Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T14:58:05.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Colom.), Judgment (I.C.J.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2022

Yurika Ishii
Yurika Ishii*
Affiliation:
Yurika Ishii (Ph.D.) is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations and Graduate School of Security Studies, National Defense Academy of Japan.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On April 21, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a judgment finding the illegality of Colombia's measures and actions in the Nicaraguan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the case Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea. The dispute primarily concerned the Court's jurisdiction based on the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá) Article XXXI and a coastal state's rights over its maritime zones under customary international law.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 1 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International 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

ENDNOTES

1 Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Col.), Judgment (Apr. 21, 2022) [hereinafter Judgment], https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/155/155-20220421-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.

2 The question of the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast is now pending before the Court.

3 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 176. See Decreto Número 1946 de 2013, Article 5(3)(a), http://wsp.presidencia.gov.co/Normativa/Decretos/2013/Documents/SEPTIEMBRE/09/DECRETO%201946%20DEL%2009%20DE%20SEPTIEMBRE%20DE%202013.pdf. English text is available at Presidential Decree No. 1946 of 9 September 2013, as amended by Decree No. 1119 of 17 June 2014 in 2 Preliminary Objections of The Republic of Colombia, Annexes (Dec. 19, 2014), at 51, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/155/18790.pdf.

4 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 200–260. The Court rejected these claims. Judge Xue stated that traditional fishing rights, including artisanal fishing that may have existed for centuries, are recognized and protected under customary international law. Judge Xue, Declaration, ¶¶ 1–16.

5 Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Col.), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2016 I.C.J. Rep. 3 (Mar. 17).

6 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 40.

7 Id., ¶ 44.

8 Id. The Court stated these criteria at Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djib. v. Fr.), Judgment, 2008 I.C.J. Rep. 177, 211-212, ¶¶ 87–88 (June 4).

9 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 47. Judge Tomka noted Pact of Bogotá Article XXXI does not contain any temporal condition or limitation, as opposed to the Court's view. Separate Opinion by Judge Tomka, ¶ 10.

10 Dissenting Opinion by Judge Abraham, ¶¶ 2–12.

11 Declaration by Judge Bennouna, ¶¶ 1–11.

12 Separate Opinion by Judge Yusuf, ¶¶ 2–14.

13 Dissenting Opinion by Judge Nolte, ¶¶ 1–14.

14 Dissenting Opinion by Judge ad hoc McRae, ¶¶ 3–17.

15 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 56, 100. The Court has affirmed that the EEZ is established under the customary international law in Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), Merit, Judgment, 1985 I.C.J. Rep. 13, 33, ¶ 34 (Jun. 3).

16 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 100.

17 Id.

18 Id. ¶ 134.

19 Id. ¶ 131.

20 Id. ¶ 133.

21 Id. ¶ 143.

22 Separate Opinion by Judge Robinson, ¶ 9.

23 Declaration by Vice-President Gevorgian, ¶ 2.

24 Declaration by Judge Bennouna, supra note 11, ¶ 12.

25 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 163.

26 Id. ¶ 162.

27 Id. ¶ 187.

28 Id.

29 Id. ¶ 186.

30 Dissenting Opinion by Judge Abraham, supra note 10, ¶¶ 13–31.

31 Separate Opinion by Judge Iwasawa, ¶¶ 5–16.

32 Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal of the South China Sea case (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No 2013-19, held that China breached UNCLOS Articles 56 and 77 obligations to respect the Philippines’ sovereign rights (¶ 716).

33 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 92, 132.

34 Id., ¶¶ 141–142.

35 See Yurika Ishii, Violations of Sovereign Rights at a Foreign EEZ: Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), EJIL:Talk!, https://perma.cc/C37G-43XM.