Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Law of the Sea and the Nicaraguan Cases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice

  • 766 Accesses

Abstract

When considered in sum, the Nicaraguan ICJ cases have made significant contributions to the development of the law of the sea and to international law more generally. The most prominent of the ICJ Nicaraguan law of the sea cases has been the 2012 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) case where the Court was called upon to determine sovereignty over a number of islands and maritime features in the South-Western Caribbean Sea claimed by Nicaragua and Colombia, the maritime entitlements of those features, and the consequent exclusive economic zone (EEZ)/continental shelf boundary. That case has particular significance in terms of how the ICJ sought to characterise certain maritime features in the Caribbean Sea, and how it then determined the relevant maritime boundary. This chapter reviews these and other Nicaraguan cases before the ICJ which have had an impact on the development of the law of the sea. The analysis proceeds on the basis of an assessment of the particular law of the sea dimension which the ICJ commented upon in its judgments. Six law of the sea issues are assessed commencing with the characterisation of maritime features, followed by the status of low-tide elevations, historic bays, internal waters, the regime of islands, and the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jessup (1970).

  2. 2.

    Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force on 10 September 1964) 516 UNTS 206; Convention on the High Seas (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force on 30 September 1962) 450 UNTS 11; Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force on 20 March 1966) 559 UNTS 285; Convention on the Continental Shelf (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force on 10 June 1964) 499 UNTS 311.

  3. 3.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1949, p. 4.

  4. 4.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force on 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 397.

  5. 5.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, para 214 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. United States (Merits)’).

  6. 6.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits)’).

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., UNCLOS, Arts. 2, 33, 56, 76.

  8. 8.

    To that end UNCLOS make direct reference to a ‘land-locked State’ which is a ‘State which has no sea-coast’: UNCLOS, Art. 124(1)(a).

  9. 9.

    UNCLOS, Art. 13(1) defines a low-tide elevation as ‘a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide’.

  10. 10.

    Coastal states are able to claim a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles if the geomorphological structure of the continental shelf meets the criteria set down in UNCLOS, Article 76.

  11. 11.

    UNCLOS, Art. 121(3).

  12. 12.

    For more specific analysis of this case see contribution by Lawrence H Martin and Yuri Parkhomenko.

  13. 13.

    Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), para 24.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para 20. For example, the ICJ defined cays as ‘small, low islands composed largely of sand derived from the physical breakdown of coral reefs by wave action and subsequent reworking by wind’: Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para 26; referring to Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, para 206 (hereinafter ‘Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits)’).

  16. 16.

    Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), para 36.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 24.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 37.

  19. 19.

    Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits), paras 191–195, where the Court was eventually satisfied that Qit’at Jaradah was an island as it fulfilled the criteria set out in UNCLOS, Art. 121. In this case the Court was also confronted with how to address competing sovereignty claims over these features; see ibid., para 200–209.

  20. 20.

    UNCLOS, Art. 121(1) defines an island as being ‘a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide’.

  21. 21.

    Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), para 36.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., paras 28–29.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., paras 30–33.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 37.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para 38.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para 183.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    This would be the case where there are offshore fringing islands adjacent to the bay which has permitted the drawing of straight baselines between the mainland and those islands, effectively enclosing the bays within those offshore straight baselines.

  30. 30.

    Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1992, para 383 (hereinafter ‘El Salvador/Honduras (Merits)’).

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See generally Lathrop (2015), pp. 82–84.

  33. 33.

    Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Merits , Judgment, ICJ Reports 1951. This broader concept of historic waters may extend to the waters that fall within archipelagos, straits, or estuaries, or areas akin to bays such as gulfs.

  34. 34.

    Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982, p. 74.

  35. 35.

    El Salvador/Honduras (Merits), paras 384 and 412.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., paras 385–386.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., paras 394.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 393. For further discussion of the notion of a ‘pluri-state bay’ see Rossi (2015).

  39. 39.

    El Salvador/Honduras (Merits), para 393.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 404.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para 410; the line is 19.75 nm in width.

  42. 42.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), para 212.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 213.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., para 214.

  46. 46.

    O’Connell (1982); Colombos (1967), pp. 176–177. The 1923 Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports (adopted 9 December 1923, entered into force 26 July 1926) 58 LNTS 287 provides for a general recognition of equality of treatment between the state parties with respect to reciprocal rights of port access. This principle was later recognised in the 1958 Saudi-Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) arbitration (1963) 27 ILR 117, where the arbitrator observed that: ‘According to a great principle of public international law, the ports of every State must be open to foreign merchant vessels and can only be closed when the vital interests of the State so require.’

  47. 47.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), para 214.

  48. 48.

    El Salvador/Honduras (Merits), para 412.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 139; see Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits), paras 167–185.

  50. 50.

    Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), para 139.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    See generally Rothwell and Stephens (2016).

  53. 53.

    North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. The Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.

  54. 54.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, para 272 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment)’).

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para 273. For a reviews of this case see Kirk (2008) and Tanaka (2008).

  56. 56.

    Ibid., paras 262–282.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., para 268.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 281.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., paras 273–280.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., para 287 which the court described as ‘an approximation of the equidistance method’.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., paras 83–4, 201, 290–1.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 292; this would be an especially important factor in instances of where a river mouth is part of the land boundary.

  63. 63.

    Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits), p. 40.

  64. 64.

    Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment), para 269.

  65. 65.

    Delimitation in the Maritime Boundary between Guyana and Suriname, Award, 17 September 2007, ILR, Vol. 139, para 302 (hereinafter ‘Guyana/Suriname’).

  66. 66.

    Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment), para 280. For analysis see Lathrop (2008).

  67. 67.

    Guyana/Suriname, para 311.

  68. 68.

    See, e.g., Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between France and the United Kingdom,Decision, 30 June 1977, RIAA, Vol. XVIII, paras 245–251 (hereinafter ‘Anglo-French Continental Shelf (1977 Award)’) (where the Arbitral Tribunal elected to give the Scilly Isles in the southern portion of the English Channel ‘half-effect’).

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in an area between the two Countries, including the area known as the Torres Strait, and Related Matters (Australia-Papua New Guinea) (adopted 18 December 1978, entered into force 15 February 1985) [1985] Australian Treaty Series No. 4.

  70. 70.

    UNCLOS, Arts. 74(1), 83(1).

  71. 71.

    See, e.g., Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2009, paras 187–188.

  72. 72.

    For a general discussion of this case see Khan and Rains (2013).

  73. 73.

    Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), paras 115–116.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., paras 190–193.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., para 191.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., para 194.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., paras 145, 201.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 151.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para 153.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 202.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., paras 202–203.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 215.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 216.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., para 231; see Anglo-French Continental Shelf (1977 Award), paras 245–251.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., para 237.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 238.

  87. 87.

    Ibid.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 180.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., para 238.

  90. 90.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), para 212.

  91. 91.

    Ibid.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., para 214; El Salvador/Honduras (Merits), para 412.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., para 214.

  94. 94.

    The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award on Merits, 12 July 2016.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., para 309.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., para 423.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., para 480.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., para 538.

References

  • Colombos CJ (1967) The international law of the sea, 6th edn. Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup PC (1970) The law of territorial waters and maritime jurisdiction. Jennings, New York. Kraus Reprint, 1970

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan MI, Rains DJ (2013) Doughnut hole in the Caribbean Sea: the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia according to the international court of justice. Houst JIL 35:589

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk EA (2008) Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea. ICLQ 57:701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop CG (2008) Territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras). AJIL 102:113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop CG (2015) Baselines. In: Rothwell DR, Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell DP (1982) The international law of the sea, vol I. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi CR (2015) Jura novit curia? Condominium in the Gulf of Fonseca and the “local illusion” of a pluri-state bay. Houst JIL 37:793

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell DR, Stephens T (2016) The international law of the sea, 2nd edn. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2008) Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea. Int J Mar Coast Law 23:327

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ANU College of Law, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Donald R. Rothwell

Authors
  1. Donald R. Rothwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald R. Rothwell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Embassy of Nicaragua in The Hague, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    Edgardo Sobenes Obregon

  2. University Paris Nanterre, Paris, France

    Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rothwell, D.R. (2018). International Law of the Sea and the Nicaraguan Cases. In: Sobenes Obregon, E., Samson, B. (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62961-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62962-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation