Colombia vs.

Nicaragua Maritime Zone Dispute

Nicaragua and Colombia had a maritime zone dispute over seven islands located

on the Caribbean Sea. These islands consisted of Archipelago of San Andres,

Providencia and Santa Catalina all known to be part of Archipelago along with other

smaller islands. Maritime Zones are drawn using what the United Nation Convention on

the Law of the Sea calls baselines. Rather than having maritime boundaries that move

with the rise and fall in the tides, they’ve decided to create a fixed baseline that will

begin at the low-water line along the coast. There are six different divisions of the

ocean. Each of these zones has certain limitations on what the state itself can do on

these lands. The units of measurement used by the UNCLOS to divide up the ocean are

nautical miles. One nautical mile equals roughly 1.15 miles on land (The Fletcher

School Turfs University). Despite the divisions of the ocean, the state has the most

power of the zones closer to its coastline than it does with those further from it. In this

dispute, Nicaragua is requesting a delimitation of the boundary along the 82nd meridian

that gives Colombia sovereignty over the islands and maritime zone that would fall

under Nicaraguan power.

On November 19th, 2012 the International Court of Justice rendered its

judgement in the dispute where Nicaragua requests for Nicaraguan sovereignty over

seven disputed maritime features and delimitation of a single maritime boundary

between the continental shelves and exclusive economic zones appertaining to

Nicaragua and Colombia (Grossman 2013, 396). However, Nicaragua and Colombia

had both signed the treaty known as Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty in 1928, where
 1

Colombia’s sovereignty over the San Andres Archipelago was formally recognised

despite the difference in distance between Colombia and the islands and Nicaragua and

the islands along with the maritime zones. The treaty was agreed upon in exchange of

for Colombia’s formal recognitions of Nicaraguan sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast

and Corn Islands (Diemer 2006, 171). Through this treaty, both states came to an

agreement where they both came out of the situation gaining sovereignty over particular

maritime zones. Those being Nicaragua having sovereignty over the West side of the

82nd meridian mark and Colombia gaining power over the East side of the 82nd

meridian. The lands which Colombia gained power over through this treaty are located

about 100 nautical miles off of Nicaragua and approximately 380 nautical miles from

Colombia’s mainland.

Colombia’s argument is that the islands of San Andres Archipelago belong to

them because they are part of its colonial heritage as stated by Diemer in his article. He

mentions that Colombia’s original claim over the islands goes back to a Royal Order

issued by the Spanish Crown in 1803. Through this, the right to defend the islands of

Archipelago from pirate attacks was given to the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe de Bogotá

located in Colombia (Diemer 2006, 169). Despite the treaties that were signed after

Colombia had claimed these islands, they had remained under their power. Up until

Nicaragua decided they wanted to claim the islands and maritime zones that essentially

belong to them due the proximity to their coastal line. In the treaty of 1920, signed by

both parties, Colombia once again claims power over the East side of the 82nd meridian

and did not claim power of the the West side of the 82nd meridian which is what would
 2

fall under sovereignty of Nicaragua. While Colombia argues that the treaty is valid due

to the confinement of the international law, Nicaragua argues that the claims had lacked

authorisation to act, considering that the treaty was signed by Dr. Don Jose Barcenas

Meneses, being the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at that time. Nicaragua argues

that the treaty was signed under pressure of the United States, which was said to be in

control of the land during that time.

When the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty of 1920 was signed, the potential for these

lands to be exploited for their natural resources was low. The state that had power over

the land and maritime zones also had access to the natural resources that the waters

had, such as fisheries. In an article, posted by A Contrario International Law, it stated

that, “at the time the treaty was negotiated, the potential for substantial resource

exploitation in the waters between the two States had not been a consideration and had

not influenced the terms of the treaty” (Haines 2013). As the natural resources in the

three main lands of the continental shelf began to emerge and Colombia began to

exploit the resources, Nicaragua realized that the terms of the Treaty signed in 1928

were to its disadvantage, which is why it began filed a claim. As the resources and

opportunity to exploit increased, Nicaragua realized that it was inequitable for Colombia

to have most of the economic revenue when the islands were at a closer proximity to

Nicaragua than they were to Colombia. As of 2006, the population reported to be in San

Andres Archipelago was 83,000 inhabitants whose main source of income typically

came with tourism and fishing. Aside from this revenue the Archipelago contains large
 3

hydrocarbonic deposits and oil fields which essentially bring revenue to the state

(Diemer 2006, 169).

The ICJ had a difficult time taking Nicaragua's request to deliminate the current

maritime division due to its location on the map. These two states are not adjacent to

each other, they are on opposite sides which may become and issue when the nautical

miles of specific zones interfere with the distance apart from each state. In Nicaragua's

request to deliminate the maritime boundary and grant them sovereignty over

Archipelago, the decision of the court became difficult as neither of the states specified

whether the new line is meant as a single maritime boundary between the areas of

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf appertaining respectively to Nicaragua

and Colombia. However, using the straight line method amongst the 82nd meridian

created an easy solution to the problem, but that did not keep both parties happy.

When coming to a conclusion on the dispute the ICJ was challenged by the fact

that the islands that belonged to Colombia were placed in Nicaragua’s maritime zone.

This complicated the situation even more because Archipelago was situated in

Nicaragua’s maritime zone. Therefore, Nicaragua requested the delimitation of the line

to gain as much power over their maritime zone as possible. The ICJ had many parts to

evaluate the situation. Essentially, the ICJ made a decision to delimitate the current line

along the 82nd meridian and grant sovereignty over some maritime zones to Nicaragua.

The ICJ’s decision increased the size of Nicaragua’s continental shelf and economic

exclusion zones in the Caribbean Sea with some potential of having access to

underwater oil and gas deposits as well as fishing rights (Reuters 2016). Map #1 shows
 4

the previous boundary along the 82nd meridian, while map #2 located at the end of this

paper will signify where the the boundary is now marked and will give an exact

representation of which zones of the Caribbean Sea belong to each state Nicaragua or

Colombia. Through the decision made by the ICJ, Colombia lost sovereignty over

maritime zones and land. According to an article by the Anuario Mexicano De Derecho

Internacional, Colombia lost approximately 75,000 sq km considered part of their

economic zone and continental shelf (Sarmiento 2016). Both states had valid

arguments and the ICJ had to make a decision that would benefit both states going by

the maritime zone boundaries using nautical mile measurements.

 5

(Khan 2013, 613)

 6

(Grossman 2013, 401)

 7

Works Cited

“Chapter 2: Maritime Zones.” ​Tufts PreVeterinary Society​,

sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-two/.

Diemer, Christian. “Territorial Questions and MAritime Delimitation with Regard to

Nicargua’s claims to the San Andres Archipelago” 2006. November 28th, 2018.
http://www.zaoerv.de/66_2006/66_2006_1_b_167_186.pdf

Grossman, Nienke. “Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).” ​The

American Journal of International Law,​ vol. 107, no. 2, 2013, pp. 396–403.
JSTOR​, JSTOR, ​www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0396​.

Khan, M.Imad, and David J. Rains. “Doughnut Hole in the Caribbean Sea: The Maritime
Boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia According to the International Court
of Justice.” ​Houston Journal of International Law,​ vol. 35, no. 3, Summer 2013,
pp. 589–616. ​EBSCOhost,​
libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=lgh&AN=91263537&site=ehost-live&scope=site​.

Haines, Steven. “A Note on The ICJ Judgement in Nicaragua V Colombia and Its
Relevance to International Crime and Criminal Law.” ​A Contrario ICL,​ A Contrario
ICL, 2 Jan. 2013, acontrarioicl.com/tag/1928-barcenas-esguerra-treaty/.

Sarmiento Lamus, A. (2016). Impact and Implementation in Colombia of the Decision on

the Merits of the International Court of Justice in the Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). ​Anuario Mexicano De Derecho Internacional.,
16,​ 401-423.

“World Court to Draw up Nicaragua-Colombia Maritime Boundary.” ​Reuters,​ Thomson

Reuters, 17 Mar. 2016,
www.reuters.com/article/us-nicaragua-colombia-border/world-court-to-draw-up-ni
caragua-colombia-maritime-boundary-idUSKCN0WJ2F2.