Belize Argues at ICJ on Guatemala’s Intervention in Sapodilla Cayes Dispute

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today heard oral arguments from Belize and Honduras on whether Guatemala should be allowed to intervene in the ongoing case concerning sovereignty over the Sapodilla Cayes, known in Honduras as the Cayos Zapotillos. The hearing took place at the Peace Palace under the presidency of Judge Iwasawa.

The dispute between Belize and Honduras, initiated in 2022, centres on a cluster of islands in the southern Gulf of Honduras. Guatemala filed its application to intervene in December 2023, citing Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, which allows a third state to participate if its legal interests may be affected by the Court’s decision.

Belize: No Objection to Intervention, Calls for Efficient Coordination

Representing Belize, Special Envoy Assad Shoman told the Court, “Belize does not object to Guatemala being permitted to intervene if the Court considers that it would be assisted by such an intervention.” He said that Belize’s priority is “an efficient and complete resolution of all claims against Belize’s territory by both Guatemala and Honduras.”

Shoman urged the Court to coordinate hearings in the two related cases — Guatemala v. Belize and Belize v. Honduras — to avoid duplication. “It would be logical for the Court to hear Guatemala/Belize first and then, immediately or very shortly thereafter, to hear the more confined case of Belize v. Honduras,” he said.

Counsel Ben Juratowitch reinforced Belize’s position, noting that while some issues overlap, the two cases are “materially different.” He explained, “In the present case with Honduras, Belize claims sovereignty not only on the basis that the United Kingdom became sovereign before 1821, but much more importantly because of the bilateral course of conduct since Honduras’ independence.”

Juratowitch also addressed Honduras’ recent claim to traditional fishing rights, stating, “Belize will be objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court over this new claim,” arguing that it had not undergone mandatory negotiations under the Pact of Bogotá.

Honduras: Intervention is a Misuse and Should Be Dismissed

Honduras strongly opposed Guatemala’s request. Agent Patricia Licona told the Court, “The Honduras reiterates the conclusions expressed in its written observations and respectfully asks the Court that the request for intervention by Guatemala be rejected.”

Licona argued that Guatemala’s application is “unique” and unprecedented, given the existence of two parallel cases. She warned that granting intervention would “contradict the principles of sound administration of justice and due process.”

Professor Alejandro del Valle Gálvez described the application as “a misuse of the institution of intervention,” asserting that it “creates a new dispute” and could act as a “Trojan horse” to introduce Guatemala’s claims against Belize into the Zapotillos case. “Guatemala’s Application goes beyond the purpose of an intervention as a non-party and completely misleads the Zapotillos case,” he said.

Honduran counsel further argued that Guatemala failed to meet formal and substantive requirements under Articles 62 and 81 of the ICJ Statute and Rules. Professor Francisco Pascual Vives stated, “The object of this Application is improper and imprecise,” noting that Guatemala is already a party to a separate case where it can protect its interests.

Professor Carlos Jiménez Piernas added, “There is no legal interest susceptible of being affected by the Court’s decision in this case,” emphasizing that Guatemala’s claims are “generic” and lack specificity.

Next Steps

The Court will reconvene tomorrow to hear Guatemala’s second round of oral arguments. A decision on whether to permit intervention will follow, but no timeline has been announced.