Fallo Corte Internacional De Justicia. Nicaragua Vs Colombia

19 NOVEMBER 2012 JUDGMENT

TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

___________

DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME (NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

19 NOVEMBRE 2012 ARRÊT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE I. GEOGRAPHY II. SOVEREIGNTY 1. 2. Whether the maritime features in dispute are capable of appropriation Sovereignty over the maritime features indispute A. The 1928 Treaty B. Uti possidetis juris C. Effectivités (a) Critical date (b) Consideration of effectivités D. Alleged recognition by Nicaragua E. F. 3. Position taken by third States Evidentiary value of maps 1-17 18-24 25-103 25-38 39-102 40-56 57-65 66-84 67-71 72-84 85-90 91-95 96-102 103 104-112 113-131 132-247 132-136 137-139 140-154 143-145 146-154 155-166 167-183 168-169 Roncador,170-180 181-183 Cays,

Conclusion as to sovereignty over the islands

III. ADMISSIBILITY OF NICARAGUA’S CLAIM FOR DELIMITATION OF A CONTINENTAL SHELF EXTENDING BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES IV. CONSIDERATION OF NICARAGUA’S CLAIM FOR DELIMITATION OF A CONTINENTAL SHELF EXTENDING BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES V. MARITIME BOUNDARY 1. 2. 3. The task now before the Court Applicable law Relevant coasts A.The Nicaraguan relevant coast B. The Colombian relevant coast 4. 5. Relevant maritime area Entitlements generated by maritime features A. San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina B. Alburquerque Cays, East-Southeast Serrana, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo C. Quitasueño

- ii 6. 7. 8. Method of delimitation Determination of base points and construction of the provisional median line Relevantcircumstances A. Disparity in the lengths of the relevant coasts B. Overall geographical context C. Conduct of the Parties D. Security and law enforcement considerations E. F. 9. Equitable access to natural resources Delimitations already effected in the area 184-199 200-204 205-228 208-211 212-216 217-220 221-222 223 224-228 229-238 239-247 248-250 251 ___________

Course of the maritime boundary10. The disproportionality test VI. NICARAGUA’S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION OPERATIVE CLAUSE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2012 2012 19 November General List No. 124 19 November 2012

TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

Geographical context ⎯ Location and characteristics of maritime features in dispute.

* Sovereignty. Whether maritime features in dispute arecapable of appropriation ⎯ Islands ⎯ Low-tide elevations ⎯ Question of Quitasueño ⎯ Smith Report ⎯ Tidal models ⎯ QS 32 only feature above water at high tide. 1928 Treaty between Nicaragua and Colombia ⎯ 1930 Protocol ⎯ 2007 Judgment on the Preliminary Objections ⎯ Full composition of the Archipelago cannot be conclusively established on the basis of the 1928 Treaty. Uti possidetis juris ⎯Maritime features not clearly attributed to the colonial provinces of Nicaragua and Colombia prior to their independence ⎯ Title by virtue of uti possidetis juris not established. Effectivités ⎯ Critical date ⎯ No Nicaraguan effectivités ⎯ Different categories of effectivités presented by Colombia ⎯ Normal continuation of prior acts à titre de souverain after

-2critical date ⎯ Continuous andconsistent acts à titre de souverain by Colombia ⎯ No protest from Nicaragua prior to critical date ⎯ Colombia’s claim of sovereignty strongly supported by facts. Alleged recognition by Nicaragua of Colombia’s sovereignty ⎯ Nicaragua’s reaction to the Loubet Award ⎯ No Nicaraguan claim to sovereignty over Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana at time of 1928 Treaty ⎯ Change in Nicaragua’s position in 1972 ⎯Some support to Colombia’s claim provided by Nicaragua’s conduct, practice of third States and maps. Colombia has sovereignty over maritime features in dispute.

* Admissibility of Nicaragua’s claim for delimitation of a continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles ⎯ New claim ⎯ Original claim concerned delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and of the continental shelf ⎯ New claim...