Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Nicaragua filed Application to institute proceedings against Colombia - ICJ

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua filed an Application to institute proceedings against Colombia regarding a "dispute concerning zones declared by the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia to implement these violations."

In its Application, Nicaragua requested that the Court rule that Colombia had violated a number of its international obligations and that it was obligated to make full reparation for the harm caused by its international wrongdoing.

Nicaragua based the Court's jurisdiction on Article XXXI of the Bogotá Pact. It further argued, "[m]oreover and alternatively, [that] the jurisdiction of the Court [lay] in its inherent authority to determine the actions required by its Judgments."

On December 19, 2014, Colombia filed preliminary objections to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court rendered its decision on Colombia's preliminary objections on March 17, 2016. Based on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, the Court determined that it had the authority to adjudicate the dispute regarding the alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua's rights in the maritime zones that, according to Nicaragua, the Court declared in its 19 November 2012 ruling belong to Nicaragua.

Colombia submitted four counterclaims in its Counter-Memorial on November 17, 2016. The first was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment of the southwestern Caribbean Sea; the second was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect the right of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago to enjoy a healthy, sound, and sustainable environment; and the third was based on Nicaragua's alleged violation of the artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants.

In an Order on the aforementioned counterclaims issued on 15 November 2017, the Court determined that the first and second counterclaims submitted by Colombia were inadmissible as such and did not form part of the ongoing proceedings, while the third and fourth counterclaims submitted by Colombia were admissible as such and did form part of the ongoing proceedings.

Between 20 September and 1 October 2021, hybrid-style public hearings on the merits of the case were held.

The Court rendered its decision on the merits on 21 April 2022, finding that Colombia had violated Nicaragua's sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the latter's exclusive economic zone.

D.D :- 21 April 2022

Nicaragua V/S Colombia

Latest Legal News