CIJ - Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Judgment of 4 May 2011

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REpORTS OF JUdgmENTS,

AdVISORY OpINIONS ANd ORdERS TERRITORIAL ANd mARITImE dISpUTE

(NICARAgUA v. COLOmBIA)

AppLICATION BY COSTA RICA

FOR pERmISSION TO INTERVENE

JUDGMENT OF 4 MAY 2011

2011

COUR INTERNATIONALE dE JUSTICE

RECUEIL dES ARRÊTS,

AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORdONNANCES dIFFÉRENd

TERRITORIAL ET mARITImE

(NICARAgUA c. COLOmBIE) REQUÊTE dU COSTA RICA À FIN d’INTERVENTION ARRÊT DU 4 MAI 2011 7 CIJ1019.indb 1 13/06/13 16:02Official citation : Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 348

mode officiel de citation : Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie), requête à fin d’intervention, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2011, p. 348

ISSN 0074-4441

ISBN 978-92-1-071130-2

Sales number No de vente: 1019 7 CIJ1019.indb 2 13/06/13 16:02TERRITORIAL ANd mARITImE dISpUTE

(NICARAgUA v. COLOmBIA)

AppLICATION BY COSTA RICA

FOR pERmISSION TO INTERVENE

dIFFÉRENd

TERRITORIAL ET mARITImE

(NICARAgUA c. COLOmBIE) REQUÊTE dU COSTA RICA À FIN d’INTERVENTION 4 mAY 2011

JUdgmENT

dIFFÉRENd

TERRITORIAL ET mARITImE

(NICARAgUA c. COLOmBIE) REQUÊTE dU COSTA RICA À FIN d’INTERVENTION 4 mAY 2011

JUdgmENT 4 mAI 2011 ARRÊT 7 CIJ1019.indb 3 13/06/13 16:02348 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs Chronology of the procedure 1-20

I. The Legal Framework 21-51

1. The interest of a legal nature which may be affected 23-28

2. The precise object of the intervention 29-36

3. The basis and extent of the Court’s jurisdiction 37-43

4. The evidence in support of the request to intervene 44-51

II. Examination of Costa Rica’s Application for permission to Intervene 52-90

The interest of a legal nature claimed by Costa Rica 53-90 Operative Clause 91

7 CIJ1019.indb 4 13/06/13 16:02349 5

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2011 4 May 2011

TERRITORIAL ANd mARITImE dISpUTE

(NICARAgUA v. COLOmBIA)

AppLICATION BY COSTA RICA FOR pERmISSION TO INTERVENE Legal framework — Conditions for intervention under Article 62 of the Statute and Article 81 of the Rules of Court. Article 81, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rules of Court — Interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings — Dif ‑ ference between right and interest of a legal nature in the context of Article 62 of the Statute — Interest of a legal nature to be shown is not limited to the dispositif alone of a Judgment but may also relate to the reasons which constitute the neces‑ sary steps to the dispositif.

ference between right and interest of a legal nature in the context of Article 62 of the Statute — Interest of a legal nature to be shown is not limited to the dispositif alone of a Judgment but may also relate to the reasons which constitute the neces‑ sary steps to the dispositif. Article 81, paragraph 2 (b), of the Rules of Court — Precise object of interven ‑ tion certainly consists in informing the Court of the interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings, but also in contributing to the protection of that interest — Proceedings on intervention are not an occasion for the State seeking to intervene or for the Parties to discuss questions of substance relating to the main proceedings. Article 81, paragraph 2 (c), of the Rules of Court — Basis and extent of the Court’s jurisdiction — Statute does not require, as a condition for intervention, the existence of a basis of jurisdiction between the Parties to the main proceedings and the State which is seeking to intervene as a non‑party. Article 81, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court — Evidence in support of the request to intervene — Documents annexed in support of the Application for per ‑ mission to intervene. Examination of Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene. Whether Costa Rica has set out an interest of a legal nature in the context of Article 62 of the Statute — Costa Rica has claimed to have an interest of a legal nature in the exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction in maritime area in the Caribbean Sea to which it is entitled under international law by virtue of its coast 2011 4 may general List No. 124 7 CIJ1019.indb 6 13/06/13 16:02350 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 6 facing on that sea — Although Nicaragua and Colombia differ in their assessment as to the limits of the area in which Costa Rica may have a legal interest, they recognize the existence of Costa Rica’s interest of a legal nature in at least some areas claimed by the Parties to the main proceedings — The Court is not called

6 facing on that sea — Although Nicaragua and Colombia differ in their assessment as to the limits of the area in which Costa Rica may have a legal interest, they recognize the existence of Costa Rica’s interest of a legal nature in at least some areas claimed by the Parties to the main proceedings — The Court is not called upon to examine the exact geographical parameters of the maritime area in which Costa Rica considers it has an interest of a legal nature — Costa Rica has indi ‑ cated the maritime area in which it considers it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings. Whether Costa Rica has established that the interest of a legal nature which it has set out is one which may be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings — Costa Rica has contended that the area in which it has an interest of a legal nature overlaps with the area in dispute between the Parties to the main proceedings, and that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the delimitation decision in those proceedings may affect its interest of a legal nature — Costa Rica has further contended that the southern terminus of the boundary to be delimited in the main proceedings may affect its interest of a legal nature inasmuch as that south‑ ern endpoint may be placed in its potential area of interest — To succeed with its request, Costa Rica must show that its interest of a legal nature needs a protection that is not provided by Article 59 of the Statute — Costa Rica has not demon ‑ strated that the interest of a legal nature which it has asserted is one which may be affected by the decision in the main proceedings because the Court, when drawing a line delimiting the maritime areas between the Parties to the main proceedings, will, if necessary, end the line in question before it reaches an area in which the interests of a legal nature of third States may become involved.

JUdgmENT Present : President Owada ; Vice‑President Tomka ; Judges Koroma, AlKhasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna,

interests of a legal nature of third States may become involved.

JUdgmENT Present : President Owada ; Vice‑President Tomka ; Judges Koroma, AlKhasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, donoghue ; Judges ad hoc Cot, gaja ; Registrar Couvreur.

In the case concerning the territorial and maritime dispute, 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. Alex Oude Elferink, deputy-director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University, mr. Alain pellet, professor at the Université de paris Ouest, Nanterre-La défense, member and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de droit international, 7 CIJ1019.indb 8 13/06/13 16:02351 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 7 mr. paul Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLp, Washington d.C., member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the district of Columbia, mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, professor of International Law, Universidad Autónoma, madrid, member of the Institut de droit international, as Counsel and Advocates ; mr. Robin Cleverly, m.A., d.phil, C.geol, F.g.S., Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty Consultancy Services, mr. John Brown, Law of the Sea Consultant, Admiralty Consultancy Services, as Scientific and Technical Advisers ; mr. César Vega masís, director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, ministry of Foreign Affairs, mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, ministry of Foreign Affairs, mr. Walner molina pérez, Juridical Adviser, ministry of Foreign Affairs, ms Tania Elena pacheco Blandino, Juridical Adviser, ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Counsel ; ms Clara E. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLp, member of the Bars of the district of Columbia and New York, ms Carmen martinez Capdevila, doctor of public International Law, Universidad Autónoma, madrid, ms Alina miron, Researcher, Nanterre Centre for International Law (CEdIN), Université de paris Ouest, Nanterre-La défense, mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Assistant Counsel, and the Republic of Colombia, represented by H.E. mr. Julio Londoño paredes, professor of International Relations, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, as Agent ; H.E. mr. guillermo Fernández de Soto, Chair of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, member of the permanent Court of Arbitration and former minister for Foreign Affairs, as Co-Agent ; mr. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar, Eversheds LLp, paris, mr. marcelo Kohen, professor of International Law at the graduate Institute of International and development Studies, geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international, 7 CIJ1019.indb 10 13/06/13 16:02352 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 8

tute of International and development Studies, geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international, 7 CIJ1019.indb 10 13/06/13 16:02352 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 8 as Counsel and Advocates ; H.E. mr. Francisco José Lloreda mera, formerly Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and permanent Representative of Colombia to the OpCW, former minister of State, mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, member of the International Law Commission, H.E. ms Sonia pereira portilla, Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of Honduras, mr. Andelfo garcía gonzález, professor of International Law, former deputy minister for Foreign Affairs, ms Victoria E. pauwels T., minister-Counsellor, ministry of Foreign Affairs, mr. Julián guerrero Orozco, minister-Counsellor, Embassy of Colombia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ms Andrea Jiménez Herrera, Counsellor, ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Legal Advisers ; mr. Thomas Fogh, Cartographer, International mapping, as Technical Adviser ; on the Application for permission to intervene filed by the Republic of Costa Rica, represented by H.E. mr. Edgar Ugalde Alvarez, Ambassador of the Republic of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia, as Agent ; mr. Coalter g. Lathrop, Lecturing Fellow at duke University School of Law, member of the North Carolina State Bar, Special Adviser to the ministry of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, mr. Sergio Ugalde, member of the permanent Court of Arbitration, Senior Adviser to the ministry of Foreign Affairs, member of the Costa Rican Bar, mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the ministry of Foreign Affairs, member of the Costa Rican Bar, mr. Carlos Vargas, director of the Legal department, ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Counsel and Advocates ; H.E. mr. Jorge Urbina Ortega, Ambassador of the Republic of Costa Rica to

ber of the Costa Rican Bar, mr. Carlos Vargas, director of the Legal department, ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Counsel and Advocates ; H.E. mr. Jorge Urbina Ortega, Ambassador of the Republic of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, mr. michael gilles, Special Adviser to the ministry of Foreign Affairs, mr. Ricardo Otarola, minister and Consul general of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia, mr. Christian guillermet, Ambassador, deputy permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at geneva, mr. gustavo Campos, Consul general of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ms Shara duncan, Counsellor at the Embassy of Costa Rica in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, mr. Leonardo Salazar, National geographic Institute of Costa Rica, as Advisers, 7 CIJ1019.indb 12 13/06/13 16:02353 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 9 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. As a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, the Application invoked 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 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 purmade 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, 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 all States parties to the pact of Bogotá the notifications provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute. 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 judge ad hoc to sit in the case.

Nicaragua first chose mr. mohammed Bedjaoui, who resigned on 2 may 2006, and subsequently mr. giorgio gaja. Colombia first chose mr. Yves Fortier, who resigned on 7 September 2010, and subsequently mr. Jean-pierre Cot.

5. By an Order of 26 February 2002, the Court fixed 28 April 2003 as the

and subsequently mr. giorgio gaja. Colombia first chose mr. Yves Fortier, who resigned on 7 September 2010, and subsequently mr. Jean-pierre Cot.

5. By an Order of 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 thus prescribed.

6. On 21 July 2003, 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 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 7 CIJ1019.indb 14 13/06/13 16:02354 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 10 submissions on the preliminary objections made by Colombia. Nicaragua filed such a statement within the time-limit thus prescribed, and the case thus became ready for hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.

7. Between 2003 and 2006, 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 that same provision, the Court decided to grant each of these requests. The Registrar duly communicated these decisions to the said governments and to the parties.

8. The Court held public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia from 4 to 8 June 2007. In its Judgment of 13 december 2007, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction, under Article XXXI of the pact of

8. The Court held public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia from 4 to 8 June 2007. In its Judgment of 13 december 2007, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction, under Article XXXI of the pact of Bogotá, to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning sovereignty over the maritime features claimed by the parties, other than the islands of San Andrés, providencia and Santa Catalina, and upon the dispute concerning the maritime delimitation between the parties.

9. By an Order of 11 February 2008, the president of the Court fixed 11 November 2008 as the new time-limit for the filing of Colombia’s Countermemorial. That pleading was duly filed within the time-limit thus prescribed.

10. On 22 September 2008, referring to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the government of the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter “Costa Rica”) asked to be furnished with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed in the case. Having ascertained the views of the parties pursuant to that same provision, the Court decided to grant this request. The Registrar duly communicated this decision to the Costa Rican government and to the parties.

11. By an Order of 18 december 2008, the Court directed Nicaragua to submit a Reply and Colombia to submit a Rejoinder and fixed 18 September 2009 and 18 June 2010 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings.

The Reply and the Rejoinder were duly filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.

12. On 25 February 2010, Costa Rica filed an Application for permission to intervene in the case pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute. In this Application, it stated in particular that its intervention “would have the limited purpose of informing the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. In

stated in particular that its intervention “would have the limited purpose of informing the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. In accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, certified copies of Costa Rica’s Application were communicated forthwith to Nicaragua and Colombia, which were invited to furnish written observations on that Application.

13. On 26 may 2010, within the time-limit fixed for that purpose by the Court, the governments of Nicaragua and Colombia submitted Written Observations on Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene. In its observations, Nicaragua set forth the grounds on which, in particular, it considered that this Application failed to comply with the Statute and the Rules of Court. For its part, Colombia indicated in its observations the reasons for which it had no objection to the said Application. The Court having considered that Nicaragua 7 CIJ1019.indb 16 13/06/13 16:02355 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 11 had objected to the Application, the parties and the government of Costa Rica were notified by letters from the Registrar dated 16 June 2010 that the Court would hold hearings, in accordance with Article 84, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, to hear the observations of Costa Rica, the State applying to intervene, and those of the parties to the case.

14. After ascertaining the views of the parties, the Court decided that copies of the Written Observations which they had furnished on Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.

15. At the public hearings held on 11, 13, 14 and 15 October 2010 on whether to grant Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene, the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of the following representatives :

For Costa Rica : H.E. mr. Edgar Ugalde Alvarez, Agent,

15. At the public hearings held on 11, 13, 14 and 15 October 2010 on whether to grant Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene, the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of the following representatives :

For Costa Rica : H.E. mr. Edgar Ugalde Alvarez, Agent,

mr. Arnoldo Brenes, mr. Carlos Vargas, mr. Coalter g. Lathrop, mr. Sergio Ugalde.

For Nicaragua : H.E. mr. Carlos José Argüello gómez, Agent, mr. Antonio Remiro Brotóns, mr. paul Reichler.

For Colombia : H.E. mr. Julio Londoño paredes, Agent,

mr. Rodman R. Bundy, mr. James Crawford.

16. At the hearings, questions were put to the parties and to Costa Rica by members of the Court, to which replies were given orally and in writing, in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court. The parties and Costa Rica each submitted written comments on the written replies provided by the others after the closure of the oral proceedings.

17. In its Application for permission to intervene, the Costa Rican government stated in conclusion that it “respectfully requests [the Court’s] permission to intervene in the present proceedings between Nicaragua and Colombia for the object and purpose stated in the present Application, and to participate in those proceedings in accordance with Article 85 of the Rules of Court” (para. 31).

In its Written Observations on Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene, Nicaragua submitted “that the Application filed by Costa Rica requesting permission to intervene fails to comply with the Statute and the Rules of Court”, and that it “leaves it to the discretion of the Court to adjudge and determine whether Costa Rica has complied with the legal requirements necessary to base a right to intervene in the present proceedings and, hence whether the request of Costa Rica should be granted”.

fails to comply with the Statute and the Rules of Court”, and that it “leaves it to the discretion of the Court to adjudge and determine whether Costa Rica has complied with the legal requirements necessary to base a right to intervene in the present proceedings and, hence whether the request of Costa Rica should be granted”. 7 CIJ1019.indb 18 13/06/13 16:02356 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 12 In its Written Observations on Costa Rica’s Application for permission to intervene, Colombia concluded as follows : “the government of Colombia has no objection to the intervention of Costa Rica. Notwithstanding the fact that Colombia considers that Costa Rica has satisfied the requirements of Article 62 of the Statute and Article 81 of the Rules of Court, Colombia wishes to emphasize that it disagrees with certain points raised in Costa Rica’s Application. Colombia reserves its position on these points which it will explain at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.”

18. At the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented : On behalf of the Government of Costa Rica, at the hearing of 14 October 2010 : “[The Court is] respectfully request[ed] . . . to grant the Republic of Costa Rica the right to intervene, in order to inform the Court of its interests of a legal nature which might be affected by the decision in this case, according to Article 62 of the Statute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Costa Rica] seek[s] the application of the provisions of Article 85 of the Rules of Court, namely : — paragraph 1 : ‘the intervening State shall be supplied with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed and shall be entitled to submit a written statement within a time-limit to be fixed by the Court’, and

Rules of Court, namely : — paragraph 1 : ‘the intervening State shall be supplied with copies of the pleadings and documents annexed and shall be entitled to submit a written statement within a time-limit to be fixed by the Court’, and — paragraph 3 : ‘The intervening State shall be entitled, in the course of the oral proceedings, to submit its observations with respect to the subject-matter of the intervention.’” On behalf of the Government of Nicaragua, at the hearing of 15 October 2010 : “In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the Application for permission to intervene filed by the Republic of Costa Rica and oral pleadings, the Republic of Nicaragua respectfully submits that : The Application filed by the Republic of Costa Rica fails to comply with the requirements established by the Statute and the Rules of Court, namely, Article 62, and paragraph 2, (a) and (b) of Article 81 respectively.” On behalf of the Government of Colombia, at the hearing of 15 October 2010 : “In light of the considerations stated during these proceedings, [the] government [of Colombia] wishes to reiterate what it stated in the Written Observations it submitted to the Court, to the effect that, in Colombia’s view, Costa Rica has satisfied the requirements of Article 62 of the Statute and, consequently, that Colombia does not object to Costa Rica’s request for permission to intervene in the present case as a non-party.” 7 CIJ1019.indb 20 13/06/13 16:02357 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 13

19. In its Application for permission to intervene dated 25 February 2010 (see paragraph 12 above), Costa Rica specified that it wished to intervene in the case as a non-party State for the “purpose of informing the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. Costa Rica also indicated that it had no intention of intervening

the Court of the nature of Costa Rica’s legal rights and interests and of seeking to ensure that the Court’s decision regarding the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia does not affect those rights and interests”. Costa Rica also indicated that it had no intention of intervening in those aspects of the proceedings that relate to the territorial dispute.

20. Referring to Article 81 of the Rules of Court, Costa Rica set out in its Application what it considers to be the interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the Court’s decision on the delimitation between Nicaragua and Colombia, the precise object of its intervention, and the basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between itself and the parties to the main proceedings.

I. The Legal Framework

21. The legal framework of Costa Rica’s request to intervene is set out in Article 62 of the Statute and Article 81 of the Rules of Court.

Under Article 62 of the Statute : “1. Should a State consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene.

2. It shall be for the Court to decide upon this request.” Under Article 81 of the Rules of Court : “1. An application for permission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute, signed in the manner provided for in Article 38, paragraph 3, of these Rules, shall be filed as soon as possible, and not later than the closure of the written proceedings. In exceptional circumstances, an application submitted at a later stage may however be admitted.

2. The application shall state the name of an agent. It shall specify

the case to which it relates, and shall set out : (a) the interest of a legal nature which the State applying to intervene considers may be affected by the decision in that case ; (b) the precise object of the intervention ; (c) any basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between the State applying to intervene and the parties to the case.

3. The application shall contain a list of the documents in support,

considers may be affected by the decision in that case ; (b) the precise object of the intervention ; (c) any basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between the State applying to intervene and the parties to the case.

3. The application shall contain a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached.”

22. Intervention being a procedure incidental to the main proceedings before the Court, it is, according to the Statute and the Rules of Court, for the State seeking to intervene to set out the interest of a legal nature which it considers may be affected by the decision in that dispute, the precise 7 CIJ1019.indb 22 13/06/13 16:02358 territorial and maritime dispute (judgment) 14 object it is pursuing by means of the reques