Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Costa Rica requests permission to intervene in the proceedings

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2010/4
26 February 2010

Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Costa Rica requests permission to intervene in the proceedings

THE HAGUE, 26 February 2010. Costa Rica filed yesterday an Application for permission
to intervene in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

In its Application, Costa Ri ca states that “[b]oth Nicaragua and Colombia, in their boundary

claims against each other, claim maritime area to which Costa Rica is entitled”.

Costa Rica affirms that, in their submissions on the maritime boundary between them,

“the Parties have put forward arguments that demonstrate that the prolongation of their

maritime boundary will eventually run into ma ritime zones in which third States have
rights and interests. As Nicaragua’s adjacent neighbour to the south, Costa Rica is one
of those third States. It is evident that neither Party has properly informed the Court
of the nature or extent of third State interests in the area.”

Stating that this is the context in which comes before the Court, Costa Rica makes clear
that it has no intention of interven ing in those aspects of the proceed ings relating to the territorial
dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. According to the Application,

“it is only the maritime boundary aspect of the case with which Costa Rica is
concerned, and only that part of the maritime boundary that might affect Costa Rica’s

legal rights and interests. It is the purpo se of Costa Rica’s intervention to inform the
Court of Costa Rica’s legal rights and interests so that these may remain unaffected as
the Court delimits the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia, the
parties to the case before it. Costa Rica does not seek to become a party to the case.”

Costa Rica specifies the two-fold object of its intervention:

“ First, generally, to protect the legal righand interests of Costa Rica in the
Caribbean Sea by all legal means available . . .

Second, to inform the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and

interests that could be affected by the Court’s maritime delimitation decision in this
case.” - 2 -

Costa Rica invokes Article62 of the Statute of the Court as the basis for its intervention,
underlining that it does not seek to become a party to the case between Nicaragua and Colombia.

Costa Rica’s Application was immediately communicated to Nicaragua and Colombia, and
the Court has fixed 26 May 2010 as the time-limit for the filing of written observations by those
States. It will be for the Court to decide whet her the Application for permission to intervene will

be granted. Should an objection be raised to th e Application, the Court will hear the Parties and
Costa Rica before deciding.

History of the proceedings

On 6 December 2001, Nicaragua instituted pr oceedings against Colombia in respect of a
dispute concerning “a group of related legal issu es subsisting” between the two States “concerning
title to territory and maritime delimitation” in the western Caribbean.

As a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Nicaragua invoked in its Application Article XXXI of
the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (“Pact of Bogotá”), signed on 30 April 1948, to which
both Nicaragua and Colombia are parties, as well as the declarations of acceptance of the

compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by both States (“optional clause”).

By an Order of 26February2002, the C ourt fixed 28 April 2003 and 28 June 2004,
respectively, as the time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial

by Colombia. The Memorial was filed within the time-limit thus fixed.

On 21 July 2003, within the time-limit set by Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court,
Colombia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. It maintained that

Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá did not provid e a sufficient basis for th e Court to entertain the
case and stated its view that, in any event, th e dispute had already been settled and was ended.
Colombia added that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with Nicaragua’s Application under the
declarations of acceptance of the compulsory ju risdiction of the Court made by both States,

contending inter alia that, at the date of the filing of th e Application by Nicaragua, Colombia had
withdrawn its declaration.

By an Order of 24 September 2003, the Cour t fixed 26 January 2004 as the time-limit for

Nicaragua to present a written statement on the pr eliminary objections. The written statement was
filed within the time-limit thus fixed.

Public hearings on the preliminary objections were held between 4 and 8June2007. In its

Judgment of 13December2007, the Court found that the 1928 Treaty between Colombia and
Nicaragua had settled the matter of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and
Santa Catalina, that there was no extant legal dis pute between the Parties on that question, and that

the Court thus could not have jurisdiction over th e question either under the Pact of Bogotá or on
the basis of the optional clause declarations. Th e Court further found that it had jurisdiction, under
Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning sovereignty over the
other maritime features claimed by the Parti es and on the dispute concerning the maritime

delimitation between the Parties.

By an Order of 11February2008, the Cour t fixed 11November2008 as the time-limit for
the filing of Colombia’s Counter-Memorial on the merits of the case. The Counter-Memorial was

filed within the time-limit thus fixed. - 3 -

By an Order of 18December2008, the Court directed Nicaragua to submit a Reply and
Colombia to submit a Rejoinder and fixed 18 September2009 and 18June2010 as respective

time-limits for the filing of these written pleadings. The Reply was filed within the time-limit thus
fixed.

___________

Costa Rica’s Application for permission to inte rvene will shortly be available on the Court’s

website (http://www.icj-cij.org).

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Barbara Dalsbaek, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)