Abstract
The Caribbean Sea is a geographically complex area with rich natural resources and important navigation routes. The coastal States have already achieved considerable progress in delimiting their maritime boundaries in this region. And yet many maritime boundaries still remain outstanding. As Caribbean States seek to resolve their ongoing maritime disputes, this chapter shows that they may find instructive guidance on how to reach equitable solutions in the unanimous judgment by the International Court of Justice in Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). This chapter analyzes the methodologies and reasoning the Court employed to draw the maritime boundary between the two Parties that allowed the coasts of both State to produce their effects in terms of maritime entitlements in a reasonable and mutually balanced way. Based on that analysis, the chapter draws out conclusions on applicable law, methods of delimitation, relevant circumstances and treatment of islands that may become pertinent to future maritime delimitations in the Caribbean Sea and elsewhere.
Lawrence H. Martin was part of the legal team representing the Republic of Nicaragua in the following cases: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). The views and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Republic of Nicaragua.
Yuri B. Parkhomenko was part of the legal team representing the Republic of Nicaragua in the following cases: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). The views and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Republic of Nicaragua. The authors are grateful to Robin Cleverly from Marbdy Consulting Limited for the maps he prepared for this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela.
- 2.
Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago.
- 3.
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.
- 4.
Guadeloupe, Martinique, and St. Barthélemy. The French Islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique are Overseas Departments. St. Barthélemy and the northern part of the French/Dutch island of St-Martin/Sint Maarten are French overseas collectivités.
- 5.
Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, St. Eustatius, and Sint Maarten. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are constituent countries forming the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba are special municipalities of the Netherlands.
- 6.
Anguilla and British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and Turks and Cacaos Islands. The islands are United Kingdom overseas territories.
- 7.
United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. They are unincorporated United States territories.
- 8.
The International Court of Justice held that the UNCLOS provisions governing delimitation of the exclusive economic zones and continental shelf, and the provisions setting forth the regime of islands are declaratory of customary international law. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624, paras 138–139 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits)’).
- 9.
Freestone and Schofield (2015), p. 681 and pp. 677–679, Table 30.1 ‘Maritime claims in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico’. Belize claims a territorial sea of 3 nautical miles in the Gulf of Honduras.
- 10.
These States include Bahamas, Barbados, France (on behalf of the French Antilles and French Guiana), Nicaragua, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. See Submissions, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of the UNCLOS of 10 December 1982. Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
- 11.
- 12.
See Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf between them, Award, 11 April 2006, RIAA, Vol. XXVII, pp. 147–251 (hereinafter ‘Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (Award)’); Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 659 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment)’); Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8.
- 13.
- 14.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8.
- 15.
This figure corresponds to sketch-map No. 1 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 16.
- 16.
The case was governed by customary international law rather than the 1982 UNCLOS because, while Nicaragua is a party to UNCLOS, Colombia is not. However, as the Court has made clear in prior cases, UNCLOS and customary law are similar in regard to the entitlements of coastal States and the delimitation of maritime boundaries within 200 nautical miles of the coast (see e.g., Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 91, paras 167 et seq. (hereinafter ‘Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits)’) and Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2009, pp. 101–103, para 120 (hereinafter ‘Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment)’)) Under both the Convention and customary law, coastal States are entitled to declare a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles from their coastal baselines, and an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of up to 200 nautical miles; and, where the entitlements of opposite or adjacent coastal States overlap, delimitation is to be effected either by agreement of the parties, or in a manner that produces an equitable solution (Articles 3, 57, 74, 76 and 83 of the 1982 UNCLOS).
- 17.
In addition to delimiting the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles between the Nicaraguan mainland coast and Colombian islands, Nicaragua also requested the Court to delimit the continental shelf between the mainland coasts of both States, arguing that Nicaragua’s continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles and overlaps with Colombia’s 200-nautical mile entitlement to the continental shelf as measured from Colombia’s mainland coast. Because at the time of those proceedings Nicaragua had yet to make its final submission to the CLCS in respect of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, the Court declined Nicaragua’s request. The delimitation of that area is now the subject of a separate case over which the Court recently ruled it has jurisdiction. See Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016.
- 18.
See Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 89, para 77; Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 674, para 140.
- 19.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 674–675, para 141.
- 20.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, para 78; Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 674–675, para 141.
- 21.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 678, para 145.
- 22.
Because Colombia’s mainland coast is located more than 400 nautical miles away from Nicaragua’s coast, maritime entitlements it generates could not overlap with Nicaragua’s, and thus the Colombian mainland coast was not a relevant coastline for the delimitation in that case.
- 23.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 680, para 152.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 678, para 145 and p. 680, para 153.
- 25.
Ibid., p. 683, paras 158–159.
- 26.
This figure corresponds to sketch-map No. 5 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 54.
- 27.
See e.g. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Main Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 329–330, para 201 (hereinafter ‘Gulf of Maine (Judgment)’); Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, p. 46, para 64 (hereinafter ‘Libya/Malta (Judgment)’); Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982, pp. 88–89, paras 128–129 (hereinafter ‘Tunisia/Libya (Judgment)’); Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 109–110, para 149.
- 28.
See e.g. Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between France and the United Kingdom, Decision, 30 June 1977, RIAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 93, para 196 and p. 94, para 199 (hereinafter ‘Anglo-French Continental Shelf (1977 Award)’); Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration, Award, 19 October 1981, ILR, Vol. 91, pp. 676–677, paras 263 and 265 (hereinafter ‘Dubai/Sharjah (Merits)’); Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada and France (St. Pierre et Miquelon), Decision, 10 June 1992, ILM, Vol. 31, pp. 1169–1170, paras 67, 69 and 70 (hereinafter ‘St. Pierre and Miquelon (Award)’); Limits of the Offshore Areas between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, Second Phase, Award, 26 March 2002, ILR, Vol. 128, paras 5.14–5.15 (hereinafter ‘Newfoundland/Nova Scotia (Award)’) and Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, Judgment, 14 March 2012, paras 317–319 (hereinafter ‘Bangladesh/Myanmar (Judgment)’). See also Bowett (1993), p. 151.
- 29.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 683, para 159.
- 30.
More specifically, the Court concluded that the limit of the relevant area in the north follows the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Honduras, laid down in the Court’s Judgment of 8 October 2007, until it reaches latitude 16° north. It then continues due east until it reaches the boundary of the Colombia-Jamaica ‘Joint Regime Area’. From that point, it follows the boundary of that Area, skirting a line 12 nm from Serranilla, until it intersects with the line 200 nm from Nicaragua. In the south, the boundary of the relevant area begins in the east at the point where the line 200 nm from Nicaragua intersects with the boundary line agreed between Colombia and Panama. It then follows the Colombia-Panama line to the west until it reaches the line agreed between Colombia and Costa Rica. It follows that line westwards and then northwards, until it intersects with a hypothetical equidistance line between the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan coasts. Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 686, paras 164–165.
- 31.
This figure corresponds to sketch-map No. 7 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 64.
- 32.
Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 46, para 60; Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 101–103, paras 115–122.
- 33.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 101, para 116; Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment), supra n. 12, p. 745, para 281.
- 34.
Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 47, para 63; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 79–81, paras 91–92 (hereinafter ‘Jan Mayen (Judgment)’).
- 35.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 101–103, paras 119–121; Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment), supra n. 12, p. 745, para 281; Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, Decision, 14 February 1985, ILR, Vol. 77, p. 635.
- 36.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 103, para 122.
- 37.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 696, para 194; Nicaragua v. Honduras (Judgment), supra n. 12, p. 741, para 272 and Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 101, para 116.
- 38.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 700, para 206.
- 39.
This figure corresponds to sketch-map No. 3 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 49.
- 40.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 697, para 196.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
Ibid., p. 698, para 200 (the Court reaffirmed that it ‘should not base itself solely on the choice of base points made’ by one of the disputing parties; it ‘must […] select base points by reference to the physical geography of the relevant coasts’).
- 43.
Gulf of Maine (Judgment), supra n. 27, pp. 329–330, para 201.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 48, para 64.
- 46.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 109–110, para 149.
- 47.
This figure corresponds to sketch-map No. 8 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 76.
- 48.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 116, para 163.
- 49.
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, pp. 446–447, para 301 (hereinafter ‘Cameroon v. Nigeria (Merits)’); Jan Mayen (Judgment), supra n. 34, p. 65, para 61; Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, pp. 53–54, paras 74–75; Gulf of Maine (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 323, para 185 and Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 116, para 164.
- 50.
Jan Mayen (Judgment), supra n. 34, p. 65, para 61.
- 51.
Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 50, para 68 and pp. 53–54, paras 74–75—emphasis added.
- 52.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 702, para 211.
- 53.
Ibid., pp. 707–708, para 229.
- 54.
Ibid.
- 55.
Gulf of Maine (Judgment), supra n. 27, pp. 329–330, para 201; Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 48, para 64; Tunisia/Libya (Judgment), supra n. 27, pp. 88–89, paras 128–129; Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 109, para 149; Bangladesh/Myanmar (Judgment), supra n. 28, paras 317–319; Dubai/Sharjah (Award), supra n. 28, pp. 676–677, paras 263 and 265; Newfoundland/Nova Scotia (Award), supra n. 28, paras 5.14–5.15; Anglo-French Continental Shelf (1977 Award), supra n. 28, paras 196 and 199; St. Pierre and Miquelon (Award), supra n. 28, pp. 1169–1170, paras 67, 69 and 70. See also Bowett (1993), p. 151.
- 56.
Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, p. 127, para 201.
- 57.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 704, para 216.
- 58.
Ibid., pp. 707–708, para 229.
- 59.
Ibid., p. 704, para 216.
- 60.
Jan Mayen (Judgment), supra n. 34, para 86; Cameroon v. Nigeria (Merits), supra n. 49, pp. 447–448, para 304; Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 125–126, para 198.
- 61.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 705, para 220.
- 62.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 706, para 222; Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 8, p. 128, para 204; Libya/Malta (Judgment), supra n. 27, p. 42, para 51.
- 63.
Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (Award), supra n. 12, p. 214, para 241; Romania v. Ukraine (Judgment), supra n. 16, pp. 125–126, para 198.
- 64.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 706, para 223.
- 65.
As it was held in the Island of Palmas: ‘it is evident that whatever may be the right construction of a treaty, it cannot be interpreted as disposing of the rights of independent third Powers’ (RIAA, Vol. II, p. 842).
- 66.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 707, para 227.
- 67.
Ibid., p. 709, para 233—emphasis added.
- 68.
Ibid.
- 69.
This figure corresponds to the sketch-map No. 10 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 87.
- 70.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 710, para 236.
- 71.
This figure corresponds to the sketch-map No. 11 depicted in the Court’s Judgment at p. 89.
- 72.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 715, para 240.
- 73.
Ibid.
- 74.
Ibid., p. 715, para 240 and p. 716, para 242.
- 75.
Ibid., p. 717, para 245.
- 76.
Ibid.
References
Bowett D (1993) Islands, rocks, reefs and low-tide elevations in maritime boundary delimitations. In: Charney J, Alexander LM (eds) International maritime boundaries, vol I. Brill/Nijhoff
Dundas C (2005) Regional reports: Middle America/The Caribbean. In: Colson DA, Smith RW (eds) International maritime boundaries, vol V. Brill/Nijhoff
Freestone D, Schofield C (2015) The Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. In: Rothwell DR, Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. Oxford
Nweihed KG (1996) Regional reports: Middle American and Caribbean maritime boundaries. In: Charney J, Alexander LM (eds) International maritime boundaries, vol I. Brill/Nijhoff
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, L.H., Parkhomenko, Y.B. (2018). The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and Its Implications for Future Maritime Delimitations in the Caribbean Sea and Elsewhere. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_6
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)