CIJ - Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia - Judgment of 13 July 2023

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,

A VIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

QUESTION DE LA DÉLIMITATION

DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

ENTRE LE NICARAGUA ET LA COLOMBIE

AU‑DELÀ DE 200 MILLES MARINS

DE LA CÔTE NICARAGUAYENNE

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

ARRÊT DU 13 JUILLET 2023

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,

ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

QUESTION OF THE DELIMITATION

OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

BETWEEN NICARAGUA AND COLOMBIA

BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES

FROM THE NICARAGUAN COAST

(NICARAGUA v . COLOMBIA)

JUDGMENT OF 13 JULY 2023 2023© 2024 ICJ/CIJ, United Nations/Nations Unies All rights reserved/Tous droits réservés printed in france/imprimé en france Mode officiel de citation : Question de la délimitation du plateau continental entre le Nicaragua et la Colombie au-delà de 200 milles marins de la côte nicaraguayenne (Nicaragua c. Colombie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2023 , p. 413

Official citation: Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast

(Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2023 , p. 413

ISSN 0074‑4441

ISBN 978‑92‑1‑003216‑2 e‑ISBN 978‑92‑1‑106624‑1

Sales number No de vente : 1290QUESTION DE LA DÉLIMITATION

DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

ENTRE LE NICARAGUA ET LA COLOMBIE

AU‑DELÀ DE 200 MILLES MARINS

e‑ISBN 978‑92‑1‑106624‑1

Sales number No de vente : 1290QUESTION DE LA DÉLIMITATION

DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

ENTRE LE NICARAGUA ET LA COLOMBIE

AU‑DELÀ DE 200 MILLES MARINS

DE LA CÔTE NICARAGUAYENNE

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

QUESTION OF THE DELIMITATION

OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

BETWEEN NICARAGUA AND COLOMBIA

BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES

FROM THE NICARAGUAN COAST

(NICARAGUA v . COLOMBIA) 13 JUILLET 2023

ARRÊT 13 JULY 2023

JUDGMENT413

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs Chronology of the Procedure 1-20

I. General Background 21-26

II. Overview of the Parties’ Positions 27-34

III. First Question Formulated in the Order of 4 October

2022 35-79

A. The preliminary character of the first question

B. The customary international law applicable to the maritime areas at issue

C. Under customary international law, may a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State?

37-45 46-53 54-79 I V. Second Question Formulated in the Order of 4 October 2022 80-82

V. Consideration of Nicaragua’s Submissions 83-103

A. The request contained in the first submission made by

Nicaragua

B. The request contained in the second submission made by

Nicaragua

C. The request contained in the third submission made by

Nicaragua 85-87 88-92 93-102 Operative Clause 104414

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2023 13 July 2023

QUESTION OF THE DELIMITATION

OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

C. The request contained in the third submission made by

Nicaragua 85-87 88-92 93-102 Operative Clause 104414

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2023 13 July 2023

QUESTION OF THE DELIMITATION

OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

BETWEEN NICARAGUA  AND COLOMBIA

BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES

FROM THE NICARAGUAN COAST

(NICARAGUA v . COLOMBIA) General background — Geography — The Court’s 2012 Judgment in Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) delimiting the Parties’ continental shelves and exclusive economic zones up to a 200-nautical-mile limit from Nicaragua’s coast — Application filed by Nicaragua on 16 September 2013 — Request to determine maritime boundary in areas of continental shelf  beyond the boundaries determined in 2012 Judgment — Delimitation lines proposed by Nicaragua in its written pleadings — The Court’s Order of 4 October 2022 — Certain questions of law to be decided first. First question formulated in the Order of 4 October 2022 — Whether a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines may extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State — Determination of the existence of overlapping entitlements as a first step in any maritime delimitation — Preliminary character of the first question — Must be answered to ascertain whether the Court may proceed to the delimitation requested by Nicaragua. 2023 13 July General List No. 154415 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) Customary international law applicable to the maritime areas at issue — Nicaragua is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), Colombia is not — Drawing up of UNCLOS at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (the “Conference”) — State practice taken into account during the drafting of UNCLOS — Method of negotiation of UNCLOS — Comprehensive and

Sea (“UNCLOS”), Colombia is not — Drawing up of UNCLOS at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (the “Conference”) — State practice taken into account during the drafting of UNCLOS — Method of negotiation of UNCLOS — Comprehensive and integrated text forming a package deal — Relationship between Part V of UNCLOS on the exclusive economic zone and Part VI on the continental shelf specified in Article 56, paragraph 3, of UNCLOS — Article 56 of UNCLOS reflects customary rules on rights and duties in the exclusive economic zone — Definition of continental shelf in Article 76, paragraph 1, of UNCLOS forms part of customary international law. Legal régime governing the exclusive economic zone set out in UNCLOS result of a compromise reached at the Conference — Articles 56, 58, 61, 62 and 73 of UNCLOS on rights and duties of coastal States and other States in the exclusive economic zone reflect customary international law — Interrelated nature of legal régimes that govern the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from a State’s baselines — There cannot be an exclusive economic zone without a corresponding continental shelf — Question of “grey area” — Incidental result of adjustment of equidistance line — Circumstances in Bay of Bengal cases distinct from situation in the present case — Criteria for determining outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles were the result of a compromise reached during the final sessions of the Conference — Aim to avoid undue encroachment on maritime areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the “ Area”) — Text of Article 76 of UNCLOS suggests that States participating in negotiations assumed that extended continental shelf would only extend into maritime areas that would otherwise be located in the Area — Payments in respect of exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Possibility of one State’s extended continental shelf extending within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State apparently not debated during the Conference — Vast

in respect of exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Possibility of one State’s extended continental shelf extending within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State apparently not debated during the Conference — Vast majority of States parties to UNCLOS that have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (“CLCS”) have not asserted limits that extend within 200 nautical miles of the baselines of another State — Practice of States before the CLCS is indicative of opinio juris — Objections where States have asserted a right to an extended continental shelf encroaching on maritime areas within 200 nautical miles of other States — Practice of States sufficiently widespread and uniform — This State practice may be seen as an expression of opinio juris — Under customary international law, a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles416 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content from its baselines may not extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State. Second question formulated in the Order of 4 October 2022 — Identification of the criteria under customary international law for the determination of the limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles of a State’s baselines and question whether paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 76 of UNCLOS reflect customary international law — No need for the Court to address the second question in light of the answer to the first question. Consideration of Nicaragua’s submissions made in its written pleadings. Request contained in Nicaragua’s first submission — Nicaragua proposes co-ordinates for the continental shelf boundary in the area beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines but within 200 nautical miles from Colombia’s baselines — Nicaragua not entitled to an extended continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of Colombia’s mainland coast — No area of overlapping entitlement to be delimited — Request contained in Nicaragua’s first submission cannot be upheld. Request contained in Nicaragua’s second submission — Nicaragua’s conColombia’s baselines — Nicaragua not entitled to an extended continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of Colombia’s mainland coast — No area of overlapping entitlement to be delimited — Request contained in Nicaragua’s first submission cannot be upheld. Request contained in Nicaragua’s second submission — Nicaragua’s contention that maritime entitlements of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina should not extend east of the 200-nautical-mile limit of its exclusive economic zone — Nicaragua not entitled to an extended continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of San Andrés and Providencia — No area of overlapping entitlement to be delimited — Request contained in Nicaragua’s second submission cannot be upheld. Request contained in Nicaragua’s third submission — Effect, if any, of the maritime entitlements of Serranilla, Bajo Nuevo and Serrana on any maritime delimitation between the Parties — Two possibilities regarding Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo — Either they are entitled to exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, or they are not — In either case, no area of overlapping entitlement to be delimited — Effect of Serrana’s maritime entitlements determined conclusively in the 2012 Judgment — Request contained in Nicaragua’s third submission cannot be upheld.417 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content

JUDGMENT

Present: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomk a,

Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant ; Judges ad hoc McRae, Skotnikov; Registrar Gautier. In the case concerning the question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by HE Mr Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Nicaragua to the international organizations based in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, member of the International Law Commission,

Nicaraguan coast, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by HE Mr Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Nicaragua to the international organizations based in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, member of the International Law Commission, as Agent and Counsel; Mr Alex Oude Elferink, Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Professor of International Law of the Sea at Utrecht University, Mr Vaughan Lowe, KC, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Bar of England and Wales, Mr Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor of the University Paris Nanterre, former chairman of the International Law Commission, President of the Institut de droit international, as Counsel and Advocates; Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua, Mr Benjamin Samson, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University Paris Nanterre, as Assistant Counsel; Mr Robin Cleverly, MA, DPhil, CGeol, FGS, Law of the Sea Consultant, Marbdy Consulting Ltd, as Scientific and Technical Adviser; Ms Sherly Noguera de Argüello, Consul General of the Republic of Nicaragua, as Administrator,418 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content and the Republic of Colombia, represented by HE Mr Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, former Registrar and Deputy-Registrar of the International Court of Justice, former member, Special Rapporteur and Chairman of the International Law Commission, as Agent and Counsel; HE Ms Carolina Olarte-Bácares, Dean of the School of Law at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HE Ms Elizabeth Taylor Jay, former Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of Kenya, former Permanent Representative

icia Universidad Javeriana, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HE Ms Elizabeth Taylor Jay, former Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of Kenya, former Permanent Representative of the Republic of Colombia to the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, as Co-Agents; HE Mr Álvaro Leyva Durán, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, HE Mr Everth Hawkins Sjogreen, Governor of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, Republic of Colombia, as National Authorities; Mr W. Michael Reisman, Myres S. McDougal Professor Emeritus of International Law, Yale University, member of the Institut de droit international, Sir Michael Wood, KCMG, KC, former member of the International Law Commission, member of the Bar of England and Wales, Mr Rodman R. Bundy, former avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the Bar of the State of New York, partner at Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Singapore, Mr Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor at the University Paris Nanterre, Secretary-General of the Hague Academy of International Law, associate member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Paris Bar, Sygna Partners, Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law and International Organization at the University of Geneva, Professor at the Collège de France (2022-2023), member of the Institut de droit international, Mr Lorenzo Palestini, Lecturer at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies and at the University of Geneva, as Counsel and Advocates;419 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content Mr Andrés Villegas Jaramillo, Co-ordinator, Group of Affairs before the International Court of Justice at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, associate of the Instituto HispanoLuso-Americano de Derecho Internacional,

running head content Mr Andrés Villegas Jaramillo, Co-ordinator, Group of Affairs before the International Court of Justice at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, associate of the Instituto HispanoLuso-Americano de Derecho Internacional, Mr Makane Moïse Mbengue, Professor at the University of Geneva, Director of the Department of Public International Law and International Organization, associate member of the Institut de droit international, Mr Eran Sthoeger, Esq., Adjunct Professor of International Law at Brooklyn Law School and Seton Hall Law School, member of the Bar of the State of New York, Mr Alvin Yap, Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Singapore, Mr Gershon Hasin, Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale University, Mr Gabriel Cifuentes, adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, as Counsel; Ms Jenny Bowie Wilches, First Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Ms Viviana Andrea Medina Cruz, Second Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr Raúl Alfonso Simancas Gómez, Third Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr Oscar Casallas Méndez, Third Secretary, Group of Affairs before the International Court of Justice, Mr Carlos Colmenares Castro, Third Secretary, Group of Affairs before the International Court of Justice, as representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia; Rear Admiral Ernesto Segovia Forero, Chief of Naval Operations, CN Hermann León, Delegate of Colombia to the International Maritime Organization, CN William Pedroza, National Navy of Colombia, Director of Maritime and Fluvial Interests Office, as representatives of the Navy of the Republic of Colombia; Mr Lindsay Parson, Geologist, Director of Maritime Zone Solutions Ltd, United Kingdom, former member and Chair of the United Nations

Organization, CN William Pedroza, National Navy of Colombia, Director of Maritime and Fluvial Interests Office, as representatives of the Navy of the Republic of Colombia; Mr Lindsay Parson, Geologist, Director of Maritime Zone Solutions Ltd, United Kingdom, former member and Chair of the United Nations International Seabed Authority’s Legal and Technical Commission, Mr Peter Croker, Geophysicist, Consultant at The M Horizon (United Kingdom) Ltd, former Chair of the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,420 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content Mr Walter R. Roest, Geophysicist, Director of Roest Consultant EIRL, France, member of the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Mr Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, Director of International Mapping, Mr Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping, as Technical Advisers, The Court, composed as above, after deliberation, delivers the following Judgment:

1. On 16 September 2013, the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua

(hereinafter “Nicaragua”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “Colombia”) with regard to a dispute concerning “the delimitation of the boundaries between, on the one hand, the continental shelf of Nicaragua beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured, and on the other hand, the continental shelf of Colombia”.

2. In its Application, Nicaragua sought 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”.

3. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar immediately communicated the Application to the Government of Colombia. He also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the Application by Nicaragua.

the “Pact of Bogotá”.

3. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar immediately communicated the Application to the Government of Colombia. He also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the Application by Nicaragua.

4. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar notified the Members of the United Nations through the SecretaryGeneral of the filing of the Application, by transmission of the printed bilingual text.

5. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either Party, 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 chose Mr Leonid Skotnikov. Colombia first chose Mr Charles N. Brower, who resigned on 5 June 2022, and subsequently

Mr Donald McRae.

6. By an Order of 9 December 2013, the Court fixed 9 December 2014 and 9 December 2015 as the respective time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial by Colombia.

7. On 14 August 2014, before the expiry of the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of Nicaragua, Colombia, referring to Article 79 of the Rules of421 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content Court of 14 April 1978 as amended on 1 February 2001, raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application. By an Order of 19 September 2014, the Court, noting that by virtue of Article 79, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court the proceedings on the merits were suspended, fixed 19 January 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 time-limit thus fixed.

the merits were suspended, fixed 19 January 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 time-limit thus fixed.

8. By a letter dated 10 November 2014, pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed to States parties to the Pact of Bogotá the notification 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 also addressed to the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”) the notification provided for in Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Statute. By letter dated 5 January 2015, the Secretary-General of the OAS indicated that the Organization did not intend to present any observations in writing within the meaning of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of

Court.

9. By a letter dated 17 February 2015, the Government of the Republic of Chile (hereinafter “Chile”), referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, 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. Copies of the preliminary objections raised by Colombia and the written statement of its observations and submissions thereon filed by Nicaragua were therefore communicated to Chile.

10. Public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia were held on 5, 6, 7 and 9 October 2015. In its Judgment of 17 March 2016, the Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to entertain the first request put forward by Nicaragua in its

held on 5, 6, 7 and 9 October 2015. In its Judgment of 17 March 2016, the Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to entertain the first request put forward by Nicaragua in its Application (see paragraph 18 below), asking the Court to determine “[t]he precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to each of them beyond the boundaries determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012” in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), and that this request was admissible ( 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, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (I) , p. 140, para. 126).

11. By an Order of 28 April 2016, the Court fixed 28 September 2016 and 28 September 2017, respectively, as the new time-limits for the filing of a422 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial by Colombia. These pleadings were filed within the time-limits thus fixed. Along with its Memorial, Nicaragua also provided to the Court copies of its full submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter the “CLCS” or the “Commission”), explaining that this submission was part of its Memorial and that it was classified as confidential in accordance with the rules contained in Annex II to the Rules of Procedure of the CLCS.

12. By letters dated 6 October 2016 and 22 November 2016, respectively, the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter “Costa Rica”) and the Government of the Republic of Panama (hereinafter “Panama”),

12. By letters dated 6 October 2016 and 22 November 2016, respectively, the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter “Costa Rica”) and the Government of the Republic of Panama (hereinafter “Panama”), referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, 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 the same provision, the Court granted those requests, with the exception of the submission of Nicaragua to the CLCS, which would not be provided to Costa Rica and Panama. The Registrar duly communicated those decisions to Costa Rica and Panama and to the Parties. A copy of Nicaragua’s Memorial, not including said submission, was also made available to Chile (see paragraph 9 above).

13. By an Order of 8 December 2017, the Court authorized the submission of a Reply by Nicaragua and a Rejoinder by Colombia, and fixed 9 July 2018 and 11 February 2019 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings. The Reply of Nicaragua and the Rejoinder of Colombia were filed within the time-limits thus fixed.

14. In an Order of 4 October 2022, the Court indicated that, in the circumstances of the case, before proceeding to any consideration of technical and scientific questions in relation to the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured, it was necessary to decide on certain questions of law, after hearing the Parties thereon. Accordingly, the Court decided that, “at the forthcoming oral proceedings in the case, the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Colombia shall present their arguments exclusively with regard to the following two questions: (1) Under customary international law, may a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured extend within

aragua and the Republic of Colombia shall present their arguments exclusively with regard to the following two questions: (1) Under customary international law, may a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State? (2) What are the criteria under customary international law for the determination of the limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is423 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content measured and, in this regard, do paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect customary international law?” ( Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Order of 4 October 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (II), p. 565.)

15. Having ascertained the views of the Parties and in light of the scope of the oral proceedings, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that copies of the written pleadings and documents annexed would not be made accessible to the public at the time of the opening of the oral proceedings.

16. Public hearings on the two questions formulated by the Court in its Order of 4 October 2022 (see paragraph 14 above) were held on 5, 6, 7 and 9 December 2022, at which the Court heard the oral arguments and replies

of:

For Nicaragua: HE Mr Carlos José Argüello Gómez,

Mr Vaughan Lowe, Mr Alex Oude Elferink, Mr Alain Pellet.

For Colombia: HE Mr Eduardo Valencia-Ospina,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr Rodman Bundy, Mr Lorenzo Palestini, Mr Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes.

Mr Vaughan Lowe, Mr Alex Oude Elferink, Mr Alain Pellet.

For Colombia: HE Mr Eduardo Valencia-Ospina,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr Rodman Bundy, Mr Lorenzo Palestini, Mr Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes.

17. At the hearings, a Member of the Court put a question to Colombia, to which a reply was given orally in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court. Nicaragua submitted written comments on the oral reply provided by Colombia on 15 December 2022.

18. In the Application, the following claims were made by Nicaragua: “Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare: First: The precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to each of them beyond the boundaries determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012.

Second: The principles and rules of international law that determine the rights and duties of the two States in relation to the area of overlapping continental shelf claims and the use of its resources, pending424 delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) running head content the delimitation of the maritime boundary between them beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast.”

19. In the written proceeding