Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Proceedings on whether to grant Costa Rica's application for permission to intervene and Honduras's application for permission to intervene -

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. 2010/32
28 September 2010

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Proceedings on whether to grant Costa Rica’s application for permission to intervene
and Honduras’s application for permission to intervene

The Court to hold public hearings from 11 to 22 October 2010

THE HAGUE, 28September2010. The Interna tional Court of Justice(ICJ), the principal

judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold two separate sets of public hearings in October 2010
at the Peace Palace, the seat of the Court, the fi rst on whether to grant Costa Rica’s application for
permission to intervene and the second on whether to grant Honduras’s application for permission
to intervene in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

The hearings on the application of the Government of Costa Rica will open on Monday

11 October 2010.

The hearings on the application of the G overnment of Honduras will open on Monday
18 October 2010.

The detailed schedules for these separate hearings are as follows:

Oral proceedings on whether to grant Costa Rica’s application for permission to intervene

Monday 11 October 2010 10 a.m.-12 noon: First round of oral argument (Costa Rica)

Wednesday 13 October 2010 9.30 a.m.-1.30 p.m.: First round of oral argument
(Nicaragua; Colombia)

Thursday 14 October 2010 3 p.m.-4 p.m.: Second round of oral argument (Costa Rica)

Friday 15 October 2010 3 p.m.-5 p.m.: Second round of oral argument (Nicaragua;
Colombia) - 2 -

Oral proceedings on whether to grant Honduras’s application for permission to intervene

Monday 18 October 2010 10 a.m.-12 noon: First round of oral argument (Honduras)

Wednesday 2Octobe2r010 9.3a.m.-1.30p.m.: First round of oral argument
(Nicaragua; Colombia)

Thursday 21 October 2010 3 p.m.-4 p.m.: Second round of oral argument (Honduras)

Friday 22 October 2010 3 p.m.-5 p.m.: Second round of oral argument (Nicaragua;
Colombia)

History of the proceedings

On 6December2001, Nicaragua instituted proceedings 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 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, signed on 30 Apr il 1948 and officially
designated as the “Pact of Bogotá”, to which both 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 Ar ticle 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 the 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
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 18September2009 and 18June2010 as the respective

time-limits for the filing of those written pleadings. The Reply and the Rejoinder were filed within
the time-limits thus fixed.

Applications for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica and Honduras

Fe2bruar0, Costa Rica filed an application for permission to intervene in the case
(see Press Release No.2010/4). In its application, Costa Rica states that “[b]oth Nicaragua and
Colombia, in their boundary claims against each other, claim maritime area to which Costa Rica is

entitled”. The Costa Rican Government invokes Artic le 62 of the Statute of the Court as the basis
for its intervention, underlining thatCosta Rica does not seek to become a party to the case
between Nicaragua and Colombia.

In accordance with Article83 of the Rules of Court, a certified copy of the application for
permission to intervene was communicated forthwith to the Parties, which were invited to furnish
written observations within a time-limit fixed by the Court.

On 26May2010, within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose pursuant to
Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, Nicaragua and Colombia filed written observations
in the Registry on the application for permission to intervene submitted by Costa Rica.

In its written observations on Costa Rica’s app lication, Colombia stated that it had no
objection to the intervention of Costa Rica.

Nicaragua maintained in its written observati ons that this application for permission to

intervene failed to comply with the Statute and the Rules of Court.

On 10 June 2010, Honduras also filed in the Registry an application for permission to
intervene in the case (see Press Release No. 2010/18). In its application, it asserts that Nicaragua is
putting forward maritime claims in its dispute with Colombia that lie in a zone of the Caribbean

Sea in which Honduras itself has rights and interests.

Honduras requests the Court to be permitted to intervene in the pending proceedings
as a State party . To found the jurisdiction of the Court for this purpose as between itself,

Nicaragua and Colombia, Honduras relies on ArticleXXXI of the Pact of Bogotá. Should the
Court accede to its request to intervene as a pa rty, Honduras indicates that, in accordance with
Article59 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 of the Rules of Court, a certified copy of the application for

permission to intervene was communicated forthwith to the Parties, which were invited to furnish
written observations within a time-limit fixed by the Court.

On 2September2010, within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose pursuant to
Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, Nicaragua and Colombia filed written observations

in the Registry on the application for permission to intervene submitted by Honduras. - 4 -

In its written observations, Nicaragua requested that the Court dismiss the application of
Honduras, contending in particular that the applica tion was in fact simply an attempt to call into

question the Court’s Judgment of 8October2007 in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime
Dispute between Nicaragua and Hondur as in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and to
reopen matters which have been decided with the force of res judicata. In that Judgment, amongst
other things, the Court drew a single mariti me boundary between Nicaragua and Honduras (see

Press Release No. 2007/23).

In its written observations, Colombia stated that with respect to Honduras’s request to
intervene “as a party”, it “understands that this request raises issues relating to the Court’s

[8 October] 2007 Judgment in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case to which Colombia was not a party”.
Consequently, Colombia considers “that this request falls to the Court to decide under Article 62 of
the Statute, taking into account whether the object and purpose of the request relates to intervention
under Article62 in the main case between Nicaragua and Colombia or to another dispute not

directly at issue in the pending case”. Colombia further indicated that it had no objection to
Honduras’s intervention as a non-party.

Purpose of the two separate oral proceedings to be held in October 2010

Article84, paragraph1, of the Rules of Court states that the Court shall decide whether an
application for permission to intervene should be granted “as a matter of priority”.

Moreover, Nicaragua having filed objections in its written observations to both the
application of Costa Rica and the application of Honduras, the Court has fixed the schedule for
considering the said applications in accordance with Article 84, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
which stipulates that “[if], within the time-limit fixed under Article 83 of [the] Rules, an objection

is filed to an application for permission to interv ene,... the Court shall hear the State seeking to
intervene and the parties before deciding”.

___________

The full texts of the applications for permission to intervene of Costa Rica and Honduras are

available on the Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org).

*

N OTE TO THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

1. The public hearings will be held in the Gr eat Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace. Mobile
telephones are permitted in the courtr oom provided they are switched off . Any offending device
will be temporarily retained.

2. Media representatives are subject to an online accreditation procedure , details of
which can be found in the Media Advisory (2 010/f) attached to this Press Release. The
accreditation procedure will close at midnight on Thursday 7 October 2010. - 5 -

3. Individual visitors (with the exception of members of the Diplomatic Corps) and groups

are subject to an online admission procedure. They are kindly requested to fill out the relevant
form on the Court’s website (click on “Attending a Hearing”). The admission procedure will
close at midnight on Thursday 7 October 2010.

4. Verbatim records of the hearings will be published daily on the Court’s website, with
translations to follow as soon as practicable thereaft er. On the final day of the hearings, a Press
Release will be issued presenting the final submissions of the four States in question.

___________

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 Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)