Links

Site search
Document search
Contact

The Court

History
Members of the Court
Presidency
Chambers and Committees
Judges ad hoc
How the Court Works
Financial Assistance to Parties
Annual Reports

The Registry

Registrar
Organizational Chart of the Registry
Texts governing the Registry
Library of the Court
Employment
University traineeship program
Internships
Procurement

Cases

List of All Cases
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders

Basic Documents

Charter of the United Nations
Statute of the Court
Rules of Court
Practice Directions
Other Texts

Jurisdiction

Contentious Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction

Press Room

Press releases
Calendar
Media Services
Multimedia
Frequently Asked Questions

Practical Information

Directions
Visits
Links
Frequently Asked Questions

Publications

Introduction

Permanent Court of International Justice

Series A: Collection of Judgments (1923-1930)
Series B: Collection of Advisory Opinions (1923-1930)
Series A/B: Collection of Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions (from 1931)
Series C: Acts and documents relating to Judgments and Advisory Opinions given by the Court / Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents
Series D: Acts and Documents concerning the organization of the Court
Series E: Annual Reports
Series F: General Indexes
Other documents


Français

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Overview of the case

On 6 December 2001, the Republic of Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia in respect of a dispute concerning “a group of related legal issues subsisting” between the two States “concerning title to territory and maritime delimitation”. On 28 April 2003, Nicaragua filed its Memorial within the time-limit laid down by the Court. On 21 July 2003, Colombia filed preliminary objections to jurisdiction, leading to the suspension of the proceedings on the merits.

In its Judgment on the preliminary objections, rendered on 13 December 2007, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning sovereignty over the maritime features claimed by the Parties, other than the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. The Court held that the treaty signed in 1928 between Colombia and Nicaragua (in which Colombia recognized Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast and the Corn Islands, while Nicaragua recognized Colombia’s sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, and the maritime features forming part of the San Andrés Archipelago) had settled the issue of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, that there was no extant legal dispute between the Parties on that question and that, therefore, the Court could not have jurisdiction over it under the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (also known as the Pact of Bogotá and invoked by Nicaragua as basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the case). On the other hand, as regards the question of the scope and composition of the rest of the San Andrés Archipelago, the Court considered that the 1928 Treaty failed to provide answers as to which other maritime features formed part of the Archipelago and thus that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute regarding sovereignty over those other maritime features. As for its jurisdiction with respect to the maritime delimitation issue, the Court concluded that the 1928 Treaty had not effected a general delimitation of the maritime areas between Colombia and Nicaragua and that, as the dispute had not been settled within the meaning of the Pact of Bogotá, the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it.

On 25 February 2010, Costa Rica filed an Application for permission to intervene in the case. In its Application it contended, among other things, that “[b]oth Nicaragua and Colombia, in their boundary claims against each other, claim maritime area to which Costa Rica is entitled” and indicated that it wished to intervene in the proceedings as a non-party State. On 10 June 2010, the Republic of Honduras also filed an Application for permission to intervene in the case, asserting that Nicaragua, in its dispute with Colombia, had put forward maritime claims that lay in an area of the Caribbean Sea in which Honduras had rights and interests. Honduras stated in its Application that it was seeking primarily to intervene in the proceedings as a party. The Court rendered two Judgments on 4 May 2011, in which it ruled that the Applications for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica and Honduras could not be granted. The Court noted that the interest of a legal nature invoked by Costa Rica could only be affected if the maritime boundary that the Court had been asked to draw between Nicaragua and Colombia were to be extended beyond a certain latitude southwards. However, following its jurisprudence, the Court, when drawing a line delimiting the maritime areas between the two Parties to the main proceedings, would, if necessary, end that line before it reached an area in which the interests of a legal nature of third States might be involved. The Court concluded that Costa Rica’s interest of a legal nature could not be affected by the decision in the proceedings between Nicaragua and Colombia. With respect to Honduras’s Application for permission to intervene, the Court found that Honduras had failed to satisfy the Court that it had an interest of a legal nature that might be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings. It ruled on the one hand that, since the entire maritime boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea had been settled by the Judgment of the Court rendered between those two States in 2007, there were no extant rights or legal interests that Honduras might seek to protect in the settlement of the dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. On the other hand, the Court held that Honduras could invoke an interest of a legal nature, in the main proceedings, on the basis of the 1986 bilateral treaty concluded between Honduras and Colombia, but clarified that it would not be relying on that treaty to determine the maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua.

In its Judgment rendered on the merits of the case on 19 November 2012, the Court found that the territorial dispute between the Parties concerned sovereignty over the features situated in the Caribbean Sea — the Alburquerque Cays, the East-Southeast Cays, Roncador, Serrana, Quitasueño, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo — which were all above water at high tide and which were therefore islands capable of appropriation. The Court noted, however, that Quitasueño comprised only a single, tiny island, known as QS 32, and a number of low-tide elevations (features above water at low tide but submerged at high tide). The Court then observed that, under the terms of the 1928 Treaty concerning Territorial Questions at Issue between Colombia and Nicaragua, Colombia not only had sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, but also over other islands, islets and reefs “forming part” of the San Andrés Archipelago. Thus, in order to address the question of sovereignty, the Court first needed to ascertain what constituted the San Andrés Archipelago. It concluded, however, that neither the 1928 Treaty nor the historical documents conclusively established the composition of that Archipelago. The Court therefore examined the arguments and evidence not based on the composition of the Archipelago under the 1928 Treaty. It found that neither Nicaragua nor Colombia had established that it had title to the disputed maritime features by virtue of uti possidetis juris (the principle that, upon independence, new States inherit the territories and boundaries of the former colonial provinces), because nothing clearly indicated whether these features were attributed to the colonial provinces of Nicaragua or of Colombia. The Court then considered whether sovereignty could be established on the basis of State acts manifesting a display of authority on a given territory (effectivités). It regarded it as having been established that for many decades Colombia had continuously and consistently acted à titre de souverain in respect of the maritime features in dispute. This exercise of sovereign authority had been public and there was no evidence that it had met with any protest from Nicaragua prior to 1969, when the dispute had crystallized. Moreover, the evidence of Colombia’s acts of administration with respect to the islands was in contrast to the absence of any evidence of acts à titre de souverain on the part of Nicaragua. The Court also noted that, while not being evidence of sovereignty, Nicaragua’s conduct with regard to the maritime features in dispute, the practice of third States and maps afforded some support to Colombia’s claim. The Court concluded that Colombia, and not Nicaragua, had sovereignty over the islands at Alburquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East-Southeast Cays, Quitasueño, Roncador, Serrana and Serranilla.

With respect to Nicaragua’s claim for delimitation of a continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles, the Court observed that “any claim of continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles [by a State party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)] must be in accordance with Article 76 of UNCLOS and reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”. Given the object and purpose of UNCLOS, as stipulated in its Preamble, the fact that Colombia was not a party thereto did not relieve Nicaragua of its obligations under Article 76 of that Convention. The Court observed that Nicaragua had submitted to the Commission only “Preliminary Information” which, by its own admission, fell short of meeting the requirements for the Commission to be able to make its recommendations. As the Court was not presented with any further information, it found that, in this case, Nicaragua had not established that it had a continental margin that extended far enough to overlap with Colombia’s 200-nautical-mile entitlement to the continental shelf, measured from Colombia’s mainland coast. The Court was therefore not in a position to delimit the maritime boundary between the extended continental shelf as claimed by Nicaragua and the continental shelf of Colombia. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Court noted that it was still called upon to effect the delimitation of the zone situated within 200 nautical miles of the Nicaraguan coast, where the entitlements of Colombia and Nicaragua overlapped.

In order to effect the delimitation of the maritime boundary, the Court first determined what the relevant coasts of the Parties were, namely those coasts the projections of which overlapped. It found that Nicaragua’s relevant coast was its whole coast, with the exception of the short stretch of coast near Punta de Perlas, and that Colombia’s relevant coast was the entire coastline of the islands under Colombian sovereignty, except for Quitasueño, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. The Court next noted that the relevant maritime area, i.e., the area in which the potential entitlements of the Parties overlapped, extended 200 nautical miles east of the Nicaraguan coast. The boundaries to the north and to the south were determined by the Court in such a way as not to overlap with any existing boundaries or to extend into areas where the rights of third States might be affected.

To effect the delimitation, the Court followed the three-stage procedure previously laid down by and employed in its jurisprudence.

First, it selected the base points and constructed a provisional median line between the Nicaraguan coast and the western coasts of the relevant Colombian islands opposite the Nicaraguan coast.

Second, the Court considered any relevant circumstances which might have called for an adjustment or shifting of the provisional median line so as to achieve an equitable result. It observed that the substantial disparity between the relevant Colombian coast and that of Nicaragua (approximately 1:8.2), and the need to avoid a situation whereby the line of delimitation cut off one or other of the Parties ties from maritime areas into which its coasts projected, constituted relevant circumstances. The Court noted that, while legitimate security concerns had to be borne in mind in determining what adjustment should be made to the provisional median line or in what way that line should be shifted, the conduct of the Parties, issues of access to natural resources and delimitations already effected in the area were not relevant circumstances in this case. In the relevant area between the Nicaraguan mainland and the western coasts of the Alburquerque Cays, San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, where the relationship was one of opposite coasts, the relevant circumstances called for the provisional median line to be shifted eastwards. To that end, the Court determined that different weightings should be given to the base points situated on Nicaraguan and Colombian islands, namely a weighting of one to each of the Colombian base points and a weighting of three to each of the Nicaraguan base points. The Court considered, however, that extending the line thus constructed to the north or the south would not lead to an equitable result, since it would leave Colombia with a significantly larger share of the relevant area than that accorded to Nicaragua, notwithstanding the fact that Nicaragua’s relevant coast was more than eight times the length of Colombia’s relevant coast. Moreover, it would cut off Nicaragua from the areas to the east of the principal Colombian islands into which the Nicaraguan coast projected. In the view of the Court, an equitable result was to be achieved by continuing the boundary line out to the line 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast. To the north, that line would follow the parallel passing through the most northern point of the outer limit of the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of Roncador. To the south, the maritime boundary would first follow the outer limit of the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of the Alburquerque and East-Southeast Cays, then the parallel from the most eastern point of the territorial sea of the East-Southeast Cays. In order to prevent Quitasueño and Serrana from falling, under those circumstances, on the Nicaraguan side of the boundary line, the maritime boundary around each of those features would follow the outer limit of their 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.

Third, and finally, the Court checked that, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the delimitation thus obtained did not create a disproportionality that would render the result inequitable. The Court observed that the boundary line had the effect of dividing the relevant area between the Parties in a ratio of approximately 1:3.44 in Nicaragua’s favour, while the ratio of relevant coasts was approximately 1:8.2. It concluded that that line did not entail such disproportionality as to create an inequitable result.

Third, and finally, the Court checked that, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the delimitation thus obtained did not create a disproportionality that would render the result inequitable. The Court observed that the boundary line had the effect of dividing the relevant area between the Parties in a ratio of approximately 1:3.44 in Nicaragua’s favour, while the ratio of relevant coasts was approximately 1:8.2. It concluded that that line did not entail such disproportionality as to create an inequitable result.


This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Written proceedings

Preliminary Objections of Colombia

alert
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
English French

Memorial of Nicaragua

28 April 2003
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
English French

Written Observations of Nicaragua

26 May 2010
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
English French

Written Observations of Colombia

26 May 2010
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
English French

Written observations of Nicaragua

2 September 2010
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
English French

Written Observations of Colombia

2 September 2010
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2007/16

Public sitting held on Monday 4 June 2007, at 10.10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2007/17

Public sitting held on Tuesday 5 June 2007, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2007/18

Public sitting held on Wednesday 6 June 2007, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2007/19

Public sitting held on Friday 8 June 2007, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Procedure(s): Preliminary objections
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/12

Public sitting held on Monday 11 October 2010, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/13

Public sitting held on Wednesday 13 October 2010, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/14

Public sitting held on Wednesday 13 October 2010, at 11.20 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/15

Public sitting held on Thursday 14 October 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/16

Public sitting held on Friday 15 October 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/17

Public sitting held on Friday 15 October 2010, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Costa Rica for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/18

Public sitting held on Monday 18 October 2010, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/19

Public sitting held on Wednesday 20 October 2010, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/20

Public sitting held on Wednesday 20 October 2010, at 10.40 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/21

Public sitting held on Thursday 21 October 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/22

Public sitting held on Friday 22 October 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2010/23

Public sitting held on Friday 22 October 2010, at 3.55 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Application by Honduras for permission to intervene
Procedure(s): Intervention
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/8

Public sitting held on Monday 23 April 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/9

Public sitting held on Tuesday 24 April 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/10

Public sitting held on Tuesday 24 April 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/11

Public sitting held on Thursday 26 April 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/12

Public sitting held on Friday 27 April 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/13

Public sitting held on Friday 27 April 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/14

Public sitting held on Tuesday 1 May 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/15

Public sitting held on Tuesday 1 May 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/16

Public sitting held on Friday 4 May 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/17

Public sitting held on Friday 4 May 2012, at 3.10 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Other documents

Orders

Order of 26 February 2002

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Order of 24 September 2003

Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objections
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Order of 11 February 2008

Fixing time-limits: Counter Memorial
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Order of 18 December 2008

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Judgments

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2007/5

Summary of the Judgment of 13 December 2007
Available in:
English French

Summary 2011/3

Summary of the Judgment of 4 May 2011
Available in:
English French

Summary 2011/4

Summary of the Judgment of 4 May 2011
Available in:
English French

Summary 2012/5

Summary of the Judgment of 19 November 2012
Available in:
English French

Press releases

Press release 2001/34

6 December 2001
Nicaragua institutes proceedings against Colombia with regard to "legal issues subsisting" between the two States "concerning title to territory and maritime delimitation" in the western Caribbean
Available in:
English French

Press release 2002/7

1 March 2002
Territorial and Maritime dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2003/32

29 September 2003
Territorial and Maritime dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of the time-limit for the filing by Nicaragua of a written statement on the preliminary objections to jurisdiction raised by Colombia
Available in:
English French

Press release 2006/37

15 November 2006
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections - Public hearings to open on Monday 4 June 2007
Available in:
English French

Press release 2007/13

11 May 2007
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections - Schedule for public hearings to be held from Monday 4 to Friday 8 June 2007
Available in:
English French

Press release 2007/16

8 June 2007
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the Preliminary Objections - Court ready to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2007/29

30 November 2007
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections - Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 13 December 2007 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
English French

Press release 2007/30

13 December 2007
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections - The Court finds that the 1928 Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua settled the matter of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, that there is no extant legal dispute between the Parties on that question, and that the Court thus cannot have jurisdiction over the question; the Court further finds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning sovereignty over the other maritime features claimed by the Parties and upon the dispute concerning the maritime delimitation between the Parties
Available in:
English French

Press release 2008/4

12 February 2008
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Colombia
Available in:
English French

Press release 2008/43

19 December 2008
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court directs the Republic of Nicaragua to submit a Reply and the Republic of Colombia to submit a Rejoinder and fixes the time-limits for the filing of these pleadings the time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/4

26 February 2010
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Costa Rica requests permission to intervene in the proceedings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/18

16 June 2010
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Republic of Honduras requests permission to intervene in the proceedings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/32

28 September 2010
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Proceedings on whether to grant Costa Rica's application for permission to intervene and Honduras's application for permission to intervene - The Court to hold public hearings from 11 to 22 October 2010
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/33

15 October 2010
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Proceedings on whether to grant Costa Rica's application for permission to intervene Conclusion of the public hearings - the Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/34

22 October 2010
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Proceedings on whether to grant Honduras's application for permission to intervene - Conclusion of the public hearings; Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2011/13

15 April 2011
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to deliver its Judgments on Wednesday 4 May 2011 at 3 p.m. and 4.30 p.m., respectively, on whether to grant the applications for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica and Honduras in the case
Available in:
English French

Press release 2011/16

4 May 2011
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that the Application for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica cannot be granted
Available in:
English French

Press release 2011/17

4 May 2011
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that the Application to intervene submitted by Honduras in the case cannot be granted
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/11

16 February 2012
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 23 April to Friday 4 May 2012 - Live web streaming
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/17

9 May 2012
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/32

8 November 2012
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Monday 19 November 2012 at 3 p.m. - Reading to be broadcast live on the Court’s website
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/33

19 November 2012
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that Colombia has sovereignty over the maritime features in dispute and draws a single maritime boundary
Available in:
English French