International Court of Justice - MILMUN · Justice. International organizations, ... International Court of Justice, Peru refers to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 1948

MILAN INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2011 “Reaching Sustainability and Empowerment through Education

Milan International Model United Nations Conference

“Reaching Sustainability and Empowerment through Education”

International Court of Justice

A. The maritime dispute between Peru and Chile.

B. The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking.

MILAN INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS International Court of JusticeReaching Sustainability and Empowerment through Education

Page 1


MILMUN 2011


International Court of Justice

STUDY GUIDE

Topics:

The maritime dispute between Peru and Chile.

The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking.

International Court of Justice Reaching Sustainability and Empowerment through Education”



The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking.


Council Description –

1.1 Definition

1.2 Composition

1.3 Jurisdiction of the Court

Topic A –The maritime dispute between Peru and Chile

I. .Forward

1.1.Definition of the problematic

1.2..Historical Background

II. Current dispute

2.1.The Subject of the dispute

2.2.The Facts

III. The Legal Grounds on which the Parties’ Claims are based

3.1.Peru

3.2.Chile

IV. Questions a resolution should answer

V. Bibliography and Further Reading

Topic B – The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug

trafficking

I. Forward

1.1. Definition of the problematic

1.2. Historical Background

II. Current dispute


2.2.The Facts

III. The Legal Grounds on which the Parties’ Claims are based

3.1.Ecuador claims

3.2.Colombia claims

3.3.Venezuela and Brazil


Page 2

Table of Content

– International Court of Justice

Court

The maritime dispute between Peru and Chile

Definition of the problematic

Historical Background

The Subject of the dispute

The Legal Grounds on which the Parties’ Claims are based

Peru

Chile

Questions a resolution should answer

Bibliography and Further Reading

The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug

Definition of the problematic

Historical Background

Current dispute


The Legal Grounds on which the Parties’ Claims are based

Ecuador claims

Colombia claims

3.3.Venezuela and Brazil


The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug



V. Bibliography and further reading


Page 3

Questions a resolution should answer

and further reading



The International Court of Justice

1.1. Definition

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

main judicial organ of the UN.

the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and to serve as the principal

judicial committee of the United Nations (UN). The seat of the Court is located at the

Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands

member nations, congregate to resolve any legal disputes brought before us by States.

As the Justices of the Court they also provide advisory opinions on any legal inquiries

referred to the Court by authorized agencie

Nations, and the UN General Assembly.

1.2. Composition

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms

receiving a list of nominees from the Permanent Court of Arbitration,

Assembly in cooperation with the

in Articles 4–12 of the ICJ statute. Judges serve

elected for up to two further terms. Elections

third of the judges retiring (and possibly standing for re

continuity within the court.

The Court also

no two judges coming from

membership of the Court

principal legal systems of the world

law and socialist law (now post

composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there

Statute of the ICJ.


Page 4

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the

main judicial organ of the UN. It was established in 1945 by UN Charter to succeed



Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands), where the esteemed justices from 15



referred to the Court by authorized agencies, other committees or bodies of the United

Nations, and the UN General Assembly.

Composition

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms

receiving a list of nominees from the Permanent Court of Arbitration,

in cooperation with the the UN Security Council elect the judges as

12 of the ICJ statute. Judges serve for nine year terms and may be re

elected for up to two further terms. Elections are held every three years, with one

third of the judges retiring (and possibly standing for re-election) each time

continuity within the court.

The Court also has restrictions regarding the nationalities of the judges, with

judges coming from the same country. According to Article 9, the

membership of the Court must represent the "main forms of civilization and of the

principal legal systems of the world". Essentially, this has meant common law

(now post-communist law). The rule on a geopolitical

composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there is no provision for it in the


, also known as the World Court, is the

was established in 1945 by UN Charter to succeed



), where the esteemed justices from 15



s, other committees or bodies of the United

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms. After

receiving a list of nominees from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the UN General

elect the judges as set out

for nine year terms and may be re-

every three years, with one-

election) each time, ensuring

has restrictions regarding the nationalities of the judges, with

the same country. According to Article 9, the

represent the "main forms of civilization and of the

common law, civil

geopolitical

is no provision for it in the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitical


Article 2 of the Statute provides that all judges should be "elected regardless of

their nationality among persons of high

the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient

competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt specifically with in

Articles 16–18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post, no

as counsel. In practice the Members of the Court have their own interpretation of these

rules. This allows them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional

posts as long as there is n

a unanimous vote of other members of the Court.

Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions.

Decisions and Advisory Opinions

division, the President's vote becomes decisive.

dissenting opinions.

1.3.Jurisdiction of the Court

a- Jurisdiction in Advisory Proceedings

Advisory proceedings before the Court are open solely to five organs of

the United Nations and to 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.The

United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

opinions on “any legal question”. Other United Nations organs and specialized

agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory opinions can only do so with

respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.W

a request for an advisory opinion, the Court, in order that it may give its opinion with

full knowledge of the facts, is empowered to hold written and oral proceedings, certain

aspects of which recall the proceedings in contentious cases. I

do without such proceedings, but it has never dispensed with them entirely.

b- Jurisdiction in Contentious Cases


Page 5


their nationality among persons of high moral character", who are either q



18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post, no

. In practice the Members of the Court have their own interpretation of these


posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by

vote of other members of the Court.


Advisory Opinions are by majority and, in the event of an equal

division, the President's vote becomes decisive. Judges may also deliver separate

3.Jurisdiction of the Court

Jurisdiction in Advisory Proceedings



United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory



respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.W



aspects of which recall the proceedings in contentious cases. In theory, the Court may


urisdiction in Contentious Cases



character", who are either qualified for



18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post, nor act

. In practice the Members of the Court have their own interpretation of these


o conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by


are by majority and, in the event of an equal

Judges may also deliver separate



may request advisory



respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.When it receives



n theory, the Court may


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Opinion


In the exercise of its jurisdiction in contentious cases, the International

Court of Justice has to decide, in

nature that are submitted to it by States. An international legal dispute can be defined

as a disagreement on a question of law or fact, a conflict, a clash of legal views or of

interests.

Only States

Justice. International organizations, other collectivities and private persons are not

entitled to institute proceedings before the Court.

Article 35 of the Statute defines the conditions of

the Court. While paragraph 1 of that Article opens it to the State parties to the Statute,

paragraph 2 is intended to regulate access to the Court by States which are not parties

to the Statute. The conditions of access of such States

provisions contained in treaties in force at the date of the entry into force of the

Statute, to be determined by the Security Council, with the proviso that in no case

shall such conditions place the parties in a position of in

Court can only deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its

jurisdiction. No State can therefore be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it

has in some manner or other consented there to.


Page 6


Court of Justice has to decide, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal



Only States may apply to and appear before the International Court of


entitled to institute proceedings before the Court.

Article 35 of the Statute defines the conditions of access for States to



to the Statute. The conditions of access of such States are, subject to the special



shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court. The



has in some manner or other consented there to.



accordance with international law, disputes of a legal



may apply to and appear before the International Court of


access for States to



are, subject to the special



equality before the Court. The





I. Forward

1.1.Defining the problematic

For hundreds of

have harmed security, stability and prosperity in th

out an official controversy

delimitation; Chile claims a boundary along the geographical parallel that passes by

the point on which the

argues that no maritime boundary has ever been agreed. The disputes over the

maritime delimitation dating back as the Pacific War at the end of the 19

concretized when Peru filled the application to the International Court of Justice in

January 2008. Peru claims that the maritime border with Chile has never been

established through international documents between the 2 states and requests the

Court to proceed with the delimitation in accordance with customary international law.

Moreover, Peru claims a maritime zone lying within 200 nautical miles from the

Peruvian coast. Chile, on the other hand, sees the issue as having been settled by a

series of treaties - the 1929 agreement in Lima and the subsequent treaties of 1952,

1954 and 1968. With regards to these documents, Peru affirms that they are merely

fishing agreements that do not settle the maritime dispute.


Page 7

Topic A:


Defining the problematic

s of years, Latin America has dealt with boundary disputes which

stability and prosperity in the area. The current situation brings

out an official controversy between Chile and Peru about their maritime boundary


the point on which the land border between both countries reaches the sea, while Peru


maritime delimitation dating back as the Pacific War at the end of the 19







the 1929 agreement in Lima and the subsequent treaties of 1952,


fishing agreements that do not settle the maritime dispute.

In what concerns the issue of jurisdiction of the

International Court of Justice, Peru refers to the

American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 1948 to

which both countries are parties without reserves.



dealt with boundary disputes which

area. The current situation brings

Chile and Peru about their maritime boundary


land border between both countries reaches the sea, while Peru


maritime delimitation dating back as the Pacific War at the end of the 19th century is







the 1929 agreement in Lima and the subsequent treaties of 1952,


f jurisdiction of the

International Court of Justice, Peru refers to the

American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 1948 to

which both countries are parties without reserves.


According to the provisions of the Treaty, all States Parties recognize as compulso

ipso facto the jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to any other American State.

The International Court of Justice n

international treaties that apply to the case. After determining the documents, it has to

answer to the requests of Peru, namely to establish with enough accuracy the maritime

border between the 2 states and to determine if it will grant Peru the 200 nautical mile

maritime zone.

1.2. Historical background of the dispute

The disputes ove

the Pacific” in 1879 when

the war, Chile extended its territory. In this war, Chile took mineral

Peru, seizing its only outlet to the sea. In 1929, aft

Province of Tacna returned to Peru after 36 years of captivity by Chile and Peru and

Chile subscribed to the Treaty of Ancon, which established the definitive land border

between both countries.

treaty, which lasted until 1997.

through the installation of a Military Vigilance Control on the area at the north of the

point where the land border reaches the sea.

The dispute between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile

focuses on the sovereignty of an area at sea of approximately

Ocean. Peruvian authorities claim

countries is still not fixed,

border issues with Peru, as there are international treaties in force on the subject.


Page 8

According to the provisions of the Treaty, all States Parties recognize as compulso

the jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to any other American State.

The International Court of Justice now needs to establish which are


requests of Peru, namely to establish with enough accuracy the maritime


Historical background of the dispute

The disputes over the maritime delimitation date back to

the Pacific” in 1879 when Peru and Bolivia were attacked by Chile.After having won

Chile extended its territory. In this war, Chile took mineral-

Peru, seizing its only outlet to the sea. In 1929, after a plebiscite, the Peruvian



between both countries. 68 years were necessary for the full implemen

treaty, which lasted until 1997.In the year 2001, Chile intervened in Peruvian territory


point where the land border reaches the sea.

he dispute between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile

on the sovereignty of an area at sea of approximately 37,900km ² in the Pacific

authorities claim that boundary delimitation between the two

fixed, while the Chileans claim that that there are



According to the provisions of the Treaty, all States Parties recognize as compulsory

the jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to any other American State.

ow needs to establish which are the


requests of Peru, namely to establish with enough accuracy the maritime


tation date back to the “War of

olivia were attacked by Chile.After having won

-rich land from

er a plebiscite, the Peruvian



full implementation of this

in Peruvian territory


he dispute between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile

37,900km ² in the Pacific

that boundary delimitation between the two

are no outstanding



equitable division; secondarily

trapezius aforementioned 28,471.86km², which Chile considers the high

as part of its maritime domain for the projection of its baselines.

The background of the concretization of this dispute goes back to the

mid-1980s. In 1985, the then Foreign Minister of Peru first addressed this issue

formally with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. The following year, the

Peruvian Ambassador had an interview with

matter, and handled a diplomatic note, dated May 23 of 1986. By the aforementioned

note, issued by the Embassy of P

regarding the necessity of "concluding a treaty on maritime boundaries", on the

premise that it must reach a formal and definitive delimitation of maritime spaces,

which complement the geographical proximi

Chile ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1997 and,

according to its text, in September 2000, deposited it in the United Nations. Later,

Peru formalized its position on the issue, through a note sent to the United N

January 7 of 2001, which does not recognize the line of latitude as the maritime

boundary between the two countries.

Public discussion on this subject was revived in 2005, when the Congress of

Peru began to process a bill on determining the basel

are sequences of points that determine where it finishes the coastal edge and therefore

begins the territorial sea as such, setting the width of the maritime domain of Peru to


Page 9

The dispute concerns an area in the sea between the

parallel that crosses the end point of the land border between

Chile and Peru (as Chile, "Hito 1" and according to Peru

"Punto Concordia") and the bisecting line perpendicular to

the coast in Chile and Peru, formed by the overlapping of

the baselines of both countries to form a trapezoid of

67,139.4km ², of which about 38,000km ² are considered

sovereign by Chile and for which Peru requested an

equitable division; secondarily it includes the status of a marine triangle to the left

trapezius aforementioned 28,471.86km², which Chile considers the high

as part of its maritime domain for the projection of its baselines.


1980s. In 1985, the then Foreign Minister of Peru first addressed this issue

nister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. The following year, the

Peruvian Ambassador had an interview with the Foreign Minister of Chile on this


note, issued by the Embassy of Peru in Santiago de Chile, Peru stated its position



which complement the geographical proximity between Peru and Chile.



Peru formalized its position on the issue, through a note sent to the United N


boundary between the two countries.


Peru began to process a bill on determining the baseline of maritime domain, which




The dispute concerns an area in the sea between the

land border between

Chile and Peru (as Chile, "Hito 1" and according to Peru

"Punto Concordia") and the bisecting line perpendicular to

the coast in Chile and Peru, formed by the overlapping of

the baselines of both countries to form a trapezoid of

4km ², of which about 38,000km ² are considered

sovereign by Chile and for which Peru requested an

includes the status of a marine triangle to the left

trapezius aforementioned 28,471.86km², which Chile considers the high seas and Peru


1980s. In 1985, the then Foreign Minister of Peru first addressed this issue

nister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. The following year, the

Foreign Minister of Chile on this


eru in Santiago de Chile, Peru stated its position



ty between Peru and Chile.



Peru formalized its position on the issue, through a note sent to the United Nations on



ine of maritime domain, which




the distance of 200 nautical miles, using a line b

Chile. The Peruvian law was passed and promulgated on November 3, 2005.

On January 16 of 2008 the government of Peru introduced in the International

Court of Justice the "Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation between th

Peru and the Republic of Chile"

II.Current dispute

On 19 March 2009, the Agent of the Republic of Peru has filed before

the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the Memorial of

contentious case on maritime delimitation with Chile, withi

2009,established by the ICJ. The Memorial contains a detailed exposition of the

elements of fact and law for the application presented by Peru on 16 January 2008.

2.1. The Subject of the dispute

The dispute between Peru and Chile concerns the delimitation of the boundary

between the maritime zones of the Peru and Chile in the Pacific Ocean, beginning at a

point on the coast called Concordia according to the Trea

dispute also involves the recognition in favour of Peru of a large maritime zone lying

within 200 nautical miles of Peru’s coast, and thus appertaining to Peru, but which

Chile considers to be part of the high seas.

2.2. The Facts

Regarding

Peru have never been delimited by agreement or otherwise. Peru, accordingly,

maintains that the delimitation is to be determined by the Court in accordance with

customary internationa

on a maritime delimitation starting at the coast and then proceeding along a parallel of

latitude. Moreover, Chile has refused to recognize Peru’s sovereign rights in a

maritime area situated

outside Chile’s exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. On the other hand, since


Page 10

the distance of 200 nautical miles, using a line bisector in the south, bordering with



"Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation between th

Peru and the Republic of Chile".

Current dispute


the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the Memorial of the Republic of Peru

contentious case on maritime delimitation with Chile, within the deadline of 20 March



The Subject of the dispute



point on the coast called Concordia according to the Treaty of 3 June 1929. This



Chile considers to be part of the high seas.

The Facts

Regarding the point of view of Peru, maritime zones between Chile and



customary international law. Nevertheless, Chile contends that both States have agreed



within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast being



isector in the south, bordering with



"Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation between the Republic of


the Republic of Peru in the

n the deadline of 20 March





ty of 3 June 1929. This



point of view of Peru, maritime zones between Chile and



l law. Nevertheless, Chile contends that both States have agreed



within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast being



1980s, Peru has consistently endeavoured to negotiate the various issues in dispute,

but it has met a refusal from Chile who firmly closed the door on negotiations.

III. The legal grounds on which the parties claims are based

3.1 Peru’s Claims

Concerning the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on

the Law of the Sea (“ UNCLOS ”) and

Justice and other tribunals, ( which are the main sources of law applicable to the

present dispute), the present dispute must be solved by the principle

of the exclusive economic zone and

coasts, expressively by Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention. This delimitation shall

be effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to

equitable solution, taking into ac

circumstances ” .

Under international law, both Peru and Chile are entitled to a maritime domain

adjacent to and prolonging their respective land territory to a distance of 200 nautical

miles from their baselin

coast, their entitlements overlap. As long as no agreement has been reached by the

Parties in respect of the delimitation of their respective maritime zones and in the

absence of special circ

equidistance line, such equidistance line achieves an equitable result. The maritime

boundary between the Parties should be determined accordingly. In contrast, a

dividing line along a parallel starti

meet the fundamental requirement of achieving an equitable result, nor does it stem

from any agreement between the Parties.

The delimitation should begin at a point on the coast called Concordia, the

terminal point of the land boundary established pursuant to the Treaty and


Page 11


al from Chile who firmly closed the door on negotiations.


3.1 Peru’s Claims


the Law of the Sea (“ UNCLOS ”) and the jurisprudence of the International Court of


present dispute), the present dispute must be solved by the principle

of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf between States with adjacent


be effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to

aking into account the principle of “equidi



miles from their baselines. On this basis and due to the geographic configuration of the



absence of special circumstances of such a nature as to put into question the



dividing line along a parallel starting from the coast, advocated by Chile, does not


from any agreement between the Parties.





al from Chile who firmly closed the door on negotiations.



the jurisprudence of the International Court of


present dispute), the present dispute must be solved by the principle of the delimitation

the continental shelf between States with adjacent


be effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an

count the principle of “equidistance/special



es. On this basis and due to the geographic configuration of the



umstances of such a nature as to put into question the



by Chile, does not





Complementary Protocol to settle the issue of Tacna and Arica

of 3 June 1929 and extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines

established by the Parties. This is in conformity with the Peruvian intern law

(Constitution of 1993, Peruvian Supreme Decree) and Article 596 of the Chilean Civil

Code as amended by Law No. 18.565 of 23 October 1986 being concuring in fixing

the outer limit of their respe

nautical miles measured from the baselines.

Under well- established principles and rules of international law, Peru is also

entitled to the maritime areas lying within 200 nautical miles of its baselines

beyond 200 nautical miles from Chile’s baselines, and Chile’s contentions to the

contrary are devoid of merit.

As a conclusion, Peru requests the Court to determine the course of the

boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance w

international law and to adjudge and declare that Peru possesses exclusive sovereign

rights in the maritime area situated within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast

but outside Chile’s exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

3.2 Chile’s Claims

The Chilean official position is that the maritime boundary between both

countries is "the geographical parallel that passes by the point on which the land

border between both countries reaches the sea". In accordance with published official

documents, of the years 1960 to 2000, the Chilean State sustains its position in the

following aspects:

§ Foundations of right: The geographical parallel has been recognized as

the maritime boundary in diverse documents subscribed by both countries, such as th

“Declaration on the Maritime Zone

1http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/28/18/00054896.pdf


Page 12

Complementary Protocol to settle the issue of Tacna and Arica —


e Parties. This is in conformity with the Peruvian intern law



the outer limit of their respective maritime entitlements up to a distance of 200

nautical miles measured from the baselines.

established principles and rules of international law, Peru is also

entitled to the maritime areas lying within 200 nautical miles of its baselines


contrary are devoid of merit.


boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance w



but outside Chile’s exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

e’s Claims




cuments, of the years 1960 to 2000, the Chilean State sustains its position in the

Foundations of right: The geographical parallel has been recognized as

the maritime boundary in diverse documents subscribed by both countries, such as th

“Declaration on the Maritime Zone 1” (1952), “Agreement relating to a Special

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/28/18/00054896.pdf


Treaty of Lima —


e Parties. This is in conformity with the Peruvian intern law



ctive maritime entitlements up to a distance of 200

established principles and rules of international law, Peru is also

entitled to the maritime areas lying within 200 nautical miles of its baselines and



boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance with






cuments, of the years 1960 to 2000, the Chilean State sustains its position in the

Foundations of right: The geographical parallel has been recognized as

the maritime boundary in diverse documents subscribed by both countries, such as the

” (1952), “Agreement relating to a Special

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/28/18/00054896.pdf


Maritime Frontier Zone

“1929 agreement in Lima”

§ Foundations of fact: There is no

geographical parallel has


The measures taken by

between Republic of Peru and Republic

the maritime boundary is or

(Are there any international treaties in force on the subject of the delim

maritime border? Moreover, the Court

1954, 1968 and the 1929 agreement in Lima

they include any clause defining the maritime boundary?

Moreover, the Court should determine

maritime zones of the Peru and Chile: According to the jurisprudence and

international law, which norms should be applied by the Court to current case?

but not least, the question whether

maritime area situated within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast?

V. Bibliography and further reading

The international law of maritime boundaries and the practice of states,Faraj

Abdullah Ahnish – 1993

2http://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1 3http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/Yy9vL24vQ29udHJvdmVyc2lhX2RlX2RlbGltaXRhY2nDs25fbWFyw610aW1hX2V

udHJlX0NoaWxlX3lfZWxfUGVyw7pfZ 4http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=166 5http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Lima


Page 13

Maritime Frontier Zone 2 ” (1954), and the “Act of the Landmark Nº1” (1968)

“1929 agreement in Lima” 4 5.

undations of fact: There is no matter pending negotiation because the

has always been the maritime boundary.


taken by the Court in order to resolve the maritime dispute

Republic of Peru and Republic of Chile should answer the question whether

the maritime boundary is or is not determined by any document signed by

Are there any international treaties in force on the subject of the delim

maritime border? Moreover, the Court should establish whether the treaties of 1952,

1954, 1968 and the 1929 agreement in Lima are only fishing agreements or

clause defining the maritime boundary?

Moreover, the Court should determine how to define the boundary betw

maritime zones of the Peru and Chile: According to the jurisprudence and

international law, which norms should be applied by the Court to current case?

the question whether Peru possesses exclusive sovereign right


Bibliography and further reading


1993

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1

http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/Yy9vL24vQ29udHJvdmVyc2lhX2RlX2RlbGltaXRhY2nDs25fbWFyw610aW1hX2VudHJlX0NoaWxlX3lfZWxfUGVyw7pfZWU5Nw==

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=166

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Lima


” (1954), and the “Act of the Landmark Nº1” (1968) 3and the

matter pending negotiation because the

ve the maritime dispute

nswer the question whether

not determined by any document signed by the parties.

Are there any international treaties in force on the subject of the delimitation of the

the treaties of 1952,

only fishing agreements or whether

how to define the boundary between the

maritime zones of the Peru and Chile: According to the jurisprudence and the rules of

international law, which norms should be applied by the Court to current case? Last

exclusive sovereign rights in the



http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/Yy9vL24vQ29udHJvdmVyc2lhX2RlX2RlbGltaXRhY2nDs25fbWFyw610aW1hX2V

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1

http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/Yy9vL24vQ29udHJvdmVyc2lhX2RlX2RlbGltaXRhY2nDs25fbWFyw610aW1hX2VudHJlX0NoaWxlX3lfZWxfUGVyw7pfZWU5Nw

http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/Yy9vL24vQ29udHJvdmVyc2lhX2RlX2RlbGltaXRhY2nDs25fbWFyw610aW1hX2VudHJlX0NoaWxlX3lfZWxfUGVyw7pfZWU5Nw

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=166

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Lima


http://www.icj

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne

http://www.icj

http://www.icj-

cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137&code=pc&p3=6

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/LOS.shtml

Progress in international maritime boundary delimitation law, JI Charney

American Journal of International Law, 1994

http://www.peruviantimes.com/16/peru

hague/112/


Page 14

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25314&Cr=ICJ&Cr1


cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137&code=pc&p3=6



Progress in international maritime boundary delimitation law, JI Charney

American Journal of International Law, 1994 - JSTOR

http://www.peruviantimes.com/16/peru-chile-maritime-dispute


cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137

wsID=25314&Cr=ICJ&Cr1

cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137


Progress in international maritime boundary delimitation law, JI Charney -

dispute-arrives-at-the-


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25314&Cr=ICJ&Cr1


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137&code=pc&p3=6

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=137&code=pc&p3=6




The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking I. Forward

1.1. Defining the Problematic

The magnitude of drug trafficking and the huge economic power of criminal

organizations changed the international geopolitics of the Republic of Colombia.

Even the problem of violence (including drug dealing and terrorism) are shaking

Colombia since the 50`s, it was internationally considered as a national problem assisted

by international cooperation. Today, drug interests and crime covers all the institutions

of the Republic of Colombia, and it is expanding its damage all around the South

American region.

In Colombia, the political conflicts between liberals and conservatives generated

violence along all the territory. Later on, a pact between those parties denied the

entrance of new political parties (different than liberals and conservatives), such

socialists, communist or green movements. As an effect, during the 60`s and 70`s, the

violence developed the creation of guerrillas, that found the armed fight as the unique

solution to have open doors in Colombian Politics. Irregular or insurgent guer

“Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)” and “Ejército de Liberación

Nacional” (ELN) were founded and obtained control of different rural zones, combating

the Colombian national forces and searching for a political opportunity.

In the 90`s searching for higher budgets the guerrillas lost the political goal and found in

the Drug “Capos” (chiefs), perfect allies to receive investments and financial aid. As an


Page 15

Topic B: The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking

Defining the Problematic




50`s, it was internationally considered as a national problem assisted





entrance of new political parties (different than liberals and conservatives), such



solution to have open doors in Colombian Politics. Irregular or insurgent guer



the Colombian national forces and searching for a political opportunity.

90`s searching for higher budgets the guerrillas lost the political goal and found in



The international damage caused by Colombian action for drug trafficking




50`s, it was internationally considered as a national problem assisted





entrance of new political parties (different than liberals and conservatives), such as



solution to have open doors in Colombian Politics. Irregular or insurgent guerrillas as



90`s searching for higher budgets the guerrillas lost the political goal and found in



exchange, drug dealers received protection from the insurgent groups, having i

private armies to protect their goods and interests. The guerrillas were able now to repel

attacks from the Colombian and US intelligence.

Trying to give peace for the country, the Colombian Government, incapable to fight and

combat the violence problem, resigned the political control of many municipalities and

rural zones in hands of the guerrillas. With this measure, the Government, gave to the

insurgent groups, the competence for taxation, public order and political management.

After a hard persecution, step by step, the heads of drug trafficking were killed or

captured, and the chiefs of the guerrillas discovered in “narco

business to finance their actions, taking advantage that were industries without new

chiefs. Officially, the leaders of those irregular groups or guerrillas became the new

“capos” of Colombian mafia. This means that at the same time, violence and drugs were

managed in the same hands.

In late 90`s, the guerrillas were considered as “terrorist groups”

US Government. Later on, with the Government of Alvaro Uribe, President of

Colombia, a “declared war” to the insurgent movements and terrorist groups was done.

The most important heads of the terrorist groups were captured in Colombi

of them in Venezuela and Ecuador. Finding that the leaders of criminal organizations

moved to the frontiers, Colombia asked for more cooperation to the neighbor countries.

Their reply was not always favorable to the Colombian Government: the n

countries refused to consider the Colombian conflict as a “regional conflict” (just

Colombian national subject) and them all refused to declare the guerrillas as “terrorist

groups”, keeping their status of “irregular groups”.

1.2. The Historical background of the dispute


Page 16

exchange, drug dealers received protection from the insurgent groups, having i


attacks from the Colombian and US intelligence.


problem, resigned the political control of many municipalities and



ersecution, step by step, the heads of drug trafficking were killed or

captured, and the chiefs of the guerrillas discovered in “narco-traffic” a new and great


icially, the leaders of those irregular groups or guerrillas became the new


managed in the same hands.

In late 90`s, the guerrillas were considered as “terrorist groups” by the Colombian and



The most important heads of the terrorist groups were captured in Colombi



Their reply was not always favorable to the Colombian Government: the n



groups”, keeping their status of “irregular groups”.

background of the dispute


exchange, drug dealers received protection from the insurgent groups, having in them,



problem, resigned the political control of many municipalities and



ersecution, step by step, the heads of drug trafficking were killed or

traffic” a new and great


icially, the leaders of those irregular groups or guerrillas became the new


by the Colombian and



The most important heads of the terrorist groups were captured in Colombia and some



Their reply was not always favorable to the Colombian Government: the neighbor




The internal civil war in Colombia started around 1950, with permanent

disagreements between Liberal and Conservative parties. This internal conflict

developed in daily battles and fights in al

still leaves, thousands of people, leaders and politicians death or injured.

Since the 50´s the conflicts increased each year. Violence is “institutional” now, and

Colombia had to adopt three and four gener

and extremist actions. Left

Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia

ELN”(and other different14 irregular movements)

zones. As an effect, paramilitary groups (right wing forces) were illegally organized to

combat them. Until the 80`s this conflict was basically a political civil war. Later, with

the rise and financing of drug traffickin

unsustainable spread of violence and corruption grew at all the different levels of the

Colombian society. Corruption contaminated the majority of legal organizations,

political parties, institutions, etc of this Stat

The main Colombian drug trafficking “capos” (as the legendary Pablo Escobar Gaviria)

where followed by the Colombian police and (specially) by the U.S. justice. With drug

trafficking between, the conflict started to become an international conflict and not only


Page 17



developed in daily battles and fights in all the streets of Colombia. This conflict left and



Colombia had to adopt three and four generations living daily under the risk of violence

and extremist actions. Left-wing irregular movements and guerrillas like “Fuerzas

Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-FARC” or “Ejército de Liberación Nacional

ELN”(and other different14 irregular movements), were founded in urban and rural



the rise and financing of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism in Colombia, an



political parties, institutions, etc of this State.


where followed by the Colombian police and (specially) by the U.S. justice. With drug

e conflict started to become an international conflict and not only




l the streets of Colombia. This conflict left and



ations living daily under the risk of violence

wing irregular movements and guerrillas like “Fuerzas

FARC” or “Ejército de Liberación Nacional-

, were founded in urban and rural



terrorism in Colombia, an




where followed by the Colombian police and (specially) by the U.S. justice. With drug-

e conflict started to become an international conflict and not only


a subject of the Colombian Government. The biggest drugs “cartels”

protection and the guerrillas required huge budgets to keep fighting against the national

armed forces. Narco-terrorists and guerrillas signed strategic alliances to obtain

protection and financing. The battles between the irregular groups and the National

Forces started using high-tech and expensive weapons.

The Colombian crisis officially crossed their

started with the invasion of irregular groups to Brazil, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador.

The “kings” of drug traveled to their major cities and jungles, trying to avoid the

Colombian Army and US justice. Most part of

(and extradited to US) or killed. However, the power of narco

still a “cancer” for this South American country.

The persecution only changed the heads of this giant and millionaire business: the

leaders of the guerrillas (FARC, ELN) became the new leaders of “cartels”, narco

traffic and keeping the status of heads of terrorist groups, as well.

Trying to obtain peace in Colombia (late 90`s), the Government of the Colombian

President Andrés Pastrana gave self

that were already controlled by the “Narco

taxes and public forces were legally in the hands and control of the FARC. Most part of

those zones of autonomy were located in the borders of (or close to) neighbor countries.

The Governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Panamá and Brazil, officially claimed for the

protection of their frontiers, complaining to Colombia the soft measures adopted to

control their frontiers. Politicians of neighbor countries started claiming that their

countries have no common frontiers with Colombia anymore; their countries now have

common frontiers with the FARC

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez denounced the intention of the

Government “to push” their national civil war to the neighbor countries. In fact,

irregular activists and criminals moved to other countries. Brazil, Ecuador and

6 Examples of the Carteles are/criminal organizations obtain incredible power in politics and economy (famous leaders as Pablo Escobar, Carlos Leather or the brothers Ochoa / Rodríguez Orejuela).7 Example of these zones controlled by the guerrillas is the zone of Caquetá valley, both close to the Ecuadorian territory.


Page 18

a subject of the Colombian Government. The biggest drugs “cartels”


terrorists and guerrillas signed strategic alliances to obtain


tech and expensive weapons.

The Colombian crisis officially crossed their frontiers to the neighbor countries. This



Colombian Army and US justice. Most part of the Colombian “Capos” were captured

(and extradited to US) or killed. However, the power of narco-traffic survived and is

still a “cancer” for this South American country.


leaders of the guerrillas (FARC, ELN) became the new leaders of “cartels”, narco

traffic and keeping the status of heads of terrorist groups, as well.


a gave self-control and “autonomy” to several municipalities

that were already controlled by the “Narco-guerrillas”7. With this “autonomy”, politics,


tonomy were located in the borders of (or close to) neighbor countries.



rontiers. Politicians of neighbor countries started claiming that their


common frontiers with the FARC

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez denounced the intention of the



the Carteles are/were the Medellin Cartel and the Cali Cartel. Famous leaders of those

criminal organizations obtain incredible power in politics and economy (famous leaders as Pablo Escobar, Carlos Leather or the brothers Ochoa / Rodríguez Orejuela).

ample of these zones controlled by the guerrillas is the region of San Pedro del Cahuán and the zone of Caquetá valley, both close to the Ecuadorian territory.


a subject of the Colombian Government. The biggest drugs “cartels” 6 required


terrorists and guerrillas signed strategic alliances to obtain


frontiers to the neighbor countries. This



the Colombian “Capos” were captured

traffic survived and is


leaders of the guerrillas (FARC, ELN) became the new leaders of “cartels”, narco-


control and “autonomy” to several municipalities

. With this “autonomy”, politics,


tonomy were located in the borders of (or close to) neighbor countries.



rontiers. Politicians of neighbor countries started claiming that their


The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez denounced the intention of the Colombian



were the Medellin Cartel and the Cali Cartel. Famous leaders of those criminal organizations obtain incredible power in politics and economy (famous leaders as Pablo

region of San Pedro del Cahuán and the


Venezuela, gave proofs to UN, that the Colombian military forces were extremely

reduced in the frontiers, leaving the custodial control just to the neighbor countries.

In the other hand, the Republic of Colombia denounced that Ecuador and Venezuela,

with the policies of their extremist socialist Presidents (Rafael Correa and Hugo

Chávez), were protecting the terrorists and FARC leaders.

Colombia declaimed that war is a regional conflict (South American). The Governments

of Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela refused to accept that “regional conflict” status,

claiming that this is just an int

consequences. From their perspective the Government of Colombia have to pay

compensations and indemnities to neighbor countries, for not having control of their

frontiers and for pushing their criminals to oth

from this narco-terrorism.

Until today, the named governments refuse to recognize the irregular groups of

Colombia (FARC, ELN, Paramilitar groups, etc.) as terrorist groups, with the

perspective that are just crim

groups can damage the relations between countries when criminals or their violence

cross the national frontiers of Colombia.

According to international law and UN resolutions/agreements, to recogn

criminal organizations as “terrorists”, force to international community (in this case, to

all neighbor countries) to combat their criminal structures and to commit their complete

effort in capturing the leaders of those organizations. Wi

countries of the world just have to cooperate with Colombia and the INTERPOL, after a

judicial requirement, to capture the criminals when they cross the frontiers (and when

the Colombian Government asks for an international

II. Current dispute


Page 19


duced in the frontiers, leaving the custodial control just to the neighbor countries.



), were protecting the terrorists and FARC leaders.



claiming that this is just an internal conflict of Colombia with international



frontiers and for pushing their criminals to other countries, trying to liberate Colombia



perspective that are just criminal organizations with actions in Colombia. The irregular


cross the national frontiers of Colombia.

According to international law and UN resolutions/agreements, to recogn



effort in capturing the leaders of those organizations. Without this recognition, all the



the Colombian Government asks for an international order of capture).



duced in the frontiers, leaving the custodial control just to the neighbor countries.





ernal conflict of Colombia with international



er countries, trying to liberate Colombia



inal organizations with actions in Colombia. The irregular


According to international law and UN resolutions/agreements, to recognize irregular or



thout this recognition, all the




The night of the March 1st

camp of the FARC installed in Ecuadorian territory. Colombia sent a missile to the

Ecuadorian region of “Angostu

goal: to kill one of the most important leaders of the FARC: Raúl Reyes. 14 people were

killed too and two more were injured. The victims were nationals from Colombia,

Mexico, Chile and Ecuador. All

The President of the Republic of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, internationally denounced that

this action was produced without advice or authorization of the Ecuadorian Government

and this is a violation of the Ecuadorian sove

Republic of Ecuador had no information about the guerrilla´s camp installed in the

Ecuadorian territory.

The President of the Republic of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe Vélez, replied admitting that

Ecuador was not previously adv

Government and his President Rafael Correa gives to the terrorists of the FARC (that

permanently are crossing the Ecuadorian frontier to find protection and escape from the

Colombian forces). He prove

contact with the leaders of the FARC.

The neighbor countries of Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, and the Republic of Nicaragua

claimed on the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe for the violation of their Stat

sovereignty and violation of human rights.

2.1.The subject of the dispute


Page 20

st, 2008, the Colombian Government attacked a clandestine


Ecuadorian region of “Angostura” destroying this camp. This action reached its main



Mexico, Chile and Ecuador. All victims were members of the FARC.



and this is a violation of the Ecuadorian sovereignty. Also, commented that the



Ecuador was not previously advised, for the protection that illegally the Ecuadorian



Colombian forces). He proved that some members of the Ecuadorian Government had

contact with the leaders of the FARC.


claimed on the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe for the violation of their Stat

sovereignty and violation of human rights.

2.1.The subject of the dispute


, 2008, the Colombian Government attacked a clandestine


ra” destroying this camp. This action reached its main





reignty. Also, commented that the



ised, for the protection that illegally the Ecuadorian



d that some members of the Ecuadorian Government had


claimed on the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe for the violation of their State´s


THE ICJ needs to determine if there is a violation of sovereignty from one State to other,

and if it is in order to have economic compensations and indemnities for the named

States.

2.2. The facts

With the attack of Angostura, the President of the Republi

internationally denounced that this action was produced without advice or authorization

of the Ecuadorian Government and it is a violation of the Ecuadorian sovereignty. The

Ecuadorian Government totally disagrees with the ide

the Colombian guerrilla, even for Ecuador is not considered an international or regional

conflict.

The main fact is that, independently of each goal, the Ecuadorian territory was violated

by Colombia. At first, by a flig

Colombian or US airplane, and if it was an strategy under US policies or Colombian)

Then, a US missile sent by Colombia from the Ecuadorian sky, destroyed the FARC´s

camp installed in Ecuadorian territor



Government gives to the terrorists of the FARC. In fact, there are several eviden

the leaders of the FARC crossed many times the Ecuadorian frontier to find protection

and escaping from the Colombian forces.

The Governments of Brazil, and Venezuela gave their solidarity to the Government of

Ecuador, alerting to Colombia that

their territories, or if any Colombian soldier crosses their national frontiers, their

governments immediately will reply using all their national forces and weapons.

Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador expe

Diplomatic Relations with the Republic of Colombia

The Republic of Ecuador sent a new communication, denouncing that the missile that

killed the members of FARC was an U.S. missile used only by U.S.A. forces. So then,

Ecuador affirms that if the missile was sent by the US Army and not by the Republic of

Colombia, both governments have to explain their mutual strategy toward the South

American region. The following Ecuadorian communication gave these information: all

the clues and remains show to us that “the missile was sent by an U.S. plane”. The U.S.


Page 21



With the attack of Angostura, the President of the Republic of Ecuador, Rafael Correa,



Ecuadorian Government totally disagrees with the idea that Ecuador is giving support to



by Colombia. At first, by a flight (for Ecuador, there is still a doubt, if it was a



camp installed in Ecuadorian territory.



Government gives to the terrorists of the FARC. In fact, there are several eviden


and escaping from the Colombian forces.


Ecuador, alerting to Colombia that if the President Uribe uses similar measures toward



Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador expelled the Colombian Ambassador, cutting

Diplomatic Relations with the Republic of Colombia






he clues and remains show to us that “the missile was sent by an U.S. plane”. The U.S.




c of Ecuador, Rafael Correa,



a that Ecuador is giving support to



ht (for Ecuador, there is still a doubt, if it was a





Government gives to the terrorists of the FARC. In fact, there are several evidences that



if the President Uribe uses similar measures toward



lled the Colombian Ambassador, cutting






he clues and remains show to us that “the missile was sent by an U.S. plane”. The U.S.


Government does not support or replied to this communication. The Colombian

Government affirms that the missile was indeed a U.S. weapon but used and sent by the

Colombian National Forces. Colombia admits their non

presenting diplomatic and public apologies to Ecuador and with the commitment to stop

these actions.

Lead by Brazil, all the South American Nations

Governments of United States of America and Colombia, for the mentioned action and

for the future plans to install seven U.S. Peace Keeping Bases in the Colombian

territory for the fight against terrorism.

III. The legal grounds on which the

3.1. Ecuador claims

Ecuador filed the application to the International Court of Justice in January

2011. Ecuador claims for an economic

territory and sovereignty made by Colombia, and asks for indemnities

caused.

Ecuador uses as legal grounds more than articles the basic principles of international

law about the violation of a national territory, violation of sovereig

force by states (controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law). As

8The members of the South American región and members of the Union of South American Nati(UNASUR) that supported this position are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Perú, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela.


Page 22



bian National Forces. Colombia admits their non-authorized attack to Ecuador,


Lead by Brazil, all the South American Nations8, asked for a formal expla



territory for the fight against terrorism.



2011. Ecuador claims for an economic compensation for the violation of its

territory and sovereignty made by Colombia, and asks for indemnities


law about the violation of a national territory, violation of sovereignty, illegal

(controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law). As

The members of the South American región and members of the Union of South American Nati

NASUR) that supported this position are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Perú, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela.




authorized attack to Ecuador,


, asked for a formal explanation to the




compensation for the violation of its national

territory and sovereignty made by Colombia, and asks for indemnities for damages


nty, illegal use of

(controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law). As

The members of the South American región and members of the Union of South American Nations NASUR) that supported this position are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana,


well Ecuador refers to all the spirit of the UN Charter, the specific article 2(4) and the

chapter about use of force by states. As well, as part of

declares that regionally, the Charter of Organization of American States

declares in the following articles the forbidden actions in the use of force by states.

In all the official documents, the Ecuadorian Government is

quote “All (UN) members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or

use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in

any other manner inconsistent with the purposes

For this reason, the Republic of Ecuador claims an indemnity of 1 000 000 US Dollars

to recover the violation of the Colombian Government to the Ecuadorian territory and

sovereignty. Then, Ecuador claims for additional 300 000 USD as

absence of control that the Colombian Government had in the frontiers; plus, 200

million for the environmental damages caused in the Ecuadorian Amazonic Jungle, plus

15 million dollars that should be given to the relatives of the victims

3.2. Colombia claims

The Republic of Colombia replied affirming that their action was taken in

behalf of international and regional security; keeping the fact that narco

terrorism is considered internationally as an international crime that should be

9 Articles of the OAS Chart


Page 23


chapter about use of force by states. As well, as part of international community,

declares that regionally, the Charter of Organization of American States


In all the official documents, the Ecuadorian Government is sending the following UN



any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations



sovereignty. Then, Ecuador claims for additional 300 000 USD as indemnity for the



15 million dollars that should be given to the relatives of the victims killed and injured.


behalf of international and regional security; keeping the fact that narco


Articles of the OAS Charter: 15, 19, 21, 28 OAS



international community,

declares that regionally, the Charter of Organization of American States 9 , as well


sending the following UN





indemnity for the



killed and injured.


behalf of international and regional security; keeping the fact that narco-



prosecuted and combated by all the governments. Reaffirms that Ecuador was

not combating those crimes with responsibility; moreover, that the Ecuadorian

Government (and Venez

FARC. The Republic of Colombia reaffirms their respect to the UN Chart and

recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICJ, supporting the respect of Colombia to all

the treaties and documents of International Law

the Government is using as well the principle of international law about “self

defense and use of force”, replying that Colombia was attacked by the insurgent

and terrorists groups settled in Ecuador.

3.3. Venezuela and Brazil

The Governments of Venezuela and Brazil are studying the possibility to be added to

Ecuadorian claim, for the absence of control that the Colombian Government had in the

frontiers, pushing the Colombian problem to the neighbor co


Did the Republic of Colombia in fact violated International Law and the sovereignty of

the Republic of Ecuador with the attack to Angostura?

Is it in order to claim to the ICJ for a Colombian indemnity to

the absence of control that in the frontiers?

What principles of International Law were non

Is there any possibility to have other countries involved in the conflict?

V.Bibliography and further reading

www.un.org

www.icj-cij.org

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5HnABwKGrZc&

refer=latin_america


Page 24



Government (and Venezuelan) was giving protection to the members of the



the treaties and documents of International Law. For the Colombian position,



and terrorists groups settled in Ecuador.

3.3. Venezuela and Brazil



frontiers, pushing the Colombian problem to the neighbor countries.




Is it in order to claim to the ICJ for a Colombian indemnity to the neighbor countries for

the absence of control that in the frontiers?

What principles of International Law were non-respected in this case?

Is there any possibility to have other countries involved in the conflict?

Bibliography and further reading






uelan) was giving protection to the members of the



. For the Colombian position,







the neighbor countries for


http://www.un.org/

http://www.icj-cij.org/


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5HnABwKGrZc&refer=latin_america

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5HnABwKGrZc&refer=latin_america


http://books.google.com/books?id=eA0NAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=i

ndemnities+violation+sovereignty&source=bl&ots=XK5tpROn4o&sig=7OT2ziMq

wApeIP5_c-8GVvS06NM&hl=es&ei=Kbq5TYSfLs

1KoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=on

epage&q&f=false


Page 25


ation+sovereignty&source=bl&ots=XK5tpROn4o&sig=7OT2ziMq

8GVvS06NM&hl=es&ei=Kbq5TYSfLs-VOtj-




ation+sovereignty&source=bl&ots=XK5tpROn4o&sig=7OT2ziMq


http://books.google.com/books?id=eA0NAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=indemnities+violation+sovereignty&source=bl&ots=XK5tpROn4o&sig=7OT2ziMqwApeIP5_c-8GVvS06NM&hl=es&ei=Kbq5TYSfLs-VOtj-1KoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false





Documents

International Court of Justice - MILMUN · Justice. International organizations, ... International Court of Justice, Peru refers to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 1948