Wednesday, November 28th 2012 - 22:20 UTC

Colombia withdraws from UN Justice Court angry at latest ruling on Caribbean islands

Colombia has withdrawn from a treaty that binds it to the UN International Court of Justice in anger at a ruling that shifts some of its resource-rich waters to Nicaragua, President Juan Manuel Santos announced on Wednesday.

President Santos made the announcement and left Colombian navy vessels in the disputed waters

The Hague-based court last week reduced an expanse of sea belonging to Colombia, drawing a demarcation line in favour of Nicaragua even while saying a cluster of disputed islands in the western Caribbean belonged to Colombia and not to Managua.

The decision set off a scramble in Bogotá to see how to overturn the verdict and avoid diplomatic conflict with Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega, who sent ships to the area.

Santos has ordered the Colombian navy to remain in the waters granted to Managua.

“The highest national interests demand that territorial and maritime limits are set by agreements as has always been the case in Colombian judicial tradition, and not via rulings uttered by the International Court of Justice,” Santos said.

“This is the moment for national unity. This is the moment that the country has to unite.”

The 1948 treaty, known as the Bogotá Pact, recognizes ICJ rulings to find peaceful solutions to signatories' conflicts.

Leaving the pact would mean Colombia is not obliged to heed the court's ruling on any potential bids by Nicaragua to seek additional territory, the government has said. But its withdrawal would not have a retroactive effect, and it would be obliged to comply with last week's ruling.

Ortega has said he expects Colombia to recognize the court decision, which is binding, but experts have said Colombia may reject it and seek to negotiate a new border pact.

Colombia's withdrawal “doesn't influence under any circumstance” the court's ruling, Carlos Arguello, Managua's representative at The Hague, told reporters.
 

11 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 briton (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 12:16 am Report abuse
do we take this as [q] for CFK to do the same perhaps,
2 British_Kirchnerist (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 12:19 am Report abuse
Wonder what Santos wants to distract from...
3 Boovis (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 06:31 am Report abuse
If you agree to take something to court, you accept that things mightn't go your way. To throw a hissy fit because the judge ruled against them is frankly childish and ludicrous. They knew the risks, if they didn't want that turnout they shouldn't have gone to court in the first place.
4 Anbar (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 03:23 pm Report abuse
“”Wonder what Santos wants to distract from..“”

/random platitude

----------

“”“” They knew the risks, if they didn't want that turnout they shouldn't have gone to court in the first place.“”“

ever wondered why Argentina doesnt take its ”rock solid” case over Falklands sovereignty to the ICJ?

Now you know.
5 Raul (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 05:16 pm Report abuse
Ever wonder why UK does not have in its “rock solid” case for Malvinas sovereignty to the International Court of Justice?

World public opinion has the answer:
UK fails to comply with international law by failing to comply with UN resolutions and the UN Decolonization Committee.
England bid to colonialism, racism and imperialism of the 21st century.

Everybody knows
6 Conqueror (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 05:46 pm Report abuse
@5 It's easy. Both parties have to agree to the court's jurisdiction. Argieland won't. They have refused more than once.

Last time argieland agreed to abide by the ICJ's judgement, they lost (Uruguay)! See the ICJ doesn't accept the legal argument ”But we're argieland (whine)“.

The UN Secretary General has officially stated that the UK is not failing to comply with anything it ought to comply with.

Besides, we don't need to go to the ICJ anymore. You decided to have a war, remember? We beat you shitless, remember? Call the Islands ”spoils of war”, OK. You lost. We won. The story is OVER!
7 Raul (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 06:35 pm Report abuse
6 Conqueror
Also, no need to go to the International Court of Justice already. He decided to make a war, remember? They beat him shit, remember? Call the Islands “war booty”, OK. Lost. We won. The story is over!

The story is not over!

Argentina suffered four British invasions (1806-1807-1833-1847). No one won. All lost in the war. The war does not give rights. (Drago doctrine).
Argentina claims his due by fact and law. Argentin

Remember that the specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”

God help you
8 THEMan (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 06:54 pm Report abuse
@5 Raul UN resolutions aren't international law, just recommendations, so you're talking bull
9 briton (#) Nov 29th, 2012 - 08:15 pm Report abuse
once again bare foot argies jumping up and down on broken glass ,

simply put

take it to the ICJ or soddy offy,
simplicity at its finest.??
10 Boovis (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 10:33 am Report abuse
@5: Raul, we asked Argentina to go to the ICJ 3 times over the Falklands controversy and they REFUSED to go, so please research before posting.

“1947: Britain first offers to take the sovereignty dispute over the Dependencies to the ICJ. Argentina does not accept.
1948: Britain again offers to take the sovereignty dispute over the Dependencies to the ICJ. Argentina declines.
1955: Britain unilaterally refers the sovereignty dispute over the Dependencies to the ICJ. Argentina indicates that it will not accept any judgement.”
11 Think (#) Nov 30th, 2012 - 03:20 pm Report abuse
@10: Boovis, the United Kingdom NEVER asked Argentina to go to the ICJ over the MALVINAS/FALKLANDS controversy.....

The “DEPENDENCIES” Britain wanted to “Discuss” did NOT include the MALVINAS/ FALKLAND Islands....

So please............. research before posting.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement