TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DELIMITATION DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION• The border dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua has been a

recurring issue on the agenda of both countries and the region, as has involved Honduras and Costa Rica at present and in the past the United States, Holland and England.

• To this extent this paper aims to summarize the border dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua since its inception, with the Royal Order of 1803 which transferred control of the Archipelago of San Andres and the Mosquito Coast to the Viceroyalty of New Granada until reactions He proffered border dispute to the International Court of Justice in the Hague on 19 November 2012.

BACKGROUND• November 20, 1803: A Spanish royal decree grants the archipelago in conflict to New Granada, the

ancient name of Colombia.

• March 24, 1928: The Barcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty gives Colombian sovereignty over the archipelago in conflict, after the claim of Nicaragua since the beginning of the century.

• 1930: Both states signed an additional protocol to the Treaty on the borders that marked the 82nd meridian.

• 4 February 1980: The Sandinista Government of Nicaragua enacted a law in which it considered null the Treaty and that the archipelago was part of its territory.

CASE: DISPUTE TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN NICARAGUA AND COLOMBIA

On 6 December 2001 Nicaragua present a complaint against Colombia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, alleging the invalidity of the 1928 Treaty, claiming sovereignty over the archipelago of San Andres and Providencia on this basis request the Court delimitation of a maritime delimitation between the two countries.

POSITION OF COLOMBIA AND PRETENSE OF NICARAGUA:

• Colombia's position has been peaceful and uninterrupted sovereignty and jurisdiction over the San Andrés Archipelago, including the Keys and all maritime areas belong.

Claims that the Court grant him some territories (cayes) on which don´t have historical title. Regarding the maritime delimitation, Nicaragua raises a extreme unfounded delimitation line towards the east.

VERDICT

• November 19, 2012: In a final ruling, the ICJ gives to Colombia sovereignty over the seven cayes, it mentions that this conflict was already resolved by the treaty 1928.

• Redefined the maritime boundary in which Nicaragua gains ground in the Caribbean, Colombia lost about 43% of its maritime territory in the Caribbean over 75,000 square kilometers Sea.

EFFECT

• For this decision court the dispute between the dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua should finish but it doesn’t occur yet.

• Both countries can interpose a revision resource to the same court.

DISPUTE TERRITORIES

The territories in dispute over the maritime platform were distributed by the court as follows: Island territories and maritime

portion left for Colombia Much of the maritime area in

dispute was assigned to Nicaragua (until the day of judgment these areas were exploited by Colombia).

AFTERMATH

• Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos called a meeting in the Presidential Palace, to analyze it carefully, the Advisory Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He said that the ruling is inconsistent and incompatible with the geographic conception of what is an archipelago. All this really are omissions, mistakes, excesses, inconsistencies that they can not accept.

• Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, celebrated the sentence which he said was a final national victory, while showed his joy, criticized his Colombian counterpart calling his address" concern "about the possibility that Colombia does not recognize the decision:

IN THE ISLANDS

• Arlinton Howard, president of the Assembly of the island of San Andres, objected to the members of the national executive."They are responsible for everything. This should never happen. was lost about 50% of the territorial sea. This is an incalculable property damage.This ruling has violated the ancestral rights of Afro-Colombian community,

The main victims of the failure were the communities of islanders.

7. Current Situation

1. The National Government explained the details about the reasons why he decided not to appear before the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ie ignoring their competence, based on which in 2013 had already denounced the Pact of Bogotá. Also clarified from his point of view the implications of the decision and the formal withdrawal of the ICJ.

2. According to the Government, after it was decided not to continue appearing before the court for matters of maritime boundary with Nicaragua, "said bilateral between China and Colombia not remain subject to the decision of a third party and should be addressed through direct negotiations between the parties in accordance with international law. "

That decision is given because according to the Colombian State, "the maritime borders of Colombia can only be established or modified by an international treaty, in accordance with Article 101 of the Constitution, and what the Court has said constitutional repeatedly. "

Colombia definitively withdrew from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in November 2012, however the court decided on March 17 on its jurisdiction to hear two new lawsuits filed by Nicaragua in 2013. Therefore, the Colombian state decides not appear before a case "had already failed."

8. CONCLUSION

• According to the case between Colombia and Nicaragua if the Court wants to be considered as such (well positioned to resolve differences between States), this should show a seriousness not by reopening cases and accepting raise to it the same dispute over and again. Such a scenario would negatively affect the certainty, stability and order that the judgments of this Court should provide”.