Nicaragua contra Colombia: CIJ dará a conocer su sentencia este 21 de abril
La Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) ha anunciado que emitirá su fallo en uno de los dos casos que opone Nicaragua a Colombia este próximo 21 de abril (véase comunicado oficial en francés y en inglés).
La demanda de Nicaragua en breve
Como se recordará, una sentencia de noviembre del 2012 sobre el Mar Caribe de la misma CIJ que responde a una demanda interpuesta por Nicaragua en el 2001, opone a Nicaragua y a Colombia en cuanto a sus alcances y a su implementación.
En su demanda inicial planteada en noviembre del 2013 (véase texto completo), Nicaragua solicitaba a la CIJ que:
"22. On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and law, Nicaragua, while reserving the right to supplement, amend or modify this Application, requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia is in breach of:
— its obligation not to use or threaten to use force under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and international customary law;
— its obligation not to violate Nicaragua’s maritime zones as delimited in para‑ graph 251 of the ICJ Judgment of 19 November 2012 as well as Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in these zones;
— its obligation not to violate Nicaragua’s rights under customary international law as reflected in Parts V and VI of UNCLOS;
— and that, consequently, Colombia is bound to comply with the Judgment of 19 November 2012, wipe out the legal and material consequences of its interna‑ tionally wrongful acts, and make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts" (p. 24)
Colombia presentó varias excepciones preliminares tendientes a declarar la CIJ incompetente. Como ya viene siendo costumbre para los asesores legales internacionales contratados por Colombia, la CIJ las rechazó y se declaró competente en el mes de marzo del 2016 (véase texto de la sentencia de la CIJ). Es de notar que la parte dispositiva (párrafo 111) se tomó por unanimidad o casi (catorce votos a uno), evidenciando Colombia una limitada capacidad de convencimiento entre los juristas que integran la CIJ.
Las pretensiones finales de ambos Estados
En las audiencias orales realizadas a finales del mes septiembre e inicio del mes de octubre del 2021 (véase verbatim de la segunda ronda de alegatos orales), Nicaragua solicitó a la Corte que establezca que:
"(a) By its conduct, the Republic of Colombia has breached its international obligation to respect Nicaragua’s maritime zones as delimited in paragraph 251 of the Court Judgment of 19 November 2012, as well as Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in these zones; and that, in consequence
(b) Colombia must immediately cease its internationally wrongful conduct in Nicaragua’s maritime zones, as delimited by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012, including its violations of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in those maritime zones and take all necessary measures effectively to respect Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction; these measures include but are not limited to revoking, by means of its choice:
(i) all laws and regulations, permits, licences, and other legal instruments which areincompatible with the Court’s Judgment of 19 November 2012, including those related to marine protected areas;
(ii) the provisions of Decrees 1946 of 9 September 2013 and 1119 of 17 June 2014 in so far as they relate to maritime areas which have been recognized as under the jurisdiction or sovereign rights of Nicaragua; and
(iii) permits granted to fishing vessels to operate in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone, as delimited in the Court’s Judgment of 19 November 2012;
(c) Colombia must ensure that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia of 2 May 2014 or of any other National Authority will not bar compliance with the 19 November 2012 Judgment of the Court;
(d) Colombia must compensate Nicaragua for all damage caused by its violations of its international legal obligations, including but not limited to damages caused by the exploitation of the living resources of the Nicaraguan exclusive economic zone by fishing vessels unlawfully “authorized” by Colombia to operate in that zone, and the loss of revenue caused by Colombia’s refusal to allow, or by its deterrence of, fishing by Nicaraguan vessels or third State vessels authorized by Nicaragua and, generally, for the damages caused by its actions and declarations to the proper exploitation of the resources in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone, with the amount of the compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the case; and
e) Colombia must give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition of its internationally wrongful acts, including by formally acknowledging that the boundary as delimited by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012 will be respected as the international maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua.
(f) Nicaragua also requests that the Court adjudge and declare that it will remain seised of the case until Colombia recognizes and respects Nicaragua’s rights in the Caribbean Sea as attributed by the Judgment of the Court of 19 November 2012" (véase verbatim, pp. 50-51)
A su vez, Colombia solicitó a la CIJ en sus alegatos finales que:
"I. For the reasons stated in its written and oral pleadings, the Republic of Colombia respectfully requests the Court to reject each of the Submissions of the Republic of Nicaragua, and to adjudge and declare that
1. Colombia has not in any manner violated Nicaragua’s sovereign rights or maritime spaces in the Southwestern Caribbean Sea.
2. Colombia’s Decree No. 1946 of 9 September 2013 (as amended by Decree No. 1119 of 17 June 2014) has not given rise to any violation of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights or maritime spaces.
(a) There is nothing in international law that precludes the contiguous zone of one State from overlapping with the exclusive economic zone of another State;
(b) The geodetic lines established in the Decree connecting the outermost points of Colombia’s contiguous zones do not violate international law;
(c) The specific powers concerning the contiguous zone enumerated in the Decree do not violate international law; - 75 -
(d) No Colombian action in the contiguous zone has given rise to any violation of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights or maritime spaces.
II. Further, the Republic of Colombia respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that
3. The inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago, in particular the Raizales, enjoy artisanal fishing rights in the traditional fishing grounds located beyond the territorial sea of the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago.
4. Nicaragua has violated the traditional fishing rights of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago.
5. Nicaragua’s straight baselines established in Decree No. 33-2013 of 19 August 2013 are contrary to international law and violate Colombia’s rights and maritime spaces. III. The Court is further requested to order Nicaragua
6. With regard to submissions 3 and 4, to ensure that the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago engaged in traditional fishing enjoy unfettered access to:
(a) Their traditional fishing banks located in the maritime areas beyond the territorial sea of the islands of San Andrés Archipelago; and,
(b) The banks located in Colombian maritime areas when access to them requires navigating outside the territorial sea of the islands of the San Andrés Archipelago.
7. To compensate Colombia for all damages caused, including loss of profits, resulting from Nicaragua’s violation of its international obligations.
8. To give Colombia appropriate guarantees of non-repetition". (véase verbatim, p. 75).
Breves anotaciones, sin osar ningún pronóstico
Pronosticar el contenido de una sentencia de la CIJ siempre se considera aventurado, al tener el juez internacional que encontrar algún tipo de balance en su decisión.
Ahora bien, si se compara el equipo de asesores y de diplomáticos de Colombia y el equipo de asesores y de diplomáticos de Nicaragua en La Haya (véase verbatim, páginas 4-9), se contabilizan 33 personas en el equipo colombiano, y 10 personas en el equipo de Nicaragua. Esta aparente abundancia de recursos humanos de un lado - que incluye a la titular de la cartera ministerial en persona a cargo del aparato diplomático - puede en realidad evidenciar otra realidad, menos perceptible para el observador poco familiarizado: el desbalance significativo a favor de Nicaragua, cuyos asesores internacionales concentran, en nuestra modesta opinión, mucha más experiencia en el litigio internacional que sus homólogos contratados para defender a Colombia ante la barra de La Haya.
Antes del fallo del 2012 de la CIJ, se había tenido esta misma impresión, confirmada por el contenido de esta sentencia de la CIJ que Colombia desde entonces, considera atentatoria a sus pretensiones en el Mar Caribe. En el 2013 sus máximas autoridades declararon esta sentencia "inaplicable", y, pocas semanas después de leída en noviembre del 2012, Colombia optó por denunciar el Pacto de Bogotá: al hacerlo se convirtió en el primer Estado en el mundo en denunciar un emblemático instrumento que lleva el nombre de ... su capital.
Recientemente, tuvimos la oportunidad de poner en contexto la carta de renuncia de Paul Reichler, asesor de Nicaragua en La Haya desde 1984 (véase nuestra breve nota al respecto titulada "Nicaragua: a propósito de la renuncia uno de los principales artífices de logros obtenidos ante la justicia internacional"). Sin querer desmerecer a ninguno de los integrantes del equipo internacional de juristas contratados por Colombia, esta experiencia de Paul Reichler no es aislada: es compartida por otros integrantes del equipo de Nicaragua.
A modo de conclusión
Este 21 de abril, la CIJ emitirá su veredicto para esta demanda: es probable que, conforme a su tradición, la CIJ busque la manera de dar a ambos Estados la posibilidad de declararse vencedor ante su respectiva opinión pública.
Este espacio de disensión - que habría que saber aprovechar por parte de ambos contrincantes - se dará por un corto espacio de tiempo, mientras otra demanda de Nicaragua contra Colombia sigue pendiente de resolución (véase detalles en este enlace oficial de la CIJ).