Preliminary Objections of the Government of Colombia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE (NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA VOLUME I JULY 2003 II III TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 3 I. Procedural History .............................................................................. 3 II. Colombia’s Preliminary Objections .................................................. 5 III. Colombia’s Position: An Overview.................................................... 5 A. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND IN OUTLINE .................................. 6 B. NICARAGUA’S ATTEMPTS TO REOPEN THE QUESTIONS SETTLED BY THE 1928 TREATY AND ITS PROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS OF 1930............................................ 9 C. COLOMBIA’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS........................................ 9 1. In respect of the Pact of Bogotá................................................ 12 2. In respect of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute: the Optional Clause Declarations............................................ 19 IV. Contents of the Present Pleading ..................................................... 22 CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ......................................... 23 I. The Parties before the Court ............................................................ 23 II. The Geographical Area..................................................................... 23 A. THE ARCHIPELAGO OF SAN ANDRÉS............................................... 25 B. THE MARITIME AREA ...................................................................... 28 III. The Colonial and Early Post-Colonial Era.................................. 29 IV. The Emergence of a Dispute in 1913, upon Nicaragua’s Claim to the Archipelago of San Andrés......................................... 32 A. EMERGENCE OF THE DISPUTE OVER THE ARCHIPELAGO OF SAN ANDRES IN 1913........................................................................ 32 IV B. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES .......................................... 33 V. The Settlement of the Dispute by the Esguerra-Bárcenas Treaty of 1928 and its Protocol of Exchange of Ratifications of 1930 .......................................................................... 36 A. CONCLUSION OF THE TREATY ..................................................... 36 B. APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY ......................... 39 C. REGISTRATION OF THE 1928 TREATY AND ITS PROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS OF 1930 .......................................... 52 VI. The 1928-1972 Agreements between Colombia and the United States about the Cays of Roncador, Quitasueño and Serrana ........................................................................................ 53 VII. Nicaragua Purports to Carry Out Activities in areas to the East of the Agreed Maritime Boundary between the two Countries along the 82° W Meridian ....................................... 57 VIII. Nicaragua’s Unilateral Challenge to the Validity of the 1928 Treaty......................................................................................... 58 A. NICARAGUA’S UNILATERAL PURPORTED DECLARATION OF NULLITY ................................................................................... 58 B. THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE 1928 TREATY.................. 62 C. ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY................................................. 66 D. THE 1928 TREATY HAS NOT BEEN TERMINATED BECAUSE OF “BREACH” .................................................................................. 68 CHAPTER II: IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES VI AND XXXIV OF THE PACT OF BOGOTÁ THE COURT IS “WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CONTROVERSY” AND THEREFORE SHALL DECLARE THE “CONTROVERSY… ENDED” ........................................ 73 I. The Pact of Bogotá ............................................................................ 73 II. The Relevant Provisions of the Pact of Bogotá............................... 74 III. The Object and Purpose of Articles VI and XXXIV ..................... 76 IV. Definitive Settlement of the Dispute concerning the Archipelago of San Andrés, the Mosquito Coast and the Islas Mangles (Corn Islands)........................................................................ 83 V V. Establishment of the Maritime Limit along the 82º W Meridian.............................................................................................. 88 VI. The Character of the 82º W Meridian............................................. 92 VII. Basis of the 1928-1930 Settlement .................................................. 104 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 106 CHAPTER III: THE DECLARATIONS OF COLOMBIA AND NICARAGUA UNDER THE OPTIONAL CLAUSE DO NOT AFFORD THE COURT JURISDICTION ............................................................. 109 I. Jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá is Governing and Hence Exclusive................................................................................ 109 II. By Reason of the Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia having been Settled and ended, there is no Dispute before the Court to which jurisdiction under the Optional Clause Declarations could Attach.................................. 113 III. In any Event, there is no Jurisdiction under the Optional Clause because Colombia’s Declaration Was not in Force on the Day of the filing of Nicaragua’s Application ..................... 113 A. TERMINATION OF AN OPTIONAL CLAUSE DECLARATION MAY BE EFFECTIVE ON NOTICE.................................................... 114 B. THE COURT’S REFERENCES TO A “REASONABLE TIME” WERE OBITER DICTA ..................................................................... 117 C. NICARAGUA AND COLOMBIA IN PRACTICE HAVE TREATED THEIR DECLARATIONS AS TERMINABLE ON NOTICE ................... 118 IV. In any Event, if Found to Be in force, the Terms of Colombia’s 1937 Declaration Exclude Nicaragua’s Claims, because the alleged Dispute arises out of Facts prior to 6 January 1932............................................................... 121 V. Conclusion......................................................................................... 136 CHAPTER IV: SHORT SUMMARY OF COLOMBIA’S REASONING IN THESE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS................................................................. 139 I. General.............................................................................................. 139 II. Colombia’s First Preliminary Objection....................................... 142 VI III. Colombia’s Second Preliminary Objection................................... 143 CHAPTER V: COLOMBIA’S SUBMISSIONS ..................................... 145 List of Annexes (Volume II) .................................................................... 147 List of Maps (Volume III) ........................................................................ 151 1 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA 2 3 INTRODUCTION I. Procedural History 1. On 6 December 2001 the Republic of Nicaragua lodged with the Registry of the International Court of Justice an Application by which it instituted proceedings before the Court against the Republic of Colombia regarding a “dispute [that] consists of a group of related legal issues subsisting between the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Colombia concerning title to territory and maritime delimitation”1. 2. In particular Nicaragua asked the Court 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 cays, and also over the Roncador, Serrana, Serranilla and Quitasueño cays (insofar 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.” 1 Application of Nicaragua, para. 1. 4 3. In its Order of 26 February 2002 the Court fixed 28 April 2003 as the time limit for the filing of Nicaragua’s Memorial. Nicaragua duly filed its Memorial on that date. In its Memorial Nicaragua substantially reaffirmed its original request to the Court, although adding certain refinements. The case presented by Nicaragua remains, however, essentially one which concerns sovereignty over the islands, cays and islets of the Archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia (“the Archipelago of San Andrés”), and the maritime boundary running between those territories and Nicaragua’s mainland and insular features in the western part of the Caribbean Sea. 4. As to jurisdiction, in its Application Nicaragua asserts that, “in accordance with the provisions of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, jurisdiction exists by virtue of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá”2 and that “in accordance with the provisions of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, jurisdiction also exists by virtue of the operation of the Declaration of the Applicant State dated 24 September 1929 and the Declaration of Colombia dated 30 October 1937”2. In its Memorial Nicaragua in effect simply repeats this assertion,