Case Brief #4

Laura Camila Cortés Valenzuela

Nature of the case Contentious judgment
Reference Alleged violations of sovereign rights and
maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Colombia). 
Institution International Court of Justice ICJ
Date 21 April 2022
Key words  Maritime boundary, international treaty,
territorial sea.

Facts

1. The Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Colombia, have a dispute regarding the
sovereignty of certain islands and the maritime delimitation that arise within the Caribbean Sea.
2. Colombia alleges that these territories were historically part of its territory.
3. In 1928 the Esguerra-Bárcenas Treaty was signed, but it did not fix the maritime limits between
Colombia and Nicaragua at the 82nd meridian as indicated by the Colombian government.
4. Nicaragua alleged the invalidity of the previous treaty, arguing that it was signed at a time when
the country was occupied by the United States.
5. Nicaragua pointed out that at that time the Law of the Sea did not exist, and therefore the rights
of maritime exclusivity currently recognized to the States were violated.
6. On December 6, 2001, Nicaragua initiated the process against Colombia before the International
Court of Justice.
7. On November 19, 2012, the judgment on the merits of the International Court of Justice was
announced, which established the maritime boundaries between Nicaragua and Colombia.

Legal Issues

Did Colombia violate Nicaragua's sovereignty rights by entering Nicaragua's exclusive

economic zone?
Do Nicaragua's straight baselines violate and obstruct Colombia's rights and jurisdiction
over the Caribbean Sea?

Rules of Law

 Articles 33, 56, 58 and 73 of the CONVEMAR

 Presidential Decree 1946 of Colombia
 Decree 33
Holding and Reasoning

 The Court considers that the evidence presented by Nicaragua is not sufficient against
Colombia with respect to the alleged facts presented since Nicaragua did not comply with
its evidentiary duty and therefore the Court dismissed the pleadings for lack of evidence.

 The Court considers that Colombia's legal arguments do not justify its conduct within
Nicaragua's exclusive economic zone. Colombia's conduct contravenes customary rules of
international law, as reflected in Articles 56, 58 and 73 of UNCLOS.

 The Court finds that Colombia violated the international obligation to respect Nicaragua's
sovereign rights and jurisdiction in Nicaragua's exclusive economic zone by interfering
with the fishing activities and marine scientific research of Nicaraguan flagged or licensed
vessels and with the operations of Nicaraguan Navy vessels.

 The Court finds that Colombia has breached its international obligation to respect the
sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Nicaragua in its exclusive economic zone:
o By interfering with the fishing and marine scientific research activities of
Nicaraguan flagged or licensed vessels and with the operations of Nicaraguan Navy
vessels in Nicaragua's exclusive economic zone.
o Enforcing conservation measures in Nicaragua's exclusive economic zone.
o Authorizing fishing activity in Nicaragua's exclusive economic zone.

 The Court considers that article 33 of UNCLOS reflects contemporary customary

international law on the contiguous zone, both with respect to the powers that a coastal
State may exercise there and to the limitation of the width of the contiguous zone to 24
nautical miles.

 The Court concludes that Colombia is entitled to establish a contiguous zone around the
San Andres archipelago in accordance with customary international law.

 The Court has also found that the "integral contiguous zone" established by Colombian
Presidential Decree No. 1946 is not in conformity with customary international law, and
that in the maritime areas where the "integral contiguous zone" overlaps with Nicaragua's
exclusive economic zone, the "integral contiguous zone" infringes Nicaragua's sovereign
rights and jurisdiction over its exclusive economic zone, thus engaging the responsibility of
Colombia.
Decision 

THE COURT:

(1) By ten votes to five,

Decides that its jurisdiction, founded on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to adjudicate on the
dispute concerning the alleged violations by the Republic of Colombia of the rights of the Republic
of Nicaragua in the maritime areas that the Court declared in its 2012 Judgment as belonging to the
Republic of Nicaragua, covers claims based on those events referred to by the Republic of
Nicaragua that occurred after November 27, 2013, the date on which the Pact of Bogotá ceased to
be in force for the Republic of Colombia;

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari,
Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa: Judge ad hoc Daudet:

AGAINST: Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Nolte; Judge ad hoc McRae;

(2) By ten votes to five,

Decides that, by interfering with fishing and marine scientific research activities of Nicaraguan
flagged or licensed vessels and with the operations of Nicaraguan naval vessels in the exclusive
economic zone of the Republic of Nicaragua, and by purporting to enforce conservation measures
in that zone, the Republic of Colombia has violated Nicaragua's sovereignty and jurisdictional
rights in this maritime zone;

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari,
Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa; Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Nolte; Judge ad hoc McRae;

(3) By nine votes to six,

Decides that, by authorizing fishing activities in the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of
Nicaragua, the Republic of Colombia has violated the sovereignty and jurisdictional rights of the
Republic of Nicaragua in this maritime zone;

FOR: President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa;
Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Vice President Gevorgian; Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Nolte; Judge ad hoc
McRae;

(4) By nine votes to six,

Decides that the Republic of Colombia must immediately cease the conduct referred to in (2) and
(3) above;

FOR: President Donoghue; Judges Tomka, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa;
Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Vice President Gevorgian; Judges Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Nolte; Judge ad hoc
McRae;

(5) By thirteen votes to two,

Decides that the "integral contiguous zone" established by part of the Republic of Colombia through
Presidential Decree 1946 of September 9, 2013, as amended by Decree 1119 of June 17, 2014, is
not in accordance with customary international law, as set forth in paragraphs 170 to 187 [of the
Judgment];

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue,
Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Judge Abraham; Judge ad hoc McRae;

(6) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the Republic of Colombia must, by means of its own choosing, bring into conformity
with customary international law the provisions of Presidential Decree 1946 of September 9, 2013,
as amended by Decree 1119 of June 17, 2014, insofar as they relate to the maritime areas declared
by the Court in its 2012 Judgment as belonging to the Republic of Nicaragua;

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Bennouna, Xue, Sebutinde,
Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Judges Abraham, Yusuf; Judge ad hoc McRae;

(7) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the baselines of the Republic of Nicaragua established through Decree No. 33-2013 of
August 19, 2013, as amended by Decree No. 17 - 2018 of October 10, 2018, are not in accordance
with customary international law;

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Sebutinde,
Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Daudet;

AGAINST: Judges Bennouna, Xue; Judge ad hoc McRae;

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

Rejects all other motions filed by the Parties.

FOR: President Donoghue; Vice President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf,
Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Daudet.

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc McRae.