Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Republic of Honduras 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. 2010/18
16 June 2010

Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia)

The Republic of Honduras requests permission
to intervene in the proceedings

THE HAGUE, 16June2010. On 10June 2010, the Republic of Honduras filed in the
Registry an Application for permission to intervene in the case concerning the Territorial and
Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

In its Application for permission to intervene, Honduras asserts that Nicaragua is putting

forward maritime claims in its dispute with Colomb ia that lie in a zone of the Caribbean Sea in
which Honduras has rights and interests.

Honduras points out that part of the maritime boundary between Honduras’s and Nicaragua’s
respective territorial seas, continental shelves and exclusive economic zones was determined in the

Court’s Judgment of 8October2007 in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute
between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras). Honduras adds
that the Court refrained at that time from specifying an endpoint of the maritime boundary between
the two States in order to avoid implicating the rights of third States in the region.

Honduras further states that it concluded a maritime delimitation treaty in 1986 with
Colombia and contends that it holds rights under that treaty in the maritime zone north of the
15th parallel. Honduras thus asserts that it has “an ac tual, present, direct and concrete interest of a
legal nature in the delimitation of maritime areas in the zone to the north of the frontier line
deriving from the 1986 Treaty” and that any claim by Nicaragua in respect of this zone is liable to

affect Honduras’s rights and interests.

Honduras states that the object of its Appli cation for permission to intervene, based on
Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, is “to protect [its] rights . . . in the Caribbean Sea by all the

legal means available” and “to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights and interests of
Honduras which could be affected by the decisi on of the Court, taking account of the maritime
boundaries claimed by the parties in the case brought before the Court”.

Specifically, Honduras considers that the permission to intervene it is seeking from the Court

“is aimed at protecting [its] interests of a legnature by eliminating the existing uncertainty in
respect of the fixing of its maritime boundaries with Nicaragua in the maritime zone north of the
15thparallel that is the subject of [the pending] proceedings, with a view to enhancing legal
security for all States wishing to carry on their legitimate activities in the region”. Honduras states - 2 -

that its intervention “is confined exclusively to the maritime delimitation in the zone delineated by
the 1986 Treaty and excludes islands, cays and all other geographical features situated outside the

maritime areas at issue”.

Honduras primarily requests the Court to be pe rmitted to intervene in the proceedings as a
State party. To found the jurisdiction of the Court for this purpose as between itself, Nicaragua and

Colombia, Honduras relies on Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, signed
on 30 April 1948 and officially designated as the “Pact of Bogotá”. Should the Court accede to its
request to intervene as a party, Honduras indicates that, in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute
of the Court, it “would recognize the binding force of the decision that would be rendered”.

In the alternative, if the Court does not accede to its request to intervene as a State party,
Honduras requests the Court for permission “to intervene as a non-party”.

In accordance with Article83, paragraph1, of the Rules of Court, the Application of
Honduras was communicated forthwith to Nicaragua and Colombia. The President of the Court
has fixed 2 September 2010 as the time-limit for these two States to furnish written observations on
the Application. It will be for the Court to decide whether the Application for permission to

intervene should be granted. If objections are f iled to the Application, the Court will hear the
Parties and the Republic of Honduras before deciding, pursuant to Article84, paragraph2, of the
Rules of Court.

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 jurisdiction of the Court, Nicaragua relied in its Application on
Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to which bot h Nicaragua and Colombia are parties, as well as

the declarations made by both States recognizing th e jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory (the
“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 24September2003, the Court fixed 26January2004 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 1928Treaty 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 - 3 -

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.

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.

Honduras having asked to be furnished with the pleadings in the case, pursuant to Article 53,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Court gran ted its request after ascertaining the views of the
Parties, in accordance with that provision.

It is recalled that Costa Rica filed an App lication for permission to intervene in the same
case on 25 February 2010 (see Press Release No. 2010/4).

___________

The full text of the Application for permissi on to intervene of the Republic of Honduras will

be available shortly 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)