Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:27:24.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Territorial and Maritime Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nienke Grossman
Nienke Grossman*
Affiliation:
University of Baltimore School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On November 19, 2012, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment in a dispute involving territorial and maritime claims raised by Nicaragua against Colombia in the Caribbean Sea. The Court considered Nicaragua’s requests for a declaration of Nicaraguan sovereignty over seven disputed maritime features and delimitation of a single maritime boundary between the continental shelves and exclusive economic zones appertaining to Nicaragua and Colombia. The Court awarded all disputed territory to Colombia and delimited the maritime boundary between the states’ continental shelves and exclusive economic zones by using a novel mix of weighted base points, geodetic lines, parallels of latitude, and enclaving.

Keywords

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seaterritorial disputemaritime boundary delimitationmethodologiesexclusive economic zonecontinental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 396 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 19, 2012) [hereinafter Judgment]. Decisions of the Court cited herein are available at its website, http://www.icj-cij.org.

2 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, Apr. 30, 1948, OASTS Nos. 17 & 61, 30 UNTS 55 [hereinafter Pact of Bogotá;].

3 Statute of the International Court of Justice Art. 36(5); Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice Art. 36.

4 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Preliminary Objections, 2007 ICJ Rep. 832 (Dec. 13).

5 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Application by Costa Rica for Permission to Intervene (Int’l Ct. Justice May 4, 2011); Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene (Int’l Ct. Justice May 4, 2011).

6 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), 2001 ICJ Rep. 40, 99, para. 195 (Mar. 16) [hereinafter Qatar v. Bahrain].

7 Boundary Dispute (Colom./Costa Rica), 28 R.I.A.A. 341, 345 (1900) (in French).

8 Treaty Concerning the Status of Quita Sueño, Roncador, and Serrana [Vázquez-Saccio Treaty], U.S.-Colom., Art. 1, Sept. 8, 1972, 33 UST 1405, 1307 UNTS 379 (entered into force Sept. 17, 1981).

9 The Court relied on its previous judgments in Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar.v.Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep. 661, 695 (Oct.8)[hereinafter Nicaraguav.Honduras]; and Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), 2010 ICJ Rep. 639, 657, para. 41 (Nov. 30).

10 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangl. v. Myan.), Case No. 16 (ITLOS Mar. 14, 2012), at http://www.itlos.org (reported by D. H. Anderson at 106 AJIL 817 (2012)).

11 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,opened for signature Dec. 10,1982, 1833 UNTS 3,available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/[hereinafterUNCLOS].

12 Qatar v. Bahrain, 2001 ICJ Rep. at 91, para. 167; 97, para. 185; 99, para. 195.

13 UNCLOS, supra note 11, Art. 121(3).

14 See, e.g., Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Den.v.Nor.), 1993 ICJ Rep. 38 (June 14).

15 OAS Dep’t of International Law, Pact of Bogotá: Signatories and Ratifications, at http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-42.html.

16 Shortly after UNCLOS was concluded, Wijnand Langeraar proposed equiratio lines as an alternative when equidistance lines engender inequitable results. Langeraar, Wijnand, Maritime Delimitation: The Equiratio Method—A New Approach, 10 Marine Pol’y 3 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mbwg/_pdf/biblio/Langeraar.pdf.

17 See, e.g., Nicaragua v.Honduras, 2007 ICJ Rep. at 695 (angle bisectors); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 246 (Oct. 12) (half effect to islands); Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), 1985 ICJ Rep. 13 (June 3) (shifting equidistance lines).

18 Langeraar, supra note 16, at 7.

19 Decl. Cot, J. ad hoc, para. 14.

20 see sep. op. Donoghue, J., paras. 26–30; decl. Cot, J. ad hoc, para. 19. See generally decl. Mensah, J. ad hoc.

21 see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 34–38, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, 8 ILM 679 (1969).

22 Decl. Cot, J. ad hoc, para. 18; see also decl. Mensah, J. ad hoc, paras. 2–3.

23 Decl. Mensah, J. ad hoc, para. 12; sep. op. Donoghue, J., para. 2.

24 Decl. Mensah, J. ad hoc, para. 12; sep. op. Donoghue, J., paras. 2, 19.

25 Sep. op. Donoghue, J., para. 19.

26 Id., para. 30; decl. Cot, J. ad hoc, para. 9; decl. Mensah, J. ad hoc, para. 13; decl. Xue, J., paras. 11–13.

27 Sep. op. Donoghue, J., para. 35.

28 Decl. Cot, J. ad hoc, paras. 4–7, 9.

29 An Islet for a Sea, Economist, Dec. 8, 2012, available at http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21567986-colombia-smarts-loss-territorial-waters-islet-sea.

30 El Salvador notified denunciation of the treaty on November 24, 1973. OAS Dep’tof International Law, supra note 15.