Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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