Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that Colombia has sovereignty over the maritime features in dispute and draws a single maritime boundary

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

2012/33 No.

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

The Court finds that Colombia has sovereignty over the maritime features

in dispute and draws a single maritime boundary

THE HAGUE, 19November2012. The Internatio nal Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal

judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning the
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

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

(1) finds, unanimously, that the Republic of Colombia has sovereignty over the islands at
Alburquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East-Southeast Cays, Quitasueño, Roncador, Serrana and Serranilla;

(2) finds, by fourteen votes to one, admissible the Republic of Nicaragua’s claim contained
in its final submission I (3) requesting the Court to adjudge and declare that “[t]he appropriate form

of delimitation, within the geographical and lega l framework constituted by the mainland coasts of
Nicaragua and Colombia, is a continental shelf boundary dividing by equal parts the overlapping
entitlements to a continental shelf of both Parties”;

(3) finds, unanimously, that it cannot uphold th e Republic of Nicaragua’s claim contained in

its final submission I (3);

(4) decides, unanimously, that the line of the single maritime boundary delimiting the
continental shelf and the exclusive economic zon es of the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic
of Colombia shall follow geodetic lines connecting the points with co-ordinates:

Latitude north Longitude west

1. 13° 46' 35.7" 81° 29' 34.7"
2. 13° 31' 08.0" 81° 45' 59.4"

3. 13° 03' 15.8" 81° 46' 22.7"
4. 12° 50' 12.8" 81° 59' 22.6"
5. 12° 07' 28.8" 82° 07' 27.7"
6. 12° 00' 04.5" 81° 57' 57.8"

From point1, the maritime boundary line sh all continue due east along the parallel of
latitude (co-ordinates 13° 46' 35.7" N) until it reaches the 200-nautical-mile limit from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorialsea of Nicaragua is measured. From point6 - 2 -

(with co-ordinates 12° 00' 04.5" N and 81° 57' 57.8" W), located on a 12-nautical-mile envelope of
arcs around Alburquerque, the maritime boundary line shall continue along that envelope of arcs

until it reaches point 7 (with co-ordinates 12° 11' 53. 5" N and 81° 38' 16.6" W) which is located on
the parallel passing through the southernmost point on the 12-nautical-mile envelope of arcs around
East-Southeast Cays. The boundary line then follows that parallel until it reaches the southernmost
point of the 12-nautical-mile envelope of ar cs around East-Southeast Cays at point8 (with

co-ordinates 12°11'53.5"N and 81° 28'29.5"W) and continues along that envelope of arcs until
its most eastward point (point 9 with co-ordinates 12° 24' 09.3" N and 81° 14' 43.9" W). From that
point the boundary line follows the parallel of latitude (co-ordinates 12°24'09.3"N) until it
reaches the 200–nautical–mile limit from the baselin es from which the territorial sea of Nicaragua

is measured;

(5) decides, unanimously, that the single maritime boundary around Quitasueño and Serrana
shall follow, respectively, a 12-nautical-mile envelope of arcs measured from QS32 and from

low-tide elevations located within 12nauticalm iles from QS32, and a 12-nautical-mile envelope
of arcs measured from Serrana Cay and the other cays in its vicinity;

(6) rejects, unanimously, the Republic of Nicaragua’s claim cont ained in its final

submissions requesting the Court to declare that the Republic of Colombia is not acting in
accordance with its obligations under internationa l law by preventing the Republic of Nicaragua
from having access to natural resources to the east of the 82nd meridian.

___________

1. Sovereignty

The Court recalls that the dispute between th e Parties concerns sovereignty over maritime

features located in the Caribbean Sea, namely, the Alburquerque Cays, East-Southeast Cays,
Roncador, Serrana, Quitasueño, Se rranilla and Bajo Nuevo. All these remain above water at high
tide and thus, as islands, they are capable of appr opriation. However, as to Quitasueño, the Court
finds that it comprises only one tiny island, referred to as QS 32, and a number of low-tide

elevations (features which are above water at low tide but submerged at high tide).

The Court then notes that, under the terms of the 1928 Treaty concerning Territorial
Questions at Issue between Colombia and Nicar agua, Colombia has sovereignty not only over

SanAndrés, Providencia and SantaCatalina, but also over the other islands, islets and reefs
“forming part” of the San Andrés Archipelago. Thus , in order to determine sovereignty, the Court
must first ascertain what constitutes the San Andr és Archipelago. The Court, however, concludes
that neither the 1928 Treaty nor the historical reco rds is conclusive as to the composition of that

Archipelago.

The Court therefore proceeds to examine arguments and evidence which are not based on the
composition of the Archipelago under the 1928 Treaty. The Court finds that neither Nicaragua nor

Colombia has established that it had title to th e disputed maritime features by virtue of
utipossidetis juris (a principle according to which, upon independence, new States inherit
territories and boundaries of former colonial provinces), because nothing clearly indicates whether
these features were attributed to the colonial pr ovinces of Nicaragua or of Colombia. The Court

therefore turns to the question whether sovereignt y can be established on the basis of a State’s acts
manifesting a display of authority on a given territo ry (effectivités). The Court finds that for many
decades Colombia continuously and consistently acted à titre de souverain in respect of the
maritime features in dispute. This exercise of sovereign authority was public and there is no

evidence that it met with any protest from Nicaragua prior to 1969, when the dispute crystallized. - 3 -

Moreover, the evidence of Colombia’s acts of admi nistration with respect to the islands is in
contrast to the absence of any evidence of acts à titr e de souverain on the part of Nicaragua. The

facts thus provide very strong support for Colo mbia’s claim of sovere ignty over the maritime
features in dispute. The Court also notes that, while not being evidence of sovereignty,
Nicaragua’s conduct with regard to the maritime features in dispute, the practice of third States and
maps afford some support to Colombia’s claim.

The Court concludes that Colombia, and not Nicaragua, has sovereignty over the islands at
Alburquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East-Southeast Cays, Quitasueño, Roncador, Serrana and Serranilla.

2. Admissibility of Nicaragua’s claim for delimitation of a continental shelf extending beyond
200 nautical miles

The Court notes that in its Application and Memorial, Nicaragua requested the Court to

determine the “single maritime boundary” between the continental shelf areas and exclusive
economic zones appertaining respectively to Nicaragua and Colombia in the form of a median line
between themainland coasts of the two States. In its Reply and in its final submission I(3)

Nicaragua requested the Court to effect a contin ental shelf boundary dividing by equal parts the
overlapping entitlements of the Parties ⎯ extended continental shelf of Nicaragua beyond
200nauticalmiles and 200-nautical-mile continental shelf of Colombia. This is a new claim, but
this fact does not, in itself, render the claim inadmissible. This claim still concerns the delimitation

of the continental shelf, arises directly out of the Parties’ dispute and does not transform its
subject-matter. The Court concludes that the claim contained in final submission I(3) by
Nicaragua is admissible.

3. Consideration of Nicaragua’s claim for de limitation of a continental shelf extending
beyond 200 nautical miles

The Court observes that, in its recent jurisp rudence, it has stated that “any claim of
continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles [by a State party to the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)] must be in accordance with Article76 of UNCLOS and
reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of th e Continental Shelf”. Given the object and

purpose of UNCLOS, as stipulated in its Preamble, the fact that Colombia is not a party thereto
does not relieve Nicaragua of its obligations unde r Article 76. The Court notes that Nicaragua
submitted to the Commission only “Preliminary Info rmation” which, by its own admission, falls
short of meeting the requirements for the Commissi on to be able to make a recommendation. As

the Court was not presented with any further inform ation, it finds that, in the present proceedings,
Nicaragua has not established that it has a contin ental margin that extends far enough to overlap
with Colombia’s 200-nautical-mile entitlement to the continental shelf, measured from Colombia’s
mainland coast. The Court thus is not in a pos ition to delimit the boundary between an extended

continental shelf of Nicaragua and Colombia’s continental shelf. The Court concludes that
Nicaragua’s claim contained in its final submission I (3) cannot be upheld.

4. Maritime boundary

The Court notes that notwithstanding its decision regarding Nicaragua’s final
submissionI(3), it is still called upon to effect a delimitation between the overlapping maritime

entitlements of Colombia and Nicaragua within 200 nautical miles of the Nicaraguan coast.

The Court begins by determining what the relevant coasts of the Parties are, namely, those
coasts the projections of which overlap. For Nicara gua, the relevant coast is its whole coast with

the exception of the short stretch of coast near Punta de Perlas. For Colombia, the relevant coast is - 4 -

the entire coastline of its islands, except Quitasueño, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. The Court then
considers the extent of the relevant maritime ar ea in which the potential entitlements of the Parties

overlap. This area extends 200nautical miles ea stwards from the Nicaraguan coast. In the north
and south, the limits of the relevant area were determined in such a way so as not to encroach upon
any existing boundaries or interests of third States (see sketch-map No. 7: The relevant maritime
area as identified by the Court).

To effect the delimitation, the Court follows the three-stage methodology employed in its
case law.

First, the Court selects base points and constr ucts a provisional median line between the
Nicaraguan coast and the western coasts of the relevant Colombian islands, which are opposite to
the Nicaraguan coast (see sketch-map No. 8: Construction of the provisional median line).

Secondly, the Court examines the relevant circumstances which may require an adjustment
or shifting of the provisional median line to produce an equitable result. It notes that the substantial
disparity between the relevant Colombian coast and that of Nicaragua (1:8.2), as well as the need to
avoid any cut-off effect of the delimitation line vis- à-vis the Parties’ coastal projections, are such

circumstances. The Court further notes that, while legitimate security concerns will be borne in
mind in determining whether the provisional median line should be adjusted or shifted, the conduct
of the Parties, issues of access to natural resources and delimitations already effected in the area are
not relevant circumstances in the present case.

Having thus identified the relevant circumstan ces applicable in the present case, the Court
proceeds by way of shifting the provisional median line. In this context, the Court draws a
distinction between that part of the relevant ar ea which lies between the Nicaraguan mainland and

the western coasts of Alburquerque Cays, San A ndrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, where the
relationship is one of opposite coasts, and the part which lies to the east of those islands, where the
relationship is more complex. In the first we stern part of the relevant area, the relevant
circumstances call for the provisional median line to be shifted eastwards. For this purpose, the

base points located on the Nicaraguan and Colombia n islands, respectively, should have different
weights, namely, a weighting of one to each of th e Colombian base points and a weighting of three
to each of the Nicaraguan base points. The weighted line, constructed on this basis, has a curved
shape with a large number of turning points (see sk etch-map No. 9: Construction of the weighted

line). The Court therefore reduces the number of turning points and connects them by geodetic
lines (see sketch-map No. 10: The simplified weighted line).

The Court considers, however, that to extend that line further north and south would not lead

to an equitable result because it would still leave Co lombia with a significantly larger share of the
relevant area than that accorded to Nicaragua, not withstanding the fact that Nicaragua’s relevant
coast is more than eight times the length of Co lombia’s relevant coas t; and it would cut off
Nicaragua from the areas east of the principal Co lombian islands into which the Nicaraguan coast

projects.

The Court considers that an equitable result is achieved by continuing the boundary line
along the parallels of latitude to 200nautical m iles from the Nicaraguan coast . In the north, this

line follows the parallel passing through the norther nmost point of the 12-nautical-mile territorial
sea of Roncador. In the south, the maritime boundary will first follow the 12–nautical–mile
territorial sea of Alburquerque Cays and East-Southeast Cays and then, from the most eastward

point of the latter’s territorial sea, the paralle l of latitude. As Quitasueño and Serrana would
consequently be left on the Nicaraguan side of the boundary line, the line of the maritime boundary
around each of these features follows the 12-na utical-mile territorial sea around them (see
sketch-map No. 11: Course of the maritime boundary). - 5 -

Thirdly, the Court notes that the boundary linehas the effect of dividing the relevant area
between the Parties in a ratio of approximately 1:3.44 in Nicaragua’s favour, while the ratio of

relevant coasts is approximately 1:8.2. The ques tion therefore is whether, in the circumstances of
the present case, this disproportion is so great as to render theresult inequitable. The Court
concludes that, taking account of all the circum stances of the present case, the result achieved by

the maritime delimitation does not entail such a disproportionality as to create an inequitable result.

5. Nicaragua’s request for a declaration

In addition to its claims regarding a maritim e boundary, in its final submissions, Nicaragua
requested that the Court adjudge and declare that “Colombia is not acting in accordance with her
obligations under international law by stopping and otherwise hindering Nicaragua from accessing

and disposing of her natural resources to the east of the 82nd meridian”.

The Court observes that Nicaragua’s request for this declaration is made in the context of
proceedings regarding a maritime boundary which ha d not been settled prior to the decision of the

Court. The consequence of the Court’s Judgment is that the maritime boundary between Nicaragua
and Colombia throughout the relevant area has now b een delimited as between the Parties. In this
regard, the Court observes that the Judgment attribut es to Colombia part of the maritime spaces in
respect of which Nicaragua seeks a declaration re garding access to natural resources. In this

context, the Court considers that Nicaragua’s claim is unfounded.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor;
Judges Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotni kov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood,
Xue, Donoghue, Sebutinde; Judges ad hoc Mensah, Cot; Registrar Couvreur.

JOdge WADA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge BRAHAM
appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges K EITH and X UE append

declarations to the Judgment of the Court; Judge D ONOGHUE appends a separate opinion to the
Judgment of the Court; Judges ad hoc M ENSAH and C OT append declarations to the Judgment of
the Court.

*

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No.2012/5”. 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 the heading “Cases”.

___________

Note: The Court’s press releases do not constitute official documents.

___________ - 6 -

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Char ter in June1945 and began its activities in

April1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with in ternational law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,

second, to give advisory opinions on legal questi ons referred to it by duly authorized United
Nations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15judges elected for a
nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own international

secretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.

The ICJ, a court open only to States for cont entious proceedings, and to certain organs and
institutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with the
other ⎯ mostly criminal ⎯ judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as the

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yu goslavia (ICTY, an adhoc court created by the
Security Council), the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent international criminal
court, established by treaty, which does not bel ong to the United Nations system), the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon (STL, an independent judicial body composed of Lebanese and international

judges, which is not a United Nations tribunal an d does not form part of the Lebanese judicial
system), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA, an independent institution which assists in
the establishment of arbitral tribunals and fac ilitates their work, in acco rdance with the Hague
Convention of 1899).

___________

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) Annex to Press Release 2012/33

⎯ Sketch-map No. 7: The relevant maritime area as identified by the Court;

⎯ Sketch-map No. 8: Construction of the provisional median line;

⎯ Sketch-map No. 9: Construction of the weighted line;

⎯ Sketch-map No. 10: The simplified weighted line;

⎯ Sketch-map No. 11: Course of the maritime boundary. -89-

WGS 84 COLOMBIA

Sketch-map No. 7:
for illustrative purposes only.

This sketch-map has been prepared30' N)
as identified by the Court
The relevant maritime area

A IA
I B
A M
M LO
JA O
C
Bajo Nuevo

COLOMBIA

JOINTAREA
REGIME
Colombia / Jamaica

CARIBBEAN SEA PANAMA

Roncador

Serrana
Serranilla

East-Southeast Cays
A Quitasueño
S U
R G A
U R ProSanta Catalina ACI MA
D A San Andrés R NA
N I Cays ATS P
OH N COLOMBIA O
Alburquerque COSTA RICA C

Cays
Miskitos
Island
Island
Little CorGreat Corn

RICA

COSTA

HONDURAS NICARAGUA - 109 -

Outline of a bank

JOINT
SerranilREGIME

AREA
URAS Colombia / Jamaica
HONDRAUA
NIA

HONDURAS
Edinburgh
Reef

Muerto
Cay

Miskitos Quitasueño
Cays Serrana

Ned Thomas
Cay

Roncador

Roca Providencia/
NICARAGUA Tyra Santa Catalina

San Andrés
Little Corn East-Southeast Cays
Island

Great Corn
Alburquerque
Island Cays

CARIBBEAN

SEA

COLOMBIA
PANAMA
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA

IC Sketch-map No. 8:
ARMA
OS NA Construction of the
C P
provisional median line

COSTA RICA This sketch-map has been prepared
for illustrative purposes only.

Mercator Projection (12° 30' N)
WGS 84

PANAMA - 124 -

Outline of a bank

JOINT
SerranilREGIME
AREA

DURAA Colombia / Jamaica
HONARAU
NI

HONDURAS
Edinburgh
Reef

Muerto
Cay

Miskitos Quitasueño
Cays Serrana

Ned Thomas

Cay

Roncador

Providencia/
NICARAGUA Roca
Tyra Santa Catalina

Little Corn San Andrés
East-Southeast Cays
Island

Great Corn Alburquerque

Island Cays

CARIBBEAN

SEA

COLOMBIA
PANAMA
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA

IC Sketch-map No. 9:
TARMA
OS NA Construction of
C P
the weighted line

COSTA RICA This sketch-map has been prepared
for illustrative purposes only.

Mercator Projection (12° 30' N)
WGS 84

PANAMA - 125 -

Sketch-map No. 10:
0
The simplified
1
weighted line

This sketch-map has been prepared
for illustrative purposes only.

Mercator Projection (12° 30' N)2

WGS 84

Providencia/
Santa Catalina

3

4

San Andrés

East-Southeast

Cays

Alburquerque
Cays

5

Outline of a bank - 127 -

A I
I B
Outline of a beasntkablished (not in force)77of 1980
A L
J O
C

COLOMBIA
Bajo Nuevo CARIBBEAN SEA WGS 84

Course of the

A
JOIREGIME Sketch-map No. 11:e for illustrative purposes only.

Colombia / Jamaica B This sketch-map has been prepared30' N)

Roncador

Serrana

Serranilla

9

East-Southeast Cays
Quitasueño 8
A Providencia/
S U Santa Catalina 7
A G 1 A A
RU AR CI MA
D A Cays RA NAP
O I 2 3 San Andrés TS
H N OC
6 Alburquerque COCOSTA RICA
4
5

Cays
Miskitos

Island
Little Corn Island
Great Corn

COSTA RICA

NICARAGUA
HONDURAS