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 Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2023/40
14 July 2023
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) Request for the modification of the Court’s Order indicating a provisional measure

6 JULY 2023
ORDER
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (ARMENIA v. AZERBAIJAN)
___________
APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L’ÉLIMINATION DE TOUTES LES FORMES DE DISCRIMINATION RACIALE (ARMÉNIE c. AZERBAÏDJAN)
6 JUILLET 2023
ORDONNANCE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2023
2023
6 July
General List
No. 180
6 July 2023
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(ARMENIA v. AZERBAIJAN)

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 Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2023/39
13 July 2023
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) The Court delivers its Judgment in the case

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 Twitter Account YouTube LinkedIn
Summary
Unofficial
Summary 2023/5
13 July 2023
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
The Court recalls that, in its Application of 16 September 2013, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Colombia with regard to a dispute concerning

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SKOTNIKOV
Procedural issues
1. The range of procedural deficiencies and abnormalities in and of itself calls into question the credibility of any substantive findings of the Court, whatever they might be.
2. The Court does not deal with the present case as envisioned in its Statute (see Article 38, paragraph 1; Article 43, paragraphs 1 and 5; and Article 54, paragraph 1) and its Rules (see Article 31; Article 49, paragraph 4; Article 58, paragraph 1; Article 60, paragraph 1; and Article 61).

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Explanation of the negative vote  Distinction between maritime entitlements and maritime delimitation  Factors pertinent for the determination of maritime entitlements  The first question as a question of maritime entitlement.
Interpretation of customary international law  Methodological approach.
Extended continental shelf  Interpretation of UNCLOS.
Relationship between exclusive economic zone and continental shelf  The Court’s Judgment in Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)  Bay of Bengal cases.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NOLTE
1. I wish to explain why I voted against the Court’s rejection of Nicaragua’s third submission (I) and to make a remark regarding the reasoning which underlies the Court’s decisions on Nicaragua’s first and second submissions (II).
I. Nicaragua’s third submission

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Notion of a “single continental shelf” — Statement by the Court concerning single continental shelf — Unnecessary to include statement.
1. I agree with the Court’s Judgment and its reasoning. In particular, I agree with the Court’s conclusion that “under customary international law, a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may not extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State” (Judgment, para. 79).