Nicaragua was represented by Foley Hoag, LLP partners Paul Reichler and Lawrence Martin.
“As it always does, the ICJ resolved the dispute before it in an equitable manner applying well established legal principles to the specific circumstances of the case,” Reichler said. “We are deeply gratified to have produced a result that Nicaragua celebrates as a victory.”
Reichler and Martin previously represented the Philippines in its landmark victory in an arbitration against China concerning maritime rights in the South China Sea.
At stake were more than 27,000 km sq of sea and continental shelf, and exclusive access to natural resources, including fish and potential oil and gas deposits. The boundary line established by the Court, which both States are obligated to accept, left approximately 20,000 km sq on Nicaragua’s side.
In so doing, the Court rejected Costa Rica’s argument that the boundary line should be adjusted in its favor to avoid a “cutoff” of its maritime reach due to the “concave shape” of its coastline, and that Nicaragua’s Corn Islands were insignificant features that should be ignored in the construction of the line. The boundary fixed by the Court largely follows the “equidistance line” proposed by Nicaragua.
By the same 16-0 vote, the Court also determined the maritime boundary between the two States in the Pacific Ocean. There, the disputed area was smaller, with both parties proposing that it be divided based on equidistance. However, Nicaragua argued that a strict equidistance line would be inequitable, and the Court agreed, ordering that the line should be adjusted in Nicaragua’s favor.
http://mrem.bernama.com/viewsm.php?idm=31118
“As it always does, the ICJ resolved the dispute before it in an equitable manner applying well established legal principles to the specific circumstances of the case,” Reichler said. “We are deeply gratified to have produced a result that Nicaragua celebrates as a victory.”
Reichler and Martin previously represented the Philippines in its landmark victory in an arbitration against China concerning maritime rights in the South China Sea.
At stake were more than 27,000 km sq of sea and continental shelf, and exclusive access to natural resources, including fish and potential oil and gas deposits. The boundary line established by the Court, which both States are obligated to accept, left approximately 20,000 km sq on Nicaragua’s side.
In so doing, the Court rejected Costa Rica’s argument that the boundary line should be adjusted in its favor to avoid a “cutoff” of its maritime reach due to the “concave shape” of its coastline, and that Nicaragua’s Corn Islands were insignificant features that should be ignored in the construction of the line. The boundary fixed by the Court largely follows the “equidistance line” proposed by Nicaragua.
By the same 16-0 vote, the Court also determined the maritime boundary between the two States in the Pacific Ocean. There, the disputed area was smaller, with both parties proposing that it be divided based on equidistance. However, Nicaragua argued that a strict equidistance line would be inequitable, and the Court agreed, ordering that the line should be adjusted in Nicaragua’s favor.
http://mrem.bernama.com/viewsm.php?idm=31118
No comments:
Post a Comment