On 15 November 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, rendered its Order on the admissibility of the counter-claims submitted by Colombia in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia).<\/p>\n
On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Colombia on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 with regard to a dispute concerning \u201cviolations of Nicaragua\u2019s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by the Court\u2019s Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia in order to implement these violations\u201d. On 19 December 2014, Colombia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. By a Judgment dated 17 March 2016, the Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1, to adjudicate upon the dispute relating to the alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua\u2019s rights in the maritime zones which, according to Nicaragua, the Court declared appertain to Nicaragua in its Judgment of 19 November 2012.<\/p>\n
In its Counter-Memorial filed on 17 November 2016, Colombia submitted four counter-claims. The first was based on Nicaragua\u2019s alleged breach of a duty of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment of the south-western Caribbean Sea; the second related to Nicaragua\u2019s alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect the right of the inhabitants of the San Andr\u00e9s Archipelago to benefit from a healthy, sound and sustainable environment; the third concerned Nicaragua\u2019s alleged infringement of the customary artisanal fishing rights of the local inhabitants of the San Andr\u00e9s Archipelago to access and exploit their traditional fishing grounds; the fourth related to Nicaragua\u2019s adoption of Decree No. 33-2013 of 19 August 2013, which, according to Colombia, established straight baselines and had the effect of extending Nicaragua\u2019s internal waters and maritime zones beyond what international law permits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the operative clause, the Court finds, by fifteen votes to one, that the first and second counter-claims submitted by Colombia are inadmissible as such and do not form part of the current proceedings; by eleven votes to five, that the third counter-claim submitted by Colombia is admissible as such and forms part of the current proceedings; by nine votes to seven, that the fourth counter-claim submitted by Colombia is admissible as such and forms part of the current proceedings. The Court also unanimously directs Nicaragua to submit a Reply and Colombia to\u00a0submit a Rejoinder relating to the claims of both Parties in the current proceedings, and fixes the following dates as time-limits for the filing of those pleadings: 15 May 2018 for Nicaragua\u2019s Reply and 15 November 2018 for Colombia\u2019s Rejoinder.<\/p>\n
Reasoning of the Court<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
In its Order, the Court begins by recalling that under Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, two requirements must be met for it to be able to entertain a counter-claim as such, namely, that the claim in question \u201ccomes within the jurisdiction of the Court\u201d and, that it \u201cis directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party\u201d. The Court is free to examine, in the most appropriate sequence, whether those requirements have been met. In the present case, the Court deems it appropriate to begin with the question whether Colombia\u2019s counter-claims are directly connected with the subject-matter of Nicaragua\u2019s principal claims.<\/p>\n
The Court is of the view that there is no connection, either in fact or in law, between Colombia\u2019s first two counter-claims and Nicaragua\u2019s principal claims. Although the respective claims of the Parties essentially relate to the same geographical area, the nature of the facts underlying them is different, and these facts do not relate to the same factual complex. Furthermore, the legal principles relied upon by the Parties are different and they are not pursuing the same legal aim.
\nOn the other hand, the Court considers that there is a direct connection between Colombia\u2019s third counter-claim and Nicaragua\u2019s principal claims. It observes in this regard that the Parties agree that the facts underpinning their respective claims relate to the same time period (following the delivery of the 2012 Judgment) and the same geographical area (Nicaragua\u2019s EEZ). The Court further notes that those facts are of the same nature in so far as they allege similar types of conduct of the naval forces of one Party (harassment, intimidation, coercive measures) vis-\u00e0-vis nationals of the other Party fishing in the same waters. With regard to the legal principles relied upon by the Parties, the Court notes that the respective claims of the Parties concern the scope of the rights and obligations of a coastal State in its EEZ. In addition, the Parties are pursuing the same legal aim by their respective claims since they are both seeking to establish the responsibility of the other by invoking violations of a right to access and exploit marine resources in the same maritime area.<\/p>\n
The Court considers that there is a direct connection between Colombia\u2019s fourth counter-claim relating to Nicaragua\u2019s decree of 19 August 2013, which establishes straight\u00a0baselines, and Nicaragua\u2019s principal claims regarding Colombia\u2019s decree of 9 September 2013 establishing an \u201cIntegral Contiguous Zone\u201d. It first observes that the facts relied upon by the Parties in their respective claims \uf0be i.e. the adoption of domestic legal instruments fixing the limits or the extent of their respective maritime zones \uf0be relate to the same time period. The Court notes, above all, that both Parties complain about the provisions of domestic law adopted by each Party with regard to the delineation of their respective maritime spaces in the same geographical area. It further observes that Nicaragua seeks the respect of its rights in the EEZ. However, the limits of Nicaragua\u2019s EEZ depend on its baselines, which are challenged in Colombia\u2019s fourth counter-claim. Furthermore, the Court notes that, in their respective claims, the Parties allege violations of the sovereign rights they each claim to possess on the basis of customary international rules relating to the limits, r\u00e9gime and spatial extent of the EEZ and contiguous zone, in particular in situations where these zones overlap between States with opposite coasts. In addition, the Parties are pursuing the same legal aim by their respective claims, since each is seeking a declaration that the other Party\u2019s decree is in violation of international law.
\nThe Court then examines whether Colombia\u2019s third and fourth counter-claims meet the requirement of jurisdiction contained in Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
The Court begins by recalling that in its Judgment on preliminary objections of 17 March 2016, it recognized that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 to entertain the principal claims of Nicaragua. This title of jurisdiction has since elapsed following Colombia\u2019s denunciation of the Pact after the filing of the Application. However, Colombia submitted its third and fourth counter-claims under the same title of jurisdiction. The Court observes in this regard that once it has established jurisdiction to entertain a case, it has jurisdiction to deal with all its phases; the subsequent lapse of the title cannot deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. It adds that although the object of the counter-claims is to submit new claims to the Court, they are, at the same time, linked to the principal claims, and their purpose is to react to them in the same proceedings in respect of which they are incidental. Consequently, the lapse of the jurisdictional title invoked by an applicant in support of its claims subsequent to the filing of the application does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to entertain counter-claims filed on the same jurisdictional basis. It follows that the termination of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 as between the Parties did not, per se, deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to entertain those counter-claims.<\/p>\n
The Court then considers whether the conditions set out in the Pact have been met, i.e. whether a dispute exists between the Parties with regard to the subject-matter of the counter-claims and whether, in accordance with the requirement set out in Article II of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1, the matters presented by Colombia in its counter-claims could not \u201cin the opinion of the Parties . . . be settled by direct negotiations\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Court is of the view that these conditions are met with respect to the third and fourth counter-claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With regard to the third counter-claim, the Court notes that the Parties hold opposing views on the scope of their respective rights and duties in Nicaragua\u2019s EEZ and that Nicaragua was aware that its views were positively opposed by Colombia. Therefore, it appears that a dispute does exist between the Parties regarding the alleged violation by Nicaragua of the rights at issue claimed by Colombia. With regard to the condition set out in Article II of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1, the Court observes that, although following the 2012 Judgment the Parties have made general statements on issues relating to fishing activities of the inhabitants of the San Andr\u00e9s Archipelago, they have never initiated direct negotiations in order to resolve these issues. This shows that the Parties did not consider that there was a possibility of finding a resolution of their dispute regarding the question of respect for traditional fishing rights through the usual diplomatic channels by direct negotiations.<\/p>\n
With respect to the fourth counter-claim, the Court notes that the Parties hold opposing views on the question of the delineation of their respective maritime spaces in the south-western part of the Caribbean Sea, following the Court\u2019s 2012 Judgment. Therefore, it appears that there is a dispute between the Parties on this matter. With regard to the condition set out in Article II of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1, the Court observes that Nicaragua\u2019s adoption of the decree of 19 August 2013 and Colombia\u2019s rejection of it by means of a diplomatic Note of protest from its Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 1 November 2013 show that it would, in any event, no longer have been useful for the Parties to engage in direct negotiations on this matter through the usual diplomatic channels.
\nThe Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to entertain Colombia\u2019s third and fourth counter-claims.<\/p>\n
Source: ICJ Website<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) On 15 November 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, rendered its Order on the admissibility of the counter-claims submitted by Colombia in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Colombia on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 with regard to a dispute concerning \u201cviolations of Nicaragua\u2019s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":4287,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias"],"yoast_head":"\n
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) On 15 November 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, rendered its Order on the admissibility of the counter-claims submitted by Colombia in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Colombia on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 with regard to a dispute concerning \u201cviolations of Nicaragua\u2019s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Observatory of International Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/theobservatoryofinternationallaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1015\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"677\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"The Observatory of International Law\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@The_OILaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@The_OILaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Escrito por\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"The Observatory of International Law\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tiempo de lectura\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/\",\"name\":\"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9cf6482321c7595774d814c26e7cd50c\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"es-AR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es-AR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg\",\"width\":\"1015\",\"height\":\"677\",\"caption\":\"Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) Foto: ONU\/Frank van Beek\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Inicio\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Observatory of International Law\",\"description\":\"Interesting things in International Law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"es-AR\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9cf6482321c7595774d814c26e7cd50c\",\"name\":\"The Observatory of International Law\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es-AR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/log2-100x100.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/log2-100x100.png\",\"caption\":\"The Observatory of International Law\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/author\/the-observatory-of-international-law\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law","og_description":"Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) On 15 November 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, rendered its Order on the admissibility of the counter-claims submitted by Colombia in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Colombia on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogot\u00e1 with regard to a dispute concerning \u201cviolations of Nicaragua\u2019s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by […]","og_url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/","og_site_name":"The Observatory of International Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/theobservatoryofinternationallaw\/","article_published_time":"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1015,"height":677,"url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"The Observatory of International Law","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@The_OILaw","twitter_site":"@The_OILaw","twitter_misc":{"Escrito por":"The Observatory of International Law","Tiempo de lectura":"9 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/","url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/","name":"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings - The Observatory of International Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg","datePublished":"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T15:40:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9cf6482321c7595774d814c26e7cd50c"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"es-AR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es-AR","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg","width":"1015","height":"677","caption":"Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) Foto: ONU\/Frank van Beek"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/01\/the-international-court-of-justice-icj-finds-that-the-third-and-fourth-counter-claims-submitted-by-colombia-are-admissible-and-fixes-time-limits-for-the-filing-of-further-written-pleadings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Inicio","item":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that the third and fourth counter-claims submitted by Colombia are admissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further written pleadings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/","name":"The Observatory of International Law","description":"Interesting things in International Law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"es-AR"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9cf6482321c7595774d814c26e7cd50c","name":"The Observatory of International Law","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es-AR","@id":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/log2-100x100.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/log2-100x100.png","caption":"The Observatory of International Law"},"url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/author\/the-observatory-of-international-law\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ICJ_France_EquatorialGuinea.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4445"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4445"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4445\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4450,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4445\/revisions\/4450"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4287"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theinternationalobservatory.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}