MV Act | Blanket Ban on Bike Taxis Unconstitutional; Motorcycles are ‘Contract Carriages’: Karnataka High Court Labourer Travelling in Tractor-Trolley for Agricultural Work Not a Gratuitous Passenger – Insurer Liable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeal of Oriental Insurance Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance After Her Own Family Cripples Husband’s Earning Capacity: Allahabad High Court FIR is Not an Encyclopedia, Abusive Conduct Deserves Scrutiny: Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against Former Politician Over Alleged Abuse of Woman Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Parent Associations Can't Occupy School Premises or Run Buses Without Compliance With KVS Education Code: Kerala High Court Landowners Under Highway Act Cannot Be Left Remediless: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Challenges Withdrawn Due to Unconstitutional Ruling Probation Does Not Erase Conviction: Misconduct Remains Misconduct: Supreme Court Rejects Shielding Dismissed Employee Despite Probation Rigid Procedural Compliance Can’t Override Substantial Justice: Supreme Court Restores Appeal Dismissed for Technical Lapse Consent of Minor is No Consent in the Eye of Law: Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash Rape Case Once Impleaded, Insurer Can Challenge Compensation On All Grounds: Supreme Court Restores Insurance Company’s Right to Contest Quantum in Motor Accident Case Where Dispute is Personal and Peace is Restored, Law Must Not Be Dragged Further: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Neighbourhood Quarrel CBI Not The Only Gatekeeper Of Corruption Probes Against Central Employees: Supreme Court Affirms Power Of State ACBs Dismissal of JCO Automatically Forfeits Pension — No Separate Order Required: Supreme Court Satisfaction of Detaining Authority Must Be Based on Cogent Material; Mere Ipse Dixit Can't Sustain Detention: Supreme Court Intention to Humiliate on Account of Caste Is Essential Under SCST Act: Supreme Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Under PC Act: Supreme Court Upholds Lokayukta's Power Status Quo Ante Is a Mandatory Direction, Cannot Be Granted Lightly Without Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Interim Order Presumption Under Section 113-B Evidence Act Not Attracted Without Proof Of Cruelty Soon Before Death: Bombay High Court Affirms Acquittal

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