTANCY SERVICES
HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE
LAW OF THE SEA DIVISION
+ 44 (0)1823 337900
Fax +44 (0)1823 353075
Law of the Sea
53,483 sq. km.
Nicaragua’s New Claim
Nicaragua’s Initial Claim
Figure R-4.3
NICARAGUA’S CLAIMS:
ONE MORE EXTREME THAN THE OTHER
98
Jamaica’s 200 M reach
Panama’s 200 M reach
Golfo de
Venezuela
Lago de
Maracaibo
Lago
de
Nicaragua
Car ibbean
Sea
Punta Gallínas
Cabo de La Vela
Península
de la Guajira
Cabo San
Juan de Guía
Punta de la Garita
Punta Canoas
Punta de San Bernardo
Punta Broqueles
Punta Arboletes
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
JAMAICA
HAITI
COLOMBIA
NICARAGUA
VENEZUELA
Carrizal
Manaure
Montego Bay
Maracaibo
Colón
Riohacha
Santa Marta Río Cañas
Ciénaga
Cartagena
Pasacaballos
Paso Nuevo
Arboletes
Zapata
Puerto
Colombia
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Barra de Río Grande
Dacura
Managua
San José
Panamá
Kingston
Port-au-Prince
15°N
10°N 10°N
15°N
80°W 75°W
80°W 75°W
85°W
Colombian Island’s 200 M reach
Colombia Mainland 200 M reach
Figure R-4.4
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
200 M MARITIME ENTITLEMENTS
COMPLETELY OVERLAP IN THE
WESTERN CARIBBEAN
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 15°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
99
180°
180°
120°E
120°E
60°E
60°E
0°
0°
60°W
60°W
120°W
120°W
180°
180°
60°N 60°N
30°N 30°N
0° 0°
30°S 30°S
60°S 60°S
Continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles
200 nautical mile maritime zones www.unclosuk.org
Continental shelf areas identified in submissions to the UN,
as of 10th June 2009
Areas of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles identified in
submissions made by coastal states under Article 76 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1, as of 10th
June 2009.
The outer limits of the continental shelf areas identified in the
executive summaries of 51 submissions delivered to the Division of
Oceans and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS)2 at the UN as of 10th
June 2009 have been digitally compiled and are illustrated in red
on the accompanying map. The pale blue sections correspond to
areas within 200 nautical miles of States’ baselines – many of
which have been designated as Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZs) under UNCLOS.
In addition to the full continental shelf submissions received by
DOALOS before 13th May 20093 (the deadline for 129 of the 158
States Parties to the Convention), and 1 further submission made
by Cuba on the 1st June, 42 additional sets of documentation were
received in the form of preliminary information indicative of the
potential outer limits of continental shelf invoking the special
arrangements for, in particular, developing coastal states intending
to make a submission but unable to meet the deadline4. Some of
these additional areas are less precisely constrained than those for
the full submissions, but summaries of these will be added to the
current map as soon as practical. All documents relating to these
cases are available at the DOALOS website.
The rationale behind all of the submissions lies in the provisions of
article 76 of UNCLOS, whereby coastal states demonstrating
natural prolongation of land territory as submarine areas of their
continental shelf can legally delineate these by outer limit points
calculated on the basis of combinations of geomorphologic and
geologic characteristics of the seafloor5.
Each of the cases submitted will be examined in the order that they
were deposited at the UN by the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental shelf (CLCS), a body set up under the Convention and
drawing on technical experts in marine geosciences from around
the world. Once each case has been assessed for compliance
with the provision of article 76, the CLCS will issue
recommendations regarding the outer limits of the shelf areas, and,
following coastal states acceptance of these recommendations,
these can be established by the coastal state as final and binding.
The areas of extended continental shelf currently cover a total of
approximately 23.8 million square kilometers. It is estimated that
areas identified in the preliminary information documentation to date
may cover a further area of several million square kilometers of
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. These figures can be
compared with estimates of approximately 70 million square
kilometers of the world’s oceans lying within 200 nautical miles of
coastal states baselines.
Twenty-nine of the 158 coastal states who have ratified the
Convention have a submission deadline of ten years after their
ratification date, although some of these have already delivered
partial submissions, or preliminary indicative information, relating to
continental shelf areas pending formal submissions6. Of the 16
states which have yet to ratify the Convention, the USA is
undoubtedly that with the largest potential continental shelf under
article 76 of UNCLOS – but the full extent of this can only be
speculated upon, at this point.
Many parts of the extended continental shelf are included in more
than one submission, where neighbouring or adjacent States
consider that their seafloor conditions make them each equally
compliant with the criteria in UNCLOS used to define juridical
continental shelf areas. Some of these overlap areas have resulted
in the issuing of dispute notices to the UN, while others are the
subject of mutual non-objection agreements, and others still have
been resolved by the submission of joint cases, presented by two or
more coastal states7. These coordination initiatives will enable the
CLCS process to continue examining these cases, which would
otherwise be required to be halted, as The Commission has no
mandate to work on submissions where a dispute has been
recognized8.
Once the outer limit of the continental shelf has been established by
the coastal state, it can exercise its sovereign rights for the purpose
of exploring and exploiting its natural resources. These comprise
mineral resources and other non-living resources of the seabed
and subsoil, along with sedentary living organisms.
Footnotes:
*1 – www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_conventi…
*2 - www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
*3 – www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm
*4 - http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_preliminary.htm
*5 - http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e…
*6 – http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2008.pdf
*7 – For example: France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom;
Mauritius and Seychelles; Federated States of Micronesia, Papua
New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; Malaysia and Vietnam;
France and South Africa.
*8 – Article 9 of Annex ll of The Convention (see footnote 1)
Gaps in the overlapping 200 M EEZ entitlements of
bordering States are present in the Gulf of Mexico
See enlargement
No gaps in overlapping 200 M EEZ entitlements
exist in the Western Caribbean Sea
Figure R-4.5
100
JAPAN’S EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM
IN THE SOUTHERN KYUSHU-PALAU RIDGE REGION
Figure R-4.6
101
NEW CALEDONIA’S EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM
IN THE LOYALTY RIDGE & LORD HOWE RISE REGIONS
Figure R-4.7
102
NEW ZEALAND’S EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM DOES NOT
TRESPASS INTO THE 200 M EEZ ENTITLEMENTS OF NEIGHBORING STATES
Figure R-4.8
103
SRI LANKA’S EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM DOES NOT
TRESPASS INTO THE 200 M EEZ ENTITLEMENTS OF NEIGHBORING STATES
Figure R-4.9
104
FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, SPAIN, & IRELAND’S
EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM IN THE
CELTIC SEA & BAY OF BISCAY AREA
Figure R-4.10
105
Serrana Cay
Alburquerque Cays
North Cay
Tourist sail boats
Fringing Reef
South Cay
Figure R-5.1A
106
Roncador Cay
East-Southeast Cays
Middle Cay
Middle Cay’s Helipad and Radio Tower
East Cay
Military Installation
Figure R-5.1B
107
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Serranilla Cay
Light Tower
Lighthouse
Colombian Marine Infantry
Figure R-5.1C
108
San Andrés
San Andrés
Figure R-5.1D
109
Providencia
San Andrés
Figure R-5.1E
110
Figure R-5.2
QUITASUEÑO CAY
Landsat V Image
Prepared by: International Mapping
111
Golfo de
Venezuela
Lago de
Maracaibo
Lago
de
Nicaragua
Car ibbean
Sea
Punta Gallínas
Cabo de La Vela
Península
de la Guajira
Cabo San
Juan de Guía
Punta de la Garita
Punta Canoas
Punta de San Bernardo
Punta Broqueles
Punta Arboletes
Swan Islands
San Andrés I.
Los
Monjes
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Low Cay
Providencia I.
Roncador Cay
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Gorda I.
Serranilla Bajo Nuevo Cay
Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Pedro Bank
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
JAMAICA
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
HAITI
COLOMBIA
NICARAGUA
VENEZUELA
Carrizal
Manaure
Montego Bay
Maracaibo
Colón
Riohacha
Santa Marta Río Cañas
Ciénaga
Cartagena
Pasacaballos
Paso Nuevo
Arboletes
Zapata
Puerto
Colombia
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Barra de Río Grande
Dacura
Managua
San José
Panamá
Kingston
Port-au-Prince
15°N
10°N 10°N
15°N
80°W 75°W
80°W 75°W
85°W
200 M limit measured from
Colombia’s Islands 0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
200 M MARITIME ENTITLEMENTS
OF COLOMBIA’S ISLANDS
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 15°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-5.3
112
Punta de
Perlas
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Roca Tyra
Perlas Cays
Man of War
Cays
Santa Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Ned Thomas Cay
Muerta Cay
Edinburgh Reef
Miskitos Cays
Gorda
Bank
Middle
Bank
Low Cay
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
Laguna de
Bismuna
Puerto
Cabezas
Bluefields
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Marshall
Point
Monkey
Point
Dacura
Barra de Caratasca
83°W
83°W 82°W 81°W
16°N
14°N
13°N
12°N
14°N
13°N
12°N
15°N
12 M Territorial Sea
12 M Territorial Sea
Figure R-5.4
RELEVANT AREA BETWEEN THE SAN ANDRÉS
ARCHIPELAGO AND NICARAGUA
0 25 50 75
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 14°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources:
NGA nautical charts: 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130, 28140, 28150.
Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634,
supplemented with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
113
Laguna
de
Bismuna
Bahía de
San Juan
del Norte
Car ibbean
Sea
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Middle Bank
Bank
Punta
de
Perlas
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Cusapin
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Dacura
Barra de Caratasca
San José
Panamá
84°W 82°W 80°W
84°W 82°W 80°W
16°N
14°N
12°N
10°N
16°N
14°N
12°N
10°N
1 2
3 4
5
6
8 7
9
10
11
JOINT
REGIME
AREA
(Colombia / Jamaica)
2
1
Costa Rica
Panama
1928 / 1930 Treaty Line
I
J
K
M L
Colombia
Panama
A
B
Colombia
C.R.
1 2
3
4
5
6
Honduras
Colombia
Hon
Nic
2
1
12 M Territorial Sea
12 M Territorial Sea
Figure R-5.5
CENTRAL PORTION OF THE
WESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources:
NGA nautical charts: 24480, 24490, 26050, 26060, 26070, 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130, 28140, 28150.
Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634,
supplemented with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
114
13°E 15°E
13°E 15°E
35°N 35°N
33°N 33°N
Ras Zarruq
Delimara
Point
Benghisa
Point
Ras il-Wardija
Ras Tajura
Gozo I.
Linosa I.
Filfla I.
Lampedusa I.
(ITALY)
Mediterranean
Sea
LIBYA
MALTA
Tripoli
Al Khums
Equidistance Line
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11
MALTA
LIBYA
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
LIBYA - MALTA
ICJ CONTINENTAL SHELF
BOUNDARY JUDGMENT: 1985
Prepared by: International Mapping
0 20 40 60
0 40
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
80 120
Figure R-6.1
115
C B
D
L
J
K
I
GREENLAND
(DENMARK)
JAN MAYEN
(NORWAY)
Shannon I.
Kolbeinsey I.
ICELAND
Gre e n l a n d
Sea
Norwegian
Sea
Denmark Strait
S c o r e s b y S u n d
75°N
70°N
75°N
70°N
20°W 0°
20°W 10°W 0°
65°N
ZONE 3
ZONE 2
ZONE 1
DENMARK
NORWAY
H
A
E
F
M
G
N
O
Equidistance Line
0 50 100 150
0 100 200 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
GREENLAND / JAN MAYEN
ICJ CONTINENTAL SHELF
BOUNDARY JUDGMENT: 1993
200
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-6.2
116
11°N
Golfo de
los Mosquitos
Laguna
de
Bismuna
Car ibbean
Sea
COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
San Andrés I.
Great Corn I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Edinburgh
Reef
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Cusapin
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Dacura
San José
Panamá
82°W 80°W
84°W 82°W 81°W
80°W
81°W
83°W
16°N 16°N
14°N
13°N
15°N
12°N
14°N
15°N
12°N
11°N
13°N
10°N
9°N
The Median Line
12 M Territorial Sea
Little Corn I.
Miskitos
Cays
Ned Thomas
Cay
Muerto Cay
Roca
Tyra
THE MEDIAN LINE
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-6.3
Santa
Catalina I.
117
Car ibbean
Sea
COSTA RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Dacura
Barra de Caratasca
San José
Panamá
84°W 82°W 80°W
84°W 82°W 80°W
16°N
14°N
12°N
10°N
14°N
12°N
10°N
The Median Line (Nicaraguan mainland - Archipelago)
12 M Territorial Sea
The Median Line (Nicaraguan islands - Archipelago)
81°W
81°W
83°W
13°N
15°N
11°N
15°N
16°N
11°N
13°N
9°N
Figure R-6.4
THE MEDIAN LINE IF NICARAGUA’S
ISLANDS ARE IGNORED
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
118
Car ibbean
Sea
PACI F IC
OCEAN
San Andrés I.
Little
Corn I.
Great
Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
Roncador Cay
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Gorda I.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Pedro Bank
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
HONDURAS
PANAMA
COLOMBIA
NICARAGU A
COSTA
RICA
10°N
15°N 15°N
10°N
80°W
80°W
12 M Territorial Sea
24 M Contiguous Zone
Figure R-7.1
PROXIMITY OF THE ISLANDS
IN THE SAN ANDRÉS ARCHIPELAGO
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources: NGA nautical charts: 24460, 24470, 24480, 24490, 26050, 26060, 26070, 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130,
28140, 28150. Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634, supplemented
with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
119
Italian
Claims
Italian
Claims
13°E 15°E
13°E 15°E
35°N 35°N
33°N 33°N
Ras Zarruq
Delimara
Point
Benghisa
Point
Ras il-Wardija
Ras Tajura
Gozo I.
Linosa I.
Filfla I.
Lampedusa I.
(ITALY)
Mediterranean
Sea
LIBYA
MALTA
Tripoli
Al Khums
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11
MALTA
LIBYA
0 20 40 60
0 40
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
LIBYA - MALTA
ICJ JUDGMENT: 1985
80 120
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.2
120
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Q R
S
K
P
L O
M
N
FRANCE
CANADA
FRENCH CORRIDOR
Great
Miquelon
Brunet I.
Langade I.
Burin Peninsula
Avalon
Peninsula
Placentia Bay
Hermitage Bay
St.
Marys
Bay
Fortune Bay
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Newfoundland
St. Pierre
Miquelon
(CANADA)
(FRANCE)
(FRANCE)
54°W
56°W 54°W
58°W
58°W
46°N 46°N
44°N 44°N
0 25 50
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
CANADA - FRANCE
ARBITRATION AWARD: 1992
75
Prepared by: International Mapping
B
A
C
D
E
F
G
H
I J
Q
R
S 1
9
P
K
O
L
M N
FRANCE
CANADA
Cape Race
Cape Canso
Cape
Breton
Island
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Cabot Strait
Gulf of
St. Lawrence
St. Pierre
and Miquelon
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
(CANADA)
(FRANCE)
(CANADA)
47°N
45°N
47°N
59°W 56°W 53°W
59°W 56°W 53°W
Relevant Area
Relevant Coasts
0 25 50 100
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
CANADA - FRANCE
ARBITRATION AWARD: 1992
75
200
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.3
121
19
18
17 16
15 14
13
12
11
10
9
8 7
6
5 4
3 2
1
T
INDIA
MALDIVES
Quilon
Laccadive I.
Minicoy I.
Addu Atoll
Suvadiva Atoll
Haddummati Atoll
Male Atoll
Fadiffolu Atoll
Miladummadulu
Atoll
Tiladummati
Atoll
Ihavandiffulu Atoll
Suheli Par I.
Enciam I.
Kota I.
Adunda I.
Cape
Comorin
Chagos-Laccadive Plateau
One and Half Degree Channel
Eight Degree Channel
Gulf of
Mannar
Nine Degree Channel
INDIAN
OCEAN
INDIA
MALDIVES
SRI LANKA
80°E
80°E
70°E
70°E
10°N 10°N
0° 0°
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
INDIA - MALDIVES
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT: 1978
Prepared by: International Mapping
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
200 250
0 100 200 300
Kilometers
400 500
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R10
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R19
R20
R21 R22
R8
R9
R11
R18 FRANCE
AUSTRALIA
Lord Howe I.
Middleton Reef
Norfolk I.
Walpole I.
(FRANCE)
Matthew I. Hunter I.
New Caledonia
(FRANCE)
(AUSTRALIA)
(AUSTRALIA)
(AUSTRALIA)
Coral Sea
PACIFIC
OCEAN
AUSTRALIA
VANUATU
150°E 160°E 170°E
150°E 160°E 170°E
20°S
30°S
20°S
30°S
(Both claimed by
France and Vanuatu)
0 50 100 150
0 100 200 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
AUSTRALIA - FRANCE
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT:
1983
200
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.5
Figure R-7.4
122
95°E 100°E
95°E 100°E
10°N 10°N
5°N
Andaman
Sea
INDIAN
OCEAN
Chowra I.
Pulau Rondo
Little Nicobar I.
Car Nicobar I.
Great Nicobar I.
Kabra I.
Tillanchong I.
Isle of Man
Bompoka I.
Simlan I.
NICOBAR
ISLANDS
THAILAND (THAILAND)
(INDIA)
INDONESIA
BURMA
MALAYSIA
THAILAND
INDIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
INDIA - THAILAND
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT:
1978
Prepared by: International Mapping
0 25 50 75
Nautical Miles
100 125 150
0 50 100 150
Kilometers
200 250 300
2°E 4°E 6°E 8°E
2°E 6°E 8°E 10°E 12°E
10°E 12°E
0°
2°N
4°N
6°N
0°
2°N
4°N
6°N
Equator
1
4
5
6
7
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
5
4
3
2
1
Calabar R.
Príncipe
São Tomé
Annobón
Bioko
Bight
of
Benin
Gulf
of
Guinea
Bonny
Lagos
São Tomé
Malabo
SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE
SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE
GABON
NIGERIA
SÃO TOMÉ
&
PRÍNCIPE
EQUATORIAL
GUINEA
GABON
CAMEROON
(EQUATORIAL
GUINEA)
(EQUATORIAL
GUINEA)
0 50 100 150
0 100 200 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE
BOUNDARY AGREEMENTS /
EQUATORIAL GUINEA: 1999
GABON: 2001
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.7
Figure R-7.6
123
Great
Inagua
Island
(BAHAMAS)
TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS (U.K.) Caicos Islands
Grand Turk Island
Turks Islands
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
HAITI
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
1 2
3
5
4
19°N
73°W 72°W 71°W 70°W 69°W 68°W 67°W
73°W 72°W 71°W 70°W 69°W 68°W 67°W
20°N
21°N
22°N
23°N
19°N
20°N
21°N
22°N
23°N
UNITED KINGDOM
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - UNITED KINGDOM
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT: 1996
Prepared by: International Mapping
0 25 50 75
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
100
200 250
MAURITANIA
SENEGAL
THE
GAMBIA
CAPE VERDE
Santo Antão
São Vicente
Sal
Boa Vista
Cap
Vert
Maio
Santiago
Fogo
Brava
Santa Luzia
São Nicolau
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
X
Y
Z
CAPE VERDE
SENEGAL
CAPE VERDE
MAURITANIA
16°N
18°N
20°N
14°N
16°N
18°N
14°N
26°W 24°W 22°W 20°W 18°W 16°W
26°W 24°W 22°W 20°W 18°W 16°W
Equidistance Line
0 50 100 150
0 100 200 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
CAPE VERDE - MAURITANIA: 2003
CAPE VERDE - SENEGAL: 1993
BOUNDARY AGREEMENTS
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.9
Figure R-7.8
124
1
C.P.
1
2
2
3
3
4
9
10
8
7
6
5
4
5
6 7
8
Malacca
Port Dickson
Strait of Malacca
South
C h i n a
Sea
MALAYSIA
INDONESIA
“Gray Area”
S u m a t r a
Pulau
Rupat
Pulau
Perak
Pulau
Pinang
Pulau
Pangkur
Pulau-Pulau
Aruah
Pulau
Jarak
MALAYSIA
INDONESIA
SINGAPORE
104°E
104°E
102°E
98°E 100°E 102°E
4°N 4°N
2°N 2°N
Continental shelf boundary
Territorial sea boundary
0 25 50 75
0 50 100 150
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
WGS-84 Datum
INDONESIA - MALAYSIA
(Strait of Malacca Area)
CONTINENTAL SHELF AGREEMENT:
1969
Prepared by: International Mapping
Figure R-7.10
125
Car ibbean
Sea
PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
COSTA
RICA
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh Reef
Ned Thomas
Cay
Low
Cay
Muerto Cay
Roca
Tyra
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Middle Bank
Bank
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Dacura
San José
Panamá
80°W
84°W 83°W 82°W
82°W 81°W
81°W 80°W
16°N
14°N
13°N
15°N
12°N
11°N
14°N
15°N
16°N
12°N
13°N
10°N
9°N
11°N
The Median Line
82° W
12 M Territorial Sea
Figure R-8.1
COMPARISON OF THE MEDIAN
LINE TO 82° W LONGITUDE
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
126
Car ibbean
Sea
PACI F IC
OCEAN
San Andrés I.
Little
Corn I.
Great
Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
Roncador Cay
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Gorda I.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Pedro Bank
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Bank
Middle
Bank
HONDURAS
PANAMA
COLOMBIA
NICARAGU A
COSTA
RICA
10°N
15°N 15°N
10°N
80°W
80°W
12 M Territorial Sea
9
3
2
1
Jamaica
Colombia
JOINT
REGIME
AREA
(Colombia / Jamaica)
1 2
3 4
5
6
10 8 7
11
2
1
Costa Rica
Panama
1928 / 1930 Treaty Line
E
D
A
B
C
F
G
I H
J
K
M L
Colombia
Panama
Colombia
Panama
A
B
Colombia
C.R.
1
A
B C
E
D
F
2
3
4
5
6
Honduras
Colombia
Hon
Nic
C2
C1
C6
C4
C3
C5
N3
N4
N1
N2
N5
Area of Naval Interdictions
Figure R-8.2
COLOMBIAN AND NICARAGUAN
NAVAL INTERDICTIONS
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Legend:
Colombian interdictions Nicaraguan interdictions
Prepared by: International Mapping
Coastal information sources: NGA nautical charts: 24460, 24470, 24480, 24490, 26050, 26060, 26070, 28050, 28110, 28120, 28130,
28140, 28150. Colombian nautical charts: 044, 045, 046, 201, 203, 204, 208, 211, 213, 215, 218, 416, 630, 631, 634, supplemented
with information collected by the Colombian Navy in 2008.
C1 N1
127
24 M Contiguous Zone COSTA
RICA
PANAMA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
San Andrés I.
Little Corn I.
Great Corn I.
Santa
Catalina I.
Quitasueño
Cay
Providencia I.
East Southeast Cays
Alburquerque Cays
Serrana Cay
Roncador Cay
Gorda I.
Cocorocuma Is.
Cajones Is.
Bajo Nuevo
Cay
Alicia
Bank
Serranilla Cay
Miskitos
Cays
Edinburgh
Reef
Gorda
Bank
Rosalind
Middle Bank
Bank
Portobelo
Colón
La Ensenada
Calovébora
Cusapin
Puerto Cabezas
Bluefields
San Juan
del Norte
Prinzapolka
Wouhnta
Barra de
Río Grande
Monkey
Point
Puerto Limón
Parismina
Dacura
Barra de Caratasca
San José
Panamá
84°W 83°W 82°W 81°W
84°W 83°W 82°W 81°W 80°W 79°W
16°N
14°N
15°N
12°N
13°N
10°N
9°N
11°N
16°N
14°N
12°N
11°N
13°N
15°N
1 2
3 4
5
6
8 7
9
10
11
JOINT
REGIME
AREA
(Colombia / Jamaica)
2
1
Costa Rica
Panama
I
J
K
M L
Colombia
Panama
A
B
Colombia
C.R.
1
A
B C
E
D
F
2
3
4
5
6
Honduras
Colombia
Hon
Nic
2
1
Jamaica
Colombia
The Median Line
COLOMBIA’S MEDIAN LINE
PROPOSAL
0 25 50 75 100
0 50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Kilometers
Mercator Projection
Datum: WGS-84
(Scale accurate at 12°N)
Prepared by: International Mapping
12 M Territorial Sea
Figure R-8.3
Volume II Appendices, Annexes and Maps