Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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

Similar News