The The Hague International Court This Thursday read the judgment in the case of alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea, which relates to the dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua for economic rights in part of the border area.
(Read: These are the keys to the judgment to be pronounced in the Hague Tribunal)
In this sense, it held that Colombia had violated the “sovereignty and jurisdiction” of Nicaragua in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by authorizing fishing activities in Nicaragua’s waters, and ordered Bogota to “immediately cease” its conduct.
for the teacher Rene Fernando Uruñaa lawyer from the University of Los Andes and a doctorate in law from the University of Helsinki, the ICJ ruling is positive for Colombia.
“Globally, the Court has been able to recognize that Colombia does not represent a threat in terms of the use of force or a military threat, and another part is that Nicaragua had to change its definition of its territorial waters in a decree that it did,” he said.
The fact that Colombia is internationally responsible is a negative thing and always will be
He added, “The fact that Colombia has been declared internationally responsible is negative and will always be so. But knowing the background of this case and knowing the allegations of Nicaragua, it must be said that the Colombian strategy was successful.”
Urwinia also explained that some of the changes in governance relate to the redefinition of its territorial sea and the recognition of ancestral rights to fishing and navigation.
Concerning the ordinances of the territory bordering each country, Uruña expressed that in connection with the Nicaraguan ordinance “in the anti-Colombian action of Nicaragua, he put this decree on the table and was able to get the court to tell Nicaragua: ‘You cannot do that. This decree violates international law. Similarly, the agency has made it clear to Colombia that its decree is also not working and that it must be changed in the way the country sees fit, the analyst explains.
(In context: Court says Colombia violated Nicaragua’s rights; requests bilateral agreement)
to Ricardo AbelloLLM in International Law and International Relations, the judgment is no loss for either country. “There will be no winners and losers, but simply Nicaragua would have won some points and Colombia would have won another,” he said.
Although the reaction was harsh against Colombia, the result itself is good
“The points against Colombia were few compared to what could have been thought, for example, there is talk of Colombia violating that it should stop certain activities such as interfering with fishing activities or protecting the environment, Nicaragua has requested compensation and more more than 50 million pesos, and finally The court makes its decision based on a few incidents, leaving the vast majority out, and that there is no room for any compensation whatsoever,” the expert explains.
“Although the reaction was harsh against Colombia, the result in itself is good,” he adds. Regarding the Contiguous Zone Ordinance, Abilo highlights that the Court recognizes the coexistence of rights between the EEZ of Nicaragua and the adjacent region. “Simply put, in terms of fisheries and the marine environment, it is not up to Colombia to intervene in that area, but in the vicinity it can do so,” he adds.
Finally, Abilo also points out that with regard to the Nicaraguan decree that established the baselines, the court is telling Nicaragua that the said decree is completely inconsistent with international law, “and therefore, this is a great victory for Colombia in this case,” he claimed.
The expert regretted that the court had not recognized the rights of the Rizal communities. Abello explained, however, that “the Court does not deny the existence of this right, and therefore calls on the parties that, if necessary, there are bilateral agreements between states in relation to these activities.”
This is the summary of the International Court of Justice ruling regarding the recent case between Nick Cole. The balance is mostly negative for Colombia and repeats the loss of sovereign rights over the Caribbean Sea in the dispute. I have a summary point-to-point translation summary of the error. pic.twitter.com/SjbHBGr6SY
– Silvia Mantella (@Cris_maravi) April 21, 2022
On the other hand, Doctor of International Relations, Silvia Mantella“The balance is mostly negative for Colombia and it repeats the loss of sovereignty rights over the disputed Caribbean Sea,” he said.
Mantella clarifies about some points of failure.
It also added: “It was decided that Colombia should, by its choice, comply with customary international law with the provisions of the previous Decree on Maritime Law, the areas declared by the Court in 2012 to belong to Nicaragua.”
Support the position of the national government
Regarding the ruling of the Hague Tribunal, Konvicamaras issued a statement affirming his support for the position of the government and President Ivan Duque.
“In this sense, it is the position of the national government to ratify the constitutional mandate to defend the sovereignty, integrity of the islands and the rights of our nation and to continue with the supreme task of preventing Nicaragua from restricting or attempting to limit Colombia’s rights.”
Convicamaras noted that he is responding to the president’s call for unification in defense of the unity of the homeland, and stressed the need to preserve the unification of the archipelago of San Andres, Providencia, Santa Catalina and the Quez and all the islands that make up them.
He concludes, “We believe it is important to maintain an open dialogue to move forward with the demarcation of the border, which Colombia has always been open to, and which will not only be its own, but also obligate other nations that exercise sovereignty in the Caribbean.”