INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BACKGROUND GUIDE 13 TH EDITION OF THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS United Nations Association in Canada Association canadienne pour les Nations Unies - 1 -

A WELCOME FROM THE DAIS Canadian International Model United Nations March 3-6, 2016 Lord Elgin Hotel Ottawa, Ontario www.canimun.org CANIMUN is an initiative of the United Nations Association in Canada 300-309 Cooper Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0G5 Dear Justices of the Court, Welcome to CANIMUN 2016 and to the! The President of the Court will be Andréa Baptiste. Andréa is currently in her first year in law at McGill University. Born and raised in Montreal, her Model UN experience actually began at CANIMUN 2013, when she was there as a delegate. Outside of Model UN and her school endeavours, Andréa enjoys playing the piano and reading. The Vice-President of the Court will be Amanda Bergmann. Amanda is currently a JD/MA candidate with the University of Ottawa and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. Predominantly interested in the social and legal treatment of refugees, IDPs, and stateless persons both in Canada and abroad, Amanda s focus is on bridging the gap between legal theory/practice and identity politics. This simulation is designed with delegates assuming the roles and responsibilities of ICJ justices. The ICJ forum is different in two major aspects from other traditional MUN models: (1) Delegates will represent justices of the Court, not UN member-states; and (2) Lively debates that focus on questions and answers will take priority over traditional rules of procedure. These two changes result in a crisis-style simulation that will allow delegates to experience and appreciate the intricacies and challenges of implementing international laws. As judges, you will have the chance to rule on two cases: 1. Obligation to negotiate access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) 2. Alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) We look forward to meeting you in what will be an enriching, challenging and fun experience! Best Regards, Andréa Baptiste President Amanda Bergmann Vice-President - 2 -

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW Mission Statement & Function The (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was created with the intention of providing a platform from which: 1. Member States can settle international legal disputes, and 2. The United Nations General Assembly and other UN agencies could seek advisory opinions on international law. 1 The ICJ is unique in that it operates at the State level. 2 Unlike other international courts which focus on individuals who have perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity the ICJ holds Member States accountable for their state policies and practices. 3 Furthermore, such accountability is not limited to mass atrocities; Member States are expected to adhere to all of their international legal obligations. International relations are inherently anarchic at the state level, and the ICJ is no different. As such, it was largely designed off of an arbitration module: Member States must voluntarily submit to the authority of the ICJ, and the ICJ s jurisdiction is limited to those States that do so. 4 The ICJ acts as an arbitrator between two disputing states: it collects evidence, examines the key factual and legal issues, and provides advice and/or a decision on the dispute. 5 Once resolved, a decision is considered binding, despite the lack of hard-power enforcement. 6 Unlike other UN Agencies that are riddled with political intrigue and power plays, the ICJ is largely separate. Judges do not advocate on behalf of specific States, but instead utilize their combined legal and world knowledge to arrive at just conclusions. 7 As such, the ICJ carries a higher amount of international neutral legitimacy than other UN organs, and its decisions are largely respected by the international community. 8 Simulation Style The ICJ simulation will be conducted in a similar format to a crisis committee. Formal rules of procedure will be largely abandoned in favour of an open-style debate. The President and Vice President will steer conversation 1, The Court, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1. 2 Statute of the, 26 June 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 993 (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 34. 3. How the Court works, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 4 5 6 Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 94. 7, Members of the Court, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2 8-3 -

by creating informal speakers lists and designating speaking times, but by and large this committee is to be guided by the judges (delegates) themselves. As such, it is imperative that all judges come amply prepared to discuss each fact in detail. As will be emphasized later, judges are not expected to promote their country of origin s policies. Instead, judges of the ICJ are seen as neutral arbitrators. While their past legal and world experiences will shape their perceptions of issues and potentially colour their understanding of certain situations, in no way do judges of the ICJ use their positions to bolster any particular State s agendas or policies. Judges of the ICJ must work collaboratively to fully explore the legal and non-legal issues and questions surrounding each case. There is no right or wrong answer; instead, judges are on a quest for knowledge of what can universally be accepted as just. Judges who do not agree with one another are encouraged to ask questions and examine the arguments of their counterparts, and in turn are expected to come to session with a firm understanding so that they may promote their own arguments. Judges must actively listen to their fellows and are encouraged to poke holes in and/or bolster one another s arguments in order to promote debate and discussion. Sample Timeline At the beginning of the simulation, the Court will set the agenda. Realistically, the International Court of Justice only hears one case at a time. However, as we will be discussing two topics, we will vote on their order of appearance. Once the first case has been selected, judges will begin preliminary discussion of the legal questions presented. During this period, each judge will present her or his initial views, speculations, and uncertainties. From these, the Court will develop a common understanding of the primary issues involved. Judges will be asked to present their preliminary opinions in the form of written notes. These notes will then be presented orally before the court, with a copy being distributed to each judge. These notes are not binding, but are an opportunity to identify consensus and issues of contention between one s colleagues. They will ultimately serve as a jumping-off point to begin formal deliberation. Formal deliberations are the predominant phase of the Court s proceedings. During these deliberations, judges will analyze relevant facts and aspects of international law and formulate opinions on each. The format of these deliberations is completely set by judges consensus. The dais will typically recognize different speakers and may present comments, critiques, and questions in order to facilitate discussion. At times, the Court may choose to limit discussion to a particular issue or question requiring clarification ; at others, it may conduct straw or consensus polls. As these deliberations progress, judges positions will become more defined, and (hopefully) a consensus will be largely agreed upon. It is encouraged that judges develop a methodology to deal with the case i.e. an analysis that fits individual components into a finalized resolution of the case as a whole. - 4 -

Finally, judges will be responsible for producing formal written opinion statements during an extended caucus. Judges will break into groups based on their legal analysis and viewpoints of the case. These groups will likely fall under Majority (consensus), Concurring (same overall conclusion but arrived there differently), and Dissenting (different/conflicting conclusion). In theory, the Court should produce as few as one or as many distinct opinions as it has members. All opinions must begin with whether the ICJ has jurisdiction in this manner, or state why it lacks jurisdiction. Remember, every portion of one s opinion must derive from, and support in, international Composition of the Court The is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. 9 These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies. 10 One third of the Court is elected every three years. Judges are eligible for re-election. Should a judge die or resign during his or her term of office, a special election is held as soon as possible to choose a judge to fill the unexpired part of the term. 11 The Court may not include more than one national of the same State. 12 Moreover, the Court as a whole must represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. 13 The court s current composition includes: Africa (3), Latin America and the Caribbean (2), Asia (3), Western Europe and other States (5), and Eastern Europe (2), which corresponds to the membership of the current Security Council. 14 Although there is no entitlement to membership on the part of any country, the Court has always included judges of the nationality of the five permanent members of the SC. 15 Proposal of Candidates All Member States parties to the Statute of the Court have the right to propose candidates. These proposals are made by a group consisting of the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which consists in essence of a panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the Hague Peace Convention 1899 from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be chosen. 16 In the case of countries not represented on the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a group constituted in the same way makes nominations. 17 9, Members of the Court, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17-5 -

Each group can propose up to four candidates, not more than two of whom may be of its own nationality. 18 The others may be from any country whatsoever, whether a party to the Statute or not, and whether or not it has declared that it accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. 19 Legal Application The sources of law that the Court must apply are: international treaties and conventions in force; international custom; the general principles of law; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. 20 Moreover, if the parties agree, the Court can decide a case ex aequo et bono, i.e., without limiting itself to existing rules of international law. 21 Types of Cases The Court entertains two types of cases: 1. Contentious Cases: Legal disputes between States 2. Advisory Proceedings: requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies 22 Contentious Case For the purposes of this simulation, we will only be looking at contentious cases. Only UN-recognized States may be parties to contentious cases. 23 Each agent representing a state plays the same role, and has the same rights and obligations, as a solicitor or with respect to a national court; however, the agent is also empowered to act as if (s)he were the head of a special diplomatic mission with powers to commit a sovereign State. 24 In public hearings the agent opens the argument on behalf of the government (s)he represents and lodges the submissions. 25 The Court is able to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways: By entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court; By virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court. 26 18 19 20. How the Court works, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 21 22. The Court, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 23 Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 93 24. How the Court works, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 25 26-6 -

Through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. 27 A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute. 28 Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways: 1. Through the notification of a special agreement: this document, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with the Court by either of the States parties to the proceedings or by both of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an applicant State nor a respondent State, in the Court s publications their names are separated by an oblique stroke at the end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger; 2. By means of an application: the application, which is of a unilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State. It is intended for communication to the latter State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with respect to its content. In addition to the name of the party against which the claim is brought and the subject of the dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate briefly on what basis - a treaty or a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction - it claims the Court has jurisdiction, and must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases its claim. At the end of the official title of the case, the names of the two parties are separated by the abbreviation v (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v Colombia. 29 Adherence to Judgements After the oral proceedings, the Court deliberates in camera and then delivers its judgement at a public sitting. 30 The judgement is final, binding on the parties to a case, and without appeal (at most, it may be subject to interpretation or revision). 31 Any judge wishing to do so may append an opinion to the judgement. 32 By signing the Charter, a Member State of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. 33 A case can only be submitted to and decided by the Court if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, therefore, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. 34 A State that contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgement rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgement. 35 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 94 34. How the Court works, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 35-7 -

INTERNATIONAL AND MARITIME LAW OVERVIEW The United Nations defines international law as the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. Customary international law refers to a general practice accepted as law, as described in the Statue of the. There are two requirements for a practice to become customary law : state practice (usus) and a belief that the practice is required, prohibited or allowed as a matter of law (opinio juris sive necessitates, in English opinion as to law or necessity ). Generally, rules of customary international law are binding on all states, regardless of their participation in the emergence of the law. This was established by the ICJ in the North Sea Continental Shelf case. State practice is relevant to international law in two ways: establishing a rule or creating a rule. When establishing what constitutes State practice, several elements come into play. These elements include physical and verbal acts of States, abstention from certain conducts, States claims before the Court and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) statements. Decisions of international courts and resolutions by international organisations are excluded from State practice. For a certain State practice to be considered in the formation of a rule of customary international law, the practice must be virtually uniform, extensive and representative. The uniformity criterion is exemplified in the Asylum (Colombia/Peru) case, where the Court stated that the facts brought to the knowledge [ ] so much uncertainty and contradiction [ ] that it is not possible to discern in all this any constant and uniform usage, accepted as law. Regarding the extensive and representative criterion, there are no precise numbers: this requirement is qualitative as opposed to quantitative. Lastly, there is no specific time requirement to form a rule of customary international law: it is all a question of accumulating a practice of sufficient density, in terms of uniformity, extent and representativeness. The second requirement for the existence of a rule of customary international law is opinio juris (a belief that a practice is required). Since this is difficult to specifically attribute to a state, opinio juris often has to be deduced from a state s pronouncements and actions. As explained by the Court in the North Sea case, if the acts of a practice are attributed to a motive other than such consciousness, they do not comply with this requirement. Moreover, if states interests are particularly invested in a certain notion or concept, the concept or notion cannot constitute opinio juris. - 8 -

International Law of the Sea Canadian International Model United Nations 2016 International Law of the Sea (ILOS) can be defined as a body of international rules that bind States and other subjects of international law in their marine affairs. ILOS began as customary law, but eventually became codified. The marine spaces governed by this body of international rules have to communicate freely and naturally with each other all over the world and they myust have the same water level. This means that rivers and lakes are not governed by the law of the sea. Lastly, the ocean refers to the seabed, subsoil, adjacent water column and the atmosphere above the sea. The International Law of the Sea serves two main functions. The first function is what is called the spatial distribution of national jurisdiction. The ocean is divided in several jurisdictions which are based on different obligations and rights which arise for various States. The purpose of this first function is to coordinate the interests of individual states: this approach is also called zonal management approach. The second function of the ILOS is ensuring international cooperation between States. Species and ecosystems diverge from artificial jurisdictional separations. Therefore, additional efforts to conserve marine living resources and biological diversity as well as effectively prevent marine pollution are required. This is best done in a cooperative manner. Sources of the Law of the Sea Sources of law of the ILOS are generally the same as customary international law. They are detailed in article 38(1) of the Statue of the, which is generally accepted as a statement of international sources. The three formal sources are: (a) international convention, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by the contesting States; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. In the context of the ILOS, customary law is used mainly when there are no specific rules in relevant treaties. Arguably, the most important treaty with regards to the Law of the Sea is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Material sources of law include judicial decisions, non-binding instruments, unilateral acts and considerations of humanity. Judicial decisions are addressed in paragraph (d) of article 38(1) of the Statue of the International Court of Justice. They contribute to the identification, clarification and formation of rules of law. Nonbinding instruments include resolutions or guidelines adopted by international organisations. Lastly, unilateral acts and considerations of humanity both have some influence on rules of international law of the sea. Considerations of humanity are embodied in treaties and stem from the fact that human activities taking place in the ocean are not void from risks. - 9 -

TOPIC A: OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ACCESS TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN (BOLIVIA V. CHILE) Introduction The 24th of April 2013, the Plurinational State of Bolivia commenced proceedings against Chile. The topic of dispute was Chile s obligation to negotiate in good faith and effectively with Bolivia in order to reach an agreement granting Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, Bolivia claims that at the core of the dispute is the existence of this obligation, Chile s non-compliance with the obligation and Chile s duty to comply with the obligation. Among other things, Bolivia claims that Chile committed itself through diplomatic practice, agreements, and a series of declarations from high-level representatives. Bolivia requests for the Court to adjudge and declare that Chile has the obligation to negotiate with Bolivia, that this obligation was breached by Chile and that it must be performed in good faith in Chile promptly and effectively so that Bolivia can be granted a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia argues that this dispute is under the s jurisdiction because both Chile and Bolivia are parties to the 1948 Pact of Bogota, specifically article 31 of the Pact. The Facts Both Chile and Bolivia gained their independence from Spain in the early 19th century, in 1818 and 1825, respectively. At the time, Bolivia had a 700 kilometer coastline alongside the Pacific Ocean. As a result of a war between Chile and Bolivia at the end of the century, Chile occupied Bolivia s coastal territories. It was only with the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship that officially ended the war that Bolivia was granted a right of commercial transit through Chilean ports. However, under the same treaty, Bolivia also lost 400 kilometers of the aforementioned coast line as well as 120 000 square feet of territory. Bolivia considers that being prevented from access to the sea caused important economic damage and also contributed to its limited fleet. Attempts to negotiate a redrawing of the border have failed. Moreover, since 1978, there have been limited diplomatic relations between the two states. On the other hand, Chile claims that Bolivia s claims are a unilateral dismissal of the 1904 treat commitment [ ] that remains in force and will thus be disregarded. The Issues Before the Court 1. Is Chile under an obligation to negotiate in good faith with Bolivia with regards to access to the Pacific Ocean? 2. If so, has Chile breached this obligation? 3. Is Bolivia entitled to a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean? - 10 -

The Law American Treaty on Pacific Settlement ( Pact of Bogota ) Article i. The High Contracting Parties, solemnly reaffirming their commitments made in earlier international conventions and declarations, as well as in the Charter of the United Nations, agree to refrain from the threat or the use of force, or from any other means of coercion for the settlement of their controversies, and to have recourse at all times to pacific procedures. Article viii. Neither recourse to pacific means for the solution of controversies, nor the recommendation of their use, shall, in the case of an armed attack, be ground for delaying the exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefence, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. Article xxxi. In conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statue of the, the High Contracting Parties declare that they recognize, in relation to any other American State, the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory ipso facto, without the necessity of any special agreement so long as the present Treaty is in force, in all disputes of a juridical nature that arise among them concerning: a) The interpretation of a treaty; b) Any question of international law; c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute the breach of an international obligation; d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. - 11 -

TOPIC B: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND MARITIME SPACES IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA (NICARAGUA V. COLOMBIA) Introduction On November 27th 2013, Nicaragua commenced proceedings against Colombia. The subject matter of the dispute is the violations of Nicaragua s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by the Court s Judgement of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia in order to implement these violations. Nicaragua wishes that the Court adjudge and declare that Colombia is breaching: 1. Its obligation not to use or threaten to use force, in accordance to Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter and international customary law; 2. Its obligation not to violate, as per paragraph 251 of the 19 November 2012 ICJ judgment, Nicaragua s maritime zones and Nicaragua s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in these zones; 3. Its obligation not to infringe Nicaragua s rights under customary international law, specifically in Parts 5 and 6 of the United Convention on the Law of the Sea. All in all, Nicaragua is looking for Colombia to be bound to comply with the Judgment of 19 November 2012 and wipe out the legal and material consequences of its internationally wrongful acts, and make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts. In terms of evidence, Nicaragua brings up [ ] declarations by the highest Colombia Authorities [ ] that openly violated Nicaragua s sovereign rights over maritime areas in the Caribbean. More specifically, Nicaragua brings forward Article 5 of the Presidential Decree 1946. Finally, Nicaragua alleges that [ ] the threatening declarations by Colombian Authorities and the hostile treatment given by Colombian naval forces to Nicaragua vessels have seriously affected the possibilities of Nicaragua for exploiting the living and non-living resources in its Caribbean exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. The ICJ is believed to have jurisdiction in this matter because of Article 31 of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, the 1948 Pact of Bogota, of which both Colombia and Nicaragua are parties. - 12 -

The Facts Claims over these territories date back to the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1928, a treaty was signed by both States to resolve questions regarding the border and the sovereignty of isles in the Caribbean. In 1980, the treaty was annulled by the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Nicaraguan government arguing that it had been signed under US pressure. Moreover, both parties had already appeared at the ICJ in 2001, when Nicaragua sued Colombia over maritime territory. In 2012, the ICJ s ruling found that the majority of the territory that was contented belonged to Colombia, with the exception of an area potentially containing oil and gas reserves, as well as an industrial fishing zone, that were ruled to belong to Nicaragua. The Issues Before the Court 1. Has Colombia breached its obligation not to use or threaten to use force and thus incompliant with the UN Charter and international customary law? 2. Has Colombia been in compliance with the ICJ Judgment of 19 November 2012, specifically paragraph 251? 3. Has Colombia infringed Nicaragua s under Parts 5 and 6 of the United Convention on the Law of the Sea? The Law UNITED NATIONS CHARTER Article II The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. (3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. NICARAGUA V. COLUMBIA (2012): ICJ JUDGEMENT 251.For these reasons, The Court, (1)Unanimously, Finds that the Republic of Colombia has sovereignty over the islands at Alburquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East Southeast Cays, Quitasueño, Roncador, Serrana and Serranilla; (2) By fourteen votes to one, Finds admissible the Republic of Nicaragua s claim contained in its final submission - 13 -

(3) requesting the Court to adjudge and declare that [t]he appropriate form of delimitation, within the geographical and legal framework constituted by the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Colombia, is a continental shelf boundary dividing by equal parts the overlapping entitlements to a continental shelf of both Parties ; in favour: President Tomka; Vice President Sepúlveda Amor; Judges Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue, Sebutinde; Judges ad hoc Mensah, Cot; against: Judge Owada; (4) Unanimously, Finds that it cannot uphold the Republic of Nicaragua s claim contained in its final submission I (3); (5) Unanimously, Decides that the line of the single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Colombia shall follow geodetic lines connecting the points with coordinates [ ] UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Part 5 Exclusive Economic Zone Article 55 Specific legal regime of the exclusive economic zone The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention Article 56 Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to: (i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; (ii) marine scientific research; (iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment; (c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention. - 14 -

2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention. 3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed andsubsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI. Part 6 Continental Shelf Article 77 Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf 1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State. 3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. 4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil. Article 78 Legal status of the superjacent waters and air space and the rights and freedoms of other States 1. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space above those waters. 2. The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe or result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this Convention. - 15 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY BBC News. UN Court Rules it can Hear Bolivia Sea Dispute Case. BBC. September 24, 2015. http:// www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-34347332. BBC News. UN ruling gives Colombia islets but Nicaragua more sea. BBC. November 20, 2012. http:// www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-20391180. Department of International Law. American Treaty on Pacific Settlement ( Pact of Bogota ). Organisation of American States. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-42.html. Evans, Malcom D., ed. International Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. International Committee of the Red Cross. Assessment of Customary International Law International Committee of the Red Cross. Last modified 2016. https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/ v1_rul_in_asofcuin.. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Judgment of 19 November 2012.. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/124/17164.pdf.. Nicaragua institutes proceedings against Colombia with regard to alleged violations of Nicaragua s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by the Court s Judgment of 19 November 2012.. November 27, 2013. http://www.icj-cij.org/ docket/files/155/17806.pdf.. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) Preliminary Objection.. February 16, 2015. http://www.icj-cij.org/ docket/files/153/18470.pdf.. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) Summary of the Judgment of 24 September 2015.. September 24, 2015. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/153/18758.pdf. Tanaka, Yoshifumi. The International Law of the Sea. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. - 16 -

The Law Library of Congress. Bolivia, Chile; : Access to the Sea Case. Library of Congress. April 25, 2014. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/bolivia-chileinternational-court-of-justice-access-to-the-sea-case/. United Nations. International law. http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/internationallaw/. United Nations. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. http://www.un.org/depts/los/ convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/. Wills, Santiago. A Territorial Dispute Prompts Colombia and Nicaragua to Beef Up their Navies. ABC News. August 19, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/abc_univision/abc_univision/territorial-disputeprompts-colombia-nicaragua-beef-navies/story?id=20000089. - 17 -