Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:16:39.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

J. J. Quintana
J. J. Quintana*
Affiliation:
Embassy of Colombia, The Hague
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 542 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1992

References

1 Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. U.S.), Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Austl.), and Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain).

2 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Den. v. Nor.), Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Sen.), and Passage through the Great Belt (Fin. v. Den.).

3 East Timor (Port. v. Austl.) and Maritime Boundary (Guinea-Bissau v. Sen.).

4 The exceptions are Aerial Incident and Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions, in both of which the applicant invoked Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Statute, in different contexts.

5 See, in particular, GA Res. 3232 (XXIX) (Nov. 12, 1974) (operative para. 6); and Manila Declara tion on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, GA Res. 37/10 (Nov. 15, 1982) (operative sec. II, para. 5).

6 On this aspect, see Seifi, Nicaragua Granted Permission to Intervene in the (El Salvador/Honduras) Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Case, 6 Int’l J. Estuarine & Coastal L. 253 (1991); Quintana, The Intervention by Nicaragua in the Case Between El Salvador and Honduras Before an ad hoc Chamber of the I.C.J., 38 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 199 (1991); and E. Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice 26–30 (1991). See also infra notes 7 and 15.

7 Ratner, case note on Judgment of Sept. 13, 1990, 85 AJIL 680, 685 (1991).

8 Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicar. v. Hond.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1988 ICJ Rep. 69 (Judgment of Dec. 20) (discontinued and removed from Court’s list, Order of May 27, 1992).

9 On this aspect, see, in general, the present author’s The Latin American Contribution to Interna tional Adjudication: The Case of the I.C.J., 39 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 127, 145–51 (1992).

10 The case between El Salvador and Honduras could also be said to refer to the delimitation of maritime spaces, but more indirectly. As for the East Timor case, although it does not involve mari time delimitation, it does derive from the operation of a delimitation between two states.

11 On this aspect, see especially D. J. Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law 139, 145, 212 (1987); Kwiatkowska, Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation—A Legal Per spective, 3 Int’l J. Estuarine & Coastal L. 287, 298 (1988); Oda, Delimitation of a Single Maritime Boundary— The Contribution of Equidistance to Geographical Equity in the Interrelated Domains of the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone, in 2 International Law at the Time of Its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago 349 (1987); F. Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone—Regime and Nature under International Law 195 (1989); Peters & Tanja, Lateral Delimitation of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, 86 Diritto Marittimo 463 (1984); Reuter, Une Ligne unique de délimitation des espaces maritimes?, in Mélanges Georges Perrin 251 (1984); P. Weil, The Law of Maritime Delimitation—Reflections 115 (1989).

12 See, e.g., the Counter-Memorial of Senegal before the arbitral tribunal, para. 377 n.534, at 316 (1987); or the same country’s Counter-Memorial before the ICJ, para. 93, at 43, and paras. 110, 113, at 50–52 (1990).

13 Application Instituting Proceedings, at 18 (filed July 8, 1991) (emphasis added).

14 The problem of the single maritime boundary has arisen with different degrees of intensity in at least three major cases of delimitation submitted to third-party settlement procedures, always on a consensual basis: Conciliation on the Continental Shelf Area between Iceland and Jan Mayen (1981), reprinted in 20 ILM 797 (1981); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 246 (Judgment of Oct. 12); and Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (arbitral award of Feb. 14, 1985), reprinted in 25 ILM 251 (1986). Another arbitral tribunal has been asked to draw a single line delimiting maritime spaces of a different nature. Delimitation of Maritime Areas between France and Canada, Special Agreement (Mar. 30, 1989), reprinted in 29 ILM 1 (1990).

15 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./Hond.), Application to Intervene, 1990 ICJ Rep. 3 (Order of Feb. 28). See the thorough discussion of this subject in E. Lauterpacht, supra note 6, at 87–93.

16 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./Hond.), Application to Intervene, 1990 ICJ Rep. 92 (Judgment of Sept. 13).

17 Id. at 116, para. 58.

18 Written Statement of the Republic of Nicaragua, at 12–14, 20–23 (Dec. 14, 1990).

19 Observations of the Government of El Salvador on the Written Statement of Nicaragua (Mar. 14, 1991); and Observations of the Republic of Honduras on the Written Statement of the Republic of Nicaragua, at 1–9 (Mar. 14, 1991).

20 Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. U.S.), 1989 ICJ Rep. 132 (Order of Dec. 13). The problem is examined in detail in the separate opinions of Judges Schwebel and Shahabuddeen, id. at 136 and 145, respectively.