The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: the Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Rica v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains only general rules concerning the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. However, international courts and tribunals have, within their compass, elaborated the law of maritime delimitation through their jurisprudence, thereby maintaining the resilience of the Convention in a particular context of maritime delimitations. The jurisprudence is not a panacea, however. As regards the implications of maritime delimitation judgments for third States in the same region, for example, the jurisprudence has not been consistent. Lack of consistency of the jurisprudence may undermine the predictability of the law of maritime delimitation and weaken the resilience of the Convention. This article critically assesses the approach of the International Court of Justice to the presence of third States in the process of maritime delimitation, by analysing the Nicaragua v. Colombia case and the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, respectively.