Nicaragua v. Colombia (Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 13 July 2023)

Clicks: 1
ID: 318674
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #1,418 of 1,518 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,518 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract This chapter reviews the ICJ’s 2023 judgment in Nicaragua/Colombia II concerning Nicaragua’s renewed attempt to obtain a delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles following the Court’s 2012 decision that it was not then in a position to delimit absent a full CLCS submission. The Court rejected jurisdictional and admissibility objections (including res judicata and the Pact of Bogotá denunciation), holding that delimitation beyond 200M may be considered independently of CLCS recommendations, and dismissed Nicaragua’s ‘second request’ as inadmissible. Unusually, however, the Court then confined the merits hearing to two self-formulated legal questions and disposed of the case on the first: it found a customary rule that a State’s entitlement to an extended continental shelf may not extend within 200M of another State’s baselines. Applying that rule to Colombia’s mainland and island baselines, the Court held there were no overlapping entitlements and therefore no delimitation to undertake, leaving scientific and technical issues (including the customary statusb of UNCLOS Article 76) undecided. The judgment generated multiple dissents and raises major implications for ‘grey areas’, outer-shelf practice, and small-island contexts.
Reference Key
openalex_W7165845776 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Stephen Fietta, Robin Cleverly
Journal Oxford University Press eBooks
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/law/9780192883414.003.0032
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192883414.003.0032
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.