CIJ - Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia - Judgment of 17 March 2016

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,

AVIS 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)

EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES

ARRÊT DU 17 MARS 2016

2016

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)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT OF 17 MARCH 2016 7 CIJ1093.indb 1 15/02/17 08:28Mode 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), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2016, p. 100

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), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 100

ISSN 0074‑4441

ISBN 978‑92‑1‑157288‑9

No de vente: Sales number 1093 7 CIJ1093.indb 2 15/02/17 08:28QUESTION DE LA DÉLIMITATION

DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

ISSN 0074‑4441

ISBN 978‑92‑1‑157288‑9

No de vente: Sales number 1093 7 CIJ1093.indb 2 15/02/17 08:28QUESTION 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)

EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES

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 17 MARS 2016

ARRÊT 17 MARCH 2016

JUDGMENT 7 CIJ1093.indb 3 15/02/17 08:28100

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs Chronology of the Procedure 1‑12

I. Introduction 13‑17

II. First Preliminary Objection 18‑46

III. Third Preliminary Objection 47‑88

1. The res judicata principle 55‑61

2. The decision adopted by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012 62‑84

3. Application of the res judicata principle in the case 85‑88

IV. Fourth Preliminary Objection 89‑90

V. Second Preliminary Objection 91‑94

VI. Fifth Preliminary Objection 95‑125

1. The preliminary objection to the admissibility of Nicaragua’s

First Request 97‑115

2. The preliminary objection to the admissibility of Nicaragua’s

Second Request 116‑125 Operative Clause 126

7 CIJ1093.indb 5 15/02/17 08:28101 5

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2016

First Request 97‑115

2. The preliminary objection to the admissibility of Nicaragua’s

Second Request 116‑125 Operative Clause 126

7 CIJ1093.indb 5 15/02/17 08:28101 5

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2016 17 March 2016

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 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 — Immediate 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 denunciation determined by first paragraph of Article LVI — Question whether second paragraph of Article LVI alters effect of first paragraph — Second paragraph 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 purpose of Pact — Colombia’s interpretation not necessary to give effet utile to second paragraph of Article LVI — Colombia’s first preliminary objection rejected.

2016 17 March General List No. 154 7 CIJ1093.indb 7 15/02/17 08:28102delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 6

second paragraph of Article LVI — Colombia’s first preliminary objection rejected.

2016 17 March General List No. 154 7 CIJ1093.indb 7 15/02/17 08:28102delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 6 Colombia’s third preliminary objection according to which the Court lacks jurisdiction because Nicaragua’s Application is barred by res judicata. Objection characterized by the Court as objection to admissibility. Contentions by Colombia — Nicaragua’s First Request in its 2013 Application reiterates its claim contained in final submission I (3) of 2012 relating to delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast — In 2012 Judgment, that claim found admissible but not upheld on the merits — First Request barred by res judicata — Second Request asks the Court to declare principles and rules of international law governing rights and duties of the two States in relevant area pending delimitation — Nicaragua’s Second Request linked to First Request and also barred by res judicata.

Contentions by Nicaragua — The Court’s decision in subparagraph 3 of operative clause of 2012 Judgment did not amount to a rejection on the merits of the claim for delimitation of continental shelf — Court’s 2012 decision based on fact that Nicaragua had not completed its submission to CLCS — Nicaragua has since discharged its obligation under Article 76, paragraph 8, of UNCLOS — Operative clause of 2012 Judgment takes no position on delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — The Court not prevented from entertaining Nicaragua’s claim for such delimitation in its 2013 Application.

Analysis by the Court — Principle of res judicata — Finality of decision adopted in a particular case — Identity between parties, object and legal ground — Identity between successive claims not sufficient — Need to determine to what extent first claim already definitively settled — Ascertainment of what is covered by res judicata — Meaning of operative clause may need to be established by refadopted in a particular case — Identity between parties, object and legal ground — Identity between successive claims not sufficient — Need to determine to what extent first claim already definitively settled — Ascertainment of what is covered by res judicata — Meaning of operative clause may need to be established by reference to reasoning of Judgment. Content and scope of subparagraph 3 of operative clause of 2012 Judgment — Meaning to be attributed to words “cannot uphold” — Examination of reasoning in Section IV of 2012 Judgment — The fact that Colombia not a party to UNCLOS did not relieve Nicaragua of its obligations under Article 76 of UNCLOS — At time of 2012 Judgment, Nicaragua had only submitted “Preliminary Information” to CLCS — Finding of the Court in paragraph 129 of 2012 Judgment — The Court did not take a decision on whether or not Nicaragua had an entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coast — Nicaragua’s claim in final submission I (3) of 2012 not upheld because it had yet to discharge its obligation under paragraph 8 of Article 76 of UNCLOS — Any delimitation conditional on fulfilment of this obligation.

Application of res judicata principle in the case — Nicaragua submitted “final” information to CLCS in 2013 — Fulfilment of condition imposed in 2012 Judgment — The Court not precluded by res judicata from ruling on Nicaragua’s Application — Colombia’s third preliminary objection rejected. 7 CIJ1093.indb 9 15/02/17 08:28103delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 7 Colombia’s fourth preliminary objection according to which the Court lacks jurisdiction over a claim that is an attempt to appeal and revise 2012 Judgment — Nicaragua does not request the Court to revise 2012 Judgment, nor does it frame Application as an “appeal” — Colombia’s fourth preliminary objection not founded and therefore rejected. Colombia’s second preliminary objection according to which 2012 Judgment does not grant the Court continuing jurisdiction — Jurisdiction already established

Application as an “appeal” — Colombia’s fourth preliminary objection not founded and therefore rejected. Colombia’s second preliminary objection according to which 2012 Judgment does not grant the Court continuing jurisdiction — Jurisdiction already established on basis of Article XXXI of Pact — No need to consider whether an additional basis of jurisdiction exists — No ground for the Court to rule upon Colombia’s second preliminary objection. Colombia’s fifth preliminary objection. Question of inadmissibility of Nicaragua’s First Request — Whether recommendation by CLCS is a prerequisite for the Court to delimit continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Role and function of CLCS — Delimitation of continental shelf distinct from delineation of its outer limits — Delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles can be undertaken independently of a recommendation from CLCS — Recommendation not a prerequisite — Preliminary objection to admissibility of Nicaragua’s First Request rejected.

Question of inadmissibility of Nicaragua’s Second Request — Second Request does not relate to an actual dispute between the Parties — Preliminary objection to admissibility of Nicaragua’s Second Request upheld.

JUDGMENT

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

Brower, Skotnikov ; Registrar Couvreur. In the case concerning the question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicara ‑ guan coast, between 7 CIJ1093.indb 11 15/02/17 08:28104delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment)

8 the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nic ‑ aragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent and Counsel ; Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the Bar of England and Wales, Emeri ‑ tus 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, Nanterre‑La 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, 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 Nicara ‑

gua, as Administrator, and the Republic of Colombia, represented by H.E. Ms María Angela Holguín Cuéllar, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Ms Aury Guerrero Bowie, Governor of the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, H.E. Mr. Francisco Echeverri Lara, Vice‑ Minister of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as National Authorities ; 7 CIJ1093.indb 13 15/02/17 08:28105delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 9 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 Constitu ‑ tional Court of Colombia, former Permanent Delegate of Colombia to UNESCO and former Ambassador of Colombia to the Swiss Confedera ‑ tion, 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 Commis ‑ sion, President of the Latin American Society of International Law, 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

sion, President of the Latin American Society of International Law, 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 Weap‑ ons, former Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Andelfo García González, Ambassador of the Republic of Colom ‑ bia 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 Colom‑ bia 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, Min ‑ istry 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, 7 CIJ1093.indb 15 15/02/17 08:28106delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 10 CN William Pedroza, International Affairs Bureau, National Navy of Colom‑ 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 ;

10 CN William Pedroza, International Affairs Bureau, National Navy of Colom‑ 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, delivers the following Judgment :

1. On 16 September 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 “Colom ‑ bia”) with regard to a “dispute [which] concerns the delimitation of the bound ‑ aries 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 territo‑ rial sea of Nicaragua is measured, and on the other hand, the continental shelf of Colombia”. 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). In addition, Nicaragua contends that the subject‑matter of its Application remains within the jurisdiction of the Court established in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). In particular, it maintains that the Court, in its Judgment dated 19 November 2012 (hereinafter

In addition, Nicaragua contends that the subject‑matter of its Application remains within the jurisdiction of the Court established in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). In particular, it maintains that the Court, in its Judgment dated 19 November 2012 (hereinafter the “2012 Judgment”), did not definitively determine the question of the delimi‑ tation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia in the area beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast, “which question was and remains before the Court”.

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 7 CIJ1093.indb 17 15/02/17 08:28107delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 11 by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case. Nicaragua chose Mr. Leonid Skotnikov and Colombia Mr. Charles N. Brower.

4. By an Order of 9 December 2013, the Court fixed 9 December 2014 as the time‑limit for the filing of the Memorial of Nicaragua and 9 December 2015 for the filing of the Counter‑Memorial of Colombia.

5. 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 of Court,

raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admis ‑ sibility of the Application. For its part, Nicaragua, by letter dated 16 Septem ‑ ber 2014, though expressing its surprise that the said objections were raised four months before the expiry of the time‑limit for the filing of its Memorial, requested the Court, in the event that the proceedings on the merits were sus ‑ pended, to give it a sufficient period of time to present a written statement of its observations and submissions on those objections. Consequently, 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 presenta‑ tion by Nicaragua of a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia. Nicaragua filed such a 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 notifi ‑ cations 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, by letter dated 10 November 2014, moreover addressed to the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”) the notification pro ‑ vided for in Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, explaining that copies of the preliminary objections filed by Colombia and the written statement to be filed by Nicaragua would be communicated in due course. By letter dated 5 January 2015, and before having received copies of these pleadings, the Secretary‑ General of the OAS indicated that the Organization did not intend to submit any observations in writing within the meaning of Article 69, paragraph 3,

to be filed by Nicaragua would be communicated in due course. By letter dated 5 January 2015, and before having received copies of these pleadings, the Secretary‑ General of the OAS indicated that the Organization did not intend to submit any observations in writing within the meaning of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court. By letter dated 30 January 2015, the Registrar, taking note of the fact that the OAS did not intend to present any such observations, and bearing in mind the confidentiality of the pleadings, advised the Secretary‑ General of the OAS that, unless there was a specific reason why that Organiza‑ tion wished to receive copies of the written proceedings, no copies thereof would be provided.

7. Referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Govern ‑ ment 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 Gov ‑ ernment of Chile 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. 7 CIJ1093.indb 19 15/02/17 08:28108delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment)

12

9. Public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia were held from Monday 5 October 2015 to Friday 9 October 2015, at which the

Court heard the oral arguments and replies of :

For Colombia: H.E. Mr. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr. Matthias Herdegen, Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, Mr. W. Michael Reisman, Mr. Tullio Treves,

Court heard the oral arguments and replies of :

For Colombia: H.E. Mr. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa,

Sir Michael Wood, Mr. Matthias Herdegen, Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, Mr. W. Michael Reisman, Mr. Tullio Treves, H.E. Mr. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla.

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

Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Mr. Alain Pellet, Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Mr. Vaughan Lowe.

10. In the Application, the following claims were presented 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, pending the delimita‑ tion of the maritime boundary between them beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast.”

11. In the written pleadings, the following submissions were presented on behalf of the Parties : On behalf of the Government of Colombia, in the preliminary objections : “The Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge and declare, for the reasons set forth in this Pleading,

1. That it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in its Application of 16 September 2013 ; or, in the alternative,

2. That the claims brought against Colombia in the Application of 16 Sep‑ tember 2013 are inadmissible.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, in the written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia : “For the above reasons, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Preliminary Objections submitted by the

tember 2013 are inadmissible.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, in the written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia : “For the above reasons, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Preliminary Objections submitted by the 7 CIJ1093.indb 21 15/02/17 08:28109delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 13 Republic of Colombia, both in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the case, are invalid.”

12. At the oral proceedings on the preliminary objections, the following sub ‑ missions were presented by the Parties : On behalf of the Government of Colombia, at the hearing of 7 October 2015 : “For the reasons set forth in [its] written and oral pleadings on prelimi ‑ nary objections, the Republic of Colombia requests the Court to adjudge

and declare :

1. That it lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in its Application of 16 September 2013 ; or, in the alternative,

2. That the claims brought against Colombia in the Application of 16 Sep‑ tember 2013 are inadmissible.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, at the hearing of 9 October 2015 : “In view of the reasons Nicaragua has presented in its written observa ‑ tions 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.”

I. Introduction

13. 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 para‑ graph 19 below).

14. In addition, Nicaragua maintains that the subject‑matter of its Application remains within the jurisdiction of the Court, as established in

According to this provision, the parties to the Pact recognize the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory in “all disputes of a juridical nature” (see para‑ graph 19 below).

14. In addition, Nicaragua maintains that the subject‑matter of its Application remains within the jurisdiction of the Court, as established in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.

Colombia), because in its 2012 Judgment (I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 624), the Court did not definitively determine the question — of which it was seised — of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nica ‑ ragua and Colombia in the area beyond 200 nautical miles of the Nicara ‑ guan coast.

15. Colombia has raised five preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court or to the admissibility of Nicaragua’s Application. Accord ‑ ing to the first objection put forward by Colombia, the Court lacks juris ‑ diction ratione temporis under the Pact of Bogotá because the proceedings 7 CIJ1093.indb 23 15/02/17 08:28110delimitation of the continental shelf (judgment) 14 were instituted by Nicaragua on 16 September 2013, after Colombia’s notice of denunciation of the Pact became effective on 27 November 2012.

In its second objection, Colombia argues that the Court does not possess “continuing jurisdiction” because it fully dealt with Nicaragua’s claims in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute case with regard to the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia in the area beyond 200 nautical miles of the Nicaraguan coast. Colombia contends in its third objection that the issues raised in Nicaragua’s Application of 16 September 2013 were “explicitly decided” by the Court in its 2012 Judg‑ ment ; the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction because Nicaragua’s claim is barred by the principle of res judicata. In its fourth objection, Colombia submits that Nicaragua’s Application is an attempt to appeal and revise

16 September 2013 were “explicitly decided” by the Court in its 2012 Judg‑ ment ; the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction because Nicaragua’s claim is barred by the principle of res judicata. In its fourth objection, Colombia submits that Nicaragua’s Application is an attempt to appeal and revise the Court’s 2012 Judgment, and, as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application. Finally, according to Colombia’s fifth objec ‑ tion, Nicaragua’s First Request (regarding the delimitation of the conti ‑ nental shelf between the Parties in the area beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s baselines) and Second Request (regarding the determi‑ nation of the principles and rules of international law governing the rights and duties of the two States in the relevant area pending the delimitation) in its Application (see paragraph 10 above) are inadmissible. The First Request is, in Colombia’s view, inadmissible because the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter the “CLCS”) has not made recommendations to Nicaragua with respect to whether, and if so how fa