Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that the Application for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica cannot be granted

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

2011/16 No.

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

The Court finds that the Application for permission to intervene filed
by Costa Rica cannot be granted

THE HAGUE, 4 May 2011. The International Co urt of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, toda y delivered its Judgment on whethe r to grant the Application for
permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica inthe case concerning the Territorial and Maritime

Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

In its Judgment, the Court

“By nine votes to seven,

Finds that the Application for permission to intervene in the proceedings filed
by the Republic of Costa Rica under Article62 of the Statute of the Court cannot be
granted.

IN FAVOUR : President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Keith,

Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Xue; Judgead hoc Cot;

AGAINST : Judges Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, CançadoTrindade, Yusuf,
Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Gaja.”

The Judgment of the Court was read by the Pr esident of the Court, Judge Hisashi Owada, at

a public sitting which took place at the Peace Palace in The Hague, where the Court has its seat. At
another public sitting, immediately following the de livery of this Judgment, the President of the
Court read another Judgment concerning the app lication for permission to intervene filed by
Honduras in the same case.

History of the proceedings

The history of the proceedings can be found in paragraphs 1 to 18 of the Judgment, which is
available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org). - 2 -

Reasoning of the Court

After a brief procedural history, the Court begins by recalling that Costa Rica sought to
intervene in the case as a non-party for the “purpose of informing the Court of the nature of [its]
legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime
boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. The Court

adds that, intervention being a pro cedure incidental to the main pro ceedings before the Court, it is,
according to the Statute and the Rules of Court, fo r the State seeking to intervene to set out the
interest of a legal nature which it considers may be affected by the decision in that dispute, the
precise object it is pursuing by means of the requ est, as well as any basis of jurisdiction which is

claimed to exist as between it and the parties. The Court then examines in turn these constituent
elements of the request for permission to interv ene, as well as the evidence in support of that
request.

I. EGAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERVENTION (paras. 21-51)

Firstly, the Court notes that the legal framework and conditions for intervention are provided

for under Article62 of the Statute and Article81 of the Rules of Court. The Court observes that
the State seeking to intervene shall set out its own interest of a legal nature which may be
affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings. The Court observes that, whereas
the parties to the main proceedings are asking it to recognize certain of their rights in the case at

hand, a State seeking to intervene is, by contrast, contending, on the basis of Article62 of the
Statute, that the decision on the merits could affect its interests of a legal nature. The State seeking
to intervene as a non-party therefore does not have to establish that one of its rights may be
affected; it is sufficient for that State to establish th at its interest of a legal nature may be affected.

The Court notes that the interest to be shown is not limited to the dispositif alone of a Judgment,
but may also relate to the reasons which constitute the necessary steps to the dispositif.

Secondly, the Court explains that the precise object of intervention certainly consists in

informing the Court of the interest of a legal na ture which may be affected by the decision of the
Court in the main proceedings, but also in contribut ing to the protection of that interest. The Court
goes on to stress that proceedings on interventi on are not an occasion for the State seeking to
intervene or for the Parties to discuss questions of substance relating to the main proceedings.

Thirdly, while reviewing the basis and extent of its jurisdiction , the Courtnotes that its
Statute does not require, as a condition for interven tion, the existence of a basis of jurisdiction
between the parties to the main proceedings and the State which is seeking to intervene as a

non-party.

Fourthly, the Court refers to the specific provision of the Rules of Courtguiding the
submission of evidence in support of a request to intervene. The Court recalls that, since the State

seeking to intervene bears the burden of proving th e interest of a legal nature which it considers
may be affected, it is for that State to decide which documents, including illustrations, are to be
attached to its application. The Court adds that , should it reject the application for permission to
intervene, it is however not prevented “from taking note of the information provided to it at this

stage of the proceedings”.

II. EXAMINATION OF C OSTA R ICA’S A PPLICATION (paras. 52-90)

The Court appended a sketch-map to its J udgment, which is reproduced herewith for
illustrative purposes only. - 3 -

The Court recalls that Costa Rica claims to have an interest of a legal nature in the exercise
of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction in maritime area in the Caribbean S ea to which it is entitled

under international law by virtue of its coast facing on that sea. The Court notes that, although
Nicaragua and Colombia differ in their assessment as to the limits of the area in which Costa Rica
may have a legal interest, they recognize the existe nce of Costa Rica’s interest of a legal nature in
at least some areas claimed by the Parties to the main proceedings. The Court observes that it is

not called upon to examine the exact geographical parameters of the ma ritime area in which
CostaRica considers it has an interest of a lega l nature, and that CostaRica has indicated the
maritime area in which it considers it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the
decision of the Court in the main proceedings. The Court notes that the indication of this maritime

area is however not sufficient in itself to gr ant CostaRica’s Application for permission to
intervene.

The Court then examines whether Costa Rica has established that the interest of a legal

nature which it has set out is also one which may be affected by the decision of the Court in the
main proceedings. It recalls that Costa Rica has c ontended that the area in which it has an interest
of a legal nature overlaps with the area in disput e between the Parties to the main proceedings, and
that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the decision on maritime delimitation in those proceedings

may affect its interest of a legal nature. The C ourt adds that Costa Rica has further contended that
the southern terminus of the boundary to be de limited in the main proceedings may affect its
interest of a legal nature inasmuch as that sout hern endpoint may be placed in its potential area of

interest.

The Court observes that, to succeed with its requ est for permission to intervene in the main
proceedings, Costa Rica must show that its interest of a legal nature needs a protection that is not
provided by Article59 of the Statute, which reads as follows: “The decision of the Court has no

binding force except between the parties and in resp ect of that particular case.” However, the
Court concludes that Costa Rica has not demonstrated that the interest of a legal nature which it has
asserted is one which may be affected by the deci sion in the main proceedings because the Court,

when drawing a line delimiting the maritime areas between the Parties to the main proceedings,
will, if necessary, end the line in question before it reaches an area in which the interests of a legal
nature of third States may become involved.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: PresidentOwada; Vice-PresidentTomka;
Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov,

Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue; Judges ad hoc Cot, Gaja; Registrar Couvreur.

JudgesAl-Khasawneh and Abraham appende d dissenting opinions to the Judgment
of the Court; Judge Keith appended a decl aration to the Judgment of the Court;

Judges Cançado Trindade and Yusuf appended a joint dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the
Court; JudgeDonoghue appended a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge ad hoc Gaja appended a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.

Annex: sketch-map

___________

A summary of the Judgment is published in the document entitled “Summary No.2011/3”,
to which summaries of the declarations and opinions attached to the Judgment are annexed. - 4 -

The present Press Release, the summary and the fu ll text of the Judgment also appear on the
Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org) under “Cases”.

___________

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) COLOMBIA

auga
raci
N y
bde yl
mil pe
c yr Rst i
adnu i
obe
Areaccording to Costa Ricaof a legal nature which mayicoastdican(aotain force)en iti
ra
M

purposes only,

CARIBBEAN SEA

PANAMA
WGS 84

aibm red
lo C yb de nij e Rstii
ial y radn
Mercator Projection (15°N) uob e iti a
M
A

IC
on the basis of a map presented by Costa Rica
R
A
T
an interest of a legal nature which S
This sketch-map has been prepared for illustrative O
C
Area in which Costa Rica claims to have decHONDURAS NICARAGUA