CIJ - Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Judgment of 13 December 2007

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRE|TS,

AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DU DIFFEuREND

TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

EXCEPTIONS PREuLIMINAIRES

ARRE|TD U1 3D EuCEMBRE 2007

2007

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,

ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING THE TERRITORIAL

AND MARITIME DISPUTE

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT OF 13 DECEMBER 2007Mode officiel de citation: Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007,p .8 3 2 Official citation: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007,p .8 3 2

ISSN 0074-4441

ISBN 978-92-1-071038-1

No de vente:

Sales number 931DIFFEuREND TERRITORIAL ET MARITIME

(NICARAGUA c. COLOMBIE)

EXCEPTIONS PREuLIMINAIRES

TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13 DEuCEMBRE 2007

ARRE|T 13 DECEMBER 2007

JUDGMENTPRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

ISSN 0074-4441

ISBN 978-92-1-071038-1TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

1. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-14

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 15-32

3. SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE 33-42

4. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 43-120 4.1. General overview of the arguments of the Parties on the first preliminary objection 43-44 4.2. The appropriate stage of proceedings for examination of the preliminary objection 45-52 4.3. Jurisdictional system of the Pact of Bogotá 53-59 4.4. The question whether the 1928 Treaty and 1930 Protocol settled the matters in dispute between the Parties 60-120 4.4.1. Arguments of the Parties 60-61 4.4.2. The conclusion of the 1928 Treaty and signature of the 1930 Protocol 62-72 4.4.3. The question whether the 1928 Treaty was in force in 1948 73-82 4.4.4. Examining the preliminary objection in relation to different elements of the dispute 83-85 4.4.5. The jurisdiction of the Court as regards the question of sovereignty over the named islands of the San Andrés Archipelago 86-90 4.4.6. The jurisdiction of the Court as regards the question of the scope and composition of the rest of the San Andrés Archipelago 91-97 4.4.7. The jurisdiction of the Court as regards the question of sovereignty over Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana 98-104 4.4.8. The jurisdiction of the Court as regards the question of maritime delimitation 105-120

5. S ECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 121-140

6. OPERATIVE CLAUSE 142

832

4INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2007 13 December 2007

CASE CONCERNING THE TERRITORIAL

AND MARITIME DISPUTE

(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

JUDGMENT

Present: President HIGGINS ; Vice-President AL-KHASAWNEH ; Judges RANJEVA,

SHI,K OROMA,P ARRA-ARANGUREN,B UERGENTHAL,O WADA,S IMMA, TOMKA,A BRAHAM,K EITH,S EPÚLVEDA -AMOR,B ENNOUNA,S KOTNIKOV ; Judges ad hoc FORTIER,G AJA ; Registrar COUVREUR. In the case concerning the territorial and maritime dispute, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by H.E. Mr. Carlos Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent and Counsel ; H.E. Mr. Samuel Santos, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua, Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., member of the English Bar, Chairman of the United Nations International Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, Distinguished Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford, Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Research Associate, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University, Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris X-Nanterre, Member and former Chairman of the United Nations International Law Commission, 833 2007 13 December General List No. 124 5Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, Professor of International Law, Universidad

Autónoma, Madrid, as Counsel and Advocates ; Ms Irene Blázquez Navarro, Doctor of Public International Law, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Netherlands, Ms Nadine Susani, Doctor of Public Law, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-Nanterre, as Assistant Advisers, and the Republic of Colombia, represented by H.E. Mr. Julio Londoño Paredes, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of Cuba, as Agent ; H.E. Mr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and former Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Co-Agent ; Mr. Stephen M. Schwebel, member of the Bars of the State of New York, the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America ; member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ; member of the Institut de droit international, Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., member of the English Bar ; member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ; member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Prosper Weil, Professor Emeritus, University of Paris II ; member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ; member of the Institut de droit international ; member of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (Institut de France), as Counsel and Advocates ; Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Member of the United Nations International Law Commission, Mr. Rafael Nieto Navia, former Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ; former Judge of the Inter-American Court

of Human Rights ; member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ; member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Andelfo García González, Professor of International Law, Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Colombia in the Kingdom of Spain, former Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Colombia, Mr. Enrique Gaviria Liévano, Professor of Public International Law ; former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations ; former Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly ; former Ambassador of Colombia to Greece and to the Czech Republic,

834TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

6Mr. Juan Carlos Galindo Vacha, former Deputy Inspector-General before the Council of State of the Republic of Colombia, National Head of the Civil Registry, as Advocates ; Ms Sonia Pereira Portilla, Minister Plenipotentiary, Embassy of Colombia in the Netherlands, Mr. Juan José Quintana, Minister Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, Ms Mirza Gnecco Plá, Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, Mr. Julián Guerrero Orozco, Counsellor, Embassy of Colombia in the Netherlands, Ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, First Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, Ms Daphné Richemond, member of the Bars of Paris and the State of New York, as Legal Advisers ; Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping, as Technical Adviser ; Ms Stacey Donison, as Stenographer, THE COURT, composed as above, after deliberation, delivers the following Judgment:

1. On 6 December 2001, the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter “Nicaragua”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “Colombia”) in respect of a dispute consisting of “a group of related legal issues subsisting” between the two States “concerning title to territory and maritime delimitation” in the western Caribbean (for the geographical context of the case, see below, p. 836, sketch-map).

In its Application, Nicaragua seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on the provisions of 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) as well as on the declarations made by the Parties under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which are deemed, for the period which they still have to run, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the present Court pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 5, of its Statute.

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

3. 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 noti835TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

7836TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 8fications 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. The Registrar subsequently transmitted to that organization copies of the pleadings filed in the case and asked its Secretary-General to inform him whether or not it intended to present observations in writing within the meaning of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court. The OAS indicated that it did not intend to submit any such observations.

4. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either of the Parties, each Party proceeded to exercise its right conferred by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a judgead hoc to sit in the case. Nicaragua first chose Mr. Mohammed Bedjaoui, who resigned on 2 May 2006, and subsequently Mr. Giorgio Gaja. Colombia chose Mr. Yves

Fortier.

5. By an Order dated 26 February 2002, the Court fixed 28 April 2003 as the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of Nicaragua and 28 June 2004 as the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Colombia. Nicaragua filed its Memorial within the time-limit so prescribed.

6. On 21 July 2003, within the time-limit set by Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, as amended on 5 December 2000, Colombia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, by an Order dated 24 September 2003, the Court, noting that by virtue of Article 79, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, the proceedings on the merits were suspended, fixed 26 January 2004 as the time-limit for the presentation by Nicaragua of a

written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections made by Colombia. Nicaragua filed such a statement within the time-limit so prescribed, and the case thus became ready for hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.

7. Referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Governments of Honduras, Jamaica, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela asked to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case.

Having ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to grant these requests. The Registrar duly communicated these decisions to the said Governments and to the Parties.

8. On 4 June 2007, Colombia, referring to Article 56, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court and Practice Directions IXbis and IXter, transmitted to the Court four documents and the certified English translations thereof, to which it intended to refer during the oral proceedings.

9. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided, after ascertaining the views of the Parties, that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.

10. Public hearings were held between 4 June and 8 June 2007, at which the

Court heard the oral arguments and replies of :

For Colombia: H.E. Mr. Julio Londoño Paredes,

Sir Arthur Watts, Mr. Prosper Weil, Mr. Stephen M. Schwebel.

837TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

9For Nicaragua: H.E. Mr. Carlos Argüello Gómez, Mr. Alain Pellet, Mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns,

Mr. Ian Brownlie.

11. In its Application, the following requests were made by Nicaragua : “[T]he Court is asked to adjudge and declare : First, that the Republic of Nicaragua has sovereignty over the islands of Providencia, San Andrés and Santa Catalina and all the appurtenant islands and keys, and also over the Roncador, Serrana, Serranilla and Quitasueño keys (in so far as they are capable of appropriation) ; Second, in the light of the determinations concerning title requested above, the Court is asked further to determine the course of the single maritime boundary between the areas of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone appertaining respectively to Nicaragua and Colombia, in accordance with equitable principles and relevant circumstances recognized by general international law as applicable to such a delimitation of a single maritime boundary.” Nicaragua also stated : “Whilst the principal purpose of this Application is to obtain declarations concerning title and the determination of maritime boundaries, the Government of Nicaragua reserves the right to claim compensation for elements of unjust enrichment consequent upon Colombian possession of the Islands of San Andrés and Providencia as well as the keys and maritime spaces up to the 82 meridian, in the absence of lawful title. The Government of Nicaragua also reserves the right to claim compensation for interference with fishing vessels of Nicaraguan nationality or vessels licensed by Nicaragua.

The Government of Nicaragua, further, reserves the rights to supplement or to amend the present Application.”

12. In the written proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties : On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua , in the Memorial : “Having regard to the legal considerations and evidence set forth in this Memorial :May it please the Court to adjudge and declare that :

(1) the Republic of Nicaragua has sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina and the appurtenant islets and cays ; (2) the Republic of Nicaragua has sovereignty over the following cays : the Cayos de Albuquerque ; the Cayos del Este Sudeste ; the Cay of Roncador ; North Cay, Southwest Cay and any other cays on the bank of Serrana ; East Cay, Beacon Cay and any other cays on the 838TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 10bank of Serranilla ; and Low Cay and any other cays on the bank of Bajo Nuevo ; (3) if the Court were to find that there are features on the bank of Quitasueño that qualify as islands under international law, the Court is requested to find that sovereignty over such features rests with Nicaragua ; (4) the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty signed in Managua on 24 March 1928 was not legally valid and, in particular, did not provide a legal basis for Colombian claims to San Andrés and Providencia ; (5) in case the Court were to find that the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty had been validly concluded, then the breach of this Treaty by Colombia entitled Nicaragua to declare its termination ; (6) in case the Court were to find that the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty had been validly concluded and were still in force, then to determine that this Treaty did not establish a delimitation of the maritime areas along the 82° meridian of longitude West ; (7) in case the Court finds that Colombia has sovereignty in respect of the islands of San Andrés and Providencia, these islands be enclaved and accorded a territorial sea entitlement of twelve miles, this being the

appropriate equitable solution justified by the geographical and legal framework ; (8) the equitable solution for the cays, in case they were to be found to be Colombian, is to delimit a maritime boundary by drawing a 3 nautical mile enclave around them ; (9) the appropriate form of delimitation, within the geographical and legal framework constituted by the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Colombia, is a single maritime boundary in the form of a median line between these mainland coasts.” On behalf of the Government of Colombia, in the preliminary objections : “For the reasons set out in the preceding Chapters,Colombia respectfully requests the Court, in application of Article 79 of the Rules of Court, to adjudge and declare that: (1) under the Pact of Bogotá, and in particular in pursuance of Articles VI and XXXIV, the Court declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI, and declares that controversy ended ; (2) under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application ; and that (3) Nicaragua’s Application is dismissed.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, in its written statement of observations and submissions on the preliminary objections made by Colombia : “1. For the reasons advanced, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Preliminary Objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia, both in respect of the jurisdiction based upon the Pact of Bogotá, and in respect of the jurisdiction based upon Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, are invalid.

839TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

112. In the alternative, the Court is requested to adjudge and declare, in

accordance with the provisions of Article 79, paragraph 9, of the Rules of Court that the objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia do not have an exclusively preliminary character.

3. In addition, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to reject the request of the Republic of Colombia to declare the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá ‘ended’, in accordance with Articles VI and XXXIV of the same instrument.

4. Any other matters not explicitly dealt with in the foregoing Written Statement are expressly reserved for the merits phase of this proceeding.”

13. At the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties : On behalf of the Government of Colombia, at the hearing of 6 June 2007 : “Pursuant to Article 60 of the Rules of the Court, having regard to Colombia’s pleadings, written and oral, Colombia respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that : (1) under the Pact of Bogotá, and in particular in pursuance of Articles VI and XXXIV, the Court declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI, and declares that controversy ended ; (2) under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application ; and that (3) Nicaragua’s Application is dismissed.” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, at the hearing of 8 June 2007 : “In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the pleadings, written and oral, the Republic of Nicaragua respectfully

requests the Court, to adjudge and declare that :

1. The Preliminary Objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia, both in respect of the jurisdiction based upon the Pact of Bogotá, and in respect of the jurisdiction based upon Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, are invalid.

2. In the alternative, the Court is requested to adjudge and declare, in accordance with the provisions of Article 79, paragraph 9, of the Rules of Court that the objections submitted by the Republic of Colombia do not have an exclusively preliminary character.

3. In addition, the Republic of Nicaragua requests the Court to reject the request of the Republic of Colombia to declare the controversy submitted to it by Nicaragua under Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá ‘ended’, in accordance with Articles VI and XXXIV of the same instrument.

4. Any other matters not explicitly dealt with in the foregoing Written

840TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

12Statement and oral pleadings, are expressly reserved for the merits phase of this proceeding.”

14. For the sake of convenience, the preliminary objection raised by Colombia relating to the Court’s jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá will hereinafter be referred to as the “first preliminary objection”. The preliminary objection raised by Colombia relating to the Court’s jurisdiction under the optional clause declarations made by the Parties will hereinafter be referred to as the “second preliminary objection”.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

15. Before becoming independent in 1821, Nicaragua was a colonial province under the rule of Spain. Thereafter, Nicaragua together with Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica formed the Federal Republic of Central America, also known as the United Provinces of Central America and as the Central American Federation. In 1838 Nicaragua seceded from the Federal Republic, maintaining the territory it had before. The Federal Republic disintegrated in the period between 1838 and 1840. In a Treaty of 25 July 1850, Spain recognized the independence

of Nicaragua.

16. The territory which is now Colombia was also under the rule of Spain and formed part of the Viceroyalty of New Granada. In 1810 the provinces of the Viceroyalty of New Granada declared independence from Spain. In 1819 the Republic of “Great Colombia” was formed. It included the territories of the former Captaincy-General of Venezuela and the Viceroyalty of New Granada. In 1830 Venezuela and Ecuador seceded from the Republic of “Great Colombia”. The remaining territory was named the Republic of New Granada in 1832. The name of the Republic was changed to Granadine Confederation in 1858 and the 1863

Constitution created the United States of Colombia. On 30 January 1881 Spain and the United States of Colombia concluded a Treaty of Peace and Amity. Under a new constitution adopted in 1886, the United States of Colombia was renamed the Republic of Colombia. The territorial scope of the State remained unchanged between 1830 and 1903 when Panama, the territory of which had formed part of the Republic of Colombia, seceded and became a separate State.

17. On 15 March 1825 the United Provinces of Central America and Colombia signed the Treaty of Perpetual Union, League and Confederation. In Article VII of that Treaty, both Parties agreed to respect their boundaries as they existed at that time and to settle the “demarcation or divisional line” between them in due course. In the period that followed,

841TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 13a number of claims were made by Nicaragua and Colombia over the Mosquito Coast and the Archipelago of San Andrés.

18. On 24 March 1928, a “Treaty concerning Territorial Questions at

Issue between Colombia and Nicaragua” was signed at Managua (hereinafter the “1928 Treaty”). The preamble of the Treaty stated that: “The Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Nicaragua, desirous of putting an end to the territorial dispute between them, and to strengthen the traditional ties of friendship which unite them, have decided to conclude the present Treaty... ” [Translation by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, for information.] Article I of the 1928 Treaty provided as follows: “The Republic of Colombia recognises the full and entire sovereignty of the Republic of Nicaragua over the Mosquito Coast between Cape Gracias a Dios and the San Juan River, and over Mangle Grande and Mangle Chico Islands in the Atlantic Ocean (Great Corn Island and Little Corn Island). The Republic of Nicaragua recognises the full and entire sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and over the other islands, islets and reefs forming part of the San Andrés Archipelago. The present Treaty does not apply to the reefs of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana, sovereignty over which is in dispute between Colombia and the United States of America.”[Translation by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, for information.] The Court has noted that there are certain differences between the original Spanish text of the 1928 Treaty and the French and English translations prepared by the Secretariat of the League of Nations. In particular, the term “cayos” in Spanish, which appears in the first and second paragraphs of Article I of the Treaty, is translated as “récifs” in French and “reefs” in English rather than “cays”. For the purposes of the present

Judgment, the Court will, in quotations, use the translation prepared by the League of Nations. However, it will employ the word “cays” rather than “reefs” when the Court itself refers to the first paragraph of Article I and will not use any geographical qualification when referring to Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana, the three maritime features named in the second paragraph of Article I. This approach is without prejudice to the physical and legal characterization of these features.

19. On 10 April 1928 Colombia and the United States of America

(hereinafter the “United States”) exchanged Notes concerning the status of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana. Colombia undertook to “refrain from objecting to the maintenance by the United States of the services which it has established or may establish on said cays to aid navigation” and the United States undertook to “refrain from objecting to the utilization, by Colombian nationals, of the waters appurtenant to the Islands for the purpose of fishing”.

842TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

1420. The instruments of ratification of the 1928 Treaty were exchanged at Managua on 5 May 1930. The Parties signed on that occasion a Protocol of Exchange of Ratifications (hereinafter the “1930 Protocol”). The Protocol noted that the 1928 Treaty was concluded between Colombia and Nicaragua “with a view to putting an end to the dispute between both republics concerning the San Andrés and Providencia Archipelago and the Nicaraguan Mosquito Coast”. The Protocol stipulated as follows: “The undersigned, in virtue of the full powers which have been granted to them and on the instructions of their respective Governments, hereby declare that the San Andrés and Providencia Archipelago mentioned in the first article of the said Treaty does not extend west of the 82nd degree of longitude west of Greenwich.”

[Translation by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, for information.]

21. In a diplomatic Note, dated 4 June 1969, from the Ambassador of Colombia to Nicaragua to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Colombia protested against the granting of certain oil exploration concessions and reconnaissance permits by Nicaragua, which allegedly covered Quitasueño and the waters surrounding it as well as maritime zones that surpassed the 82nd meridian to the east. With respect to Quitasueño, Colombia pointed out that the 1928 Treaty explicitly declared that the Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana cays were in dispute between Colombia and the United States. It requested Nicaragua “to remedy the error or inadvertence that may have been incurred by exercising acts of domain or disposition over a good that is solemnly acknowledged as outside of Nicaraguan jurisdiction or sovereignty”. Colombia also made “a formal reservation...o fi t s rights over the referenced territory, as well as over the adjacent maritime zone”. With respect to the maritime zones over which oil exploration concessions had been granted, Colombia observed that the 82nd meridian had been noted in the 1930 Protocol as the western boundary of the Archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia. Colombia asserted that it had “clear and indisputable... rights over that

[maritime] zone” which it formally reserved and stated that it trusted that Nicaragua “shall find it appropriate and adequate to revoke [the concessions] or reform them to the extent that they exceed the limit of Nicaraguan national jurisdiction and invade Colombian domain”.

22. In a diplomatic Note, dated 12 June 1969, to the Ambassador of

Colombia to Nicaragua, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua stated that his Government would carefully consider the question of the oil reconnaissance permit granted over the Quitasueño area while reserving its rights to the continental shelf. With respect to the oil exploration concessions, Nicaragua asserted that the areas concerned were part of its continental shelf and that the concessions had therefore been granted “in use of the sovereign rights [Nicaragua] fully and effectively exercises in 843TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 15accordance with the norms of international law”. As to the reference to the 82nd meridian in the 1930 Protocol, Nicaragua asserted that “[a] simple reading of the... texts makes it clear that the objective of this provision is to clearly and specifically establish in a restrictive manner, the extension of the Archipelago of San Andrés, and by no valid means can it be interpreted as a boundary of Nicaraguan rights or creator of a border between the two countries. On the contrary, it acknowledges and confirms the sovereignty and full domain of Nicaragua over national territory in that zone.”

23. In a Note in response, dated 22 September 1969, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia,inter alia , made a “formal declaration of sovereignty in the maritime areas located East of Meridian 82 of Greenwich”, relying on the “definitive and irrevocable character of the [1928] Treaty on Boundaries” and “[t]he declaration by the. . . [1930] Protocol... that the dividing line between respective maritime areas or zones was set at Greenwich Meridian 82”. He also pointed to the exclusion in the 1928 Treaty of the Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana cays “from any negotiations between Colombia and Nicaragua”.

24. In 1971 Colombia and the United States engaged in negotiations regarding the status of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana. On 23 June 1971, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua s