By: Omar Silva I Editor/Publisher

National Perspective Belize

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City: Thursday 27th November 2025

SPECIAL FEATURE – PART III

November 2025

Sapodilla at the Crossroads

After the Hearings:

PART III — The Strategic Phase Begins

The public hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Guatemala’s Application to intervene in the Sapodilla Cayes case ended on 26 November 2025. For three days, the Court heard arguments from Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras. What happens now is no longer about speeches, history, or accusations — it is about the Court retreating behind closed doors to make a judicial decision that will shape the legal future of our southern maritime frontier.

No sovereignty ruling has been issued. No borders have been redrawn. The matter is now in the hands of the judges, whose next decision will determine the legal architecture for the remainder of the proceedings.

This is where Part III begins.

I. The Hearings Are Over — But the Case Is Not

The hearings from 24–26 November were not about who owns the Sapodilla Cayes. They were solely about whether Guatemala should be allowed to intervene in the case between Belize and Honduras.

This distinction is crucial.

Belizeans must understand:

• The Court has not decided sovereignty.
• The Court has not determined maritime boundaries.
• The Court has not affirmed or rejected any claim over the Cayes.

The only issue the judges must now resolve is:

Does Guatemala have a legal interest — under Article 62 — that justifies its participation in Belize v. Honduras (Sapodilla)?

Everything that comes next flows from this single judicial answer.

II. The Four Central Questions Before the ICJ

The judges now face four intertwined questions, each of which carries consequences for Belize.

1. Should Guatemala be allowed to intervene?

Guatemala argues that its territorial case against Belize includes the Sapodillas and that a ruling between Belize and Honduras could affect its interests. Honduras rejects this outright. Belize does not object — but insists that intervention must not complicate or delay a final settlement.

2. If intervention is allowed — what form will it take?

Under ICJ practice, intervention can take different forms:

• A full party to the case (rare, and only if all parties agree — which Honduras does not).
• A limited Article 62 intervenor, allowed to present arguments but not to expand the case.
• A jurisdiction-only intervenor, restricted to legal interests but barred from merits submissions.

Guatemala wants meaningful participation. Honduras wants no participation at all. Belize wants clarity and efficiency.

3. Will the ICJ coordinate both territorial cases?

Belize is the only State asking the Court to treat the two cases —

(1) Guatemala v. Belize (2019) and

(2) Belize v. Honduras (2022) —

in a way that prevents duplication, repetition, and confusion.

Belize proposes back-to-back merits hearings, allowing judges to deliberate on overlapping issues without delay.

Guatemala is open to this.

Honduras has no interest in linking its case to Guatemala’s.

4. How will the Court handle Honduras’s “new claims”?

Belize raised two important red flags:

• Honduras’ late introduction of “traditional fishing rights” claims;
• Honduras’ argument that Sapodilla features are “rocks under Article 121 of UNCLOS”, not islands.

Belize warned the Court that these claims were:

• Not negotiated under the Pact of Bogotá (a requirement),
• Not part of the original proceedings,
• And risked expanding the case beyond its intended scope.

How the Court handles these matters will affect the structure of the sovereignty phase.

III. Three Possible Outcomes — And Their Impact on Belize

The ICJ now deliberates. For Belize, the Court’s ruling will fall into one of three broad outcomes, each with different consequences.

Outcome A: Guatemala’s Intervention Is Fully Accepted

This would create a tri-state proceeding.

What it means for Belize:

• The case becomes more complex.
• All three states argue overlapping historic and legal claims.
• The Sapodilla sovereignty question becomes part of a broader territorial picture.
• The final ruling would likely be more comprehensive — resolving all competing claims at once.

Advantages:

• Greater finality.
• Transparent airing of all claims.
• Reduced risk of inconsistent judgments.

Risks:

• Longer hearings.
• Expanded evidence requirements.
• Possibility of Guatemala reframing core arguments.

Outcome B: Intervention Accepted, but with Strict Limits

This is increasingly likely.

Guatemala would be allowed to:

• Present legal arguments,
• Identify its interests,
• Seek protection of those interests,

—but not to:

• Become a party,
• Submit a competing sovereignty claim,
• Or expand the scope of the case.

What it means for Belize:

• Belize maintains control of its case against Honduras.
• Guatemala participates only to ensure its rights are not prejudiced.
• The Court may still coordinate the two cases for efficiency.

Advantages:

• Keeps the case focused.
• Preserves Guatemala’s ability to safeguard its claims without derailing Belize v. Honduras.
• Court gains clarity from all three states.

Risks:

• Guatemala could still file persuasive legal briefs.
• Cross-fertilization between the two cases could alter narrative emphasis.
•  

Outcome C: Guatemala’s Intervention Is Rejected Entirely

This means the Sapodilla case proceeds strictly as Belize v. Honduras, while the separate Guatemala–Belize case handles Guatemala’s broader claims.

What it means for Belize:

• The Sapodilla dispute becomes a clear, two-party case.
• Faster proceedings.
• No new arguments from Guatemala in this file.

Advantages:

• Simplicity.
• Speed.
• Tighter focus on Belize’s historical and post-independence control.

Risks:

• Guatemala’s own claim to Sapodilla would still be heard — later — in the main case, potentially prolonging the overall territorial picture.
• Belize would need to defend Sapodilla twice — once against Honduras, later against Guatemala.

IV. How This Decision Shapes Belize’s Sovereignty Strategy

Belize entered the hearings with a disciplined, confident approach:

• Open to Guatemala’s intervention — if useful.
• Determined to keep the Sapodilla case narrow.
• Focused on gaining a complete, efficient, final resolution of all external claims.
• Committed to international law as the vehicle for peace.

This posture has earned Belize significant respect. It contrasts sharply with Honduras’s resistance and Guatemala’s alarmed assertions.

Whatever the Court decides, Belize must now prepare for:

• A complex, multi-phase litigation period

• A need for unified domestic messaging

• Diplomatic vigilance in the region

• National education on borders and treaties

• The likelihood that final decisions may come 2–3 years from now

V. What Belizeans Should Expect Next — The Real Timeline

The public must understand that ICJ timelines are slow, methodical, and rule driven.

Now that the hearings have ended:

1. ICJ deliberates (weeks to months)

No public hearings.

No updates.

Only silence until the Court issues an Order.

2. The Court issues a written ruling on intervention

This will determine the architecture of the case.

3. Scheduling of merits hearings

Depending on the ruling, the Court sets dates for:

Merits of Belize v. Honduras (Sapodilla);

And perhaps coordinating with the merits of Guatemala v. Belize.

4. The full sovereignty phase begins

This is where maps, history, colonial treaties, and state conduct come into sharp focus.

VI. What Belize Must Prepare For Now

A. Legal Readiness

Belize’s team must prepare both for:

• A bilateral fight with Honduras, and/or
• A tri-state proceeding involving Guatemala.

B. Diplomatic Messaging

The Briceno Administration must maintain:

• Calm messaging,
• Legal consistency,
• Zero political theatrics,
• Respectful diplomacy.

C. Public Education

Belizeans need clarity — without exaggeration or fearmongering — about:

• What the ICJ can and cannot decide,
• Why the Sapodilla case matters,
• How borders are determined under international law,
• And how sovereignty is protected beyond public hearing theatrics.

D. National Unity

Territorial issues demand cross-party consensus.

Belize cannot allow domestic politics to undermine its international posture.

VII. A Historic Moment Ahead

The hearings have ended — but the decisive phase begins now.

The Sapodilla Cayes, small in size but enormous in sovereignty significance, are once again at the center of Belize’s territorial destiny. The ICJ’s upcoming rulings will frame how Belize must fight, coordinate, communicate, and defend its national interest.

This is the moment every Belizean must grasp:

The Court’s next decision will determine not who wins or loses — but what the battlefield looks like for the final fight.

Part IV will follow the moment the Court issues its decision on Guatemala’s intervention.

Until then, Belize awaits — standing firm, standing prepared, and standing in sovereignty.