ICJ Wraps Up Hearings on Sapodilla Cayes Dispute

The International Court of Justice has closed three days of public hearings on Guatemala’s bid to intervene in the high-stakes sovereignty case over the Sapodilla Cayes, contested between Belize and Honduras. Guatemala argued its strategic interest under Article 62 of the Court’s Statute, while Belize raised no objection. Honduras, however, slammed the move as “redundant” and an “abuse,” urging judges to dismiss the application outright. The Court will now deliberate, with its ruling on Guatemala’s participation expected at a later date.

 

Ben Juratowitch, Legal Counsel, Belize

“The court was instead was instead told on Monday, as it was this morning, that it is just obvious that Guatemala should be permitted to intervene because the three states claim the same territory. Guatemala told you that this was a textbook example of a case for which Article 63 of the statute was designed. That might be so if the Guatemala/Belize case did not exist. But in light of the unique features we identified, it is not enough to make Guatemala’s burden, in the very particular circumstances of this case. Those features are not in the textbooks. Notwithstanding the reference to textbooks this morning, the court would have noted that Guatemala had no response to offer on the submissions of Belize and Honduras on the Gulf of Fonseca case and the Eritrea/Yemen arbitral award. I will add only two points on those arising from the submissions of Honduras. The first is that Honduras is quite correct to say that insofar as the Gulf of Fonseca case concerns a right to be heard. Guatemala is being heard in its case with Belize. The second is that if one were to change the facts of this case to make it more like Eritrea and Yemen, the question would be this: if Belize and Honduras, instead of turning to the court, had signed a treaty by which they agreed that Belize was sovereign over the Sapodilla Cayes. Would that have any legal consequence for Guatemala? If one then steps from that analogy back to this case, the conceptual position is the same. The court will recognize that this is not my analogy, but the court’s own explanation in Burkina Faso and Mali.”