Ford 1
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Territorial and Maritime Dispute)
The International Court of Justice No. 2006/37
Facts
•
On 6 December 2001, Nicaragua filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against Colombia.
•
1928 Nicaragua and Colombia signed a treaty in regards to territorial questions
between the two. The treaty stated that The Republic of Colombia recognizes the
full and entire sovereignty of the Republic of Nicaragua over the Mosquito Coast
between Cape Gracias a Dios and the San Juan River, and over Mangle Grande
and Mangle Chico Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. The Republic of Nicaragua
recognizes the full and entire sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over the
islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and over the other islands,
islets and reefs forming part of the San Andrés Archipelago. The present Treaty
does not apply to the reefs of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana, sovereignty over
which is in dispute between Colombia and the United States of America.”
•
On May 5 1920, the two states signed the “1930 Protocol” which stated that that
the San Andrés and Providencia Archipelago mentioned in the first Article of the
said Treaty does not extend west of the 82nd degree of longitude west of
Greenwich.
•
Nicaragua proceed to grant oil exploration concessions near Quitasueño, that the
areas concerned were part of its continental shelf and that the concessions had
therefore been granted
•
Nicaragua then argued that Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana were and the oil
rights were theirs because they were under its continental shelf and, that the 1930
protocol had only established maritime borders.
•
Colombia countered that the US denunciated any claim to the islands of
Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana, which signified the acquiescence to
Colombian rule.
Ford 2
•
The 1979 Sandinista government declared that the 1928 agreement was not
binding because at the time Nicaragua was occupied by US troops and that the
government in power was not constitutional.
Questions
1. Does the ICJ have the Jurisdiction to hear this case?
2. Is the 1928 treaty and the following 1930 protocol binding documents?
3. To whom do the Islands of the San Andreas Archipelago belong?
4. What kind of border does the 82nd meridian establish, maritime or continental
shelf?
Decision
1. Colombia has compulsory jurisdiction to International Court of Justice Cases while
Nicaragua by filing the application to the ICJ has agreed to compromise jurisdiction. This
is an issue between two States their fore the ICJ does in fact have jurisdiction.
2. In regards to the validity of the 1928 treaty and the following 1930 protocol the court
has found that they are in fact valid in international law. The treaties have existed and
have been honored for more than 50 years before a challenge to its authority was made
by the Nicaraguan government. This treaty was acknowledge by both States and the
international community as a whole during these 50 years.
The argument that the signing of this treaty was not legal due to the fact that US
troops were occupying the State and that the authority to sign such a document of the
behalf of Nicaragua did not exist. The final withdrawal of US troops took place in the
beginning of 1933 which would remove any claim that the presence of US troops
invalidated any signature of the ruling party. From 1933 until 1979 there were no action
taken to nullify the treaties. In 1969 when Nicaragua attempted to grant oil exploration
rights it acknowledges the treaties as established the 1933 protocol and its
establishment of the 82nd meridian as the maritime border.
Accepting all of this information as true the 1928 and 1933 treaty and protocol are
legally binding according to international law.
3. Holding the 1928 treaty and the 1933 protocol signed by both States to be legally
binding then it is clearly stated within the 1928 treaty that recognizes San Andrés,
Ford 3
Providencia and Santa Catalina as falling under the sovereignty of Colombia. This only
recognizes the islands that form part of the archipelago as a border.
4. The final issue at hand is in regards to what the border is actually established via these
treaties. The treaties at hand only established and explain the issue of the sovereignty of
the San Andrea Archipelago. In order to rule on the issue of what border the 82nd
meridian represents besides that of land sovereignty is a task of which the court cannot
make at this time. The issue of maritime delimitation between the two States is foreign
to the issue of sovereignty over the three islands; the court is unable to make this
decision under the Pact of Bogota according to Articles VI and XXXIV. The court their
fore cannot resolve the issue of maritime border at this time.
Conclusion
The political background to this case has been very heated and has involved varying
threats by the Nicaraguan government the omniscient was the threat of military force. This case
finalized Colombian sovereignty for the three major islands of the San Andreas Archipelago; San
Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. The Court could not at this time rule on the issue
of the 82nd meridian and what border it actually represents. This decision managed to
pacify the Nicaraguan government and prevent any kind of military action, while the final
decision of the 82nd meridian continues to be waited for.
Principles
The Court established the authority which treaties maintain throughout time. Treaties
are not agreements between governments, but rather they are agreements between States. As
governments change the State remains and their fore the treaties continue to maintain effect.
The second principle which can be taken from this case is that the Court will not rule on every
case there by establishing legitimacy in its decisions. The maritime border could not be
determined from the information presented to the court, the Bogota pact, 1928 treaty and 1933
protocol, so the court left the issue unresolved rather than over step its bounds.
Bibliography
Nicaragua v. Colombia. The International Court of Justice No.2006/37. ( 13th December
2007)
American Treaty on Pacific Settlement. (Pact of Bogota), Organization of American
States. 4/30/48
Ford 4
Bárcenas-Meneses-Esguerra Treaty (Treaty of 1928) Colombia & Nicaragua March 24,
1928
1930 Protocol. Treaty between Colombia & Nicaragua 5 of May 1930.