Nicaragua v. Colombia | ICJ Latest Judgment| Case Summary | 13 July 2023

Summary

In this video, the speaker discusses the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling on the Nicaragua vs. Colombia case, delivered on July 13, 2023. The case concerns the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast. The ICJ addressed two main questions: 1) Whether a state's entitlement to a continental shelf can extend within 200 nautical miles of another state’s baselines, and 2) The criteria for determining the limit of an extended continental shelf. The ICJ concluded that under customary international law, no state's continental shelf may overlap within 200 nautical miles of another state's baselines.

Takeaways

• 😀 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a judgment on July 13, 2023, in the case concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua's coast.
• 😀 The case builds on the 2012 ICJ ruling in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia, addressing further delimitation issues.
• 😀 Nicaragua filed a request in 2013 for the ICJ to address maritime boundaries beyond the limits established in the 2012 judgment.
• 😀 In October 2022, the ICJ stated that before addressing technical and scientific questions regarding delimitation, it had to first resolve two legal issues.
• 😀 The first legal question posed by the ICJ was whether a state's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles can extend within 200 nautical miles of another state's baselines.
• 😀 The ICJ cited its 2009 judgment in Romania vs. Ukraine and concluded that under customary international law, a state's entitlement to an extended continental shelf may not overlap with another state's shelf within 200 nautical miles.
• 😀 The second question involved the criteria under customary international law for determining the limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
• 😀 The ICJ emphasized that, even if a state is entitled to an extended continental shelf, it cannot claim areas within 200 nautical miles of another state's baselines, making it unnecessary to answer the second legal question.
• 😀 The judgment reaffirms the principle of customary international law that a state's continental shelf entitlement cannot extend into areas already claimed by another state within 200 nautical miles.
• 😀 The ruling highlights the importance of customary international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in resolving maritime delimitation disputes, particularly regarding the extended continental shelf.

Q & A

What was the central issue in the case between Nicaragua and Colombia decided by the ICJ in 2023?

The central issue was the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast.

When did Nicaragua file its application regarding the delimitation of the continental shelf?

Nicaragua filed its application on September 16, 2013, requesting the court to determine maritime boundaries beyond the limits established in the 2012 judgment.

What was the procedural history that led to the ICJ's 2023 judgment?

Following the ICJ's 2012 ruling on territorial and maritime disputes, Nicaragua filed a new application in 2013 to address the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. In October 2022, the ICJ identified key legal questions before proceeding with technical considerations.

What were the two key questions posed by the ICJ in this case?

The two key questions were: 1) Whether a state's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles can extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another state. 2) What criteria under customary international law determine the limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles?

What did the ICJ conclude about a state's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles?

The ICJ concluded that under customary international law, a state's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles may not extend within 200 nautical miles of the baselines of another state.

Why was the first question posed by the ICJ considered to have a preliminary character?

The first question was considered preliminary because it needed to be answered to determine whether the court could proceed with the requested delimitation and whether technical and scientific questions were relevant.

What legal principle did the ICJ rely on to answer the first question?

The ICJ relied on customary international law, particularly reflecting practices that states follow regarding maritime boundaries and the continental shelf, as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

What did the ICJ refer to when addressing customary international law in this case?

The ICJ referred to the widespread, uniform, and continuous practices of states and multilateral conventions such as UNCLOS, which helped establish the customary rules governing maritime boundaries and entitlements to the continental shelf.

What was the second question posed by the ICJ and how was it addressed?

The second question was about the criteria under customary international law for determining the limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The ICJ concluded that while a state might be entitled to an extended continental shelf, this entitlement cannot overlap with another state’s 200 nautical-mile zone.

Why was the second question ultimately unnecessary to answer according to the ICJ's judgment?

The second question was unnecessary to answer because the ICJ had already determined that no state’s extended continental shelf could overlap with another state’s 200 nautical-mile zone, making further discussion of specific delimitation criteria irrelevant.