Introduction: A Decades-Long Legal Battle Over the Caribbean

The territorial and maritime disputes between Nicaragua and Colombia have spanned decades, culminating in a trilogy of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings in 2012, 2022, and 2023. These cases centered on:

1. Territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation (2012),
2. Alleged violations of sovereign rights (2022), and
3. The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (2023).

Each ruling shaped international maritime law, the rights of coastal states, and regional geopolitical dynamics. This blog explores the legal journey from the 2012 ruling that reshaped maritime boundaries to the 2023 judgment that rejected Nicaragua’s extended continental shelf claim.

---

1. The 2012 Judgment: Redrawing the Map

Background

In 2001, Nicaragua initiated a case against Colombia, claiming sovereignty over several Caribbean islands and demanding a new maritime boundary. The dispute involved:

• The San Andrés Archipelago, a Colombian-controlled chain of islands.
• Competing claims over Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the continental shelf.

Judgment

On November 19, 2012, the ICJ ruled:

• Colombia retained sovereignty over the San Andrés Archipelago.
• Nicaragua gained an expanded EEZ, significantly reducing Colombia’s maritime control.
• The ICJ rejected Nicaragua’s claim for an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

Legal Principles & Standards

• Maritime Delimitation under UNCLOS: Used equidistance principles to define the EEZ.
• Sovereignty over Islands: Colombia’s effective control outweighed Nicaragua’s historical claims.
• Customary International Law: Applied Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, denying maritime entitlements to small cays.

Aftermath

Colombia rejected the ruling and withdrew from the Pact of Bogotá, signaling continued resistance to ICJ decisions.

---

2. The 2022 Judgment: Enforcing the 2012 Ruling

Background

Despite the 2012 ruling, Colombia continued naval patrols and economic activities in Nicaragua’s EEZ. In 2013, Nicaragua sued again, alleging:

• Colombian naval interference in Nicaraguan waters.
• Illegal fishing permits issued by Colombia in Nicaragua’s EEZ.
• The establishment of an “integral contiguous zone” overlapping with Nicaragua’s EEZ.

Judgment

On April 21, 2022, the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua, finding that:

• Colombia violated Nicaragua’s sovereign rights by maintaining control over areas now legally part of Nicaragua’s EEZ.
• Colombia’s “integral contiguous zone” exceeded legal limits, breaching UNCLOS and customary international law.
• Nicaragua’s claim for monetary compensation was denied.

Legal Principles & Standards

• Sovereign Rights in the EEZ: Only Nicaragua had the right to regulate fishing, exploration, and marine research.
• Limitations on Contiguous Zones: A contiguous zone cannot exceed 24 nautical miles or be used to exert military control over another state’s EEZ.
• Customary Rights vs. Treaty Rights: Traditional fishing rights must be proven through consistent, historical usage. Unilateral claims, such as Colombia’s assertion of the Raizal community’s fishing rights, require clear evidence.
• State Compliance with ICJ Judgments: The ruling reinforced the binding nature of ICJ decisions.

Aftermath

Colombia, though frustrated, indicated it would comply to some extent with the ruling but continued to assert sovereignty over its maritime zones.

---

3. The 2023 Judgment: The Continental Shelf Dispute Beyond 200 Nautical Miles

Background

Unsuccessful in 2012, Nicaragua reopened its claim in 2013, arguing that its continental shelf extended beyond 200 nautical miles into Colombian waters.

Colombia opposed this, arguing:

• The EEZ and continental shelf of a state cannot intrude into another’s 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
• Customary international law does not permit such extensions.

Judgment

On July 13, 2023, the ICJ ruled in favor of Colombia, stating:

• Nicaragua had no right to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles if it overlapped with Colombia’s EEZ.
• UNCLOS and customary international law support EEZ boundaries as the default maritime limits.
• There was no need to redefine the 2012 ruling.

Legal Principles & Standards

• Limits of the Continental Shelf: A continental shelf cannot extend into another state’s 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
• Customary International Law: The ruling reaffirmed that a state’s extended shelf must respect other states’ EEZ rights.
• Maritime Stability: The ICJ avoided disrupting the 2012 boundary framework.

Aftermath

This ruling ended Nicaragua’s attempts to expand its maritime rights, reinforcing Colombia’s existing EEZ boundaries.

---

Conclusion: A Legal Victory for Stability, But Lingering Tensions

The Nicaragua v. Colombia trilogy is a landmark case in international maritime law, reinforcing:

1. The finality of ICJ decisions (Colombia’s resistance to 2012 ruling was ineffective).
2. Limits on contiguous zones and military control (Colombia’s claims in 2022 were dismissed).
3. The supremacy of the 200-nautical-mile EEZ boundary (Nicaragua’s 2023 claim was rejected).
4. How courts address conflicting claims over indigenous fishing rights and state enforcement in maritime zones

While the ICJ has settled these disputes legally, political and diplomatic tensions remain. Colombia has signaled partial compliance, but its naval presence and local fishing interests in the Caribbean continue to provoke disputes.

This case trilogy serves as a blueprint for future maritime conflicts, proving that while the ICJ can deliver legal clarity, enforcing decisions remains a challenge in international relations.

Case:

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ, 2012 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ, 2022 Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ, 2023 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles