1 The term ‘territory clause’ is used throughout as Latin American and Colombian constitutional terminology, when it uses ‘territorial’ (for example ‘territorial organization’) refers to internal divisions within the state. Accordingly, since this article is dealing with clauses referring to state boundaries for international law purposes, we have chosen to coin the term ‘territory clause’.

2 For a detailed study of each judgment in the ICJ case law involving Latin American countries see P. Wojcikiewicz Almeida, J. Rodrigues Costa de Serpa Brandão and A. Menegotto Weingärtner, A Latin American Guide to the International Court of Justice Case Law (2016).

3 J. Morgan-Foster, G. Pinzauti and P. Webb, ‘The International Court of Justice in the Leiden Journal: A Retrospective’, (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 571.

4 M. Lando, ‘Delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles at the International Court of Justice: The Nicaragua v. Colombia cases’, (2017) 16 Chinese Journal of International Law 137. See also M. Lando, Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process (2019).

5 E. de Brabandere, ‘The use of precedent and external case law by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, (2016) 15 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 24. See also G. Vega-Barbosa, ‘The Admissibility of Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation Claims Before the ICJ Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS’, (2018) 49 Ocean Development & International Law 103.

6 Y. Tanaka, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (2019).

7 Latin America has become a recurrent region before the ICJ, especially with disputes related to sovereignty and delimitation. These cases include: Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), joined with Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 2 February 2018, [2018] ICJ Rep. 139; Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) 2016 (ongoing); Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2013 (ongoing); Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2013 (ongoing); Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Judgment, [2018] ICJ Rep. 507; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) joined with Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, [2015] ICJ Rep. 665; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment [2009] ICJ Rep. 213; Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgement [2003] ICJ Rep. 392; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624; Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, [2014] ICJ Rep. 3; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, [2007] ICJ Rep. 659; Case concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 18 November 1960 [1960] ICJ Rep. 192; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras — Nicaragua intervening), Judgment [1992] ICJ Rep. 351; Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Argentina/Chile) Order of 16 March 1956, [1956] ICJ Rep. 15; Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgement, [2003] ICJ Rep. 392. This article is part of the research topic of the author’s doctoral thesis about Latin American cases before the ICJ (2019).

8 A. Cassese, ‘Modern Constitutions and International Law’, (1985) 192 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law.

9 H. Kelsen, ‘Les rapports de système entre le droit interne et le droit international public’, (1926) 14 Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law. See also P. Verdier and M. Versteeg, ‘International Law in National Legal Systems: An Empirical Investigation’, (2015) 109 American Journal of International Law 467; A. Peters, ‘Supremacy lost: international law meets domestic constitutional law’, (2009) 3 Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional Law 170.

10 International law clauses or hierarchy clauses in modern constitutions are norms that set the debate about monism or dualism in domestic law, allocate the legal value of international law instruments such as treaties in relation to domestic law and clarify the bindingness of international law for national authorities. Examples include Art. 25 of the German Constitution, or for the purposes of this research, Art. 17 of the Honduran Constitution and Art. 9 of the Colombian Constitution. See ‘Increased reference to international law in modern constitutions’, in Peters ibid.

11 El Salvador. Constitution. Section III. Article 84.

12 Other cases coming from the region include, regarding use of force, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14 and Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 7. Regarding environmental disputes, the cases Road along the San Juan River, supra note 7; Navigational and Related Rights, supra note 7; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, [2010] ICJ Rep. 14; Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia), Order of 13 September 2013, [2013] ICJ Rep. 278. For diplomatic protection, the cases Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Order of 10 November 1998, [1998] ICJ Rep. 426; Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of 13 June 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 71; Asylum (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of 20 November 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 266; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), [1950] ICJ Rep. 395; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, [2004] ICJ Rep. 12; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, [2009] ICJ Rep. 3; Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Judgment, [1955] ICJ Rep. 4; Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil), Order of 12 May 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 303; Status vis-à-vis the Host State of a Diplomatic Envoy to the United Nations (Commonwealth of Dominica v. Switzerland), Order of 9 June 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep. 103.

13 See ‘Project Constitute’, a detailed database of constitutions, available at www.constituteproject.org/.

14 R. Abello-Galvis and W. Arévalo-Ramírez, ‘The influence of the Latin American doctrine on International Law: The rise of Latin American doctrines at The Hague Academy during the early twentieth century’, in P. Wojcikiewicz Almeida and J-M. Sorel, Latin America and the International Court of Justice (2016).

15 J. P. Scarfi, ‘Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The rise of Latin American legal anti-imperialism in the face of the modern US and hemispheric redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine’, (2020) 33 Leiden Journal of International Law 541.

16 L. Obregón, ‘Latin American international law’, in D. Armstrong, Routledge Handbook of International Law (2009).

17 J. P. Scarfi, The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks (2017).

18 1886 Colombian Constitution, Art. 3: ‘The limits of the Republic are the same that in 1810 separated the Viceroyalty of New Granada from the Captaincy General of Venezuela and Guatemala, the Viceroyalty of Peru, and the Portuguese possessions of Brazil; and provisionally, with respect to Ecuador, those designated in the Treaty of July 9, 1856. The dividing lines of Colombia with the neighboring nations will be definitively established by Public Treaties, and these may be separated from the principle of uti possidetis of law of 1810.’

19 J. Polatynska, ‘The ICJ Judgment in the Case of a Maritime Dispute between Peru and Chile-Some Observations on the Importance of the Conduct of States’, (2015) 4 Polish Review of International & European Law 105.

20 M. T. Infante Caffi, ‘Peru v. Chile: The International Court of Justice Decides on the Status of the Maritime Boundary’, (2014) 13 Chinese Journal of International Law 741.

21 1988 Constitution of Brazil, Art. 20: ‘The following constitute property of the Union: I. property presently belonging to it, as well as that which may be granted to it; II. unoccupied lands essential to defense of frontiers, military fortifications and constructions, federal communication and environmental preservation routes, as defined by law; III. lakes, rivers and any watercourses on lands that it owns; interstate waters; waters that serve as borders with other countries; waters that extend into or come from a foreign territory; as well as the bordering lands and river beaches; IV. islands in rivers and in lakes in zones bordering other countries, ocean beaches, islands in the ocean and offshore, excluding from the latter areas containing the County seats, with the exception of those areas affected by public service and the federal environmental unit, and the areas referred to in Article 26, II; V. natural resources of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone; VI. territorial seas; VII. tidal lands and those added by accretion; VIII. potential hydraulic energy sites; IX. mineral resources, including those in the subsoil; X. natural subterranean cavities and archeological and pre-historic sites; XI. lands traditionally occupied by Indians.’

22 1972 Constitution of Panama Title I, Art. 3: ‘The territory of the Republic of Panama comprises the land surface, the territorial sea, the undersea continental shelf, the subsoil and the air space between Colombia and Costa Rica, in accordance with the boundary treaties concluded by Panama with those States.’

23 See, e.g., 1981 Constitution of Belize, Sec. 1; 2009 Constitution of Bolivia, Art. 267; 1949 Constitution of Costa Rica (amended in 2020), Art. 6; 1991 Constitution of Colombia, Art. 101: 2019 Constitution of Cuba, Art. 11; 2008 Constitution of Ecuador (amended in 2021), Art. 4; 1983 Constitution of El Salvador, Art. 84; 1985 Constitution of Guatemala (amended in 1993), Art. 142; 1987 Constitution of Haiti (amended in 2012), Art. 8; 1917 Constitution of Mexico (amended in 2015), Art. 27; 1987 Constitution of Nicaragua (amended in 2014), Art. 10; 2015 Constitution of Dominican Republic, Sec. I, Ch. III; 1982 Constitution of Honduras (amended in 2013), Art. 9; 1999 Constitution of Venezuela (amended in 2009) Ch. I; 1976 Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago (Title I).

24 M. Madsen, P. Cebulak and M. Wiebusch, ‘Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts’, (2018) 14 International Journal of Law in Context 197.

25 K. Alter, L. Helfer and M. Madsen, ‘How context shapes the authority of international courts’, (2016) 79 Law & Contemporary Problems 1.

26 A. Von Bogdandy and I. Venzke, ‘On the functions of international courts: an appraisal in light of their burgeoning public authority’, (2013) 26 Leiden Journal of International Law 49.

27 K. Alter, L. Helfer and M. Madsen, ‘International Court Authority in a Complex World’, in Alter, Helfer and Madsen (eds.), International Court Authority (2018), 3–24.

28 A. Huneeus, ‘Courts resisting courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court’s struggle to enforce human rights’, (2011) 44 Cornell International Law Journal, 493.

29 K. Alter, J. T. Gathii and L. Helfer, ‘Backlash against international courts in west, east and southern Africa: causes and consequences’, (2016) 27 European Journal of International Law 293.

30 Madsen, Cebulak and Wiebusch, supra note 24, at 198.

31 Ibid., at 199.

32 S. E. Brewer and J. Cavallaro, ‘Reevaluating regional human rights litigation in the twenty-first century: The case of the Inter-American Court’, (2008) 108 American Journal of International Law 768.

33 J. Cavallaro, ‘Toward Fair Play: a decade of transformation and resistance in international human rights advocacy in Brazil’, (2002) 3 Chinese Journal of International Law 481.

34 J. Contesse, ‘Resisting the Inter-American Human Rights System’, (2019) 44 Yale Journal of International Law 179.

35 L. Helfer and K. Alter, ‘The ANDEAN tribunal of justice and its interlocutors: Understanding preliminary reference patterns in the ANDEAN community’, (2008) 41 NYU Journal of International Law & Politics 871.

36 A. Huneeus, ‘Constitutional Lawyers and the Inter-American Court’s Varied Authority’, (2016) 79 Law & Contemporary Problems 179.

37 R. Howse et al. (eds.), The Legitimacy of International Trade Courts and Tribunals (2018).

38 R. Urueña, ‘Double or Nothing: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in an Increasingly Adverse Context’, (2017) 35 Wisconsin International Law Journal 398.

39 X. Soley and S. Steininger, ‘Parting ways or lashing back? Withdrawals, backlash and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, (2018) 14 International Journal of Law in Context 237.

40 See Helfer and Alter, supra note 35; Contesse, supra note 34.

41 See Huneeus, supra note 36; Brewer and Cavallaro, supra note 32.

42 M. Feria-Tinta and S. Milnes, ‘Derecho ambiental internacional para el siglo XXI: la constitucionalización del derecho a un medio ambiente sano en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos Opinión Consultiva 23’, (2019) 12 ACDI-Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional. See also R. Abello-Galvis and W. Arévalo-Ramírez, ‘Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-23/17: Jurisdictional, procedural and substantive implications of human rights duties in the context of environmental protection’, (2019) 28 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 217.

43 See Soley and Steininger, supra note 39.

44 Presidential Declaration of 17 March 2016: ‘Declaración del Presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, sobre decisiones de la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya, Cancillería de Colombia, 17 de marzo del 2016’, available at www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/declaracion-presidente-colombia-juan-manuel-santos-decisiones-corte-internacional.

45 Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, [2016] ICJ Rep. 3.

46 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, [2016] ICJ Rep. 100.

47 1982 Constitution of Honduras, Ar. 10: ‘The territories located on the mainland within its territorial limits, its inland waters and its islands, islets, and the cays in the Gulf of Fonseca which historically, geographically, and legally correspond to it belong to Honduras. So are the Bay Islands, the Swan Islands, also known as Santanilla or Santillana, Viciosas, Misteriosas; and the cays Zapotillos, Cochinos, Vivorillos, Seal or Foca (or Becerro), Caratasca, Cajones, or Hobbies, Mayores de Cabo Falso, Cocrocuma, Palo de Campeche, Los Bajos, Pichones, Media Luna, Gorda and Los Bancos Salmedina, Providencia, De Coral, Cabo Falso, Rosalinda and Serranilla, and all others located in the Atlantic that historically, geographically and legally belong to it. The Gulf of Fonseca may be subjected to a special regime.’

48 1982 Constitution of Honduras.

49 J. Ramón Hernández, Comentarios a la Constitución de la República de Honduras de 1982 (1988).

50 Madsen, Cebulak and Wiebusch, supra note 24, at 197.

51 P. Tisne, ‘The ICJ Municipal Law: The Precedential Effect of the Avena and Lagrand Decisions in US Courts’, (2005) 29 Fordham International law Journal 865.

52 R. Sloane, ‘Measures Necessary to Ensure: The ICJ’s Provisional Measures Order in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals’, (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 673.

53 G. Nesi, ‘The Quest for a “Full” execution of the ICJ Judgment in Germany v. Italy’, (2013) 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice 185.

54 R. Soroczyńsk, ‘“Judge-made” Regime of the Gulf of Fonseca and the Question of Binding Effect of Judgments of International Courts’, (2011) Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 95–105.

55 R. Riquelme, ‘Latin America and the Central American Court of Justice’, in P. Wojcikiewicz Almeida and J-M. Sorel, Latin America and the International Court of Justice (2016).

56 I. Scobbie, ‘The ICJ and the Gulf of Fonseca: When two implies three but entails one’, (1994) 18 Marine Policy 249. On this case see further below in Section 4.3.

57 1982 Constitution of Honduras, Art. 12: ‘The State exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction in the air space and sub-soil of its continental and insular territory, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. This declaration of sovereignty does not ignore similar legitimate rights of other States on the basis of reciprocity, nor does it affect the rights of free navigation of all nations in accordance with international law or compliance with the treaties or conventions ratified by the Republic.’

58 G. Rottem, ‘Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute’, (1993) 87 American Journal of International Law 618.

59 M. N. Shaw and M. Evans, ‘Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment of 11 September 1992’, (1993) 42 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 929.

60 Law No. 854 of partial reform of the political constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, 2014.

61 1987 Constitution of Nicaragua, amended in 2014, Art. 5.9: ‘Nicaragua adheres to the principles of American International Law as recognized and ratified sovereignly.’

62 C. Salgar and E. Tremolada, ‘Caribe Occidental en la Corte Internacional de Justicia; Comentarios a las Últimas Decisiones de la Corte a las Demandas Interpuestas por Nicaragua Contra Honduras y Colombia’, (2008) 21 Rev. Derecho del Estado 223.

63 S. Jiuyong, ‘Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice’, (2010) 9 Chinese Journal of International Law 271.

64 M. Pratt, ‘The Maritime Boundary Dispute between Honduras and Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea’, (2001) 9 Boundary and Security Bulletin 108.

65 W. Arévalo Ramirez and A. Sarmiento Lamus, ‘Consequences of non-appearance before the International Court of Justice: debate and developments in relation to the case Nicaragua vs. Colombia’, (2017) 14 Revista Juridicas 9–28.

66 T. Yoshifumi, ‘Reflections on the Concept of Proportionality in the Law of Maritime Delimitation’, (2001) 16 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 433.

67 T. Yoshifumi, ‘Reflections on the territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice’, (2013) 26 Leiden Journal of international law 915.

68 R. Abello Galvis et al., ‘Traducción de la Sentencia de Fondo de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, proferida el 2 de febrero de 2018, relativa a la Delimitación Marítima en el Mar Caribe y en el Océano Pacífico (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) y Frontera Terrestre en la parte norte de Isla Portillos (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)’, (2020) ACDI-Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional 13.

69 R. Abello Galvis, ‘Eaux et baies historiques en droit international’, (2003) 5 Estudios Socio-Jurídicos 33.

70 1983 Constitution of El Salvador, amended in 2014. After defining the features that are part of the ‘territory’, Art. 84 lists the boundaries: ‘The national territorial limits are the following: TO THE WEST, with the Republic of Guatemala, in conformity with that established in the Treaty on Territorial Limits, held in Guatemala on April 9, 1938. TO THE NORTH, AND TO THE EAST, in part, with the Republic of Honduras, in the sections delimitated by the General Peace Treaty, signed in Lima, Peru on October 30, 1980. In regard to the pending sections of delimitation, the limits will be those established in conformity with the same Treaty, or in any event, in conformity with any of the peaceful means for solution to the international controversies. TO THE REST OF THE EAST, with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in the waters of the Fonseca Gulf. AND TO THE SOUTH, with the Pacific Ocean.’

71 M. Shaw, ‘Case concerning the land, island and maritime frontier dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment of 11 September 1992’, (1993) 42 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 929.

72 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, [2003] ICJ Rep. 392.

73 R. Soroczyński, ‘“Judge-made” Regime of the Gulf of Fonseca and the Question of Binding Effect of Judgments of International Courts’, (2011) 3 Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 95.

74 A. P. Llamzon, ‘Jurisdiction and compliance in recent decisions of the International Court of Justice’, (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 815.

75 Case Concerning the territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgement, [2007] ICJ Rep. 832, at 868, paras. 118–20; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, ICJ Rep. 624, at 665, paras. 113–36.

76 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of Disputes (1948) (‘Pact of Bogotá’), Art. XXXI.

77 Judicial Review Ruling C-269 (2014). Colombian Constitutional Court (Corte Constitucional Colombiana): ‘9.11. It remains, then, reaffirmed the validity of the clauses of the Pact of Bogotá approved by Law 37 of 1961, whose validity is unquestionable under the principle pacta sunt servanda during the time in which the Treaty had force for Colombia, especially considering that this judgment it could not confer retroactive effect on its operative provisions. Consequently, decisions made by the International Court of Justice, based on the jurisdiction recognized by Colombia through Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, cannot be ignored, in accordance with Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations…’.

78 ‘Exequibilidad’ in the original text, which refers to the legal effect of a declaration of constitutionality of a law under judicial review in the Colombian legal system.

79 Judicial Review Ruling C-269 (2014). Colombian Constitutional Court (Corte Constitucional Colombiana).

80 National Decree 1946 of 2013. Colombia. ‘Regarding the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, some aspects of the continental shelf of the Colombian island territories in the western Caribbean Sea and the integrity of the archipelago department of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina’, available at www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?id=1374866.

81 See Madsen, Cebulak and Weibusch, supra note 24.

82 Cancillería Chilena, ‘Nota de prensa’, 2014, available at minrel.gob.cl/presidente-pinera-la-corte-internacional-de-justicia-de-la-haya-ha-confirmado-en-lo-sustancial-los-argumentos-de-la-posicion-chilena/minrel_old/2014-01-27/200837.html.

83 As explained by Fuentes, the Constitution of Chile at the time lacked engagement with international law and made no references to it; reforms to include such references has been proposed and a national dialogue for reform became strong in 2018. See X. Fuentes Torrijos, ‘Una nueva Constitución para Chile y el diseño de un esquema de incorporación del derecho internacional al sistema jurídico chileno’, en Propuestas para una nueva constitución (Santiago de Chile: Repositorio Universidad de Chile, 2015).

84 Perú. Cancillería conmemoró quinto aniversario del fallo de La Haya, Andina, Agencia peruana de noticias, 29 de enero del 2009, available at andina.pe/agencia/noticia-cancilleria-conmemoro-quinto-aniversario-del-fallo-de-haya-740800.aspx.

85 Cancillería Chilena, Acta Declaración Conjunta de los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores y Defensa de Perú y Chile con ocasión de la Reunión Extraordinaria del Comité Permanente de Consulta y Coordinación Política (2+2), Santiago de Chile, 6 de febrero del 2014, available at www.minrel.gob.cl/minrel/site/artic/20140207/asocfile/20140207015357/declaraci__n_conjunta2_2__versi__n_de_firma_.pdf.

86 Cancillería Chilena, Acta Declaración Conjunta de los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores y Defensa de Perú y Chile con ocasión de la Reunión Extraordinaria del Comité Permanente de Consulta y Coordinación Política (2+2), Santiago de Chile, 6 de febrero del 2014, available at www.minrel.gob.cl/minrel/site/artic/20140207/asocfile/20140207015357/declaraci__n_conjunta2_2__versi__n_de_firma_.pdf.

87 Cancillería Chilena, Anexo acta de grupo de trabajo técnico y cartográfico reunidas las delegaciones de Chile y del Perú, Santiago de Chile, 6 de febrero del 2014, available at www.minrel.gob.cl/minrel/site/artic/20140207/asocfile/20140207015357/acta_comision_tecnica_2_2_2.pdf.

88 República del Perú. Ley N° 30223 (11 de Julio de 2014). Ley que adecua la Ley 28621, Ley de líneas de base del dominio marítimo del Perú, según la delimitación marítima entre la república del Perú y la República de Chile, realizada por el fallo de la corte internacional de justicia del 27 de enero de 2014.

89 Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Application Instituting Proceedings, [2018] ICJ General list No. 171.

90 Arbitral award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, [2020] ICJ Rep. 2.

91 Constitución del Estado Bolívar (Gaceta Oficial del Estado de Bolívar, Gaceta Extraordinaria No. 90. Julio 2001). ‘Article 15. The territory and other geographical areas of the Bolivar State are that historically corresponded to the Province of Guayana of the Captaincy General of Venezuela, before the political transformation that began on April 19, 1810, then delimited in accordance with the Territorial Political Law of the Republic of April 28, 1856, with the modifications that have resulted from the laws of the Republic, the conventions and other legal acts validly executed in accordance with the Constitution, to national and state laws. In all acts of the State, in which it describes or refers to its territory, it shall be understood incorporated, even when not expressly incorporated, the reservation that the Award Arbitration of Paris of 1899, is invalid and void, according to the principles of law and justice that govern the international community and contribute to affirming territorial integrity. The Bolívar State will collaborate and support the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the achievement of a satisfactory solution for the practical settlement of the territorial dispute, based on the Geneva Agreement of February 17, 1966.’

92 Last amendment of 2015. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 2015, Tucupita, Amacuro, 16 de Diciembre de 2015. N0 36 Extraordinario, Gaceta Oficial del Estado de Amacuro.

93 Presidential Declaration, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 18 March 2018, available at www.mppre.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/comunicado-guyana-30032018.pdf.

94 Presidential Declaration of April 2019. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 17 April 2019, available at http://mppre.gob.ve/comunicado/venezuela-no-aceptara-jurisdiccion-de-la-corte-internacional-de-justicia-y-reitera-su-no-comparecencia-ante-el-procedimiento-iniciado-por-guyana/.

95 Presidential Declaration, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 18 December 2020, available at www.mppre.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Venezuela-rechaza-decision-de-la-Corte-Internacional-de-Justicia-contraria-al-espiritu-del-Acuerdo-de-Ginebra-sobre-la-Guayana-Esequiba.pdf.

96 Presidential Declaration, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 1 January 2021, (Gaceta Oficial, miércoles 13 de enero de 2021 Número 42.046), Decreto N° 4.415, mediante el cual se crea una Zona Estratégica de Desarrollo Nacional denominada “Territorio para el Desarrollo de la Fachada Atlántica”, con el fin de brindar protección adecuada y salvaguardar los derechos de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela en los espacios bajo su soberanía y jurisdicción en dicha Zona Estratégica, available at www.minci.gob.ve/presidente-maduro-anuncia-la-creacion-del-territorio-de-la-fachada-atlantica-venezolana/.

97 Declaración de la Comisión mixta de la Asamblea nacional para la defensa de la soberanía venezolana sobre Territorio esequibo, y la fachada atlántica luego de Celebrada la audiencia oral de la corte internacional de Justicia (CIJ), realizada el martes 30 de junio de 2020, paras. 1–15, available at asambleanacional-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documentos/documentos/declaracion-de-la-comision-mixta-para-la-defensa-del-esequibo-y-la-fachada-atlantica-luego-de-celebrad-la-audiencia-de-la-cij-20200702152310.pdf.

98 Ibid., paras. 2–7.

99 W. Arévalo Ramírez and A. Sarmiento, ‘Non-appearance before the International Court of Justice and the Role and Function of Judges ad hoc’, (2017) 16 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 398.

100 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14, at 23, para. 27; Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Assessment of Amount of Compensation, Judgment, [1949] ICJ Rep. 244.

101 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, [1978] ICJ Rep. 3, at 7, para. 14.

102 Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the Application filed before the International Court of Justice by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018.

103 See Brewer and Cavallaro, supra note 32; Cavallaro, supra note 33; Contesse, supra note 34; Helfer and Alter, supra note 35; Huneeus, supra note 36; Soley and Steininger, supra note 39.

104 P. Webb, International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation (2013).

105 República de Colombia. Ley 1444 de 2011, 4 May 2011, Artículo 5, available at www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?ruta=Leyes/1680622.

106 See Madsen, Cebulak and Weibusch, supra note 24.

107 A. Gurmendi-Dunkelberg, ‘Obligation to negotiate access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)’, (2019) 113 American Journal of International Law 347.