International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Pact of Bogotá — Subject matter of dispute before Court — Preliminary objections — Examination by Court of issues linked to merits at preliminary objections stage — Decision of objection to jurisdiction at merits stage — Analysis of objections to jurisdiction in relation to various elements of a case — Whether Court’s jurisdiction precluded by a treaty settling dispute within meaning of Article VI of Pact of Bogotá — Whether 1928 Nicaragua–Colombia Treaty settled dispute concerning sovereignty over disputed maritime features — Whether 1928 Nicaragua–Colombia Treaty invalid — Exercise of coercion in relation to conclusion of a treaty — Whether 1928 Treaty in force in 1948 — Exact composition of San Andrés Archipelago — Whether 1928 Nicaragua–Colombia Treaty fixed boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia along 82nd meridian west of Greenwich — Whether jurisdiction under Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá exclusive — Optional clause — ICJ Statute, Article 36(2)

International Court of Justice — Intervention — Requirements — Nature of intervention — Distinction between intervention as a party and as a non-party — Protection of third States’ interests in delimitation disputes — ICJ Statute, Article 62 — Interest of a legal nature — Whether interest of a legal nature affected by Court’s future judgment — Precise object of intervention — Prohibition to introduce new case by way of intervention — Whether consent to intervention a requirement for application for intervention to succeed — Burden of proof in relation to establishing existence of interest of a legal nature — Link between interest of a legal nature and main proceedings — Jurisdictional link in relation to intervention — Whether indication of maritime areas in which State having interest sufficient to prove existence of such interest — ICJ Statute, Article 59 — Relative effect of Court’s judgments — Whether 1986 Colombia–Honduras Treaty influencing extent of Colombia’s rights in delimitation vis-à-vis Nicaragua — Whether Court having discretion as to allow intervention — Whether “interest of a legal nature” and “right” distinct

Territory — Islands — Definition — Appropriation of islands under international law — Whether low-tide elevations capable of appropriation — Whether 1928 Nicaragua–Colombia Treaty disposing of issue of title over disputed maritime features — Exact composition of San Andrés Archipelago — Uti possidetis juris — Effectivités — Critical date — Establishment of sovereignty over small maritime features requiring only modest display of State powers — Acts à titre de souverain including variety of different actions by State — Whether Nicaragua recognizing Colombia’s sovereignty over disputed maritime features — Whether third States recognizing Colombia’s sovereignty over disputed maritime features — Limited probative value of maps

Sea — Maritime delimitation — Single maritime boundary — Applicable law — 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) — UNCLOS, Articles 74 and 83 — Customary international law — Nicaragua’s claim to delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles from its coast — Whether Nicaragua’s request for delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles changing subject matter of dispute — Admissibility of Nicaragua’s request for delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles — Connection between Nicaragua’s new claim and original claim in Application — Whether connection of general nature sufficient — UNCLOS, Article 76 — Overlapping maritime entitlements as precondition to delimitation — Whether Nicaragua proving continental margin extending beyond 200 nautical miles from its coast — Relevant coast — Relevant area — Maritime entitlement generated by disputed features — UNCLOS, Article 121 — Three-stage approach to maritime delimitation — Provisional equidistance line — Selection of base points — Relevant circumstances — Cut-off — Disparity in coastal length — Whether Colombian islands should be enclaved — Parties’ conduct — Security and law-enforcement factors — Access to natural resources — Presence of other agreed boundaries in delimitation area — Proportionality — Whether Nicaragua entitled to compensation for unjust enrichment stemming from Colombia’s administration of disputed features — Declaratory judgment

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Abuse of rights — When commencement of litigation under investment treaty constituting abuse of rights — Whether initiation of arbitration amounting to abuse of rights — Tobacco products legislation on plain packaging — Foreseeability of plain packaging dispute — Corporate group engaging in restructuring in anticipation of plain packaging legislation — Effect of restructuring to place ownership and control in the hands of company incorporated in party to bilateral investment treaty — Whether any cogent reasons other than obtaining protection of the treaty for corporate restructure

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Existence of a dispute — Critical date — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute ratione temporis — Date plain packaging dispute arising — Whether dispute arising prior to critical date

Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Bilateral investment treaties — Protection of intellectual property — Trademarks — Legislation requiring that tobacco products be sold only in plain packaging — Whether contrary to Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Abuse of rights

Treaties — Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Meaning of “control” and “substantial interest” under Article 1(e) of Treaty — Whether Philip Morris Asia exercising control over Philip Morris Australia and Philip Morris Limited pursuant to Article 1(e) — Whether sufficient evidence of control of any significance

Treaties — Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Requirement that an investment be admitted in Australia “subject to its laws and policies applicable from time to time” — Foreign Investment Application — Relevance of letter from Treasurer advising no objection to investment — Whether evidence otherwise establishing invalidly admitted investment

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Exceptions to immunity — Torts — State Immunity Act 1985 — Exceptions — Section 6 — Personal or bodily injury or damage to or loss of property occurring in Canada — Personal or bodily injury requiring physical injury, or mental or emotional distress linked to physical injury — Damage to or loss of property requiring damage to or loss of actual property — Whether purely economic loss sufficient — Whether harm suffered in Canada purely incidental to acts in foreign State insufficient for purposes of Section 6 of State Immunity Act 1985 — The law of Canada

International organizations — Immunities — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Privileges and Immunities Order, Section 3(1) — Absolute and limited immunities — Immunities and privileges as “required” for “performance of functions” — Meaning of “required” — Functions of international organizations — Whether lack of forum to air grievance defeating immunity — Labour relations — Whether immunity extending to internal Staff Rules

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Human rights — Immunities — 1985 Canadian Bill of Rights, Section 2(e) — Right to a fair hearing — Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act 1985 — Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act 1991 — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Privileges and Immunities Order

Treaties — Immunities — International organizations — Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14 — Right to a fair hearing — Procedural rights versus substantive rights — Whether right to make a claim — The law of Canada

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — General rule that foreign State immune unless exception to immunity applicable — Canada State Immunity Act 1985, Section 3(1) — Interpretation — Scope of State immunity codified in Act — Proceeding under Section 33(6)(b) of Labour Relations Code 1996 — Whether foreign State immune from jurisdiction of British Columbia Labour Relations Board — Whether Board exercising jurisdiction over foreign State — Whether doctrine of State immunity applicable — Whether act of State doctrine applicable — Evidence — Whether foreign State entitled to bar voluntary testimony by employees and former employees

Consular relations — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Interpretation — Application — Incorporation of Vienna Convention by Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act 1991 — Proceeding under Section 33(6)(b) of Labour Relations Code 1996 — Voluntary testimony by former consular employees of foreign State in respect of their official functions without consent of that State — Absence of waiver of immunities by foreign State — Admissibility of testimony — Whether issue moot on appeal — The law of Canada

Sea — Territorial sea — Submerged lands — Sovereignty over submerged lands along Alaska’s Arctic Coast — United States and State of Alaska claiming ownership — Submerged lands rich in oil — Right to offer lands for mineral leasing — Whether Alaska entitled to submerged lands along its Arctic Coast — Applicability of normal baseline principles under Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958 — Islands — Definition — Requirement that land be above water at mean high tide — Whether small gravel and ice formation known as Dinkum Sands constituting an island — Federally reserved lands — Whether submerged lands within National Petroleum Reserve and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge passing to Alaska at statehood — The law of the United States