Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) - The Court finds that Honduras has sovereignty over Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay

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. 2007/23
8 October 2007

Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras)

The Court finds that Honduras has sovereignty over Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay,

Port Royal Cay and South Cay and draws a single maritime boundary between
Nicaragua and Honduras

THE HAGUE, 8 October 2007. The Internationa l Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning Territorial and
Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras).

In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court

⎯ finds unanimously that Honduras has sovereignty over BobeC l ay, SavanCay,
Port Royal Cay and South Cay;

⎯ decides by fifteen votes to two that the starting-point of the single maritime boundary that

divides the territorial sea, continental shelf a nd exclusive economic zones of the Republic of
Nicaragua and the Republic of Honduras shall be located at a point with the co-ordinates
15° 00' 52" N and 83° 05' 58" W;

⎯ decides by fourteen votes to three that, from th is starting-point, the delimitation line continues
along the bisector until it reaches the outer limit of the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of
Bobel Cay. It then traces this territorial sea round to the south until it reaches the median line
in the overlapping territorial seas of Bobel Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay (Honduras) and
EdinburghCay(Nicaragua). The delimitation lin e continues along this median line until it

reaches the territorial sea of SouthCay, which for the most part does not overlap with the
territorial sea of EdinburghCay. The line then traces the arc of the outer limit of the
12-nautical-mile territorial sea of South Cay round to the north until it again connects with the
bisector, whereafter the line continues along th at azimuth until it reaches the area where the

rights of certain third States may be affected;

⎯ finds by sixteen votes to one that the Parties must negotiate in good faith with a view to
agreeing on the course of the delimitation line ofthat portion of the territorial sea located
between the endpoint of the land boundary as est ablished by the 1906 Arbitral Award and the

starting-point of the single maritime boundary as determined by the Court. - 2 -

Reasoning of the Court

The Court begins by stating the subject-matter of the dispute. It notes that Nicaragua asked
it to determine the course of the single maritime boundary between the areas of territorial sea,
continental shelf and exclusive economic zone appertaining respectively to Nicaragua and
Honduras in the Caribbean Sea. Nicaragua mainta ins that this maritime boundary has never been

delimited. Honduras contends that there already exists in the Caribbean Sea a traditionally
recognized boundary, along the 15thparallel, be tween the maritime spaces of Honduras and
Nicaragua, having its origin in the principle of uti possidetis juris (pursuant to which boundaries
inherited upon decolonization must be respected ). Honduras asks the Court to confirm this

maritime boundary. The Court further notes that during the oral proceedings Nicaragua made a
specific request that the Court pronounce on sovereignty over islands located in the disputed area to
the north of the 15th parallel. Although this clai m is formally a new one, the Court considers it to
be admissible because it is inherent in the original claim. During the oral proceedings Honduras

also asked the Court to find that sovereignty ove r the islands north of the 15thparallel lay with
Honduras.

The Court turns to the legal nature of the maritime features in the disputed area. It notes that

Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay remain above water at high tide and that
they thus fall within the definition of isla nds under Article121 of the 1982United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Not having received sufficient information as to the other
maritime features, the Court states that it can pronounce only upon the four islands named above.

In respect of sovereignty over the four islands , the Court points out that the principle of
uti possidetis juris definitely applies to the territorial delimitation between Nicaragua and
Honduras, both former Spanish colonial provinces, and may also apply to offshore possessions and

maritime spaces. It must however be shown in the present case that the Spanish Crown had
allocated the disputed islands to one or the other of its colonial provinces. As the Parties have
neither provided evidence clearly showing whether the islands were attributed to the colonial
provinces of Nicaragua or of Honduras prior to or upon independence nor persuaded the Court of

the existence of colonial effectivités (defined as the conduct of th e administrative authorities as
proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period), the
Court concludes that it has not been established that either Honduras or Nicaragua had title to these

islands by virtue of uti possidetis.

The Court next seeks to identif y any post-colonial effectivités . After considering the
evidence put forward by the Parties, the Court observes that several effectivités invoked by

Honduras “constitute a modest but real display of authority over the four islands”. Thus, Honduras
has shown that in the islands it has applied and enforced its criminal law and civil law, has
regulated immigration, fisheries activities and build ing activity and has exer cised its authority in
respect of public works. The Court accordingly concludes that Honduras has sovereignty over the

islands of Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay.

As for the delimitation of the maritime areas between the two States, the Court finds that no
boundary exists along the 15th parallel on the basis of either uti possidetis juris or a tacit agreement

between the Parties. The Court must therefore itself draw the boundary.

The Court observes that, given the geographical configuration of Cape Gracias a Dios (a
sharply convex territorial projection abutting a concave coastline on either side and the point where

the two States’ coastal fronts meet) and the unstabl e nature of the mouth of the RiverCoco (the
endpoint of the land boundary), it is impossible for the Court to apply the equidistance method,
even for the delimitation of the territorial sea. It accordingly decides to use a bisector, that is to say
the line formed by bisecting the angle created by the linear approximations of coastlines. For use - 3 -

in drawing the bisector, the Court identifies the Honduran coastal front from CapeGraciasaDios
to PuntaPatuca and the Nicaraguan coastal front from CapeGraciasaDios to Wouhnta as the

relevant coasts. The resulting bisector line has an azimuth of 70° 14' 41.25".

Having accorded a 12-mile breadth of territo rial sea to the islands of BobelCay,
Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay (Honduras), the Court takes this into account and

adjusts the course of its line by drawing a median line to resolve the issue of overlap between the
territorial seas of these islands and that of the island of Edinburgh Cay (Nicaragua).

In specifying the starting-point of the ma ritime boundary between Nicaragua and Honduras,

the Court, taking account of the continuing eastward accretion of Cape Gracias a Dios as a result of
alluvial deposits by the RiverCoco, decides to fix the point on the bisector described above at a
distance of 3nautical miles out to sea from the point which a mixed demarcation commission in
1962 then identified as the endpoint of the land boundary in the mouth of the River Coco.

As the exact site of the mouth remains uncerta in, the Court instructs the Parties to negotiate
in good faith with a view to agreeing on the course of a line between the present endpoint of the
land boundary and the starting-point of the maritime boundary now determined by the Court.

In respect of the endpoint of the maritime boundary, the Court states that the line which it
has drawn continues until it reaches the area wher e the rights of certain third States may be
affected.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh;

JudgesRanjeva, Shi, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Bu ergenthal, Owada, Simma , Tomka, Abraham,
Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Be nnouna, Skotnikov; Judges ad hoc Torres Bernárdez, Gaja;
Registrar Couvreur.

Judges Ranjeva and Koroma have appended their separate opinions to the Judgment of the

Court; JudgeParra-Aranguren has appended a decl aration to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge ad hocTorres Bernárdez has appended a dissenting opi nion to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge ad hoc Gaja has appended a declaration.

___________

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No.2007/4”, to which
summaries of the declarations and opinions are a nnexed. In addition, this press release, the
summary and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org)
under “Press Room” and “Cases”.

___________

Information Department:

Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)

Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Assistant Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)