By: Omar Silva I Editor/Publisher

National Perspective Belize

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City: 26th November 2025

THE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE BELIZE

SPECIAL FEATURE – PART II

November 2025

Day Two in The Hague: Belize Steps Forward

If Day One of the ICJ hearings on the Sapodilla Cayes was Guatemala’s bid to enter the ring, Day Two belonged to Belize and Honduras.

On 25 November 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard from Belize’s legal team and from Honduras on Guatemala’s Application for permission to intervene in the case Sovereignty over the Sapodilla Cayes/Cayos Zapotillos (Belize v. Honduras).

What emerged was a clear contrast:

• Belize did not oppose Guatemala’s participation, provided it helps the Court and leads to a full and efficient resolution of all claims to Belizean territory.
• Honduras, by contrast, urged the Court to reject Guatemala’s request outright, calling it a misuse of the intervention procedure that would turn a bilateral case into a three-way territorial showdown.

Behind the legal language, the stakes remain stark: Who gets to speak, when, and on what terms, in deciding the future of Belize’s southern maritime frontier?

1. Belize Puts the “Two Cases” on the Table

Belize’s Agent, Ambassador Assad Shoman, opened for Belize by reminding the Court that two separate—but related—cases about Belize’s territorial integrity are now before the ICJ:

1. Guatemala v. Belize (2019) – where Guatemala asks the Court to resolve “all legal claims” it asserts over land, insular territories and maritime areas and to determine the boundary between the two states.
2. Belize v. Honduras (2022) – where Belize seeks a ruling that, as between Belize and Honduras, Belize is sovereign over the Sapodilla Cayes in the south of the Gulf of Honduras.

Shoman recalled that Belize did not rush into litigation with Honduras. Before going to The Hague, Belize engaged in bilateral discussions and diplomatic exchanges to persuade Honduras to abandon its claim—but Honduras refused. For Belize, the unresolved claim was unacceptable. The result: Belize commenced the present case to ensure that every territorial claim against Belize is finally resolved by law, not by force.

Shoman’s core message to the judges was simple and blunt:

Belize’s overriding objective is an efficient and complete resolution of all external claims—Guatemalan and Honduran—against its territory.

To achieve that, he argued, the Court should coordinate the two cases:

• Hear Guatemala v. Belize first;
• Then, immediately or very shortly after, hear the more narrowly focused Belize v. Honduras (Sapodilla) case.

This, he said, would save time, avoid duplication, and allow the Court’s deliberations in both disputes to overlap constructively.

And crucially, he told the Court that Belize does not object if the judges consider Guatemala’s intervention useful to their work.

2. Belize’s Legal Strategy: Coordination, Not Confrontation

Where Day One was marked by sharp accusations from Guatemala that Belize was manoeuvring “through the back door,” Day Two saw Belize adopt a calm, methodical tone.

Common Ground with Guatemala

Lead Counsel Ben Juratowitch KC began by identifying areas where Belize and Guatemala actually agree:

1. Back-to-back merits hearings

Both states accept that it would be sensible for the Court to hold the merits hearings in the two cases back to back, so its deliberations in both can overlap and reinforce each other.

2. The late Honduran claim (1981)

Honduras did not assert any claim to the Sapodilla Cayes until 1981, when the failed Heads of Agreement between the UK and Guatemala triggered regional anxieties.

3. The dormant decades

After 1981, Honduras let its claim lie dormant for a long period.

4. No obstacle to resolving Guatemala’s claims completely

All three states accept that nothing in the Belize–Honduras case prevents the complete resolution of Guatemala’s claims against Belize in the separate case.

By starting with these points, Belize positioned itself as reasonable and focused on judicial efficiency, not on procedural gamesmanship.

Where Belize Draws the Line

Juratowitch then calmly dismantled the heart of Guatemala’s narrative:

• Guatemala is wrong, he said, to suggest that the issues in the two cases “largely overlap.”
• While some questions are indeed common—such as references to Spanish title and the 1859 Convention—the Belize–Honduras case is materially different because it turns heavily on post-independence conduct between Britain/Belize and Honduras.

For more than 150 years, the United Kingdom—and later Belize—exercised sovereign authority over the Sapodilla Cayes openly, continuously and peacefully, while Honduras not only acquiesced but at times positively recognised British sovereignty. The settled understanding, Belize argues, was clear: Britain (and now Belize) was sovereign; Honduras was not.

On Guatemala’s charge that Belize’s case against Honduras was a “maneuver” designed to “pre-judge” Guatemala’s claim, Juratowitch was direct: Belize’s motivation was straightforward and legitimate — to secure a complete and final resolution of all external claims against its territory.

3. The New Front: Fishing Rights, “Rocks,” and Jurisdiction

Day Two also revealed new legal flashpoints that Belize wants the Court to treat with extreme caution.

Honduras’ “Traditional Fishing Rights” Claim

Honduras has sought to introduce an additional claim: “traditional fishing rights” for its nationals around the Sapodilla Cayes.

Belize’s response was firm:

• This is a new claim, not part of the original case.
• It has not been subjected to the mandatory negotiation process required under the Pact of Bogotá;
• Therefore, Belize will challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear it at all.

By pushing back hard, Belize is signalling to the Court that the Sapodilla case must remain what it was meant to be: a case about sovereignty over islands, not a platform for late-added, loosely defined rights that could muddy the waters.

Are the Sapodillas “Rocks” under UNCLOS?

Belize also flagged another fresh issue raised by Honduras—an argument that the Sapodilla features are mere “rocks” under Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), incapable of generating their own exclusive economic zone.

Juratowitch stressed that such questions:

• Are not part of the sovereignty dispute originally submitted;
• Risk transforming a narrow case into a far broader maritime delimitation dispute, contradicting the limited scope that justified the accelerated schedule agreed in 2023.

In other words, Belize told the judges: Do not let this case balloon. Keep it focused on who owns the Sapodillas.

Article 59: No Binding Effect on Guatemala

Belize also reminded the Court of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute: judgments bind only the parties to a particular case. That means:

• Whatever the Court decides in Belize v. Honduras will not legally bind Guatemala, since Guatemala is not a party to that case.

This undercuts Guatemala’s fear that its rights could be “pre-judged” in its absence—and strengthens Belize’s argument that intervention is not strictly necessary to protect Guatemala’s legal position.

4. Honduras Fights to Keep Guatemala Out

If Belize’s tone was cooperative but firm, Honduras came out swinging against Guatemala’s bid to intervene.

Honduras’ Agent, Patricia Licona, and counsel including Prof. Carlos Jiménez Piernas, Prof. Alejandro del Valle Gálvez and Prof. Francisco Pascual Vives, argued that Guatemala’s Application fails both the formal and substantive requirements of Articles 62 and 81 of the ICJ Statute and Rules.

Key Honduran arguments:

1. “A mere link is not a legal interest.”

Honduras told the Court that the fact the two cases are being heard in parallel and may share some subject matter does not automatically create the “interest of a legal nature” required by Article 62. The Court’s jurisprudence demands that such an interest be precise, specific and well-established. Guatemala, Honduras says, has not met that bar.

2. Guatemala’s Application is “unique” and a “misuse.”

Honduran counsel described the intervention request as unprecedented, warning that it would effectively create a new dispute and introduce Guatemala’s broad territorial claim through a “Trojan horse” into a case that should remain bilateral between Belize and Honduras.

3. Guatemala already has the proper forum.

Honduras stressed that Guatemala is already a full party in its own case against Belize (Case 177). If Guatemala wants to argue that Sapodilla belongs to it, that is the place to do it—not by intervening in a different case.

In essence, Honduras asked the Court to dismiss the Application, insisting that allowing it would undermine due process and sound administration of justice.

5. Day Two Exposes the Strategic Triangle

With the benefit of two days of hearings, the strategic geometry becomes clearer:

Belize wants:

• Final, peaceful settlement of all claims.
• Efficient coordination of the two cases.
• No expansion of the Sapodilla case beyond its narrow sovereignty question;
• Guatemala’s involvement only if it helps, not hinders, that goal.

Guatemala wants:

• To ensure that no part of its insular claim—including Sapodilla—is decided without its voice.
• To prevent any judgment between Belize and Honduras that might weaken its legal narrative in the larger case.

Honduras wants:

• To keep the dispute strictly bilateral;
• To stop Guatemala from turning Belize v. Honduras into a three-party war of narratives;
• To advance side claims such as traditional fishing rights, which Belize rejects as outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court now faces three intertwined tasks:

1. Decide whether Guatemala’s claimed interest meets the demanding standard of Article 62.
2. Preserve judicial economy and fairness among all three states.
3. Keep the Sapodilla case from becoming something it was never meant to be.

6. What This Means for Belize – Looking Beyond Day Two

From a Belizean perspective, several important points emerge from Day Two:

a) Belize is not afraid of Guatemala’s presence—if the process stays fair

By explicitly stating it does not object to intervention, Belize signals confidence in its legal position and commitment to transparency. This is important for Belize’s international image as a state that seeks peaceful, lawful solutions.

b) Belize is insisting on limits and clarity

By challenging:

• The fishing rights claim, and
• The attempt to shift the focus to whether Sapodilla features are “rocks,”

Belize is protecting the narrow, manageable scope of the case and avoiding mission creep that could delay judgments or dilute the central issue of sovereignty.

c) Fast-tracking both cases is a high-stakes gamble—but a necessary one

The call for back-to-back merits hearings is bold. If the ICJ agrees, Belize will face two major territorial cases in rapid succession. But it would also mean:

• An earlier, more coherent resolution of all external claims;
• Less risk of inconsistent judgments;
• A clearer, consolidated picture of Belize’s territorial status for generations to come.

7. The Next Step: Second Round & Awaiting the Court’s Decision

The hearings continue with a second round of oral arguments from all three delegations, after which the Court will retire to deliberate on Guatemala’s Application to intervene.

Only after that decision will the ICJ move on to schedule:

• Merits hearings in Belize v. Honduras (Sapodilla); and
• Merits hearings in Guatemala v. Belize.

Those future sessions will address the substance: who owns which territory, which islands, and what maritime zones.

For now, the question is more procedural but no less political:

Does Guatemala get a formal seat at the table in the Sapodilla case, or must it wait for the main territorial trial?

However the judges answer, Belizeans should understand that Day Two showed a confident, disciplined Belizean legal team:

• Aligning with Guatemala where it serves judicial efficiency;
• Standing firm where Guatemala or Honduras seek to push beyond the agreed scope;
• And keeping the ultimate objective in clear view: a final, peaceful, legally binding settlement of all claims against Belize’s territory.

In Part III, National Perspective Belize will follow the second round of oral arguments and unpack the likely scenarios for the Court’s ruling on intervention—and what each outcome would mean for Belize’s strategy going into the merits phase of both historic ICJ cases.