CIJ - Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,

ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND MARITIME SPACES

IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

JUDGMENT OF 17 MARCH 2016

2016

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,

AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

VIOLATIONS ALLÉGUÉES

DE DROITS SOUVERAINS ET D’ESPACES MARITIMES

DANS LA MER DES CARAÏBES

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES ARRÊT DU 17 MARS 2016 6 CIJ1092.indb 1 15/02/17 08:34Official citation : Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 3

Mode officiel de citation : Violations alléguées de droits souverains et d’espaces maritimes dans la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua c. Colombie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2016, p. 3

ISSN 0074-4441

ISBN 978-92-1-157287-2

Sales number No de vente: 1092 6 CIJ1092.indb 2 15/02/17 08:34ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND MARITIME SPACES

IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

VIOLATIONS ALLÉGUÉES

DE DROITS SOUVERAINS ET D’ESPACES MARITIMES

DANS LA MER DES CARAÏBES

IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

VIOLATIONS ALLÉGUÉES

DE DROITS SOUVERAINS ET D’ESPACES MARITIMES

DANS LA MER DES CARAÏBES

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES 17 MARCH 2016

JUDGMENT 17 MARS 2016

ARRÊT 6 CIJ1092.indb 3 15/02/17 08:343 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs Chronology of the Procedure 1-14

I. Introduction 15-19

II. First Preliminary Objection 20-48

III. Second Preliminary Objection 49-79

IV. Third Preliminary Objection 80-101

V. Fourth Preliminary Objection 102-104

VI. Fifth Preliminary Objection 105-110

Operative Clause 111 6 CIJ1092.indb 4 15/02/17 08:344 5

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2016 17 March 2016

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND MARITIME SPACES

IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Colombia’s first preliminary objection. Contentions by Colombia — The Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis under Pact of Bogotá — Denunciation of Pact governed by Article LVI — Imme ‑ diate effect of notification of denunciation. Contentions by Nicaragua — Article XXXI of Pact grants jurisdiction so long as treaty remains in force — Under Article LVI, Pact remains in force for one year from date of notification of denunciation — The Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis as Nicaragua’s Application was filed less than one year after Colombia gave notification of denunciation. Analysis of the Court — Critical date for establishing jurisdiction — Effects of

year from date of notification of denunciation — The Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis as Nicaragua’s Application was filed less than one year after Colombia gave notification of denunciation. Analysis of the Court — Critical date for establishing jurisdiction — Effects of denunciation determined by first paragraph of Article LVI — Question whether second paragraph of Article LVI alters effect of first paragraph — Second para‑ graph confirms that procedures instituted before notification of denunciation can continue irrespective of that denunciation — Proceedings instituted during one‑year notice period are proceedings instituted while Pact still in force — Colombia’s interpretation would result in most of the Articles of the Pact losing effect while Pact still in force — Colombia’s interpretation not consistent with object and pur ‑ pose of Pact — Colombia’s interpretation not necessary to give effet utile to sec ‑ ond paragraph of Article LVI — Colombia’s first preliminary objection rejected. Colombia’s second preliminary objection according to which no dispute existed between the Parties prior to filing of Application. Critical date — Existence of a dispute between the Parties a condition of the Court’s jurisdiction — Two principal claims submitted by Nicaragua — First 2016 17 March General List No. 155 6 CIJ1092.indb 6 15/02/17 08:345 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 6 claim concerns Colombia’s alleged violations of Nicaragua’s rights in the maritime zones declared by the Court in 2012 Judgment to appertain to Nicaragua — Sec ‑ ond claim concerns alleged breach of Colombia’s obligation not to use or threaten to use force. Contentions by Colombia — Prior to critical date, Nicaragua never raised any complaints regarding alleged violations by Colombia — Colombia never repudi ‑ ated 2012 Judgment — Presidential Decree 1946 on an “Integral Contiguous Zone” did not concern any issue addressed by the Court — No evidence of con‑ frontation between naval forces of both Parties. Contentions by Nicaragua — Senior Government officials of Colombia publicly repudiated 2012 Judgment — “Integral Contiguous Zone” contained in Decree 1946 not consistent with international law — Decree 1946 purports to

frontation between naval forces of both Parties. Contentions by Nicaragua — Senior Government officials of Colombia publicly repudiated 2012 Judgment — “Integral Contiguous Zone” contained in Decree 1946 not consistent with international law — Decree 1946 purports to attribute to Colombia maritime areas that the Court determined in its 2012 Judg‑ ment appertain to Nicaragua — Colombia alleged to have regularly harassed Nicaraguan fishing vessels in Nicaraguan waters. Analysis of the Court — Nicaragua’s first claim — Parties took different posi ‑ tions on legal implications of Colombia’s proclamation of an “Integral Contiguous Zone” in Decree 1946 — No rebuttal by Colombia that it continued exercising jurisdiction in maritime spaces that Nicaragua claimed as its own — Formal pro ‑ test not a necessary condition for existence of a dispute — At date of filing of Application, a dispute existed concerning Nicaragua’s first claim — Nicaragua’s second claim — No evidence that Colombia used or threatened to use force in area in question before critical date — Colombia’s second preliminary objection rejected with regard to Nicaragua’s first claim and upheld with regard to its second claim.

Colombia’s third preliminary objection. Contentions by Colombia — The Court lacks jurisdiction because requirements contained in Article II of Pact have not been met — Opinion of both Parties that dispute could not be settled by negotiations is necessary — The two sides remained willing to settle their differences through direct negotiations. Contentions by Nicaragua — Article II of Pact requires that one of the Parties was of opinion that dispute could not be settled by negotiations — Parties did not consider settlement of dispute possible — Nicaragua’s willingness to negotiate a treaty with Colombia limited to implementation of 2012 Judgment — Subject‑ matter for negotiations between the Parties entirely unrelated to subject‑matter of dispute. The Court’s consideration of Article II of Pact — Discrepancy between French text and other three official texts of Article II — Approach taken in 1988 Judg ‑ ment — No need to resolve problem posed by textual discrepancy — The issues identified for possible dialogue between the Parties are different to subject‑matter

dispute. The Court’s consideration of Article II of Pact — Discrepancy between French text and other three official texts of Article II — Approach taken in 1988 Judg ‑ ment — No need to resolve problem posed by textual discrepancy — The issues identified for possible dialogue between the Parties are different to subject‑matter of dispute — No evidence that the Parties contemplated negotiations on subject‑ matter of dispute at date of filing of Application — Colombia’s third preliminary objection rejected. 6 CIJ1092.indb 8 15/02/17 08:346 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 7 Colombia’s fourth preliminary objection according to which the Court has no “inherent jurisdiction” to entertain dispute. Jurisdiction already established on basis of Article XXXI of Pact to entertain Nicaragua’s first claim — No need for the Court to deal with Nicaragua’s allega ‑ tion of “inherent jurisdiction” — No ground for the Court to rule upon Colombia’s fourth preliminary objection. Colombia’s fifth preliminary objection according to which the Court cannot entertain a dispute related to compliance with a prior judgment. No need to rule on Colombia’s fifth preliminary objection in so far as it relates to inherent jurisdiction — The fifth preliminary objection to be addressed in so far as it relates to jurisdiction under Pact of Bogotá — Nicaragua does not seek to enforce 2012 Judgment — Colombia’s fifth preliminary objection rejected.

JUDGMENT

Present: President Abraham ; Vice‑President Yusuf ; Judges Owada, Tomka, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Gevorgian ; Judges ad hoc

Daudet, Caron ; Registrar Couvreur. In the case concerning alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent and Counsel ;

In the case concerning alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent and Counsel ; Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the Bar of England and Wales, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Oxford University, member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Professor of International Law of the Sea, Utrecht University, Mr. Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor at the Université Paris Ouest, NanterreLa Défense, former member and Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Professor of International Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, member of the Institut de droit international, 6 CIJ1092.indb 10 15/02/17 08:347 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 8 as Counsel and Advocates ; Mr. César Vega Masís, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Counsel ; Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr. Benjamin Samson, Ph.D. Candidate, Centre de droit international de

Nanterre (CEDIN), Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, Ms Gimena González, as Assistant Counsel ; Ms Sherly Noguera de Argüello, Consul General of the Republic of Nicaragua, as Administrator, and the Republic of Colombia, represented by H.E. Ms María Angela Holguín Cuéllar, Minister for Foreign Affairs, H.E. Mr. Francisco Echeverri Lara, ViceMinister of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as National Authorities ; H.E. Mr. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla, former Judge of the Council of State of Colombia, former Attorney General of Colombia and former Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent ; H.E. Mr. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, former President of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, former Permanent Delegate of Colombia to UNESCO and former Ambassador of Colombia to the Swiss Confederation, as Co-Agent ; Mr. W. Michael Reisman, McDougal Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, former avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar, Eversheds LLP, Singapore, Sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., member of the Bar of England and Wales, member of the International Law Commission, Mr. Tullio Treves, member of the Institut de droit international, Senior Public International Law Consultant, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Milan, Professor, University of Milan, Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, member of the International Law Commission, President of the Latin American Society of International Law, 6 CIJ1092.indb 12 15/02/17 08:348 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 9 Mr. Matthias Herdegen, Dr. h.c., Professor of International Law, Director of the Institute of International Law at the University of Bonn, as Counsel and Advocates ;

6 CIJ1092.indb 12 15/02/17 08:348 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 9 Mr. Matthias Herdegen, Dr. h.c., Professor of International Law, Director of the Institute of International Law at the University of Bonn, as Counsel and Advocates ; H.E. Mr. Juan José Quintana Aranguren, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, former Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Andelfo García González, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of Thailand, Professor of International Law, former Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Ms Lucía Solano Ramírez, Second Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr. Andrés Villegas Jaramillo, Co-ordinator, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Giovanny Andrés Vega Barbosa, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms Ana María Durán López, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Camilo Alberto Gómez Niño, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Juan David Veloza Chará, Third Secretary, Group of Affairs before the ICJ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Legal Advisers ; Rear Admiral Luís Hernán Espejo, National Navy of Colombia, CN William Pedroza, International Affairs Bureau, National Navy of Colombia, CF Hermann León, National Maritime Authority (DIMAR), National Navy of Colombia, Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping, Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping, as Technical Advisers ; Ms Charis Tan, Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore, member of the New York

bia, CF Hermann León, National Maritime Authority (DIMAR), National Navy of Colombia, Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping, Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping, as Technical Advisers ; Ms Charis Tan, Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore, member of the New York Bar, Solicitor, England and Wales, Eversheds LLP, Singapore, Mr. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., New York University School of Law, Mr. Renato Raymundo Treves, Associate, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Milan, Mr. Lorenzo Palestini, Ph.D. Candidate, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, as Legal Assistants, The Court, composed as above, after deliberation, 6 CIJ1092.indb 14 15/02/17 08:349 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 10 delivers the following Judgment :

1. On 26 November 2013, the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua

(hereinafter “Nicaragua”) filed with the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “Colombia”) concerning a dispute in relation to “the violations of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by the Court’s Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia in order to implement these violations”. In its Application, Nicaragua seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement signed on 30 April 1948, officially designated, according to Article LX thereof, as the “Pact of Bogotá” (hereinafter referred to as such). Nicaragua states that, alternatively, the jurisdiction of the Court “lies in its inherent power to pronounce on the actions required by its Judgments”.

2. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court,

Nicaragua states that, alternatively, the jurisdiction of the Court “lies in its inherent power to pronounce on the actions required by its Judgments”.

2. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar immediately communicated the Application to the Government of Colombia ; and, under paragraph 3 of that Article, all other States entitled to appear before the Court were notified of the Application.

3. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either of the Parties, each Party proceeded to exercise the right conferred upon it by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case. Nicaragua first chose Mr. Gilbert Guillaume, who resigned on 8 September 2015, and subsequently Mr. Yves Daudet. Colombia chose Mr. David

Caron.

4. By an Order of 3 February 2014, the Court fixed 3 October 2014 as the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of Nicaragua and 3 June 2015 for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Colombia. Nicaragua filed its Memorial within the time-limit so prescribed.

5. On 19 December 2014, within the time-limit set by Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, Colombia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, by an Order of 19 December 2014, the President, noting that, by virtue of Article 79, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, the proceedings on the merits were suspended, and taking account of Practice Direction V, fixed 20 April 2015 as the time-limit for the presentation by Nicaragua of a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia. Nicaragua filed its statement within the prescribed time-limit. The case thus became ready for hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.

6. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43 of the Rules of

nary objections raised by Colombia. Nicaragua filed its statement within the prescribed time-limit. The case thus became ready for hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.

6. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43 of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed to States parties to the Pact of Bogotá the notifications provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court. In accordance with the provisions of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar moreover addressed to the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”) the notification provided for in Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court. As provided for in Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar transmitted the written pleadings to the OAS and asked that Organization whether or not it intended to furnish observations in writing within the meaning of that Article. The Registrar further stated that, in view of the fact that the current phase of the proceedings related to the question of jurisdiction, any written 6 CIJ1092.indb 16 15/02/17 08:3410 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 11 observations should be limited to that question. The SecretaryGeneral of the OAS indicated that the Organization did not intend to submit any such observations.

7. Referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Government of the Republic of Chile asked to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case. Having ascertained the views of the Parties in accordance with that same provision, the President of the Court decided to grant that request. The Registrar duly communicated that decision to the Government of Chile and to the Parties.

Pursuant to the same provision of the Rules, the Government of the Republic of Panama also asked to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case. This request was communicated to the Parties in

ernment of Chile and to the Parties. Pursuant to the same provision of the Rules, the Government of the Republic of Panama also asked to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case. This request was communicated to the Parties in order to ascertain their views. By letter dated 22 July 2015, the Agent of Nicaragua stated that his Government had no objection to Panama being furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case. For its part, by letter dated 27 July 2015, the Agent of Colombia indicated that although his Government had no objection to Panama being furnished with copies of the preliminary objections filed by Colombia and Nicaragua’s written statement of its observations and submissions, it did object to the Memorial of Nicaragua being made available to Panama. Taking into account the views of the Parties, the Court decided that copies of the preliminary objections filed by Colombia and Nicaragua’s written statement of its observations and submissions on those objections would be made available to the Government of Panama. The Court, however, decided that it would not be appropriate to furnish Panama with copies of the Memorial of Nicaragua. The Registrar duly communicated that decision to the Government of Panama and to the Parties.

8. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court, after ascertaining the views of the Parties, decided that copies of the preliminary objections of Colombia and the written observations of Nicaragua would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.

9. Public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia were held from Monday 28 September 2015 to Friday 2 October 2015, at which the

Court heard the oral arguments and replies of :

For Colombia: H.E. Mr. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, Mr. W. Michael Reisman, Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Mr. Tullio Treves.

For Nicaragua: H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, Mr. W. Michael Reisman, Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Mr. Tullio Treves.

For Nicaragua: H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez,

Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Mr. Alain Pellet.

10. At the hearings, a Member of the Court put questions to the Parties, to which replies were given in writing, within the time-limit fixed by the President in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to Article 72 of the Rules of Court, each of the Parties submitted comments on the written replies provided by the other. 6 CIJ1092.indb 18 15/02/17 08:3411 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment)

12

11. In the Application, the following claims were presented by Nicaragua : “On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and law, Nicaragua, while reserving the right to supplement, amend or modify this Application, requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia is in breach of : — its obligation not to use or threaten to use force under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and international customary law ; — its obligation not to violate Nicaragua’s maritime zones as delimited in paragraph 251 of the ICJ Judgment of 19 November 2012 as well as Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in these zones ; — its obligation not to violate Nicaragua’s rights under customary international law as reflected in Parts V and VI of UNCLOS ; — and that, consequently, Colombia is bound to comply with the Judgment of 19 November 2012, wipe out the legal and material consequences of its internationally wrongful acts, and make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts.”

12. In the written proceedings on the merits, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Government of Nicaragua in its Memorial : “1. For the reasons given in the present Memorial, the Republic of Nicquences of its internationally wrongful acts, and make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts.”

12. In the written proceedings on the merits, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Government of Nicaragua in its Memorial : “1. For the reasons given in the present Memorial, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, the

Republic of Colombia has breached : (a) its obligation not to violate Nicaragua’s maritime zones as delimited in paragraph 251 of the Court Judgment of 19 November 2012 as well as Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in these zones ; (b) its obligation not to use or threaten to use force under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and international customary law ; (c) and that, consequently, Colombia has the obligation to wipe out the legal and material consequences of its internationally wrongful acts, and make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts.

2. Nicaragua also requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must :

(a) cease all its continuing internationally wrongful acts that affect or are likely to affect the rights of Nicaragua. (b) Inasmuch as possible, restore the situation to the status quo ante, in (i) revoking laws and regulations enacted by Colombia, which are incompatible with the Court’s Judgment of 19 November 2012 including the provisions in the Decrees 1946 of 9 September 2013 and 1119 of 17 June 2014 to maritime areas which have been recognized as being under the jurisdiction or sovereign rights of Nicaragua ; (ii) revoking permits granted to fishing vessels operating in Nicaraguan waters ; and (iii) ensuring that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia of 2 May 2014 or of any other National Authority will not bar compliance with the 19 November 2012 Judgment of the Court. 6 CIJ1092.indb 20 15/02/17 08:3412 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 13

of 2 May 2014 or of any other National Authority will not bar compliance with the 19 November 2012 Judgment of the Court. 6 CIJ1092.indb 20 15/02/17 08:3412 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 13 (c) Compensate for all damages caused in so far as they are not made good by restitution, including loss of profits resulting from the loss of investment caused by the threatening statements of Colombia’s highest authorities, including the threat or use of force by the Colombian Navy against Nicaraguan fishing boats [or ships exploring and exploiting the soil and subsoil of Nicaragua’s continental shelf] and third State fishing boats licensed by Nicaragua as well as from the exploitation of Nicaraguan waters by fishing vessels unlawfully ‘authorized’ by Colombia, with the amount of the compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the case.

(d) Give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition of its internationally wrongful acts.”

13. In the preliminary objections, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Government of Colombia: “For the reasons set forth in this Pleading, the Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in its Application of 26 November 2013.” In the written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Government of Nicaragua : “For the above reasons, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the preliminary objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court are invalid.”

14. At the oral proceedings on the preliminary objections, the following submissions were presented by the Parties : On behalf of the Government of Colombia, at the hearing of 30 September 2015 : “For the reasons set forth in [its] written and oral pleadings on preliminary objections, the Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by NicOn behalf of the Government of Colombia, at the hearing of 30 September 2015 : “For the reasons set forth in [its] written and oral pleadings on preliminary objections, the Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in its Application of 26 November 2013 and that said Application should be dismissed.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, at the hearing of 2 October 2015 : “In view of the reasons Nicaragua has presented in its written observations and during the hearings, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court : — to reject the preliminary objections of the Republic of Colombia ; and

— to proceed with the examination of the merits of the case.” 6 CIJ1092.indb 22 15/02/17 08:3413 sovereign rights and maritime spaces (judgment) 14

I. Introduction

15. It is recalled that in the present proceedings, Nicaragua seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá.

According to this provision, the parties to the Pact recognize the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory in “all disputes of a juridical nature” (see paragraph 21 below).

16. Alternatively, Nicaragua maintains that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding non-compliance with its judgments and that in the present proceedings, such an inherent jurisdiction exists, given that the current dispute arises from non-compliance by Colombia with its Judgment of 19 November 2012 in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

(Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 624) (hereinafter the “2012 Judgment”).

17. Colombia has raised five preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. According to the first objection, t