The International Court of Justice: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Riesenberg
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Caribbean Sea ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
International Court ◽  
Western Caribbean ◽  
The Icj

In 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its fourth judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia. The case was first initiated by Nicaragua under the Bogotá Pact in 2001. The fourth judgment affirmed Colombia’s territorial sovereignty over a group of islands in the western Caribbean Sea and delimited a boundary between the two states’ zones of maritime jurisdiction. Even after eleven years of complicated proceedings, however, the parties’ conflicting claims are not yet completely resolved. The ICJ explicitly declined to address Nicaragua’s potential entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coastal baselines, including the portion of Nicaragua’s ‘‘outer’’ continental shelf that allegedly overlaps with Colombia’s maritime entitlements. For the foreseeable future, this aspect of the controversy will likely remain unresolved. One week after the ICJ rendered its fourth judgment, Colombia withdrew from the Bogotá Pact and thereby terminated its consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Precarious Finality? Reflections on Res Judicata in the Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Case

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niccolo Ridi
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Rare Situation

This article considers the approach to the res judicata principle taken by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and, specifically, its application in its 2016 judgment on preliminary objections in the latest dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. The judgment joins the small number of ICJ decisions in which the Court was evenly split, an altogether rare situation, which, at the time of the decision, had not occurred since the Nuclear Weapons Avisory Opinion. Intriguingly, such a fracture seems to have been prompted by differences over the operation of a procedural principle the understanding of which is comparatively uncontroversial. Upon closer analysis, however, the disagreement reveals that more significant questions were at stake, with members of the minority issuing a vocal joint dissent and several individual declarations. This study will move in three parts: first, it will provide an overview of the nature and purpose of the principle of res judicata, its application in international adjudication, and its use by the ICJ; second, it will analyse the Court’s reading of the principle in the case at issue; third, it will expose the broader implications of one such approach for the role and authority of the World Court and the international judiciary.

The International Court of Justice and Islamic Law States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Justyna Powell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Interstate Disputes ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

This chapter analyzes the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) that adjudicates interstate disputes and issues advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The Court—already constrained by its specific jurisdictional design and choice of forum options—faces additional hurdles in building up its authority concerning Islamic law states (ILS). The chapter then identifies why and when ILS are willing to accept ICJ authority. This question is considered in the context of two substantive areas of the ICJ’s jurisdiction: territorial sovereignty and diplomatic immunity. In territorial sovereignty cases, despite partial conflict between Islamic law’s edicts regarding territorial ownership and international law, ILS sometimes use the ICJ and respect its rulings. In diplomatic immunity cases, despite the consistency between Islamic and international law regulating diplomatic protection, ILS are not particularly willing to accept ICJ authority.

Sovereign Rights on the Extended Continental Shelf: The Case of the Nicaraguan Rise in the Western Caribbean

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-800
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Antsygina ◽  
Bernardo Pérez-Salazar
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Geographic Feature ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Western Caribbean

Abstract In 2016, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on Colombia’s preliminary objections to Nicaragua’s claim over the extended continental shelf in the Western Caribbean, which forms part of a submarine geographic feature known as the ‘Nicaraguan Rise’. This article recalls the long-standing Nicaragua–Colombia conflict over islands and maritime zones and analyses the 2012 and 2016 ICJ decisions with respect to the correlation between the distance and natural prolongation criteria. The article also addresses the role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in delimitation, and concludes by discussing the geopolitical consequences of the future ICJ ruling concerning the delimitation of the extended continental shelf.

scholarly journals Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation in the Western Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia II) / Delimitação da Plataforma Continental Estendida no Mar do Caribe (Nicarágua v. Colômbia II)

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-135
Author(s):  
Giovanny Vega-Barbosa
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Law ◽  
East China Sea ◽  
Caribbean Sea ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Equal Division ◽  
The East China Sea ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Western Caribbean ◽  
The Icj

Abstract: The controversy between Nicaragua and Colombia before the ICJ now concerns maritime delimitation beyond 200 nm. One of the main legal issues in this case is whether international law allows for delimitation to take place where alternative bases of continental shelf entitlement, namely, natural prolongation and distance, are opposed. As alleged by Nicaragua, its natural prolongation extends beyond 200 nm and overlaps with Colombia’s distance-based continental shelf entitlement. Nicaragua endorses the principle of equal division and accordingly, advocates for the viability of maritime delimitation. In Colombia’s view, the distance criterion has priority and trumps natural prolongation. In this work, the author analyses the legal discourse already voiced on the occasion of the dispute in the East China Sea, in order to identify instances of parallelism and symbiotic contribution with the question of the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the Western Caribbean Sea. Resumo: A controvérsia entre Nicarágua e a Colômbia, antes da CIJ, diz respeito à delimitação marítima além de 20mn. Uma das principais questões jurídicas neste caso é se o direito internacional permite que a delimitação ocorra onde as bases alternativas de titularidade da plataforma continental, ou seja, prolongamento natural e distância se opõem. Como alegado pela Nicarágua, seu prolongamento natural se estende além de 200mn e se sobrepõe ao direito de plataforma continental baseado na distância da Colômbia. A Nicarágua endossa o princípio de divisão igualitária e, portanto, defende a viabilidade da delimitação marítima. Na opinião da Colômbia, o critério da distância tem prioridade e supera o prolongamento natural. Neste trabalho, o autor analisa o discurso jurídico já manifestado por ocasião da disputa no Mar da China Oriental, a fim de identificar ocorrências de paralelismo e contribuição simbiótica com a questão da delimitação da plataforma continental para além de 200mn no Mar do Caribe.

Forum Prorogatum Returns to the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIENHO YEE
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
National Interests ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The ICJ interpreted Article 36(1) of its Statute – more specifically, the phrase ‘all cases which the parties refer to it’ – as permitting it to adopt the doctrine of forum prorogatum as a jurisdictional principle and to adapt this doctrine to the circumstances of international judicial process, as an informal way of founding its jurisdiction over the merits of a dispute. The resort to this doctrine has given rise to some concerns and has not received the general acceptance of states. The Certain Criminal Proceedings in France case marks the successful return of the doctrine to the ICJ and shows that the doctrine is a valuable tool for nationalists seeking to protect national interests and for internationalists seeking to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Intervention in the International Court

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 903-909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. Jessup
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

For the first time the International Court of Justice has squarely faced and ruled upon the right of a third state to intervene in a case to which two other states are parties. The litigation was the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application of Malta for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of April 14, 1981. The Court unanimously denied permission to intervene, but three judges appended separate opinions which contain matters of considerable interest.

The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon CHESTERMAN
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Preference ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

This essay examines the 2013 Decision by the International Court of Justice interpreting its 1962 Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case between Cambodia and Thailand, situating the more recent decision in the context of the Court's evolving role in Asia. Only eight Asian states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; only nine have ever appeared before it. The narrowness of the recent decision is of interest in part because of the modest role it ascribes to judicial institutions, but also for what this modesty heralds for the Court's status in Asia. A key conclusion is that Asian states are likely to retain a general preference for bilateral resolution of disputes. For smaller disputes, however, especially those concerning subjects that cannot be divided or traded—such as a temple (and, as we shall see, an island)—the ICJ may play an important role.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals Custom as a Source Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Amit KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The adoption of the Rome Statute is a significant moment for international criminal law. Before its formulation, the criminal law was governed by the sources mentioned in their statute or Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [ICJ Statute]. Custom is one of the important sources within the ICJ Statute. The ad hoc tribunals applied custom and even formulated certain customs. The formulation of custom is considered as against the principle of legality. To avoid such criticism, the State Parties inserted Article 21 in the Rome Statute. The provision clarifies the law which the court can apply. The parties chose not to include custom explicitly. However, the wordings of the provision indicate that the custom is still a source for the court. Apart from the wording of Article 21, other provisions of the Statute give ample scope for the application of custom.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document