Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that the Application to intervene submitted by Honduras in the case 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

No. 2011/17
4 May 2011

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

The Court finds that the Application to intervene submitted by Honduras
in the case cannot be granted

THE HAGUE, 4 May 2011. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, today delivered its Judgment on whether it could grant the Application
for permission to intervene filed by Honduras in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime

Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

In its Judgment, the Court

“By thirteen votes to two,

Finds that the Application for permission to intervene in the proceedings, either
as a party or as a non-party, filed by the Republic of Honduras under Article 62 of the
Statute of the Court cannot be granted.

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

Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna,
Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue; Judgesad hoc Cot, Gaja;

AGAINST : Judges Abraham, Donoghue.”

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

a public sitting held at the Peace Palace, The Hague , following another public sitting, at which the
President had delivered the Judgment of the Court on whether it could grant another Application to
intervene, submitted by Costa Rica.

Procedural history

For the history of the proceedings, see paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Judgment delivered today by
the Court and available on its website (www.icj-cij.org), under “Cases”. - 2 -

The Court’s reasoning

After briefly setting out the history of the proceedings, the Court addresses the legal
framework of Honduras’s request to intervene.

I.L EGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERVENTION (paras. 20-48)

The Court first recalls that, in its Applicati on for permission to intervene of 10June2010,
Honduras made clear that it primarily sought to be permitted to intervene in the pending case as a
party, and if the Court did not accede to that request, it wished, in the alternative, to be permitted to

intervene as a non-party. The Court notes that, whatever the capacity in which a State is seeking to
intervene, it must demonstrate that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by
the decision of the Court in the main case, and must indicate the precise object of its intervention.

The Court states, secondly, that, in contrast to Article 63 of the Statute, Article 62 (on which
Honduras bases its request) does not give a third Stat e the right to intervene, and that it is not
sufficient for that State to consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by
the Court’s decision in the main procee dings in order to have, ipso facto , a right to intervene in

those proceedings. The Court adds that the interest of a legal nature 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.

Thirdly, the Court observes that the precise object of the intervention must be connected
with the subject of the main dispute between the Parties. The Court goes on to point out that the
written and oral proceedings concerning the applic ation for permission to intervene are not an

occasion for the State seeking to intervene, or fo r the Parties, to discuss questions of substance
relating to the main proceedings, and that a State requesting permission to intervene may not, under
the cover of intervention, seek to introduce a new case alongside the main proceedings. The Court
recalls that, while it is true that a State which has been permitted to intervene as a party may submit

claims of its own to the Court for decision, these have to be linked to the subject of the main
dispute.

II. EXAMINATION OF H ONDURAS ’S R EQUEST FOR PERMISSION

TO INTERVENE (paras. 49-75)

The Court then goes on to examine Honduras’s request for permission to intervene. The
area in which Honduras claims to have an interest of a legal nature to protect is shown in the

Judgment on an illustrative sketch-map, a copy of which is appended to this Press Release.

In specifying its interests of a legal na ture which may be affected, Honduras in its
Application states that the Maritime Delimitation Treaty signed in 1986 between itself and

Colombia (hereinafter “the 1986 Treaty”) recognizes that the area situated north of the 15th parallel
and east of the 82nd meridian involves certain of its legitimate rights and interests of a legal nature.
Honduras argues that, when the Court renders its decision in the principal proceedings, it must take
full account of those rights and interests, which, it maintains, were not addressed in the Judgment

rendered by the Court in 2007 in the case concer ning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between
Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras). Honduras is convinced
that without its participation as an intervening St ate the decision of the Court in the present case

between Nicaragua and Colombia may irreversibly affect its legal interests if the Court is
eventually to uphold certain claims put forward by Nicaragua. Honduras further argues that the
2007 Judgment did not settle the entire Caribbean Sea boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua,
since the Court did not fix the endpoint of its boundary with Nicaragua, nor did it explain that this

point would be located on the azimuth of the bisector line marking the boundary. - 3 -

The Court recalls that Nicaragua and Colombia, the Parties to the main proceedings, hold
different positions in relation to Honduras’s requ est. Nicaragua is definitely opposed to the

Application by Honduras, either as a party or a non-party. In particular, it considers that
Honduras’s request fails to identify any interest of a legal nature that may be affected, as required
by Article62 of the Statute, and that it challenges the res judicata of the 2007Judgment.
Colombia, on the other hand, is of the view that Honduras has satisfied the test to intervene as a

non-party in the case under Article 62 of the Statute; moreover, it raises no objection to the request
of Honduras to intervene as a party.

At this point in its reasoning, the Court examines (paras. 57-75) the interest of a legal nature

which Honduras claims that it is seeking to protect by its intervention.

Honduras indicates that the zone containing its inte rest of a legal nature that may be affected
lies within a roughly rectangular area whose south and east lines are identical with the boundary in

the 1986 Treaty (see sketch-map). The Court observes that Honduras, in order to demonstrate that
it has an interest of legal nature in the present case, contends that it can assert rights relating to oil
concessions, naval patrols and fishing activities in that area. In its arguments, Honduras raises a
number of issues which, in the Court’s view, directly put into question the 2007Judgment, in

which the maritime boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua was delimited.

The Court considers that Honduras’s interest of a legal nature relates basically to two issues:
whether the 2007Judgment has settled the entire maritime boundary between Honduras and

Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea and what effect, if any, the decision of the Court in the main
proceedings between Nicaragua and Colombia w ill have on the rights that Honduras enjoys under
the 1986 Treaty.

On the first issue , the Court recalls that it has already drawn the definitive maritime
boundary line between Nicaragua and Honduras in its 2007Judgment. On the attached
sketch-map, the relevant part of that line is shown by a broken red bisector line traversing the
(blue) rectangular area in which H onduras claims to have an interest of a legal nature to protect.

The Court emphasizes that its 2007 decision on the maritime boundary in the Caribbean Sea
between Honduras and Nicaragua is a final one under the res judicata principle. The Court further
observes that Honduras does not suggest that there still exists an unresolved dispute, or evidence
that would prove that the bisector line is not th e complete and final maritime boundary between

Honduras and Nicaragua; even if it had done so in the present proceedings, the matter would not
have fallen under Article62 of the Statute with respect to intervention, but under Article61
concerning revision. Since Honduras’s claims are primarily based on the ground that the reasoning

set out in paragraphs306-319 of the 2007Judgment does not have the force of resjudicata , the
Court continues its reasoning by addressing this point (paras. 66-70 of the Judgment). In order to
do so, it considers Honduras’s request in the specific context of the case.

The Court notes that it is a well-established a nd generally recognized principle of law that a

judgment rendered by a judicial body has binding force between the parties to the dispute. The
Court observes that the rights of Honduras over th e area north of the bisector line have not been
contested either by Nicaragua or by Colombia, and the Court accordingly concludes that in that

area there cannot be an interest of a legal na ture of Honduras which may be affected by the
decision of the Court in the main proceedings. In order to assess whether Honduras has an interest
of a legal nature in the area south of the bisector line, the essential issue for the Court to ascertain is
to what extent the 2007Judgment has determin ed the course of the single maritime boundary

between the areas of territorial sea, continental sh elf, and exclusive economic zone appertaining
respectively to Nicaragua and Honduras. The Court is of the view that the course of the bisector
line as determined in point(3) of the operative clause of its 2007Judgment (paragraph321) is
clear. In point(3) of that operative clause, wh ich indisputably has the force of resjudicata , the

Court stated that “[f]rom pointF, [the boundary ] shall continue along the line having the azimuth
of 70°14'41.25" until it reaches the area where the rights of third States may be affected”. The - 4 -

Court observes that the reasoning contained in paragraphs306-319 of the 2007Judgment, which
was an essential step leading to the dispositif of that Judgment, is also unequivocal on this point.

The Court made a clear determination in these paragraphs that the bisector line would extend
beyond the 82nd meridian until it reached the area where the rights of a third State may be affected,
and that, until the rights of such third State were ascertained, the endpoint of the bisector line
would be left open. Without such reasoning, it might be difficult to understand why the Court did

not fix an endpoint in its decision. With this r easoning, concludes the Court, the decision made by
it in its 2007 Judgment left no room for any alternative interpretation.

The second issue raised by Honduras in support of its request to intervene concerns the

possible effects of the decision of the Court in the main proceedings on its rights under the bilateral
treaty of 1986 between Honduras and Colombia. On that point, the Court explains that a bilateral
treaty neither confers any rights upon a third State (in the present case, Nicaragua), nor imposes
any duties on it. The Court accordingly concludes that it will place no reliance on that treaty in

determining the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia.

The Court concludes its Judgment by finding that Honduras has failed to satisfy the Court
that it has an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the decision of the Court in the main

proceedings, and that there is accordingly no need for the Court to consider any further questions
that have been put before it in the present proceedings.

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.

JudgeAl-Khasawneh appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; JudgeAbraham
appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of th e Court; Judge Keith appends a declaration to

the Judgment of the Court; Judges Cançado Trinda de and Yusuf append a joint declaration to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge Donoghue appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the
Court.

Annex: sketch-map

___________

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document entitled: “Summary No.2011/4”, to
which are appended summaries of Judges’ Declarations and Opinions. This press release, the

summary of the Judgment and its full text are available 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) (see

, p. 761, sketch-map No. 7) COLOMBIA

aug
arac
iN y
Territorial and Maritime Dispute bde yl
ial pe
cyr Rst i
adnu ni
ob e
Areof a legal in ionbetCaribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)ombiay mii
ra M

purposes only,

CARIBBEAN SEA

PANAMA
WGS 84

aib m lo rednioje
C yb de ial c sitni
yradn uobe
Mercator ProjectioPoint F) mii a M

A
IC
R
on the basis of a map presented by Honduras
A
T
an interest of a legal nature which S
This sketch-map has been prepared for illustrative O
C
Area in wmay be affected by the Court’s decHONDURAS NICARAGUA