Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:32:44.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. CASE CONCERNING TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA (Nicaragua v Honduras), JUDGMENT OF 8 OCTOBER 2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2008

Elizabeth A Kirk
Elizabeth A Kirk
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Dundee.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals: International Court of Justice
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 701 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

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 R Kolb, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries (Martinus Nijhoff, London, 2003) 5.

2 Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras) (Judgment) [2007] ICJ Rep, para 26, available at <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

3 Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay.

4 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 39.

5 Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Judgment) [1960] ICJ Rep 217.

6 Nicaragua enacted the Continental Shelf and Adjacent Sea Act 1979 and Honduras issued a new Constitution in 1982, Article 10 of which covered jurisdiction over various maritime features in the relevant area and beyond and Article 11 of which declared a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Montego Bay 1982 (1982) 21 International Legal Materials 1261.

8 NB although Nicaragua was not a party to UNCLOS when the dispute arose it ratified it on 3 May 2000 and called upon the Court to decide the case in accordance with UNCLOS in its written pleadings.

9 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) (Jurisdiction) [1998] ICJ Rep 447, para 29.

10 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia) (Preliminary Objections) (Judgment) [1992] ICJ Rep 267, para 69; Fisheries Jurisdiction Case ibid; see also Prince von Pless Administration Order of 4 February [1933] PCIJ Rep Series A/B, No 52, 14 and Société Commercial de Belgique (Judgment) [1939] PCIJ Rep Series A/B, No 78, 173.

11 Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (Judgment) [1962] ICJ Rep 32.

12 Fisheries Jurisdiction (n 9) 203, para 72 and Certain Phosphate Lands (n 10) 266, para 67.

13 Certain Phosphate Lands ibid 265–66, para 65.

14 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras) (Judgment) [1992] ICJ Rep 558, para 333; 589, para 386.

15 See Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 174. See also Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Judgment [1933] PCIJ Rep Series A/B, No 53; Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipidan (Indonesia v Malaysia) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 625.

16 See also Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Merits) (Judgment) [2001] ICJ Rep 93.

17 Pulau Ligitan (n 15) 685, para 148.

18 Eastern Greenland (n 15) 46; The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v United Kingdom) (Judgment) [1953] ICJ Rep 71.

19 Qatar v Bahrain (n 16) paras 173–74, where the Court in turn referred to the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v USA) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 328, para 194.

20 Qatar v Bahrain ibid 94, para 176.

21 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 441, para 288.

22 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 272.

23 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (German Federal Republic v Denmark and German Federal Republic v Netherlands) (Judgment) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, 17–18.

24 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 280.

25 ibid para 281.

26 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v Libya) (Judgment) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, 94, para 133 C (3).

27 Gulf of Maine (n 19).

28 ibid 327, para 195.

29 Case Concerning The Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, 45, para 57.

30 Qatar v Bahrain (n 19) 94, para 178; and Cameroon v Nigeria (n 21) 422, para 90.

31 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) paragraph 289 quoting from North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment (n 23) 49, para 91.

32 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 292.

33 ibid para 298.

34 ibid para 311.

35 Case of the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (Republic of Guinea v Republic of Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment) [1985] 77 ILR 635.

36 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Judgment) [1954] ICJ Rep 19.

37 Tunisia v Libya (n 26) para 130; Libya v Malta (n 29) 26–28, paras 21–23; and Cameroon v Nigeria (n 21) paras 238, 245 and 307.

38 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 319.

39 Separate opinion of Judge Koroma, para 19.

40 See UNCLOS Articles 15, 74 and 83 and Libya v Malta (n 29) 42 et seq; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway) (Judgment) [1993] ICJ Rep 74–75; Cameroon v Nigeria (n 21) 339, para 49; Gulf of Maine Area (n 19) 278, para 59.

41 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 280.

42 Koroma, separate judgment, para 20.

43 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 2) para 299.