\
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING
NAVIGATIONALAND RELATED RIGHTS
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
MEMORIAL OF COSTA RICA
~J'":
-
•
VOLUME3
(Annexes 30 to 82)
29 August 2006 LIST OF ANNEXES
(VOLUME 3)
Number Description Annexes
Page No
Annex 30 Costa Rica Foreign Minister Lorenzo Montufar
to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Tomas Ayon, 1
February 1870, reproduced in P Pérez Zeledon,
Argument on the Question of the Validity o/ the
Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua (Washington, D.C.:Gibson, 1887) 274-8 .....203
Annex 31 Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ascension Esquivel to Secretary of State in
charge of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Nicaragua, Francisco Castellon, 29 June 1886,
reproduced in Memoria de la Secretaria .de
Relaciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la
Republica de Costa Rica (San José: lrnprenta
Nacional, 1887) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Annex 32 Nicaraguan ~oreign Minister, Francisco
Castellon, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Ascension Esquivel, 3 August 1886, reproduced
in Memoria de la Secretaria de Relaciones
Exteriores y Çarteras Anexas de la Repuhlica de
Costa Rica (San José:Imprenta Naciona1, 1887). . . . . . 217
Annex 33 Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ascension Esquivel to Secretary of State in
charge of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Nicaragua, Francisco Castellén, 19August 1886,
reproduced in Memoria de la Secretaria de
Re/aciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la
Republica de Costa Rica (San José: lrnprenta
Nacional, 1887) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Annex 34 Costa Ricari Foreign Minister, Ascension
Esquivel, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Francisco Castell6n, 31 August 1886,
reproduced in Memoria de la Secretaria de
Relaciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la
Republica de Costa Rica (San José: lmprenta
Nacional, 1887) .......... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229Annex 35 Secretary of State in charge of the Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua, Francisco
Castellém, to Secretary of Foreign Affairs of
Costa Rica, Ascensiôn Esquivel, 18. October
1886, reproduced in Memoria de la Secretaria de
Relaciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la
Republica de Costa Rica (San José: lmprenta
Nacional, 1887). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Annex 36 Letter from Fernando ·Guzman to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, reproduced m P Pérez
Zeledôn, 22 June 1887 Argument on the
Question of the Validity of the Treaty of Limits
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Washinb>ton,
D.C.: Gibson, 1887), 9-11. ....................... 247
Annex 37 Secretary to the Diet of the Mayor Republic of
Central America to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs ofCosta Rica, 27 July 1897, reproduced
in Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, Gracia,
Justicia, Cuitay Beneficiencia de la Republica
de Costa Rica. (San José: Tipografia Nac-ional
1897) 12-15................................... 251
Annex 38 Costa Rican Minister Plenipotentiary Ill
Washington, J.B. Calvo to United States
Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, 17
April 1913, reproduced in The Repub1icof Costa
Rica against The Republic of Nicaragua,
Complaint before the Central American Court of
Justice (Washington, D.C.: Press ofGibson Bros
Inc., 1916), 70-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Annex 39 Costa Rican Minister in Nicaragua, F. Cabezas
Gômez to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Diego
M. Chamorro, 27 April 1913, reproduced in The
Republic of Costa Rica against The Republic of
Nicaragua, Complaint before the Central
American Court of Justice (Washington, D.C.:
Press of Gibson Bros Inc., 1916), 68-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Annex 40 Nicaraguan Ambassador in Costa Rica, Javier
Chamorro Mora, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Bernd Niehaus Quesada, Note No.
E.N.1323/80, 12 November 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
IlAnnex 41 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio
Jiménez,to Nicaraguan Chargé d~Affai ai.eso
Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,Note No.
D.M.l33-82, 8 June 1982........................ 273
Annex 42 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando. Volio
Jiménez,. to Nicaraguan Chargé d'Affaires to
Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,Note No. D.M.
126-82, 16 July 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Annex 43 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio
Jiménez, to Nicaraguan Chargéd'Affaires a.i to
Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,Note No. D.M.
127-82, 20 July 1982 ........................... 281
Annex 44 Nicaraguan Chargé d'Affaires to Costa Rica,
Oscar Ramon Téllez, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez, Note No.
E.N. 789/82, 2 August 1982 ...................... 285
Annex 45 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio
Jiménez, to Nicaraguari Chargéd'Affaires a.i to
Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,Note No. DM
189-82, 19August 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Annex 46 Ambassador of Nicaragua to Costa Rica,
Rogelio Ramirez Mercado, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,Note
No. E.N. 865/82, 6 September 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Annex 47 Costa Riean Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio
Jiménez, to Nicaraguan Ambassador to Costa
Rica, Rogelio Ramirez Mercado, Note No. D.M.
014-83, 8 March 1983 .......................... 297
Annex 48 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Ernesto Leal, to
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Bernd Niehaus
Quesada, Note No. 940284,21 March 1994 ......... 303
Annex 49 Nicaraguan Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Carlos R. Gurdüin Debayle, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lôpez, Note,
No. VM/08/0685/98, Il August 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
IllAnnex 50 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas.,to
Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister, Carlos R.
Gurdian Debayle, Note No. DM-097-98, 12
August 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Annex 51 Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister, Carlos
Roberto Gurdian, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister,Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/98/
02638, 28 August 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Annex 52 CostaRicanForeignMinister,RobertoRojasLOpez,
to NicaraguanForeignMinister,Eduardo
Montealegre,7 September 1998 ................... 325
Annex 53 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. [illegible], 30
September 1998 ............................... 327
Annex 54 Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Walter
Niehaus, to Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign
Minister, Guillermo Argüello Poessy, Note No.
DVM: 607 -99, Il May 1999 .................... 329
Annex 55 Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister, Guillermo
Argüello Poessy, to Costa Rican Deputy Foreign
Minister, Walter Niehaus, Note No. MRE/99/
01347, 12 May 1999............................ 331
Annex 56 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
LOpez,to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Mon-tealegre,Note No. DM-015-2000, 21 January
2000 ........................................ 333
Annex 57 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/DM/3882/
01/00, 28 January 2000.......................... 335
Annex 58 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, Note No. DM-079-2000, 15
February 2000........ ; ........... ___.......... 337
IVAnnex 59 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister
Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. MRE/DM/3965/
02/00, 16 February 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Annex 60 Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the
Organization of American States, Amb. Heman
R. Castro, to the President of the Permanent
Council of the Organization of American States,
James Schofield Murphy, 3 March 2000 ............ 341
Annex 61 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
L6pez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, Note No. DM-125-2000, 10 AprîJ
2000 ........................................ 353
Annex 62 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. MRE/DM/4366/
04/00, 6 May 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Annex 63 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
L6pez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo
Montealegre, Note No. DM-165-2000, 22 May
2000 ........................................ 363
Annex 64 President of Costa Rica, Miguel Angel
Rodriguez Echeverria, to President of Nicaragua,
Amoldo Aleman Lacayo, 28 June 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Annex 65 President of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman
Lacayo, to Presi.dentof Costa Rica, Miguel Angel
Rodriguez Echeverria, 29 June 2000 ............... 375
Annex 66 President of Costa Rica, Miguel Ângel
Rodriguez Echeverria, to President ofNicaragua,
Amoldo Aleman Lacayo, 29 July 2000 ............. 379
Annex 67 President of Nicaragua, Amoldo Aleman
Lacayo, to President of Costa Rica, Miguel
Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, 3 August 2000......... 383
Annex 68 Costa Rican Acting Foreign Minister, Elayne
Whyte, to Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister,
JoséAdan Guerra, Note No. DVM-420-00, 28
September 2000 ............................... 387
vAnnex 69 Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister, JoséAdan
Guerra, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/VM-
JI/483/1 0/00, 18 October 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Annex 70 Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, E1ayne
Whyte, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Francisco Xavier Aguîrre Sacasa, Note No._
DVM-111-01, 18April200l ..................... 391
Annex 71 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Note No. DM-
207-2001, 9 May 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Annex 72 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco Xavier
Aguirre Sacasa, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/DM
JI/0818/08/01, 3 August 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Annex 73 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Note No.
DM-355-2001, 26 September 2001 ............... 409
Annex 74 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas
Lépez,to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman
Caldera Cardena1, Note No. DM-030-2002,
11 March 2002 ................................ 417
Annex 75 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman Caldera
Cardenal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/DM-
JI/481104102, 23 April 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
Annex 76 Costa Rican Embassy in Nicaragua to Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua-General
Directorate for Latin America, Note Verbale No.
ECR-079-5-2002, 21 May 2002 ................... 427
Annex 77 Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister, Salvador
Stadthagen Icaza, to Costa Rican Deputy
Foreign Minister, Elayne Whyte Gomez, Note
No. MRE/DV-Jl/0068/05/02, 27 May 2002 .......... 429
VIAnnex 78 Nicaraguan Ministry -of Foreign Affairs,
Directorate of Sovereignty, Terrîtory and
International Legal Affairs to Costa Rican
Embassy in Managua, Note Verbale No. MRE/
DGSTAJI/335/05/02, 29 May 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Annex 79 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar
Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Nonnan
Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-202-2002, 5
August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Annex 80 . Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar
Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman
Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-462-05, 28
September 2005 ............................... 437
Annex 81 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar
Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Nonnan
Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-484-05, 20
October 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Annex 82 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Nonnan Caldera
Cardenal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Tovar Faja, Note No. MRE/DM-11/
1284/11/05, 9 November 2005 .................... 443
vii Annex 30
Costa Rica Foreign Minister Lorenzo Montufar to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister Tomas Ayôn, 1 February 1870, reproduced in P PérezZeledon,
Argument on the Question of the Validity of the Treaty of Limits between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Washington, D.C.: Gibson, 1887) 274-8 ARGUMENT
ON THE QUESTION OF. THE VALIDITY OF
THE 'TREATY OF LIMITS BETWEEN
COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA
OTHERSUPPLEMENTA POYINTCONNECT \VITHIT,
S'UBMITTED TO THE
Arbitra oiobPresid ofnhUnit Sedate s merica,
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COS'l'ARIOA
BY
PEDRO PEREZ ZELEDON,
IrENvoExTRAOB.D4N:D MINJ.STEB PLB~ll'o'.ŒNTIABY
rnTHE UNITED STA'ES•.
( TIUNSIN&.:1GBJ.1ROI)Jtt(>U2Z.)
\.~,..
WA:SBI.NGTON:
GmsoNBaosPn1887.sD BoorŒINDEBS. 274
No. 56.
.
Remarks made oy the Govem1nent of Oosta Rica to tftf.r:
Government of Nica1•agua wh.en the latter aubmiUed,W.!~~
thP.Nica1•aguan Oongressits8o-call8ddouhts in regard;t.q~
titevalidityof tl&treaty oflimita of 1858.
. .
(SEAL). SANJosÉ, Fel>ruary lat, 1870.
Sm: I have read.'with deep SOITovtthat part of the IDS$~
sage a.ddressed by Your Excellency to theN~ca.r aol:, an
gress, wherein the trea.tof limitsbetween Costa Rica l\.11&:
.Nicaragua.of April15,1858, is discussed. . ::.-
Tha.t passage of Your Excellency's message reads literally
as follows:
· "Al'ticle ·II· of the Constitution No~embe 1r, 1838,.
which was the one in foree at the time in wlrich.the treaty
of limits was adjttsted, declared that the territory oth~
Sliate of.Nica1·a.guwas exa.ctly thesame: asthe territo11
whlch the Province of Nicaragua. had. been.This Province,
befot t~e in.de}Jendence,embraced the whole territoryo~
Guanacaste.
"Article194 provided that, for the amendm.ent of or addi-,
t10n to any arlicle of the Constitution, it should be require«;l.
among ot4er formalities that the said amendment or additiqn
should be approved by the .two-third vote of thSenato~
and Membem p1•esent, and. tbat,. after seouring thisvot~,~
neither the amendment nor the addition sbould be cons.de.ed:
a.forming apart of the Constitutiona.s a.lIaws '?n<lim.it$.
are., until sa.nctioned by the next Legislature.,.
"The same fOl'Dl&litiea.reestablished for similar caby,
Article lOS of the pt·esent Constitution."
"·The treaty of limita, in whj.ch Nicaragua, abrog~ting~
Article II of ber ·constitution, generously cedeto Co~ta.
Rica ·a large portion of teiTitory, which ahe has possessed
quiety, bath bef~ and a.fterthe indep_endencereq,mred·for 205
275
its validittohave beeil. sanctiad bythe next Legislature.
It wa.sapproved by the Assembly of 1858; but t1:latwas not
eliough. ·It ought to have been approvedJ. alsby.the Oon
gress-of 1859,bec~n ahe two Legislatureswere considered
by the Constitution as if they wetwo eo-ord~ egailetive
bodies, the approval by the first being only .ofinitiative
character and lackipg legal force withont the approval of
the second, exactly in the sam.e way a.s the a.ctjon of one
Cbamber in the enàctment of a law mêans nothing if the
other Chamber does not act acc9rdingly. ''
"The said forma.lity~avi negn omitt t~eÎtret, of
·limita lacks legforce,and therefore CostaRica has no right
to dema.nd its execution, because, aceorcto the principles
of the law of nations, treaties are void &)ldinope~hrough
·~b omission of any requisite which, aceording to the Con
stitution of the Sta.te, was necessfo1·it!)Onsummation."
"The Government of Costa Rica. ha.acknowledged. that
this isthecondition.inwhich thea.bove said treaty finds it
self,because in Article VIofa convention ~ütd on the12th
of JUly, 1869, between the Plenipotentiaries· Don. Mariano
Montealegre and Don A. Jimenez, about the cession of the
waters of theColorado riverforthS"purpose tha.they shçnild
be thro'wn·into the San Juan, a convention of which, in due
time, 1 gave you the p1·ope~nforma. iti.knd,Nicaragua
to ratify the treaty of limwith CostaRica, .andto agree to
1
submit to. the arbitra.tion of the Govel'nment of the United
_States. of North· America e:Jlquestions a.riontg ~ither of
the said trea.ty, or of thexecution of the convention just
spoken of.n '
"·Costa Rieai inasking Nicaragua. toratify the trea.tyof
limi ~~ which the la.tter Sta.te ceded to the form~rla.rge
exte:nt oits'territory as prelimmary for aUowing the :waters
of the Colorado river to"be thrown intthe San Jua.n, looked
as if pretending that Nicaragua fust should givitthewhole
thing, and subsequently take back a portiou of it. It ia
uselesa to·repeat heretheobvious reasons which ypu ha;din
Viewfor rejeeting the convention., ··· ·206
276
"In· order to avoiâ perplexities in the couise of thiS:huait
uess, the Executivl'equest:.syHonorable Body to de ,~
weil the rights of the Republic in the matoflimits,:w.i,.;
Oost Rica~ before.u?derta.king worko.d~vis plnsgf.~
the1m .rovem.entof 1t'va.yofco~munica on.thtnoonllf!]\.~
er~ SIe.n . . ·~r::~.~'
This gra.ve subject being.now·under discussionin .t~~
Chambers of yotu•Republic,I think it my duty to pres.m~
to YourExcellenoy~om remarks,and request that, deemtf~~
p1·oper,they be tra.nsmittto the Congress of Nioa.r981u~}.~
fortheilconsid.ero.tion. . · -~~~
The Constitution of our· Republio, promulga.ton 'th~~
12th of November, 1838, as Your Excellency yourseU recog~~~
tiizesdid not sa.anywhert3 thathe territory Guanaoaste,i;
w:as part of Nicaragua. Itconfined-itself to indica.te tha.t>.j
the territoryof'the State was the same as balonged to~.its,'
wheu a Province.
In referencto thisI mua ~tate thatGue.naoaste,inthe.·
timeof the Spanisb Governm~ a.tays wa.snnder theim.:
ruediatejm·isdiction ancontrol of Oa~o; and. thathe
-Spanish Cortes, whenthey promulgated. thConstitution of ·
1812 ~ecideclthatGuana.ca.ste should be incorpora.t-.in.
Costa. Rica. for the purposes of. electing deputies both for
theC01-tesand forthe p1·ovi.ncideputation oassembly..·.::
I must say further, that accordito the charter of ·the!
Colony of Costa Rica., theKing of Spain appointed Don
Diego Artieday Ohirinos tope the first Governor a.Cap,.:.
tain-Generalo~ this Province, marking as limit for the sa.m.e.
the .San Juan riveon theAtla.ntic.
But there are other conclusive reasons founded udoc~
muents ofsubsequent datem support of the trea.ty of limitS.'
It was·approved by the Gove~ent of Costa Rie& an&
Nicaragua..
Itwas ratifieby the Congresses of Costa.Ricaand Ni~·
aragua. ~.
The rs.tifiea.tionsof treatywere duly exchanged, andthe treaty wapromulg~ i~doth Republics. as the lof
the la.ndin regarta~ts. · ·
Thirreen years .have el&psed eince that publico.alln, and.
·theLegislaturewhich h_avemet during. tha.t period bave
looked at that treaty as the: basis of the relations between
both countrles.
The L·egislature Nicaraguaapproved thetreatof pea.ce
and amity oQncluded on the 30th of July, ·1868,taking
for grantedthat, the limite .between boRepu blies were
s.ettled. ·
The present OonstitutionNicara sgbsqqent in.date:
to the trea.ty,aainsitArtic I~~eha he laws on .limita
ma.ke a.pal't of the Constitution.
The tJ:eaty herein referrecl to is a Nica.raguan law on limite,
and. a law of the highest importanTherefore. it is a.nin..
tegral part of the Constitution of Nicaragua, acoording toits
own liters.l'language.
Under theseoircumsta t.encugss~Chambers of you1·
Republie would ne~d beforedeclaring·thetreaty of limits
to:he~nval tide,investedwithail thepower which Jour
Excellency saytobeindispen toamblnd.theCo11stitntion
of your country, in additto a.lother circumstancepre~
scribedbyinteruatio toaivaliate a treaty signed, ap'"
prove rtfied, e:xchanged, promulgated,exe(!utedduring
13 y~ara. ·
Your Excell~ eces to a project of Conventioçele~
brated on the 21et oJuly,1869, between the Plenipoten
tia.riésDon Agapito Jimenez a1d on Mariano ){ontealegre.
ArtioieVI of thes~d project alJ!lded·byYour Excel
·lencys~ys :The Govern,ment ofNièn.ra.g.atifies by this
convention the treatiwhichit has celebrated in·regard to
lirn ii:~the .Government of Costa Rica..,
1 do not understand whatwas the ressonwhy the Costa
RicatiPlenipotentiaracced todsubsoribeto auch an a.rti
.. included ina.projeetwhiohwas relativto a.matteren.
tb:ely independentof aJlquestion olî!niisbut I under· stand very well that the sa.id article does not prove at~·a.U.
thatthe trea.ty.of limi.tsis .va.lid. :.
Seîior Montealegre, Plenipotentiary of Nicaragua, came tq·~
· suggest thàt Costa. Rica should allow the wa.tèrsof theColQ.::·
1·adoriver tobe ca.r1iedinto the San Juan. f
He recognized.the validity of .the treaty of limits, and·
1·eqnestedthat the wate1-sof the Colorado river be granted to~
his country, and the request was granted by ·tbeCosta. RicaJi
Plenipotentiary, who aaseuted,.furthermore, to the ena.ctment
of ArticleVI above copied. .
But the sa.id·p.rojet.convention, including iteArticle VI,
wa.snot ratined by the Congr~ .ofthis Republic; a.nd,there~
fo1·e,ithas no more force.and stl·engththa.nifitwere s~ply
blank. paper. . ·
To have some right to argue aga.inetCosta. Rica.on the
ground of the said convention, it wonld be necessary for the
convention to have become a.la.wwhich .never happened. :
Now, by virtue of the disCJ:etionary faeulties vestein th~.
President, His Excellency h&{J the power. to ra.tify publiC:·
treatiea but Hia Excellency has .not only refus te~ra.tif;'
the convention refe.lT·et.1but has been pleased basides .-té'
decree that it ·isinvalid and void.
Be pleased to a.ccept the consideration with whioh I have
the honor to assure Yonr Excellency tha.t I am your mo.s1i
attentive servant,
MONTUFA.R.
To His Excellency TaE MINISTEB OF FoBEIGN RBLA.TIONBo~
Nicaragua. Annex 31
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Ascension Esquivel to Secretary
of State in charge of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua,
Francisco Castellôn, 29 June 1886, reproduced in Memoria de la Secretaria
de Relaciones Exteriores y Carreras Anexas de la Republica
de Costa Rica (San José:Imprenta Nacional, 1887) TRANSLATION
Secretariat of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Costa Rica
National Palace
San José,June 29, 1886
Dear Minister:
1 have been honoured to receive the kind dispatch of Your Excellency
dated June 5th in which Your Excellency infonns me that through "the Official
Daily La Gaceta" of this Republic you have been infonned of the provisions of
my Govemment relating to the establishment of a guard [resguardo] at the mouth
of the Colorado river with the faculty to cross the San Juan, the Colorado, the
Sarapiqui and the San Carlos rivers as weil as of the foundation of a colony on the
left bank of the Colorado river itself. Your Excellency adds that, having
challenged the validity of the treaty of limits of April 15 of 1858 and having
admitted the status quoof the matter, it is expected that none of the parties shall
execute acts that otherwise modify the treaty, thus making the parties appear as if
they were resolving matters on their own; and that,. even white assuming the
alleged validity of the treaty, the agreement relating to the navigation of a national
steamer on the waters of the San Juan authorizes.an act contrary to said treaty.
Your Excellency concludes by proposing to this Govemment to submit the issue
of the validity of the Caftas-Jerez treaty to the arbitration of any of the Presidents
of the United States of America, the United States of Mexico, Chile, or the
Argentine Confederation; and in the meantime, a request is made to suspend the
execution of the abovementioned provisions.
Before responding to Your Excellency on the ~eri tfsthe matter, 1must
express that, by issuing these provisions, my Govemment never thought that they
could be misconstrued by Your Excellency's Govemment. Costa Rica is eager to
preserve the most sincere hannony and the most perfect cordiality with its sister
Nicaragùa, and to this end, it would not have hesitated to abstain from any act
that, to the extent of its knowledge, may have rekindled the old matter of limits,
a perennial cause of disagreement between the two peoples. Guided by the samè
spiritof conciliation, my Government would not hesitate to withdraw from its
actions should it have the slightest doubt about the legitimacy and justice of its
acts, or should it be convinced that such acts violate other party's rights or a
promise or obligation of Costa Rica.
Although my Govemment disapproves the fact that the Govemment of
Your Excellency has objected the provisions under consideration, it is fully
convinced that, by putting forth said provisions, it has done nothing else but toexercise an evident right, and that said provisions do not affect either the rights or
the interests ofthat Republic.
The treaty of April 15 of 1858 was celebrated after very extensive
discussions on the limits between bath Republics; the rights of each Republic
were well known and had been claimed repeatedly; Costa Rica claimed its natural
limits; the Canas-Jerez treaty, by means of settlement, distanced Costa Rica from
such daims and forced it to waive a considerable portion of the territory that it
claimed to be its own. That convention was approved by the Legislative Body of
Costa Rica and by a Constitutional Assembly of Nicaragua; their ratifications
were exchanged in an extraordinary and solemn fashion as such exchange was
verified by the President of Costa Rica and the President of Nicaragua assisted by
their respective Secretaries of Foreign Affairs; the treaty was published as laws of
both countries, and it was faith:fully observed as such for a period of thirteen
years, and during this time none of the Public Powers ofNicaragua ever expressed
any fear about its invalidity. ltwas not until 1871 when the validity of this
convention was cast to doubt by the Govemment of Your Excellency, alleging
reasons that 1do not deem convenient to challenge now. Since theo, Costa Rica
has affirrned and alleged that such convention is valid; but as our Govemments
were not able to come to an understanding on this matter, it was agreed to
maintain the status quo at the Rivas confe.rences celebrated between the
Presidents of both Republics. What should be understood by status quo in this
case? Nicaragua bas not defined it in a uniform manner; but Costa Rica has
always alleged fairly enough that the status quo is not nor can itbe other than the
observance of the treaty of 1858.
Indeed, Minister, a convention does not cease to be valid by the simple
fact that one of its parties daims its invalidity, and it is not appropriate to retum
to the old state of affairs on!y because one of the parties decides to question the
legal existence of the treaty: this would equal to makîng effective an invalidity
that is denied by one of the parties and to recognize the matter under discussion
as true. Under the treaty of 1858, Costa Rica is in legitimate possession thereof,
and as long as there is no judgment that annuls this document or provided that it
is notdispossessed thereof, it may exercise acts of sovereignty of any kind on the
territory attributed to it by the treaty and that territory bas never ceased to be in
its possession.
Furthermore, there are but only two solutions to this matter: either the
possession prior to the treaty of 1858 is accepted, in which case Costa Rica would
have the right to its natural limits along the banks of the lake and the San Juan
river in ail their extension, stretching up to the La Fior river, or the possession held
by Costa Rica and Nicaragua after 1858 is respected in virtue of the treaty. It is
true that Costa Rica has abode by the solution which least favours its interests but
which is more in agreement with the fidelity and observance of public treaties. 211
It would be erroneous otherwise to affirm that Nicaragua has never
defined the status quo as it is understood by Costa Rica; it has defined it in the
aforementioned manner severa! times, although on sorne occasions, especially
when the same issue ofinvalidity or valîdity ofthe convention has bèendiscussed,
it has made careful use of the vague phrase status quo of the matter. My
Govemment could cite numerous communications and official documents issued
by the Government of Nicaragua in which agreement is expressed for the status
quo as defined by Costa Rica, which is only fair and logical. Among other matters,
the lettersof His Excellency Mr. Rivas ofNovember 12 of 1874 and January 2 of
1875, bath of which made daims against acts of this Government which
purportedly exceeded the demarcation line of the treaty of limits, expressly
recognîzed the status quo of the treaty. When in 1880 my Govemment proposed
to Your Excellency that your Government put forth an initiativeta terrninate said
treaty and ta retum to the previous state of affairs, Nicaragua made no objection
in the sense of not recognizing the possession pursuant to the treaty; His
Excellency Mr. Rivas himself was contented when he asked what is it that Costa
Rica understood by the previous state of affairs, and implicitly recognized,
therefore, tht we were not in that previous state of affairs but in the state of affairs
established by the treaty of limits.
Even if those documents did not exist, there is a formai and solernn
recognition by Nicaragua of the status quo, just as Costa Rica has always so
alleged. Article 5 of the treaty of January 19 of 1884 concerning the guarantee of
dividend from the Canal and signed by Mr. Castro and Navas, the respective
Plenipotentiaries of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, states: "It is understood that this
covenant shall not affect at ali the validity of the Canas-Jerez Treaty, which Costa
Rica daims, nor the status quo of the observance of said treaty celebrated by bath
Republics". Is a more genuine recognition desired? ltis true that this treaty was
never exchanged; but the status quo was not agreed upon then; it was mentioned
as reference and as a fact alien to the treaty itselfwhile taking for granted that bath
Republics bad reached an agreement based on it.
As the status quo consists in the observance of the treaty oflimits, evident
as it is, Costa Rica has absolute possession over the Colorado, San Carlos and
Sarapiqui rivers, which are and have always been Costa Rican rivers, in addition
to the fact that Costa Rica bas exclusive possession over the Colorado delta up to
Punta de Castilla. Therefore, by establishing a guard [resguardo] at the mouth of
that river and by allowing the foundation of a community on its left bank, Costa
Rica bas done nothing but ta make use of îts own territory and none of those
measures may affect other party's rights.
As for the provision that allows a national vessel ta run the course of the
San Juan river in the section where that is navigable for Costa Rica, said provision
is not unlawful with respect ta the rights ofthat Republic either. It is true that the
treaty of 1858 reserves to Nicaragua the full dominion over the waters ofthe San
Juan river, but it is no Jess true that Costa Ricans, by virtue of the treaty, maynavigate the river for commercial purposes, and that the Govemment of Costa
Rica is entitled by the treaty to the same navigational rights with ali kinds of
vessels, for if it is to fulfil the obligation imposed on it and which it expressly
recognizes of contributing to the custody and defence of the river in case of
externat aggression, it is dear that it has the right to make use of the indispensable
means to comply with that duty. Furtberrnore, the vesse! that is to navigate the San
Juan shall limit itself to use the waters ofthe river to cross from one to the other
Costa Rican river and it shall not exercise any jurisdictional act over them.
The foregoing considerations, Minister, leads this Govemment to believe
in full conviction that the acts challenged by Your Excellency faU within the
sphere of its rights; and as much as it would like to tully please Nicaragua and its
illustrious Cabinet, it believes that on this occasion it must not accord the
suspension of the said measures, because such suspension may lead to think that
our rights are weak or that this Govemment distrusts the justice assisting it.
Asper the proposai ofYour Excellency requesting that the validity of the
treaty of 1858 be submitted to arbitration, my Govemment, which has made the
same proposai to your Govemment on severa! occasions, is willing to accept it
and it accepts it withjoy. Even more so, it believes that it is the duty of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua to resolve this matter thro~ gonciliatory and friendly means,
which are the only dignified rneans acceptable for cultivated and sister nations.
Bath nations must put and end to this cause of continuous disputes between
Republics, the interestof both of which is to be in agreement as they share a
cornmon future. ltalso accepts with great pleasure that the President of the United
States of America be the arbitrator in this inatter, whose uprightness, knowledge
and spirit ofjustice are trustworthy, and whom we expect not to decline to provide
such kind of service to two nations of this continent that are sincere and fervent
admirers of the United States.
Having agreed on the matter that is to be submitted to arbitration and on
the election of the arbitrator, the remaining details of the arbitration and the
signing of the corresponding treaty shall be attended to subsequently. To this
effect, my Govemrnent, eager to see the outcome of this matter, will hear with
pleasure any suggestions thatYour Excellency may wish to convey.
1 avait myself of this opportunity to reiterate to your Excellency the
assurances of my hîghest consideration.
Yours truly,
AscenciémEsquivel
To His Excellency the Secretary of State in the
Foreign Affaîrs Office ofthe Republic of Nicaragua.
Managua 1213
REPÙBCAC( RICA.
0=== -==···-=
MEMORIA
dela Secre.aria
HE
REL\ E~XITOYR I OARNE~~XAAS~.
-------~
\.
--·.·--.
San José,Costa Rica.
. ~'-'AA_N1..T
~-'.......... secreta dgtaetaci o n esriflres
dela ReDlibld îeaCostaruca.
PALAClO NAClONAL.
San José,29 de junio de 1.886.
SENOR M.!NISTRO:
He tenido el honor de recibir el atento despacbo de V. E., fechado el 5 del.
que corre. En êlse sirve decirme V. E. que por "La Gaccta Diar:io Oncial" de esta
Republica, se ha împuesto de los acuerdos oe mi Gobierno, relativos al establecimien-·
to cleun resguardo en la boca delrioColorado, con facultad de recorrer el San Juan,.
Colorado, Sarnpiqul r San Carlos,ya la fundaciôn de una colonia en la margen iz
quierda del misnw Colorado. Agrega V. E. que, impugnado de invalida el tratado
de Ifmites de 15 de abri! de 18s8, y admitido el statu quo de la cuestion, ha del1ido es-
perarse que ningunn de las partes ejecute hechos que de algun modo lo modifiquen
y la hagan aparecer resolviendo por sy;que aun supuesta la validez del tratarlo, el
acuerdo referente â que un vapor nacional navegue lm;aguas del San Juan, autoriza
un neto no consentido por dicho tratado. Concluye V. E. proponiendo a este Go
bierno que se someta al arbitramento de cualquicm de los I)residentes de los Estados
Unidos de América, de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Chile 6 la Confederaci6n
Argentinl!-, la cuesti6n de validez del trmado Canas-Jerey,entre tanta, pide que se
suspenda la ejecuci6n deJasdisp6siciones :iludidas.
Antes de responder aV. E. en Jo principal, debo m:mife.<>tarleque, al dicta.r
esas providencias, mi Gobicmo jamâs previ6 que elias pudieran prodncir mala impre
sion en el de V. E. Costa Rica esta muy deseosa de consenrar con su herm.:1na
Nicaragua la mâs sincera armonfa y la cordialidamAs perfecta, }'con ese proposito,
no habrla vacilado en abstenerse de cualquier acto que en la medida de su previsi6n,.
hubiera podido despertnr la aiieja cuesti6n de lfmites, causa perenne de desacuerdo
entre ambos pueblos: .Guiado por cl mismo espiritu cie conciliaci6n, r'nîGobieno
tendrla embarazo alguno en volver sobre sus pasos, si llegara. à adquirir la mas ligera.
duda acerca de la legitimidad y justicia de S\lactas,ô si llegara a convencerse de
que ellos vulneran un derecho ajeno 6 violan una promesa ù obliga.ci6n de Costa
Rica.
M;u; aulique mi Gobierno altamente deplora que los acuerclos mencionados
encuentren objecîon enel de V. E., esta plenamente convencido de que al dicta.rlos
no ha hecho mas que ejercitar un derecho evidentey que el!os en nadrr afectan nî los
derechos ni los intereses de esn Repùblica.
El tratado de 15 de abril cie 1858 fuécelebrado después cle larguisimas disç:u
siones entre ambas Republicas, respecta de .sus Hmitesj se conocîan muy biey se
hablau alegado repetidamente los derechos de cacia una; Costa Rien reclamalla sus
!fruites naturales; el trntCafias.J erez, por vin..de transacci6n, : de ellosy !a
hizo renuncîarauna comiderable porci6n del territorio que aiegab ser suyo; es:
convenci6n fué aprobada por el Cuerpo Legislative de Costa Rica y por una Asam·
blea Constituyente de Nicaragua; sus ratificacionefucron canjeadas de un modo
extraordinariy solemne, pues verificaron el canje los dos President-es de Costa Rica
yNicaragua, asistidos 'de sus respectives Secretad~osRelaciones Exteriores; se pu·
blic6 el tratado como ley de ambos pafsef,por espac10 de trece afws fué fiehnente
observado como tai, sin que durame ese tiempo ningm10 de los Poderes Pûblicos de
Nicaragua llegara aexpresnr ningûn temor ac~rc da su nulidad. No fuésino en
t87I cuanclo la validez de esa c01wenci6n fuérevocada â duda por el Gobierno de
V. E.,. alegando razones qve llOcreo del ca!;Ocombatir ahora. Cozta Rica, desde
enton ces ha afumado y sostenido que tal çonvenci6n es dJida; mas corna no pudieron
entenderse sobre esepUl1tOnuestros dos Gobiernos, se convino desde las conferencias.
de Rivas, celebradas entre los Presidentes de ambas Rep(iblicas, en mantener el
statuIJIIO.<:Quédebia ent~ncl por sate quo t;nes~ ceso? Nic:1ngua no lo ha
definido de un modo umfonne; pero Costa R1cn.stempre ha nlega.do, con sobrada justiciu, que elstaft1 quno es ni puede ser otro que la obseryancia de! tratado de
1858
' . En efecto, seiior Ministrconvna no·eejnde ~erialia pnr el simple
becho de que una de las partes reclame su nuhdad, y no ha de volverse al eando
torior de cosns tan solo porque de un lado !âeponerse en tela de juicjo la exis
tencia legal del tratado:eso equi.valdraadar efectos 6.una nulidad que una de las
partes niega,y areconocer como cterto lo que precisa1nente se discute. · Costa. Rica
.con el tftulo. de r_8s8en la 1nano, se~hposesi6n legitimay mientras no haya
·una sentencta qu,e anule ese docu!l6em1ent~ ~oasa desposefda, puede ejercer
actas de soberama, de toda espec1e, sobre el terntono que el tratado le atribuye y que
nunca ha dejado de poseer.
Por otra p_arte, no haymas que dos soluciones posibles en este neg6.se ·
acepta la posesi6n antero.tratado de 18s8, y en ese caso Costa Rica tendrfa de·
rechoa sus !Imites naturales de las orillas yede las.del no San Juan en tocfu
su extensi6n y podrla llegar hasta el rio La Fior, 6 se respeta .]a posesiôn que han te
nido Costa Rica y Nicaragua después de 18s8, en virtuel del traCosta Rica se
ha atenido, (.verdad, â!a soluci6n que favorece mcnos sus intereses, pero ti.la que
mis de acuerdo se halla con la fidelidad y observancia de los tr:ttados pûblicos..
Seria errado, podo demis, afirmar que"Nicaragua nunca ha definido statu
quo como Costa Rica lo entiende; Jo ha definido asl numerosas veces, aenoca·
siones, especialmente cuandse ha discutido el mismo pnnto de nu.l6dvalidez de
la convenci6n, ha hecho uso cuidadosamcntc de la "frasevastaltt quode la mts
;tio11Mi Gobiemo podr!a citar multitude comunicaciones y documentas oficiales,
·emanados del de Nicaragua, en los cuaks se asientstat.fto~ta! como lo clefine
Costa Ri(:a y como es ldgiyojusto que sea.Fuera de muchas otras,las notas del
.Excmo. sefior .Rivas 12de noviembrc de r874 y2 de enero·de 1875, que reclama
ban contra actas de este Gobierno, ejecutados, dedasc, mâs a.llâ de la Hnea que de
marca el tratado de lfmites, exp.resamente rcconodestatufJUO del mismo tr:l:ta
do. Cnando en t88o mi Gobiemo propuso al de V. E. que se hieiera una iniciativa
por parte del de V. E. 6.fin cie rescindir el mencionado tratado y volver al estaclo que
antes de éltenîal; casas, Nicaragua no hizo objeci6n alguna en el sende des·
conocer laposcsi6n conforme al tratado; el mismo Excn10 seiior Rivns se content6
con preguntar qué entencHa.Costa Rica por el estado anterior de cysreconociô
impHcitamente, por Jo tanto, que no nos hallabamos en el estado anterior de cosas
sino en d estado de casas que :megl6 el tratado de limites.
Pero aun cuando no existieran esos documentahay un reconocimiento ·for
mal.y so.lemnc, de parte de Nicaragua,stah1 quqtal co_mo!o haa.lega ~di~empre
.Costa R1ca..En el tratado de 19 de euero de 1884, .relabvo a garant1zar div1dc.ndo
del Canal, firmado entre los sei'iores Castro y Navns, Plenipotencirespectiva
mentc:: de Costa Rica y Nicaragua, se dijo en el a.rd5~lEs entendido que este
pacto no debe afectar en nadel tratadoJerez-Cai'ias cuya v:ilidez sostiCosta
Rica,. ni statquo de la observancia de dîcno tratado en ~tan convenidas am
bas Repûblicas"...:Sequiere un reconocîmienmâs ingenuo? Verdad es que esc
·tratadono llega canjcarse; pero el stfJUOno se convenfa entoncesse habl6 de él
por referencia, como de un. hecho extralio a_Jra.tado,ydando por sentado que
.sobre él,;stabya convemdas ambas Repubhcas.
Si pues el statu quo consiste en !a observancia de! tratado de !Imites, como es
de toda evidencia, Cost:1 Rica tiene absoluta propiedad en lriosColorado, Sarr
Carlo:; y Sampiqul,que son y han siempre sido rios costnrricenses, y le pert.:necen
adcmas cxdusivamente el deltn. del Colorado hasta l.:tPunta de Castill<J. Por lo tan.
to,t~ stlblecer un ,resguardo en la boca de esy al permitir que se funde una po
blaciôn en su margen ÎZ(jtlicrda, Costa Rica no ha hecho tnâs que disppll.rsu
propîo territorio,ninguna de esa.s medidas puede vejar derechos ajenos.
En cu:mto al at;ucr(JUCdispone que un buque nacional recorra el San Juan
e:1laparte que es na\'cgable pttra Costa Rica, tampoco es atentatorio contra los dere
chos de esa .R.epublicCierto que el tratado de 1858 reseraaNicaragua el sulllo
im·,,erio sobre his aguas delJuan; pero no lo es menas que los costarricerenes,
virtuel de 61, puedennavegar en ell'lpara objetos de comercio, y que el Gobierno
(\e Costa Rica tiene, por el mismo tmtaclo, igual derecho de navcgaciôn cou toc!a
clasecienaves, pues si se Je impone obligac qu6n epresamente reconoce,de concurrir â la guarda delyaiosu defensa en caso de ataque exterior, es claro qv.e
riene derecbo de emplear los medios indispensables para llenar ese rPor otra
pasar de unoparotro de los rios costarricenseyno ejercerâ en elias acto alguno
jurisdicciona1.
Las consideraciones expuestas, sefior Ministre, traen al anima de este Gohier
no la plena convicci6n de que los actas que impugna e.lde V. E. se hallandclntro
cireulo de sus derechos; y pmas que desea complacer en todo :i NicaraguiifU·.
ilustradoGabinete, estima que en este caso dcbe no acordar la suspension de tales
medidas,. porque de esa suspensi611podrfa deducirse que nuestros derechos. son débj-
les6que este Gobiemo desconfia de la justicia que Jeasiste. ·
En cuanto ala.proposici6n dV. E. de que se sometà arùitramento el punto
de va.lidez del tra.tado de 1858, mi Gobiemo, que en ocasiones numerosas ha hecho
cree que es un deber de Costa RicylNicaragua el poner, por esa. vfa conciliayora
amignhle, la unica digna de pueblos cultesyhermano.s, punto finalesa causa de
continuascontiendas entre Republicasa quiencs tanto înteresa marchar de acuerdo
y â quienes el parvenir reserva una suerte êomûn. Acepta asimismo con sumo agra
do que sen arbitre de la cuesti6n el sefior Presidente de los Estados Unidos de Amé
rica, en cuya rectitud, iJustracyespfritu justiciero tiene absoluta confiynde·
quien es de esperar que no se negaaprestar este bondndosservcioa dos naciones.
de este continente, amigas sincerns y fervientes admiradlossEstados Unidos.
Convenidos, pues, sobre el punta que ha. de someteaarbitramentoy sobre
elecciôn de arbitre,s61o faltarla arreglar los demâ.s dedellarbitrajefirmare1
al desenlace. de este asunto, oira. con placer lasindicaciones que quiera hacer
leV. E.
Aprovecho esta oportunidad para renovarV. E.las seguridades de distingui·
da consideraci6n con que me suscribo su atento y obsecuente
servidor.
AscENsi6N EsQUIVEL.
A s.E.eisen. sreere laeriotednotdçspacdltul
Retacio EneerîiJ Iu1aReunm acDai&ara .m
Managua.. Annex 32
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco Castellôn, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Ascensiôn Esquivel, 3 August 1886, reproduced in Memoria de la
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriorey Carieras Anexas de la Repûblica de
Costa Rica (San José: lmprenta Nacional, 1887) TRANSLATION
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua
Managua, 3 August 1886
SIR:
This Ministry bas the honour of having received the letter Your
Excellency addressed to me, dated 29th June, in reply to my letter of the fifth
of the same month, in which, with respect to certain stipulations issued by the
Govemment of that Republic concerning the waters and territories of the San
Juan and Colorado Rivers, a proposai was put forward to submit the long
standing question of the validity of the treaty of 1858 - on which the two
Republics have not managed to reach a satisfactory agreement - to arbitration;
and itîs requested, in the fratemal and positive interests of Nicaragua and
Costa Rica, that the executionof the said regulations be suspended in order to
avoid the repetition of a debate that, without, to date, having resulted in any
outcome whatsoever, could disrupt the hannony between the two States.
Your Excellency infonns me that your Govemment has not the least
doubt asto the legitimacy and fairness ofthese acts, and that they do not violate
any right whatsoever, or any of Costa Rica's promises or obligations, and that
it cannot, therefore, undo any of these measures, despite its spirit of
conciliation, and it regrets this Republic's objection since it believes it has
exercised an evident right which in no way affects the rights or interests of
Nicaragua.
In support of the faimess of these acts, Your Excellency refers
extensively to the question of the validity of the treaty of 1858, and the
significance that should be afforded the status quo agreed upon.
Your Excellency promptly accepts, on behalf ofyour Govemment, the
proposai to submit the validity of the said treaty to the arbitral decision of the
President of the United States, who is one of those which I had the honour of
putting the proposai to, with the authorization of this Government.
The President of this Republic was surprised to leam that Costa Rica
refuses to suspend the execution of the measures I have mentioned above, and
has instructed me to make it known to that Govemment that he regrets to
inform he is not convinced by the force of Your Excellency's arguments. I find myself in possession of abundant copies of arguments against the
valîdity of the treaty of 1858, to refute Your Excellency's arguments, and that
are in favour of the intelligence Nicaragua has afforded the status quo agreed
upon; however, Your Excellency must excuse me for not putting them fon.vard
for now, on account of the fact that this would, no doubt, fail to lead to any
outcome, and it would be more appropriate to bring them before the arbiter.
The navigation on San Juan waters of a Costa Rican national steamship
carrying armed forces of that Republic - the verification of which this
Government finds particularly surprising- following my aforementioned letter
of 5th June, is an outright violation ofNicaragua's sovereign rights, and cannot
be justified by invoking a treaty the validityof which is being questioned, and
that, even if it were valid, would not be authorized except when, in a given
case, as with ali alliances, Nicaragua would require Costa Rica to comply with
the right, stipulated therein, to concur to its guard and defence.
.The President, therefore, demands Your Excellency's Govemment
withdraw the abovementioned steamship from the waters of the San Juan.
In regard to the other measures, the President believes they ali disturb
the status quo admitted by both Governments. This status quo has never meant
the legitimate or perfect possession of one of the parties of the disputed
territory; since, by its very nature, and, according to that which has been
understood to date, it should consist of both abstaining from undertaking acts
that they bad not previously undertaken. The setting up of other guards
[resguardos] could, perhaps, be judged not a new act since Costa Rica has
previously bad others at different points of the disputed territory; however, it is
worth bearing in rnind that Nicaragua has always protested against the
existence of these guards [resguardos], and, moreover, that the matter is now
one of establishing a community and a port. Once the matter is in the process
of being subrnitted to arbitration, following the consent of both Govemments,
the President'believes that reconsidering ali these measures and agreeing to
suspend their execution in no way compromises Costa Rica's interests.
And trusting that that Govemment shall willingly attempt to overcome
the obstacles its measures provoked, in the honourable resolution of the matters
pending, and in accordance with Your Excellency's insinuation that 1expound
the intentions of my Govemment as to the preliminaries of the arbitration, at
the request of the President, I submit the following for Your Excellency's
consideration:
1°.-The arbitrator shall resolve the question of the valîdity ofthe treaty
of 1858, signed by both Republîcs, in view of the arguments put forward to him
by each one in support of their rights. 2°.- Should the arbitrator declare that the treaty is valid, he shall also
resolve the issue of the interpretation which should be made ofthe clauses that
give rise to doubt, the clarification of which may be required by either of the
two Governments.
3°.- Should the arbitrator declare that the treaty is void, he shall be
required to establish the limits between the two Republics, based on the
documents and daims presented.
4°.- The request which should be made to the President of the United
States of America for his acceptance of the position of arbitrator, and the
manner and presentation of the claims and documents shall be agreed upon at
the Convention held for this purpose.
5°.- This Convention shall, naturally, take place in this city.
With the assurance of my highest consideration, 1 remam Your
Excellency's most faithful servant.
F. CASTELLON
Minister of Foreîgn A ffairs
Republic of Costa Rica
San Jose. REPÙBCAC( RICA.
== --=---~
MEMORIA
cle la Se.retaria
JH:
RELA E XITEYCEIOTARN:S:XA~.
~~...r-•-.. ..
San José,Costa Rica.
--I~.........(ENl' A MiJOO deloelacioE nest~rinres
de laRBDtù dlltaicararom.
Managua, 3 de agosto de J886.
Se ha recibido en este Ministerio la nota que V. E. me hizo el honor de diri
ginne con fec'ha29 de junio proxima pasado, en contestaciona la mfa de cinco del
mismo mes, en la cual, con ocasi6n de algunas disposiciones dictadas por el Gobiemo
de esa RepubJica, relarivan1ente a las aguas y temtorios del San Juan y el Colorado,
se le propane someter âlll'bitramento la antigucuesti6n de ln validez del trataclo
de I858, respecta de la que no han logrado las dos Rept'iblicas llegara un arreglo
y se le pide, finalmente, en nombre de la amistay del interés positive
satisfactorio;.
de Nicaragua y Costa Rica, quo suspenda la ejecuci6n de dichas disposiciones, a fin
de evitar que se repita una discusi6n que, sin haber conducido hasta ahoaresultado
alguno, pudiera turbar la am1onfa entre los dos Estados.
V. E. me maniôesta que su Gobiemo no abriga ni la mas ligera duda acerca
de la legitimiday justicia de esos actay,de que ellos no vulneran derecho alguno,
ni violan promesau obligaciôn de Costa Rica, yque no le es posible, por Jo mismo,
volversobre sus pasos,lipesax del espmtu de conciliaci6n que le anima, deplorando
que sean objetados por el de esta Republica, pues con ellos considerahaber ejercido
un derecho evidente, que en nada afecta ni los derechos ni los intereses de Nicaragua.
En apoyo de la justicia de esos actos, E. considera extensamente la cues
ti6n de la validez del .tratado de t858, y la significaci6n que debe darsestaht fJUll
convenido. . .
En seguida V. E. acepta, en nombre de su Gobierno, la proposici6n de sorne
ter lavalidet de dicho tratada la decision arbitral del sefior Presidente de los Estados
Unidos, que es uno de los que tuve el honor de proponerle con autorizaciôn de este
Gobiemo.
El sen.orPresidente de esta Repub\ica ha•,riscon sorpresa que Costa Rica
se niegue i suspender la ejecuci6n de las medidaa que me he referido, y me ha ins
trufdopara ma.nifestarâese Gobiemo, que tiene la pena de no poder convencerse de
la fuerza de las razones alegadas por V. E.
Para.refutar la argumentaci6u de V, E., me balla en posesi6n de abondante
copià de argumentas contra la validez del tratado de 18s8, y en favor de la inteligen
cia que por parte de Nicaragua se ha dado alstatu quo convenido; pero V. E. debe
excusarme de aducirlos por ahora, en consideraciôna que eso seguramente no con
ducirfaâ ning\in resultadoy seria mis oportuno alegarlos ante el atbitro.
La navegaci6n de un vapor nacional costarricense en aguas delSan Juan, con
fuerza armada de esa Repûblica, hecbo que, con pa.ni.cu\ar extraiide este Gohier
no se ha verificado, despuésde mi nota de 5 de junio antes aludida, es una violacion
ma.nifiesta de los derechos soberanos de Nicaragua, y no puede justificarse invocando
un tratado cuya validez esta en cuestion, Y que, aun v&.lido, no lo autorizarisino
cuando, Uegado el caso, como sucede respecta de toda aliaiua, Nicaragua requiriese
a Costa Rica para que cumpliera el deber que. él estipula, de concurria su guarda
y defensa.
Por tanto, el seî'icr Presidente yeclama del Gobiemo de V. E. que retire el
referido vapor de las aguas del San Juan.
En orden â las otras medidas,considera elsefior Presidente que toclas elias
alteran el statrt guo admitidpor ambos Gobiemos. Ese statu 9uo no ba podido
nunca significar la posesi6n legî'tima 6 perfecta de una de )as partesdel territorio
disputado; pues, por su naturaleza, y, segun se ha entendido hastahora, debe con
s]stir en que ambas se abstengan del ejercicio de actas que ·antet:i.ormente no bayan
ejercido. Pu.diera quitas juzgarse qse el estableciiniede otros resguaidos no es
un acto nuevo, desde que, antes de ahora, Costa Rica ha tenido otros en algunos
puntos del territorio disputado; pero convi ene no olvidar que Nicaraguha protesta
do siempre contra laexJstenciade esos resguardos, y que hoy se trata ademlts, del
establecimiento de una poblaci6n y puerto. Una vez que la cuesti6n esta en vfa de
someterse a la decision de un arbitra por consentimiento de ambes Gobiernos, piensa el seiior Presidenque el de Costa Rica en nada compromete sus intereses ni su
honra reconsiderando todas esas medidas y acordando que se suspenda su ejecuci6n.
Y en la confianza de que ese Gobierno se prest:lrâ alla.nar lobs~
caculos que sp:ovide ~nc~i~ a la honrosa soluci6n de las cues~di~~s .
tesy correspondte_nala~u~ci6n dev. E.para que ~~~nga lasD?-di:OCIO
nes que mt GobleJ?O tenga. a bten hacresp~ o preliminaredel.a.ri?tt:raJe,de .
arden del seftor PreSidente, someto â la constderact6n de V. E. las bases stguŒntes:
1-El ârbitro resolvera sobre la validez del ttatado de z858entreebmdo
éstay esa Republica. en Vista de los alegatos que ambas le eneapoyonde
su derecho. _
:!~-E casade queelarbitro declare que el testvâlido, resolverâ tam
biéri sobre la interpretaque deba darseâ las cliusulas que den aduda y
t:U}'auclaracrecl~ caequiera de los dos Gobiernos. _
.3~- Slârbttro declarase que el tratado es nulo, le corressefialar
los limites entre las dos Repiiblicas, con vista de lyalegatos que elias
adur.c'~-La solicicitu? que debdiri~ eJseiior Presidente de los EE. UU. de
o\méricapara su aceptact6n del cargo de ârbttro, y el modo y fpresenta~a
~io ne alegatoy documentas,se arreglarâen la Convenci.on que se celebre al
efectos~-Es Caonvenciôn-sajustarâ desde luego en esta ciudad.
Con muestras deamas alta consideraci6n, me suscribo de Vmas.aten
to ysegura setyidor.
F.CAST.ELL6N •.
! s.E,elsHoM r ini.trRelaciJJnes
ErterioresaBeDfth diCaΠtaiCa.
.. San José.
tlei:redriaelaeioEni3rinres
~etaReDfihdlccasruca.
PALACJO NACIONAL.
SanJosé, 3x de agosto de x886.
H.c tenido el honor de recibir la comundeaV. E., fechada el3 del mes
'[Utermina, en la cual se sirve hacer obseàmi nota. de 29 de junio ultimo
;·proponer algunas bases para ln Convenciôn de arbitraje sobre validez del tratado
de 1BsB.
Como el JO de julio an.terior, V. E. me indic6 el vivo deseo de su Gobierno
de que se enviar:m poderes éinstrucciones al Consul General de Cen esaica.
Rep1\hHca,â :finde hmasrexpedito el arreglo de las dificpendientesy de
porh:r Jlegur mis pronaoun acuerdo sobre las bases de la Convenci6n aryitral,
;;omo el JI del mismo mes proaeV. E., correspondieadsu indicaci6que por
d co;-reo mis pr6ximo se remitirlan al dicho sefior Consul General, poderes éinstruc
.:;onês bustantes para que se eotendiera. con el Gcbierno de V. E., esperaba el mîo
que las .:uestiones suscitadas entre ambes, con motiva de ias medidas cuya suspen
~!o na sido solicimda, y las bases del arbitramento se reserv:uian en un todo â los
l'l:.:nipotenciarios de las dos Republicas .
.lviiGobierno que, después de los tdegramas cruzados, no ten(a motivo paru
..-,;pr1t1d de V.E. io favoredera con la nota que conteste, cree inressario
punder punto por punaosu referida comunicaci6n, pues el seflor Viquez tiene ya
instruo ~aiotat:scon el Gobierno de Nicaragua todos los qE. propane;
1:1:como ia nota dV. .Ec.ontiene apreciaciones t::m.opueques Costa Rk<l. Annex 33
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Ascension Esquivel to Secretary
ofState in charge of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic ofNicaragua,
Francisco Castellém,19 August 1886, reproduced in Memoria de la
Secretaria de Reiaciones Exteriores Carieras Anexas de la Republica de
Costa Rica (San José:Imprenta Nacional, 1887) TRANSLATION
Secretariat of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Costa Rica
·National Palace
San Jose, 19 August 1886.
Dear Minister:
1am honoured to have received Your Excellency's letter of the 2nd of
the current month, in addition to issue No. 618 of the Nicaraguan Dai/y (El
Diario Nicaraguense) attached, which published a letter of the past 12 June
from Mr. Peralta, the Costa Rican Minister in Washington, addressed to Judge
Daly.
Your Excellency declares that this letter contains statements that are
markedly contrary to the truth and to Nicaragua's rights, and puts forward
views that my Government has never upheld and that would hinder the planned
inter-oceanic canal; and thus wishes to know if the aforementioned letter is
authentic and in accordance with ideas and instructions issued by my
Government.
In order to satisfy Your Excellency's wishes, 1should inform you that,
although it was not following the orders or by special instruction of my
Govemment, Mr. Peralta did, in effect, write a letter to Mr. Daly- a copy of
the text in English is annexed - regarding the project of the incorporation of the
Nicaraguan maritime Canal Company. 1 would not be fulfilling my duty with
the openness and sincerity that should prevail over our mutual relations if 1did
not add that Mr. Peralta's letter merits the approval of my Government, since,
having studied it in detail,ind nothing in ithat could be considered markedly
false, nor does it daim rights that the Govemment of Costa Rica has not
defended beforehand. The main purpose of this letter, which can be easily
gathered on reading it, is to draw to the attention of the company's members,
before doing so to the Senate, the fact that Costa Rica constitutes a necessary
part of any company that is set up in order to build an inter-oceanic canal
through the San Juan River. This declaration is not new, and far from being
contradicted, bas been widely recognized by the Govemment of Nicaragua.
Your Excellency is aware that by historical titles and in accordance with public
treaties, Costa Rica is riparian of the San Juan River; is co-owner with
Nicaragua in the San Juan del Norte bay and bas the perpetuai right of
navigation along the aforementioned river; and thus, Mr. Peralta, on appealingagainst the Jackofknowledge regarding our rights in the bill brought before the
Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America by
Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Viele respectively, bas merely fulfilled his duty and
followed general instructions.
This deClaration, which forms the main body of the letter, is, without
doubt, not that which Your Excellency describes as markedly false, since Costa
Rica'sright to participate in the planned canal bas, as already mentioned, been
recognized on severa! occasions by Your Excellency's Govemment. 1presume
that expression refers to the phrase in which Mr. Peralta states that Costa Rica
is sovereign to almost three quarters of the canal tine, and that it is the
measurement the Costa Rican Minister uses to refer to our rights that concems
Your Excellency.
Before explaining the meaning of this phrase, which is certainly vague,
1 feel obliged to inform Your Excellency that it is not the intention of my
Govemment to have more territorial rights, on Nicaragua's side, than those
granted it by the treaty of 15 April 1858, the validity ow hich it uphoIds, and
that, as long as this Convention is not invalidated, shall regulate our
participation in.the canal. The part which corresponds to Costa Rica in this
enterprise cannet be determined beforehand with mathematical precision; it
will increase or decrease depending on the direction the line takes; however, in
order to establish the latter the partthe Costa Rican territory which the canal
or its annexes will occupy should be taken into account, in addition to the rights
that Costa Rica will have to renounce in faveur of the company or as a result
ofthe canal.
This candid declaration on my Govemment's part would render the
discussion on the measurement Mr. Peralta uses to refer to our rights futile;
however, 1 feel obliged to explain his words, which, if misinterpreted, could
lead to the errorof assuming my Governrnent is claiming more than that which
belongs to it.It must naturally be pointed out that Mr. Peralta does not say that
Costa Rica is sovereign to three quarters of the canal line, nor that it is
exclusively so. Nonetheless, since Costa Rica is sovereign to the right bank of
the San Juan River from its mouth up to three miles before reaching Castille
Viejo, in other words, almost three quarters of its length; and as a canal
company would require land on both sides of the line and may occl:lpy,as with
the concession granted in the Zaval-Frelinghuysen treaty, large stretches of
Costa Rican land along the length of the river and the lake, that is, along more
than three quarters of the canal's length, it could be said, in all faimess, that
Costa Rica bas rights along almost three quarters of the canal line.
That is the true meaning of the phrase used by Mr. Peralta; he did not,
and could not, say that three quarters of the canal belong to Costa Rica; he
states, and is right in doing so, that Costa Rica must have joint ownership, and 225
this is why he adds that Costa Rica should be involved in the enterprise "with
the same rights as Nicaragua and certainly with more direct interest than the
United States". If Mr. Peralta bad believed that Costa Rica's interest or right
in the canal could be estimated at three quarters of the same, or even at more
than half, he would have said that it has more rights than Nicaragua to
intervene in the concession. Mr. Peralta was referring to rights to the canalline
and not to proportional participation in the company.
Having clarified this point,1 must insist on a comment made by Your
Excellency: Costa Rica is not trying to hinder the undertaking of the planned
canal, nor is it correct to assume that it should do so since the opening of the
same would greatly benefit it. On the contrary, it has always shown keen
interest that this major project of such vital importance to Central America
should be carried out promptly; and its interest is such that it did not hesitate,
recently, to guarantee, along with the other Central Arnerican States, a fixed
dividend, and it would, for its part, now make the most liberal concessions and
grant ample privileges to any company willing to undertake its construction.
However, one must not confuse the wish to oppose inconveniences to the
enterprise with my Govemrnent's duty to not allow Costa Rica's rights to not
be duly taken into account, and to defend those rights when daims are made to
Costa Rican soil without its prior consent. It would be as inconceivable, on the
one band, for my Government to act against what is evidently in Costa Rica's
favour, as it would be, on the other band, for it to remain silent when its obvious
rights are clearly ignored.
1remain Your Excellency's most faithful servant,
Ascension Esquivel.
To His Excellency
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic ofNicaragua
Managua. .REPÛBCC( .RICA.
==-···-···-'·-
MEMORIA
llF.
R.El ~XCTIYRNA[RRAN ~A:XAS.
-~-----
.--.~·--
San José,Costa Rica.
._--......L. ~]
d!l.Tâ U. esta noticia amlstos.a antes Co1nisi6ndel Senado conozca. del asunto ..
Deseo que ese 11egociosea tratado de un modo conveniente, i fin de e>'Ïtar futuros.
embarazos ala Compania del Canal. Fu{ âver al Almirante Ammen â su despacho·
en el Departamento de Marina, pero élnndaba fuera.
.Con mis respetos â la Sra. Daly, quedo fielmente suyo.
MANUEL M PERALTA.
HonorC abhlerPeDalY Pr,esidente
delaSilcieGdaeogrtfAiearieana.
RecretdarRlela&i onxtsriores
delaIleUOld llcaostRaica.
PALACIO NACIONAL.
San José, agosto19 de1886.
SEFlOR MIN!STRO:
He tenido el honor de recibir la comunicaci6n de V. E., fechel!!del mes.
en curso, Jo mismo que el ejemplarella adjunto den~6J8 de "El Diario Nicara
güense", donde. se publica una carta que el r!! de junio ultimo dirJuez Daly el.
senor Peralta, Ministro de Costa Rica en Washington.
Dice V. E. que esa carta contiene afirmaciones notoriamentcontrarias â la.
verdad y â los dcrechos de Nicaragua, y avanza prctensiones que jam{l.Sha sustenta
do mi Gobierno y que crcarian obstâculos al proye<:tado canal· interoceayique;
instrucciones dmiqGobierno.er si la carta aludida es auysi se confonna ii ideas é
Para satisfacer los deseos de V. E., debo·infotmarle que, aunque no por orden
ni en virtud de instrucci6n especial de mi Gobiemo, el sefior Peralta escribiô efectiva
mente al seiior Daly una carta-copide cuyo texto inglés vâ anexa-sobre el pro
yecto de incôrporaci6n de la Compai1ia del Canal maritimo de NicaraguNo cum
plirla del todo c~afrnnqueza ysinceridad que dcbo::nreinar ell nuestras mutuas re-
1aciones si no anadJcnl que la carta del sei'ior Peralta merece ia aprode min
Gobierno, porque después de examinarla atentamente, hallo que en sustanciaase
vera nada de que pudiera afim1arse que es notoriamenre. yaqne tampoco redan.J;>
derechos que atJtes de ahora, no haya defendido el Gobîemo de Costa RicEl ob
jeta principal de esa carta, como fâcilmente se colîge de su esllamar la atcn
ci6n de los incorporadores de la compafiia, antllamarlaal Senndo, hacia.hc-....:
de que Costa Rica es parte necesaria en cualquiera soci.erla.dque se fom1e para cons
truit un canal interoceânico por via deSanJuan. Esta alcgaci6n nf' c.: •~va,
yantes que contradichaha sido dîversamente.reconocidpor el Gobit>ITJ. '··,cara
gua. V. E. esta enterado de que por dtulos histôricos y de acuerdo co.u tratados
publicos, Costa Rica es rîberena del rio San Juan; que es copropieyacomunera
coll Nicaragua. de la bahia de San Juan del Nyrquè tiene derecho perpetua de
navegaci6n en el expresado r!o; de lllodo que al reclamar el seiior Peraltaelontra
deconocimiento implfdto de nuestros derechos, que envuelve el proyecto de ley pre
sentado al Senadoy Câmara de Representantes de los EstadosUnidos de América,
por los sei'ioresEdmunds J'Viele respectivamente, no ha hecho mâ.s que Ilenar su
deber y ajustarsâ sus instrucciones generales
Esta afiimaci6n, alma. de la carta, no es de seguro la que V. E. califica de no
toriamente falsa, pues el derecho de Costa Râparticipar· en el canal proyectaclo
ha sido-repito-en. multitud de ocasi.ones reconocido por el Gobiemo de V. Su
pongo que esa.cAlificaci6nse resenra para la frase en que incidentalmasegura el
sei'ior .Peralta que Costa. Rica es soberana de tres cuartas partes casi de la lfnea de
canal,y que la·medùln que el Ministro de Costa Rica. dâ.â.nuestros.. derechos. es..Jo,
que choca âV. E. Antes de explicar el sentido de esta frase, realmente vaga, deba anticipar
V. E. que mi Gobiemo no pretenhoytener mis derechos territoriales, por el lado
de Nicaragua, que los que le con_fiereel tratado de 15t8s8,cuya validez·
alega, y que _mientrasesta Convenci6n no se invalide, eUasera .la que regule nuestra
participaci6n en el caLa parteq~ehaya de tocar i Costa Rica en la empresa
no puede fi.jarsede antemano con precision· matematica; aumentari ô disminuiri..se.
gun la direcci6n que siga la lfnea; pero para determinarla deberân tomarse en cuenta
necesruiamente el territorio costarricense 6usus anexos hayan de ocupar,
y los derechos que en favor de la c6mpor causa del canal haya de renundar
Costa Rica. ·
Esta franca declaraci6n de mi Gobiemo harfa inutil hablar de la extensi6n
quea nuestros derechos asigna el senor Peralta; pero debo hacerlo para explicar sus -
palabras, que mal interpretadas, podnan conducir al error de que mi Gobierno re·
dama mâs de Jo que le perteneceEs preciso advertir desde luego, que el seiior
Pern.!ta no dice que Cost:i Rica sea.soberana de tres cuartos .de la lfnea de canal, ni
que Jo sea exclusivamente.Mas como Costa Rica es soberana de la margen de··
recha del San Juan desde su desembocadura hasta tres mil1asabajo del Castilo Viejo,.
es dcdr en tres cuartas partes casi de su yxcomo una compafl!:l..de canal._
necesitari terranunoy otro lado de lmeay puede ocupa:r, con10 sucedla)a..
r:_onc h~sci6l~el trataZava!a·Freli un~grunysxetens d~ôterras de·
Costa Rtca a lo largo del no y dellago, es dec1r, en mas de las tres cua.rtas partes
de la !ongitud del canal, bien~1fim1 sirf.1,ar .laverdail, que Costa .Rica.
tiene derechos en casi tres cuartas partes de la Unea del canal.
Esa es la verdadera siguificaci6n de la frase que emplea el seflor Peralta; él
no ha dicho ni podr.îa decir 6.Costa Ric.1.tocan tres cuartas partes del canal;
asegurayes Io cicrto, que Costa Ric.1. tiene que ser coprde élyrpor eso·
agrega que dcbe figurar en la empresa "con tanto derecho como Nyccierta.··
mente con intermas dîrecto que los Estados UnidSi el sefior Peralta hubiera·
creido que el interés.6 derecho de Costa Rica en el canal podra estimarse en tres..
cuurtas partes, ô en mâs de la mitad siquiera, habria dicho que ctm mds t!ercdto que
Nica:ragua.debfa intervenir en la concEl sei1or Peralta se refiri6 â derechos:·
en la lînea de cayno â.partidpaci6proporcion:û en la empresa.
Hecha esta necesaria aclaraci6n, me permitiré insistir sobre uE:.frase de V.
Costa Rica no tr:ita de presentar obsticu)os i la prâctica del proyectado canal, ni
cabe suponerque lo haga clesde que la apertura de élha de beneficiaPor tanto.
el contrario, en toda ocasi6n se ha mostrado ansiosa de que obra tan magna y de tan
vital trascendencia para Centro Américase lieve â pronto término;y se halla de tai
modo interesada en ella que no vacilô hace poco en garantizar junto con los otros
Estados Centroameric:mos detemli ditie.dooy se apresurarîa ahârhacer
por su parte las mas liberales cony fotorgar amplios privilegies i cualquier
compniiîa que emprendiera su construcPero no hay que confundir cl deseo de·
opotJer incotwenientes :l la empresa con el deber en que sc.haHn:de no.ierno
permitir que los derechos de Costa Rica dejen de tomarse en debida cuenta, y de
protestar esos derechos cuando se trata de disponer del suelo de Costa Rica, sin su
conseutimiento previTan inconcebible serîa la conducta de mi Gobien un
caso, al obrar contra las convenmascclnras de Costa Rica; como seria censu..
mble en el ou-o. al callar ante un desconocinliento de masevidentes.
Con torln consideraci6n me repito de V. E.
· muy atento servidor.
AscE:><si6EsQUIVEL.
ABu Emlene clienaMrinidtroelaclones
Exterio relaRepfib ttcNaicaragua.
Managua .. Annex 34
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Ascension Esquivel, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Francisco Castell6n, 31 August 1886, reproduced in Memoria de la
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la Republica de
Costa Rica (San José:Imprenta Nacional, 1887) TRANSLATION
Foreign Affairs Secretariat
Republic of Costa Rica
National Palace
San Jose, 31 August 1886
Dear Minister:
1 am honoured to have received the letter Your Excellency addressed to
me, dated the 3rd of the current month, in which you comment on my letter of
the twenty ninth of June, in addition to proposing sorne guidelines for the
arbitration Convention on the validity of the treaty of 1858.
Since, on the thirtieth of July, Your Excellency informed me of your
Govemment's fervent wish that powers and instructions be sent to the Consul
General of Costa Rica in that Republic, in order to hasten an agreement on the
difficulties pending, and to be sooner able to reach an agreement on the
grounds of the arbitration Convention; and, since, on the 3lst of the same
month I promised Your Excellency, as per your instructions, that sufficient
powers and instructions would be promptly sent to the said Consul General by
post for him to deal with Your Excellency's Govemrnent, my own Governrnent
believed that the matters that bad arisen between us, regarding the rneasures
whose suspension is required, as weil as the bases for the arbitration, would be
reserved in their entirety for the Plenîpotentiaries of the two Republics.
My Government, which, following the exchange of telegrams, had no
reason to believe that that ofYour Excellency should honour it with your letter
of reply, deems it unnecessary to respond to each and every point of your
abovementioned communication since Mr. Viquez already bas instructions for
discussing ali those Your Excellency proposes with the Govemment of
Nicaragua; however, as Your Excellency's letter contains interpretations that
are so at variance with those which Costa Rica considers its legitimate rights,
and such an unacceptable theory conceming what should be understood as the
status quo agreed upon by both Republics, I consider it important to not waste
this opportunity, at the risk of incurring in excessive repetition, to declare that
which legally corresponds to Costa Rica.
Your Excellency states that the status quo bas never represented lawful
or perfect possessionof the disputed territory by one of the parties since, given
its nature, and according to that which bas been understood to date, it should
consist in both abstaining from carrying out acts that they bad not forrnerlyundertaken; and that, in view of the intelligence, on Nicaragua'spart, afforded
the status quo, Your Excellency finds himself in possession of an abundance of
arguments.
I consider it my duty to inform Your Excellency that Costa Rica has
never accepted any such an interpretation of the statquo ~hat it has, on the
contrary, always claimed that the status quo has been and is no more than the
observance of the treaty of limits; and that, in authentic documents issued by
its Government, Nicaragua itself has, on more than one occasion, agreed with
the intelligence that Costa Rica affords.
The status quo defined by Your Excellency has never existed, nor was
it a possibility for Costa Rica, nor is it in keeping with the nature of things.
Allow me to make the following comments that disprove Your Excellency's
theory.
Prior to 1858 Costa Rica and Nicaragua disputed their respective limits
as sovereign and independent States; sometimes by means of direct
negotiations, other times through commissioners granted full powers, others
when our Govemments attempted to reach an agreement regarding the dividing
line between our two countries; a huge amount of letters were exchanged and
many treaties were signed; however, all this was fruitless. Nonetheless,
negotiations in the year 1858 were more successful, and bath Govemments
signed, ratified and exchanged the Convention of 15thApril; that occasion was
one of genuine jubilation for both Republics; the exchange of ratifications was
an event of great solernnity - a clear indication of how pleased the two
Govemments were to have concluded a matter which had, on more than one
occasion, soured their mutual relations, and that the previous year was on the
verge of provoking a war. Costa Rica claimed propr~ rghtyson a territory
that was even more extensive tha11that which the treaty bad assigned her;
however, in the interests of mutual harmony, with the amicable mediation of El
Salvador, and in keeping with a praiseworthy spirit of reconciliation, she
agreed to renounce part of her rights and settle for the lîne established in the
Convention. Costa Rica believed this lineto be definitively agreed upon, and
the cause of the conflict- in whose deferreethe blood ofher sons hadjust been
spilt -over with once and for ali.
Costa Rica and her Govemrnent were, therefore, naturally very
surprised when, after a period of thirteen years during which the dividing
Convention had been abided by as cornmon law between both States, the
Govemment ofNicaragua raised doubts asto its validity. Costa Rica, who had
signed it underplaying that which rightfully belonged to her and in order to
avoid cause for unrest, could not agree to the nullity of the treaty and to
rekindling a dispute thatt believed to have been resolved without appeal, and, 231
since 1871, due to Costa Rica's refusai to agree to the nullity, the validity, but
only the validity of the treaty, has been called into question: the matter of the
limits themselves has not been reawakened, and it cannat, therefore, be said, as
long as the Convention is not annulled, that there is di,r,putedterritorybetween
Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Should the treaty of lirnits be invalidated, either by
mutual consent of both Govemments or through the decision of an arbitrator,
theo the issue of lirnits shall be taken up once more; in the meantime, the lirnits
are those established by the treaty. To expect otherwise would be to expect
Costa Rica, whilst denying and cornbating the nullity of the treaty, to agree to
its e:ffects.
The posttlon of both Republics is perfectly clear. Nicaragua, for
reasons 1do not consider it appropriate to discuss, clairns the nullity of a treaty
concluded with its due forrnalities, and, despite it having been law for a long
period of time and of having ali the characteristics of a legitirnate act, requests
that it be denied its effects until a judgment does not declare it valid. Costa
Rica, on the other hand, abides by a public treaty that merits being considered
authentic and worthy of respect, especially of the signatories, and that bas
formed and continues to form part of its national legislation, and, logically,
demands that it be abided by and maintained as long as a judgment does not
declare it null and void.
With regard to the two countries' situation from 1858 to 1871, allow
me, Your Excellency, to point out that Nicaragua was the owner of the
territories it was assigned in the treaty of 15th April and that it exercised aH
sovereign acts inposse over them: this was also true of Costa Rica, with respect
to the territories assigned ber: both could set up control points, found colonies,
navigate the rivers, etc., etc., etc. By virtue of what principle are the
sovereign acts, which were not executed infacto by Costa Rica and Nicaragua
until 1871, no longer allowed to be exercised, only because Nicaragua claimed
the treaty was null and void at that time? What doctrine can be presented, what
antecedent could be put forward in support of so strange an interpretation of the
status quo? ln similar or comparable cases, the natural thing would be for the
situation to remain the same as it was at the time the matter arose; the very
meaning of the words status quo say soin no uncertain tenns. Thus, if, in the
year 1871, Costa Rica and Nicaragua bad no impediment.to exercising their
sovereignty over the respective territories, it is clear that neither is this the case
after 1871.
Once again, 1 must declare that after 1858 there is no territory
whatsoever in dispute between the two States, and, bence, there is no reason to ·
restrict their sovereignty over any part of their territory; or is it Nicaragua's
intention that new acts of sovereignty over the territory in dispute prior to 1858
should not be exercised? 1 do not believe this is Nicaragua's intention, since,on this basis, Costa Rica could demand that Nicaragua shall not execute any act
of sovereignty that she would not have executed prior to 1871 over the territory
between the La Fior River and the line drawn from Sapoa to the central point
of the Salinas bay, nor over the two-mile strip south of the lakesides and San
Juan River that, according to the treaty, belongs to ber, nor over half of the San
Juan River etc., etc., since ali these territories were disputed prior to 1858.
Your Excellency claims, furthermore, that the status quo bas never
meant legitimate or perfect possession of the disputed territory; however, even
if it is assumed that Your Excellency is referring to territory disputed prior to
1858, does this mean that neither of the two countries have legitimate or perfect
possession of the said territories?, or that the two countries may jointly exercise
acts of sovereignty over them?, or that one of the two may exercise certain acts
and the other may not? Ali these solutions are unacceptable: it is not, in fact,
possible for those territories to no longer be under the sovereignty of the two
States, nor that they be subjected to the joint sovereignty ofboth.
In short, Minister, 1 find myself obliged, once more, to insist, Your
Excellency, that Costa Rica does not accept any status quo other than that
observed by the treaty of limits of 15th April 1858.
My Government does not wish to let the opportunity pass of responding
to another point in Your Excellency's letter. Your Excellency states that the
navigation of a Costa Rican national steamship carrying armed forces of this
Republic along the waters of the San Juan River is a dear violation of
Nicaragua's sovereign rights, and that it cannot be justified by citing a treaty
whose validity is being questioned, and that, even if it were valid, does not
authorize it except if, as in any alliance, Nicaragua should require Costa Rica
to comply with its duty, which the former stipulates, to guard and defend the
said river.
It seems futile tome to insist on the fact that the treal)' of 1858 may not
be considered null and void until ajudgment has so declared it, and I, therefore,
hardly need to tell you that Costa Rica considers ali the rights and obligations
stipulated in the treaty definitive and valid. Having made this assertion, 1
should add that Costa Rica bas the perpetuai right to navigate the San Juan
River, or part of it, in accordance with the treaty: that it is obliged, and naturally
so, to guard and defend the river, since it bas the use of its waters, and because
a part of its right bank belongs to it, because the river is the common entry to
both Republics, and it is in the direct interests ofboth to defendit: that, given
this obligation, Costa Rica may use the necessary means to fulfil it and it may,
for the same reason, navigate the river in any kînd of vesse!: that, in order to
do so, Costa Rica does not require Nicaragua's approval or request, since it
would not be acting as Nicaragua's ally but in the exercising of its own right:and that, should the opposite occur, Costa Rica would be left totally
defenceless at Nicaragua's will.
The grounds Your Excellency proposes for the arbitration convention
have already been, and continue to be evaluated by the commissioners of both
Oovernments; however, despite the fact that that of Costa Rica has already
given fuJI instructions to his plenipotentiary and leaves him in charge of
dealing with Your Excellency's Government, I should point out to Your
Excellency that Costa Rica does not consider it acceptable to submit the matter
of limits to the decision of the arbitrator at this time, as long as no judgment
bas been passed to annul the treaty of 1858.
Finally, 1cali to the attention ofYour Excellency the last of the grounds
indicated by your Govemment, that is, that the arbitration convention must be
held in Managua.-
When my Government received the telegram from Your Excellency on 3oth
July,it bad no objection to promising to send powers and instructions to Mr.
Viquez since itwishes, above ali, to maintain good relations with its neighbours
and put a prompt end to its dispute with Nicaragua, and because it was
indifferent to whether the grounds be discussed in Managua or elsewhere. In
fulfilment of this promise, the powers and instructions were sent on 10th
August, when the letter 1am replying to bad no yet been received; however, in
view of the final clause, my Government wishes to make it known to Your
Excellency that it does not accept, as a sine qua non condition, that the
arbitration convention be held in that city; and the fact that powers were sent
to Mr. Viquez was due, in particular, to the desire to accede to the kind
insinuation ofYour Excellency's Government.
With the assurance of distinguished consideration, 1 am
honoured to remain Your Excellency's most faithful servant.
ASCENSION ESQUIVEL
His Excellency
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic ofNicaragua'0
REPÙBDECl RICA.
MEMORIA
delaSecPet.ria
RElA E~XT ENCIAR T ~R:AXSAS.
----------
\
___.---
San .José,Costa Rica.
..-f'·~ON.. 235
el sefior Presideque el de Costa Rica en nada compromete sus intereses ni su
honra reconsiderando todilS esas medidas y acordando que su ejecnciôn.
y en la confianza de que ese Gobierno se presta.râ gustolos obsanar
tâculos que sus providencias aula honrosa soluciôn de las cue~ndien
t:es v correspondiala insînuaciôn dE.Vpara que le exponga las indicacio
ne que mi Gobie'?lo tenga ii bien hacer. ree~reloinaresdel.ard ~eitraje,
arden del sefior Prestdente, âla constdemciOn de V. E. las bases stgutentes:
1~-El ârbitro resolverâ sobre la validez del tratado de I85entrelebrado
ésta y esa Repliblica, en vista de los alegatos que ambas en apoyo den
su derecho.
2~-En caso de que el arbitra declare que eesvalida, resolvetam
bién sobre la interpretac9ue deba darse l~ .iusulas que den lugar â eluda y
cuya aclaraciôn reclame cualqmera de los dos Oobternos.
3~-Si el arbidecl~a q:>eel .tratado es nulo, le corresposeiialar
!os limites entre las dos Repubhcas, con v1sta de los documentas y alegatos que elias
mlm:ca.n.
+'~-Ls aolicic qietu~b. dirigir:ù senor Presidente de los EE. UU. de
Américapara su aceptacu)n del cargo de ârb1tro, y el modo y forma de la presenta
~ic ienalegatoydocumentas,se arreglaraen la Convenci6n que se celebre al
efecto~"-Esa C.nvenci6n se ajustar:i desde luego en esta Ciudad.
t~muuestras de la nuis alta consideraci6n, mdesV,E.su mis aten
toy seguro servidor.
F. CAS1'ELL6N.
A sE.elseorrMîllistrRel.aciones
Exte'r lelRsentbldeCaosRtl~a.
San José.
~~Gr eeIreracioniteriol'll3
nelaRenüb le&oastaica.
PALACIONAClO!'.'AL.
San José,1Jde agosto de r8S6.
He tenido el honor de recibir la comunicaciôn de V. E., fechada ei 3 del mes
'luc tc:nnina, en la cual se sirve llacerâmi nota de 29 de junio ûltimo
/ proponet: algun:u; bases para la Convarbitr s:br.jvlidez del tratado
de ,g s.
5Como el 30 de julio anterior, V. E. me indicô el vivo deseo de. su Gobiemo
d(•!Jts'cnvianm poderes éinstrucciones al Consul General de Costa Rica en esa
R!:pùblia'fin.de hacer mas expedito cl arregio de las dificultadysdeendicntes,
pod~ leg"-r mâs pronto :i un acuesobre las bases de la Convenciôn yrbitral,
<:011d<Jldel rnismo mes prometî E., com:spondiendà su indicacique por
J c:m-reom:î.spr6ximo se remitirîaa al dicho seùor Consu.l General, poderes éinstrttc·
··iwwrlxtraun pme~q;e se entendiera con el Gcbierno de V. E., cspera.ba el mio
'~~ i~c:u~stis onsesi.tandarmtbos,co~motivorle i:lme•:!idacuy:s.s~n
f;ILHha ~1dosohc1tady,bs bases del arb1tr.tmento se re<Jervanr.nen un todo a los
l'lcnip1Hcncimios de las dos Republicas.
Mi Gobiemo que, despltés de !os telegrama.s no tenia. moth'o para
':>ijH:rud de V..E.lo favorecicon bnota que contesta, cree inuecercso
!'onda plmto par punt~~referîda.comunicaci6n, pue~efl V.qre:.: tieya
m~t:'\H: pariùttlicon el Gobierno de Nicaragua totlos los qtte V. E. propane;
•ms ._:,bmnohlflcV.E. contiene apredaciotanopuestas i !o quCostaRicaestima sus leg1timos derech'ysuna teorîa tan inaceptable acerca de Jo debe enten
derse por el stattt qtto convenido entre ambas Repûblicas, juzgo imporno dejar
pasar estaocasi6n, auna trueque de incurrir en demasiadas repeticionpara reda
mar Jo que de justicia corresponde â Costa,Rica.
· Asegura V. E. que elsta/u.quo nunca ha podido significarposesi6n legitima 6 per-
fectadel territorio d.isputado, por una de Jas partes, pues por su naturaleza y segun
:se ha eritendidhastaahora, debe consistir en que amba5 se abstengadel ejercicio
-de ados que anterionnente no hayan ejercidy;que e11favor de la inteligencia que,
por parte de Nicaragua, se ha dado al stuuu, V. E. se halla en posesion de ahun
dante copia de argumentas.
De mi deber estimo anticipaâ V. E.que Costa Rica jamâs ha aceptado una.
interpret alcie~_statuqttojque siempre aleg6_porelcontrarioqu~ elstatrquo
no ha pod1do ser, m es otra cosa que la observan.cm del tratado de lumtysque la
misma Nicaragua, en documentas auténticos emanados de su Gobierno, mas de una
vez, ha asentidoâla inteligencia que Costa Rica le da.
El statu qtw que V. E. define nunca ha existido ni era posible para Costa
Rica, ni se conforma con la naturaleza dea,s cosas.Para desvirtuar 1a teoria de
V. E., pennfta:me que haga. las siguientes consideraciones·
Antes de 1858 disputaban Costa Rica y Nicaragua sobre cuaJes eran sus res
.pectivos limites como Estados soberanos éindependientes; por medio de negociacio
.nes directas unas veces, por medio de comisionados revestidos de plenos poderes
otras, trataronuestros Gobiernosde llegar â enteriderse acerca de la linea divisoria
entre los dos pafses; se crnzaron multitud de notas, se firmaron mucl1os trn.tados; mas
todofaéinfructuoso. Sin embargo las negociaciones, el ai'io r8j8,· tu\rieron mejor
.éxito,y ambos Gobiemos finnaron, ratificaron y canjearon la Convencion dI5 . de
abriJ; aquella ocasi6némotivo de leg1timojubilo para las dos Repûblicas; el canie
de las ratificaciones -se verifico con un lujo de solernnidades que revelabaIâsen â
do..ras cuanto compladaalos dos Gobiernos el ver terminada una cuesri6n que habla
muchas veces agriado sus mutuas relaciones, yque el afio anterior habla estado â
punto de provocar una guerra. Cos,ta Rica alegaba derechos de propiedad sobre un
territoriomâs extenso aun que el que el tratado le as!gn6; pero en busca de la armo
n{a redproca., por acceder â.la mediaci6n amistosa del Salvadyobedeciendo â un
espiritu de conciliadon merecedor de todo encomio, consinti6 en renânparte de
sus derechosy en conformarse con la Unea fijada en la Conve1,1ci6n. Esa lmea cre
y6la Costa Rica definitîvamente acordada, y conclul'da para siempre esa causa de
contiendascon Nicaragua, en cuya defensa acababa de derramar la sangre de sus
hijos.
Muy justa fué,pues, la sorpresa de Costa Rycsu Gobiemo cuando, al cabo
de trece aüos durante los cuales la Convenci6n divisoria se habîa observado como ley
comûn de ambos Estados, el Gobiemo de Nicaragua despert6 dudas acerca de su
validez. CostaRica, que la habfa suscrito amenguando lo suyo y para desprenderse
de esa causa de intranquilidad, no podia cçmsentir en la invalide;: del tra1:adoy en
revivir una disputa que crefa resuelta sin reyudesde J8g, debido âla neaativa
de Costa Rica â consentir la nulidad, se ha cuestionado acerca de la validez,..pero
s6lo acerca de la validez del.tratado: la cuesti6n de limites misma ·no ba sido. revivida,
y por Jo tanto no puede decirse, mientras la Convenci6n no se anule, quelerrilll
.riodisputado e11treCosta Rico. y NicaraguSi por mutuo consenrimiento de mnbo
Gobiernos 6 por el efecto de un.laudo arbitral, el tratado de limites se invruidara, en
tances surgirla. de nuevo el punto de lfmites; entre tanto; los limites son los que el
trata sd~ala. Pretender _otracosa serpedi ~u, C_os ~iaa, al mismo tiempo
que mega y combate la.nuhdad de la Convenc1on, c.onsmt1eraen los efectos de e.ll:l.
La posici6n dea~b~Repûbl~ eabien clara. Nicaragua. alega, por motivas
-que no creo oportuno chscut1r,la nuhdad de un tratado concluido con las debidas
.formalidades, pide que, â pesar de haber sido ley par un largo lapso de tiempo y
de tener todos los caracte.res de un acto legftimo, se le prive de sus efectos mientras
una sentencia no Jo declare vâJidoCosta Rica, al revés, se ataeun tratado pû
b.licq~e merece fe y respeto,esp~cial enern ose.:firm~ Y.qeesha sido y
s1gues1endo _p~e de su derech? nac1onal, Y.ex1ge, como es 16gu-:o,que se obsey:Ve
mantenga mtentras una.sentenc1a no lo declare nulo.
En cuanto â la situaci6n de los dos paises desde 1858 hasta I87I, obsarva 237
V. E. que Nicaragua ~ra dueiia de los tt:rritori.osque le asigno d tratado Ie5 dt!
abri! y que sobre e!los <:jerciain posse todos los actas de su soberanfa: igua! cosa su
Œdla i Cost:t Rica sobre los territorios qnt: .:;;:l-e fijaron: amha5 pudieron establecer
n:s;;:uardosfundar colonias, navegaJo ~o.:, <.'tc.,de.., ~E: r·irtud dequé prin
cipto se pretende boy que los actas de sobe;·<lnîaqueù1Jéc!tJ iiü ejecutaron Costa
R ic~ y•Nicaragua ha:stnI87L, no Jo ~c!e,lenejercey.r, tan s6lo porque Nicw-a.gua
rcchlmô entonces la nulidad del tratado? ,:Quédoctrina puffiera presentarse, qué.:m
tecedente pucliera exhibirse en apoyo de tan extraiia interpretaci6n del statu qLo?
natural en cnsos semejantes 6 anâ1ogos es que las casas se mantengan coma estaban
al suscitarse la cuestiôn; la misma significacîôn de las palabras statu vuo lo clice ter
minantemente. Asi, pu·es,si el aiio r87r Costa Rica y Nicaragua no tenfan impe
dimenta para ejercer su soberania sobre los respectives territorios, es claro tam~
poco lo tienen despuésde r8p.
Repito que despuésde 1858 no hay territorio ninguno en disputa entre los dos ·
E:>tados, y que por Jo mismo no cabe restringir la soberania de ellos sobre partal
gun:t de su territori6;~estJUepretende Nicaragua que no pueden ejercerse actas
nuevos de soberania sobre el territorio que estuvo en disputa antes de 1858? Esta
me parece que no es la conclusion i que quiere llegar Nicaragua, pues en virtud de
ella Costa Rica podria exigir que Nicaragua no eject a~tealguno de soberanîa,
que ·antes de 187 r no hubiera ejercido, sobre el territorio comprendido entre el rio
La Fior y la lînea que ha de trazarse desde cl Sapoa hasta el punto céntrico de ·la.
bahia de Salinas, ·ni sobre la faja de dos millas que le pertenece, segûn el tratado,
al sur de las riberas del Jago y rio S;1nJuan, ni sobre la :initad del rJua.ll etc.,
etc.,. porque todos estterrito fueioo~disputados antes deI8sB. .
Asegura ademis V. E. que elstill'f'W nunca ha podido significa:r posesiôn
legitima6 perfecta del terrimrio disputado; pero aun suponiendo queV. E. se reliera
a territorio disputado antes de J8s8, <!CJllierdeecir estoque nil}guno de los dos p:ûses
tienela posesiôn legîtima 6 perfecta de taJes territo6 que los dos paîscs pneden
ejercer conjuntarueme actas de soberanîa sobre ellos, 6 eleuno de los dos puede
cj~rc tergénerode actos y el otro no? Cualquiera de estas soluciones es inacepta
hle: no es posible, en efecto, que esos territorios dejen de estar bajo la soberm.::::ode
los dos Estados; niue esténsometidos i lasoberanfa conjunta de ambos.
En condusi6n, seiior Ministre, me veo obliga.do il repetirV.iE. que Costa
Rica no admite otro J"t,rtu IJ11'ue la observancia dd tratado de trmites de r5 de
abri! cit8s8. ..
Otro punta de la nota de V. E. desea mi Gobierno no dejar pasar sin con
testaci6n. AfirrnaV. E. que b navegac:6n de un vapor nacional costarriceÎlse en
agu;ISdel San Juan, con fuen:a armada de esta Repûblîc..1.,es una violaci6n manifies.·
ta de los derechos soberanos de Nicaragua, y que no puede justifi.c.arse invocand·o
un trntndo cu)'a validez se cuestiona y que, aun valida,laoauto.riznria sino cuan
do, l!egado ~1C:l.S,oma sucede respecta de toda alianza, Nicaragua requiriese il
Costa Rica pnr:t que cumpli~ eldeber que élestipula. de concurrir â.la guarya
defensa de dicho rfo. ·
Inuti! me parece insistir sobre el hecho de que .el trntado 1858 no puede
considerarse nulo mientras una sentencia asf no Jo declare, y es e.xcusado decir, par·
Jo tanto, que Costa Rica reputa _firmes y valederos todos los derechos y obligaciones
que el tratado consigna. Sentada esta premisa, debo agregar que Costa Rica tîe
cl dcrecho perpetua de navegar en el San Juan, 6 en parte de él,de acuen:lo con
el tratado: que esta. obligady,;;:na.tural que selaobligara a concurriri la.gua.rda.
y defensa dei r[o, porqut tÎèno::du~o de sus aguas, porque una parte de su ma.rgen
der.;chn le pcrtcnece,_porque d rio es b entrada comün à ambas .Repûblicas, y alli
ba~ deben defendcrlo por interés directo: que, duda esa obligaci6n, Costa Rien
puede valerse de los. mcclios indispensables para cumplirla y vuerle, por Jo mismo,
11:vcgar e1rio con tofla dnse d.::~vc~ que para hacerio, Costa Rica no necesitaria
de la aquicscencia ni requerimiento de Nicaragua, puesto que obrarfa; no como
:1li~ diibNic:nagua, sino en ejcrcicio rk un dercdm propio; y que s.lo contr:trio
i;ucei·licm, CosRi<::t qucdaria en completo cstado de indefensî6n i ~·olun tead
Nictrngua.
Las hases ,UI:!. 1<:.ro·pmH; p:1r:1:1con.venciàn ~1rbi htai sla y;t ddJ:i·
tidas y comin(w.n siendn objcLo de cxamo;:H entre los l:t"1mision:ulde amh•>sGo· bièrnos; m:ts ii pesar de que el de Costa Rica ha ytJnstrucciones completas
fisu plenipotenciayidej~ àsu cargo el entemlerse con d Gobierno de V. d~.
bo declar:u fi.V. E. que Cost<'!Rica no cree aceptable somete.:ethora5d~
cision dd arbitelpunta de limites, porque ·para Costa Rica. no existe cuestion al
l~un sabre limites, mientras no recniga una sentencia anulativa del tratado de 18s8.
l'ara ter:minnr,!lama h atenci6n de V5.la ûltima de las bases indicadas
por su Gobierno, 6 sea, que la conveJtciôn de arbitraje ha. de ajustarse ·en Managua.
Cuando mi Gobiemo recibio el telegrama de V. E. 30 de julio, no tuvo im:onve
niente en prometer que enviarla poderes é instrucciones al sefior Vîquez, porque
quiere, antes que toda, consenrar buenà annonfa con sus yepaner pronto tér-
.mino â sus disputas con Nicaragua,. y porque le era indifenmte que las bases se clis
cutieran en Managuaôen cualquier otro puntoCumpiiendo tai promesa, sa.envia.
ron los poderasinstrucciones e10 de agosto, cuando aun uo se habîa recibido la
nota que contesta;mas en vist.'l.de dicha clausula final, mi Gobiemo de!>eahacer
presentel de V. E" que no acepta como condîciônsim: fJIJa11para celebrala
convenc.iôn arbitral, el ajuste de ella en esa capital; y que el hecho de enviar poderes
alsefior Vfquez fuédebido especialmente al deseo de a5..laatenta. insinua.cion
del GoCon protestas de distinguida considera.ci6n tengo la honra de repetÎI:mede
V. E. atemo segura scrvidor,
ASCENSlÔN ESQU1VEL.
~ snEmlenc eîacnoMriniKd RrelaGîones
Exterio deesaRepubli dcNîGaragna.
Managua.
sacretadrfaelacîRotteriodrGsuatemala.
Guatemala, octub2ede 1886.
SENOR M..!N!STRO:
Habiendo llegada.conocîmiento de mi Gobi;;:molas dificultades que actual
mente existen entre el de V. E. y el de la. Repuhlica de Nicaragua, he recîbido ins
.truccîones del seiioridente para dirigirme a V..E. expres{mdole su sincero deseo
de que se llegauna soluci6n satisfactoria de elias, en los términoyamis-icos
.tosos que reclaman Ios estrechos vfnculos qaedos pueblos hermanos.
En ese concepto,en virtud del justo i11terésque aaiGuatemala, lîgada
:i uny otro de ellos con los mismos lazos de frntemidad, tengo la hom·a de mani
festaâV. E. que seria muy grata mi Gobiemo poder usar sus buenos o:fico11
cl Gobierno dNicar:: paragcuatribu6.un: sl~ci61d.e b naturaleza indi:::ada; y
que esta dispuestoa hacer cuanto pueda. tenaeese objeto, especialmente si hay
algoque V.E. se digne indicarle que sea conveniente en las actu:!Jescircunstancias.
Para el propio fin me dirijo en esta misma fecha al .Gobierno de Nicaragua,
y abriga.ndo la esperanza de que todo quecle terminado en el terreno de la.amistad y
buena. armon!a, y repîtiéndole Ia expresî6n del deseo de mi Gobierno de concurrir ti:
obteneres~resultado, soy de V. E. con respetuosa consider::tci6n )' aprecio muy a
tenta serv1dor,
FRHNAND(J CRUZ.
Excm soi.D nll!do.Relationxs
teriomdelaREDfib deicnstuca.
San José. Annex 35
Secretary of State in charge of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Nicaragua, Francisco Castell6n, to Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ascension Esquivel, 18 October 1886, reproduced in Memoria de la
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores y Carteras Anexas de la Republica
de Costa Rica (San José: lmprenta Nacional, 1887) 239
TRANSLATION
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Nicaragua
Managua, 18 October 1886
Sir:
1am honoured to have received Your Excellency's letter of 19thAugust,
in reply to mine of znd June of the same month, which refers to the letter Mr.
Peralta, the Costa Rican Minister in Washington, addressed to Judge Daly
on12th June of the current year.
In my letter 1stated that that of Mr. Peralta contains staternents that are
markedly contrary to the trth and to Nicaragua's rights, and that it puts
forward views that the Govemment of Costa Rica has never upheld and that
would hinder the planned inter-oceanic canal; and 1 requested that Your
Excellency confirm whether the aforementioned letter is authentic and in
accordance with ideas and instructions issued by your Governrnent.
Your Excellency inforrns me that the letter is genuine and, as proof of
this, you sent me a copy of the original text in English, assuring me that,
although it was not written following the orders or special instructions issued
by your Government, it has its approval, since, after having studied it in detail,
it finds nothing that may be described as markedly false; nor does it daim
rights that have not been previously defended by the Govemment of Costa
Rica; and that Mr.Peralta, therefore, has mere/y fulfilled his duty and followed
general instructions.
Your Excellency goes slightly further than Mr. Peralta and declares that ·
my Govemment has, on severa\ occasions, recognized Costa Rica's right to
participate in the planned canal, as a necessary part of the negotiation;
immediately offering a rational explanation of Mr. Peralta's daim that Costa
Rica is sovereign to three quarters of the canal line, a daim you presume is that
which bas shocked my Govemment, and which Your Excellency describes as
certainly vague.
My Government certainly did not expect that of Your Excellency to
reply to my abovementioned letter of the znd in the terrns in which it has done
so, giving its full approval to the statements made by Mr. Peralta, which are as
new to the history of the matter causing unrest between Nicaragua and Costa
Rica as they are contrary to ali past records of the same. It is not just the assertion that Costa Rica is sovereign to almost three
quarters of the canal line that has shocked my Govemment. This is perhaps
that which bas !east drawn its attention, since, as it is lacks any basis
whatsoever, it is totally inconceivable: it is the entire contents of the letter; ît is
the claim - that the treaty of 1858 does not justify, even if we presume, without
admitting as much, that it is fully in effect- that Costa Rica is a necessary part
of any concession, contract, rights, obligations and joint control of the canal,
with the same rights as Nicaragua, that has caused genuine surprise.
What bas made Mr. Peralta make such a claim on Costa Rica's behalf?
On what basis does Your Excellency's Govemment give its full approval to this
daim?
The source of the rights clairned by Costa Rica to the territory adjacent
to the bay and the San Juan River is the treaty oflimits of 1858, the validity of
which is being questioned, as confirmed by the fact that that Govemment bas
agreed to submit it to the arbitration of the President of the United States of
America.
However, assuming, in the meantime, that the aforementioned treaty is
in force,.let us take a look at its main stipulations, which establish the rights of
both Republics.
"Art. 6.-The Republic of Nicaragua shall have exclusively the
dominion and sovereignjurisdiction over the waters of the San Juan River from
its origin in the Lake to its mouth in the Atlantic; but the Republic of Costa
Rica shall have the perpetuai right of free navigation on the said waters,
between the .saidmouth and the point, three English miles distant from Castillo
Viejo, said navigation being for the objetos de comercio either with Nicaragua
or with the interior of Costa Rica."
"Art. 8.- If the contracts of canalization or transit entered into by the
Govemment of Nicaragua previous to its being inforrned of the conclusion of
this treaty should happen to be invalidated for any reason whatever, Nicaragua
binds herself not to enter into any other arrangement for the aforesaid objetos
without first hearing the opinion of the Govemment of Costa Rica as to the
disadvantages which the transaction might occasion the two countries;
provided that the said opinion is rendered within the period of 30 days after the
receipt of the communication asking for it, if Nicaragua should have said that
the decision was urgent; and, ifthe transaction does not injure the natural rights
of Costa Rica, the vote asked for shall be only advisory."
However, the dispositions cited undoubtedly establish the sovereignty
of Nicaragua over the waters of the San Juan River from its origin in the Lake
to its mouth in the Atlantic, only granting Costa Rica perpetuai rights of free
navigation for the objetas de comercio from the said mouth up to three English
miles before reaching Castillo Viejo. With respect to the right to sign contracts ·of canalization or inter
oceanic transit, article 8 attributes this exclusively Nicaragua, as the owner
and sovereign of the territory, which it may dispose of without anyone's prior
consent, the only limitation being to hear Costa Rica's opinion on the
disadvantages this transaction may occasion for both countries, within a fix~d
terrn.
In order to comprehend the clauses cited, it is necessary to revert back
to the time when the pact .was signed, and take into consideration the
circurnstances of bath countries with a view to properly deterrnining the spirit
of those stipulations.
The war of the filibusters, tJ:lemain operations of which were carried
out along the San Juan River del Norte, bad just ended. The inter-oceanic
transît company had favoured these operations and there was fear of another
invasion, which could endanger the independence and sovereignty of both
Republics. Costa Rica should concur, with prior notice from Nicaragua, it is
understood to the guard ofthat tine: as compensation for this duty, and in arder
to facilitate its implementation, article 2 made her riparian in part of the right
band bank of said River; while article 4 established her duties for incurring in
that concession.
The spirit of article 8 is evident. It was logical, in the ideas and the care
Nicaragua took in entering into contracts of canalizahon or transit to guard
against dangers similar to those it bad just experienced, that Costa Rica, a
natural ally ofthis Republic against al\ foreign enemies, should take part in the
vote. This is the origin of the advisory vote.
1have said that Mr. Peralta's statement that Costa Rica is sovereign to
almost three quarters of the canalline does not stand up to scrutiny since it bas
no basis whatsoever. It is already evident, from the above, that assuming the
treaty of limits is valid, Costa Rica would merely be riparian of the San Juan
River, from its mouth in the Atlantic to three English miles before reaching
Castillo Viejo. Let us assume, for a moment, that the canal opens and its
entrance is the bay of San Juan, and it ends three miles before reaching Castillo
Viejo. What part of the Canal would correspond to Costa Rica, it being the
owner of the right bank, and taking into account that the entire riverbed and
waters of the river, as well as the left bank belong to Nicaragua? Assuming
Nicaragua would show the utmost respect and that it would allow Costa Rica
to have joint participation in this canal, it is clear that only half of it would
correspond to her. And if the canal is extended along the rest of the river, the
lake and the land between the latter and the bay of San Juan del Sur, or that of
Brito, which unquestionably belong to Nicaragua, how could Mr. Peralta's
daim regarding Costa Rica's sovereignty over the canalline be sustained? I conclude by confirming the remarks made in my letter of the 2nd, and
inforrnîng Your Excellency that my Govemment consîders your statement that
Nicaragua bas, on numerous occasions, recognized Costa Rica's right to
particîpate, as a necessary party, in the canal negotiations, to be unfounded, this
statement being contrary to its rights, and even to the stipulations of the treaty
the validity of which is being questioned.
It has been extremely regrettable for my Govemment to observe, in the
note that I reply, an attitude that is completely contrary to that whicht expected
from the deliberations of the cabinet of a country linked to Nicaragua by so
many and such sacred ties, and with which this Republîc bas made such efforts
to maintain and extend good relations.
I avail myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the
assurances of my highest consideration, and remain your most faithful servant,
F. Castellon.
To His Excellency
The Minister of Foreîgn Affairs of the
Republic of Costa Rica
San Jose. 1213
REPÙBCAC( RICA.
== -=--=
MEMORIA
cle la Se.retari.a
REL\ ECXT ~NCA~RRAN ~X~A~.
-------
San José,Costa Riea.
-_t..... ION AL.1' A Ministd eeioelacims
Exrerid oerescarazua.
Managua, 18 de octubre de 1886.
He tenido el honor de recîbir la nota de V. E., de 19 de agosto ultimo, contes
taciôn i la mîa de feeha z del mismo mes, referente â la can:a que1:de junio del
corriente aiio dirigi6 al Juez Di.lly el sefior PernltaMinistro de Costa Rica en
Wishington.
En aquella nota dije que la carta del seiior Perrllta contiene afirmaciones no.
toriamente contrariasala verdad y i los derechos de Nicaragua, y que avanza pre
tensiones que jamiis ha. sustentado el Gobierno de Costa Rica, las cuales crearian
obstâculos al proyectado Canal Interoceânicoy pedf â V. E. se sin•iese declarar, si
esa carta es auténtica y si se conforma i las ideas éinstrilcciones de su Gobierno.
V. E. se sirve informarme que la carta es auténtica, y, en comprobaciônme
envia copia de sn texto original en inglés,aseguran<lo que, aunque no fué escrita por
orden ni en virtud de instrucciones especiales de su Gobierno, ha merecido su apro
baciôn, porque, después de maduro examen, halln que, en sustancia., no asevera nad:J
de que pudiera afirm.:u-seque es notoriamente falso; que tampocreclama derechos,
que antes de ahora no haya defendido el Gobiemo de Costa Rica; y que, por tanto,
elseiior Pernlta no ha lu:chomds que llenar su debery ajustarsa sus instruccione~
generales.
V. E. va un poco mas nllâ que el se:iior Peralty,afirma que, en repetidas
ocasiones, ha reconocido mi Gobierno, el derecho de Costa Rica a participar en e!
canal proycctaclo, como parte necesaria en la negodaci6n; se empena, enseguida,
en dar una explicaciôn racionaa la afirmaciôn del seflor Peralta, de que Costa Rica
ser la que ha chocadoaemi Gobierno,ryeque V. E. califica de realmen.te vaga.e supone
No esperaba cîertamente mi Gobierno que el de V. E. cont,estase â mi citada
comunicaci6n del 2,en los términos en que lo ha hecho, dando su cumplida aproba
ci6na las avanzadas afirmaciones del seiior Peralta. tan nuevas en los anales de la
-cuestî6n, que se agita entre NicaragyaCosta Rie;., coma contra:rias{dodolos ante
cedentes delamisma.
Not...~ôl loafirmaci6n de que Costa Rica es sqberana en casi tres cuartas
partes de la Hnea del canal, Jo que ha chocaaomi Gobiemo. Esta es quiza la que
menas ha Jlamado su atenci6n, porque destituida en absoluto de todo fi.mdamento,
cae por su propio peso: es todo el conjunto de la carta; es la preteque no jus
tifica el tratado de l858, aun suponiendo, sin admitiilo, que estuviese en toda su vi
gor, de que Costa Rica es parte necesaria en cualquiera concesî6n, con trato, dere·
chos, obligaciones y conjunto control del canal,con tantderecho como Nicaragua,
lo que le ha causado verdadera sorpresa.
c:De dônde deduce d sei'ior Peralta semejante pretension para Costa Rica?
,:En quéha podido el Gobierno de V. E. fundarse, para dara ese asen:o su mâs cum
plida aprobaciôn?
La fuente de los pretendîdos derechos de Costa Rica, en los territoriadya
centes a la bahfa y rio de San Juan, es el tratado de limites 1858, cuya validez
estâ en cuestiôn, coma lo comprueba el hecho de haber convenido ese Gobierno en
someterla al arbitraje del sefior Presidente de los Estados Unidos de América.
Pero, suponiendo vilido, por un momento, el reJerido tratado, veamos sus
principales estipulaciones, que son las que fijan los derechos de ambas Repub!icas:
"Art.6~-I. Repûblica de Nicaragua tendrâ exclusivamente el dominic y su
mo imperia sobre las aguas del rio San Juan, desde su salida en el lago hasta su
desembocadura en el Atlântico; pero la Republica de Costa Rica tendra, en dichas
aguas, los derechos perp<:tuos de libre navegacî6n, desde la expresdesembocadura
hasta tres m!llas inglesas antes de llegar al "Castil!o Viejo", con "obde corner
cio" ya sea con Nicaraguaô al interior de Costa Rica". 245
"Art.8~'- oi contratosdz canaliz<làîn<Sde minsiro, celebrados antes de
tcner d Gobiemo de Nicaragua conocimiento de este convenîo, llegaren 5.quedar
insuhsistcntespor (;ualqui.:ra causa, Nicaragua se compromete i no conduir otros, .
sobre los expre;;ado:1j~ si:tor :,tcsla opini6n del Gobiemo de Costa Rica,
accrca dt: los i11convenientesque el neg:ocio pueda tener para los dos pafses, con ta!
!.J'c!;taopinion se ernita denrde 30 clî.u.después de recibida la consucaso que
ehle N ic:.~r m<m iaestescr urgente la resolucion; y no da.fiandose en el negocia
los 1hm::chosn:uurales de Costa Rica.,este voto "s61o ser.i consultivo".
:\horn bien: las dispos;dones citada.s establde un.:t mnnera incuestiona
ble,kt soberanla de Nicaragua sobre las agudd rio San Juan, Jesde su sa!idadel
L.,gohasta su desembocadura en el Atlanrico, no danda Costa Rica mis que los
rltr..!chos perpetuas de libre navegncion, solo con objetos de comercîo, desde la refe.
rid;tdt."semboc ha..;adeumraUD.inglesas antes de llegar al Ca!>tilloVicjo.
Respecta del derecho de celebrar contratos del ca6atrinsitointeroceanico,
el :utfcul8~ lû atribuye exdusivarnente .i Nicaraguacamo el duefio y eslior del
tcrritorio, dque puer!c dispone~inprevio consentimiento de nadîe, con la ûnica
limitu ~e.:i,onnun término fijoelvoto consultivo dt: Cost:l Rica, sobre los in·
convcnientesque el negocia pueda tener para arnbos p:tises..
Para la mejor inteligencia de las diusulcitadas, es necesario retroceder i
la época de la celebrad6n del pacto, y tomar en cuent:tcircunsta de ~amùoisas
p:dses, i tîn de determinar con acieelespiritu de aquellas estipulaciones.
Acab:lha de pasar la guerra de los filibusteros, cuyas principalt.'S opcraciones
se lmb(an ejecutado(>Ocl rio San Juan Jel Norte. La Compailla del tninsito inter
oceinico habh favorecido esas operaciones, y se temfa una nueva invasi6n, podfa
poner en pdigro la independencia y soberanfa de ::tmbas Reptiblicas.Costa Rica
d~bî concurrir, previo tC(JUerimiento de Nicaragua, seenti~n âd a, guarda de
aquella line:t: en compensaciôn de ese deber, y para fac:!itar su cumplinel ar
tkulo 2:'la constilny6 ribercila, en parte de la margen de dicho rio; y el ·Ll~culn
tijo los deberes que contraiu por esa concesion. -
El espiritu dd artîcu8~es maniiiesto. Era razonable que, i 1:'1meditadon
y al euidado que Nicaragua ernp!case, al celebrar contratos sobre canal 6 trparito
:;av:~prigros an.ilogos i los que acababan de correrse, concurriese el voto de Costa
Rica, a!i: ~a.ualade esta Republica contra todo enemigo c:manjero.He aquf d
·origen dd voto cùnsultivo. ·
He dicho quela :tfirmaci6n del seflor Peralta, de ser Costa Rica soùerall3 casi
en las tres cuanas partde 1:.!lfnca del canal, dcstîtuida en ab8deutodo fumla·
mt:nto, cac por su propio pesoY a se ha vista, por Jo expuesto,que suponienrlo
\'aHdod tratado de !fruites, Costa. Rica apenas seria riberena en d rîo de San Juan,
..Jesdesu (k-senJbocadura en d Atlintico hasta tres millas inglesas antes de llegar. al
Ci1stillo ViejoSupong:mws, por un momento, que elcanalSt:abriera, teniendopor
entradnln bahb de San Juan, y que tcrminada tres millas antes de lleg:ar al Castillo
Viejo. ~Qué parte corresponderia 5.Costa Rica en ese Canal, siendo duefia de ln
margen derecha, y pertenedcndo ::'iNicaraguà todo el !echy las aguas del rlo, y
adem5.s la margen izquierda?Suponiendo la mayor deferencia de parte de Nicara·
gua y que admitiera 5.Cost.:t Rica igual participaci6n en ese canal, cs daro que apc·
mis le corresponderia la mitad de la obrY si se prolonga el canal sobre el resto
del rio, l:tgo y lpartt:deticrra entré:;teyla bahfa de San Ji.landel Sur,6 cie
Bl'ito, que indisputablementepcrtenecen 5.Nicaragua, (C6mo podria sostenerse la
afirrnaci6n dd scîior Pera!ta, respecta de la.sobcrania de Cost;t Ricalinea- del
c:~na!?
Conduyo confirmande los conceptos de mi comunîcacicin dez,y manifestan·
olo(tV.E. 1.1uerili Gobicrno no cncuentra el menor fnndamenasu aseveraciun, de
que Nic..1.raguaha reconocid:t repetkveceselclcrecho de Costa Rica i panidpar
eu la!ncgo<:iadones de canal, como parte neccsa.ria, siendo ese reconocimicon
lmrioiisus derecho,y,uun a la.;stipulaciones del tr:nacuya validez se disputa.
Ha sirlmuy potnoso:i mi Gobicmo observar, en la notque contesta,un es
piritcnrer:nnente contrJrialque sc ]")I'O!Ilencontrar en las delibcradones del
G:1hinctc de un pueùlo ligado à Nic:tragua par tamos y tan sagradvincnlos, y con
cl cunl ddee~;R t;pJùbli s~;ha:::~ror ezamd:ot.cncy cns:tn;:h:]a_<bucnas re·
]:I•;Îonc~:. Sirvnsey·K aceptar las distinguidas considemciones, con que rnesuscribo ti:O
V. E. muv
· atentoyseguro servidor.
F.CASTELL6N.
A suEmlen elienMr inistRoelaciones
Exterio drlsRepOb dliCaostaica.
San José,
semtar dlRelaciones
ExteoridsCosRtica.
San José, noviembr11. d.1886.
SENOR MrNJS1'1W:
Oportunamente se recibi6 en esta Secretarla la nota de V. E., fe18ada el
de octubre ultimo, }'en la cual se sinn: desarrollar las observaciones que con fecha z
Peralta, Ministro de Costa Rica en Washington, dirigi6 al Juez Daly, con relaci6n
ii los derechos que corresponaeCosta Rica en el canal que se proyecta nbrir por
las aguas del rio San Juan. · ·
He examinado atenta.mente los argumentas y apreciaciones que V. E. se sirve
hacer contra los conceptos de la carta del seiior Peraltn, y estima que V. E. no des
virtliaas explicacionyargumentas con que esta Secretaria apoy6 en el fondo la
carta del seii.or l)eralta, en nota del 19 de agosto del corriente aiio.
V. E. cree encontrar en los conceptos del seiior Peralta nuevas pretensiones
Juan; pero pienso q11"V. E. se convencera de que no hay pretensiones nuevas den
parte de Costa R; .respecta del rio San Juan, desde que en la citada nota de 19 de
agosto, al entrar en la explicaJaspalabras empleadas por el seiior Peralta en
su carta al Juez Daly, esta Secreta.ria manifesté que el Gobiemo de Costa Rica no
p1·etendehoy tener n1asderechos territoriales por ellado de Nque los que
le confierel tratado de 15 de abri! de i858, cuya validyque, mientras esta
Cpnvencién no se invalide, ella sera la que regule nuestra participacion en el canal.
de antemano conprecision mat.::mâtica; aumentarii 6 dismseglin la direcci6n fijarse
que siga la.lînea; pero para determinarla deberân tomarse en cuenta necesariamcnte
el territorio costarricense que el canal 6 sus anexos hay:m yelos derechos
q!1een favor de la compaiiia, 6 por causa del canal haya de renunciar Costa Rica.
Dada esa explicaci6n por esta Secretarla, pienso que no hay motiva p:ua en
contrar en la carta. del sefior Peralta nuevas cuestiones entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua;
y que lal'micapendiente entre estas dos Repliqueda reducida â la vaJidez del
convenido por ambos Gobiemos, sera sometida â.un arbitrarnen.o.., y que segUn Jo
Esta es la contestaci6n que seglin instrucciones del senor Presidente de la Re
j:n1bhca,tengo la honra deala nota de V. E. â que me referi .al principio, apro
vech"ando esta oportunidad para suscribiV.eE.,
· · muy atento servidor.
JOSÉ J. RODR[CUEZ.
A snExcele el:îar nliKtrRela&imres
Exteriorde&la RehUuGHdeNicaragua.
Managua. Annex 36
Letter from Femando Guzman to Costa Rican Foreign Minister, reproduced
in P PérezZe1ed6n, 22 June 1887, Argument on the Question of the Validity
of the Treaty qf Umits hen-11eCosta Rica and Nicaragua
(Washington, D.C.: Gibson, 1887), 9-11 12471
ARGUMENT
ON THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE 'TREATY OF. LIMITS BETWEEN
COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA
OTHERSUPPLEME ANRYPOINT SONNECT VDIT11',
SUBMI'HTO TBB
Arbitra ofioPnresid ofthe niSetatoeAs merica,
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COSTA RIOA
BY
PEDRO PEREZ ZELEDON,
ITENvoE:r.TBAOBD4NMlNrsTPLBNIPO'rENTlABY
INT1ΠUNISTATES.
( l'ruo.NSENOLBYJ.RoDRIGUE%.)
\:;
' ..
WA.SBINGTON:
GtaSoBnosPRlNT..umBooXDIN»EBS.
1887..PoiN'I'S WHICH, AccoRDING TO THE GovERNMJfN ol'NroARAOÜA,
.ARE Doun·rFUL AND REQmRE IN't'ERPRRTA'l'IO.N
.DEPART.MENT OF
FoREIGN RELA.'l'IONSOF NwAuAGUA.,
MANAGUA, June 22, 1887.
Sui: By arder of the President and in pur.suance of Arti
cle VI of the Co1,1ventiono:f·Arbitra.tion, conclucled at Guate
mala, between. Costa Rica and Nicaragua,_ I have the l1ouor
to commnnicate. to the Government of Your Excellency tlle
points of cloubtful interpre.tation found in the beaty of April.
15, 1858, which, in· the event foreseen by that"At·ticle. this
Government proposes to submit to the decision of the arbi
trator.
FUlS1'.
1. Punta de Castilla point having heen designated as the
beginning of the border line on the Atlantic sid~ a,d finding
itseU, accordi:ngto the same trea.ty, at the mouth of the San
Juan river; now that the mouth of the river has been changed.,
from where shall the boundary stal't?
2. 1-Iowshall the central point of the Salinas Day, wbich
is the other end ofthe dividing line, be fixed?
3. Whather· by tha.t c~ntr point we are to understan.d
the centre of the figure; and, asit ianece.ssary for its deter
mination to fix the limit of the Bay towa1·ds the ocean, what
shall that limit be?
SEOOND.
4. Nicaragua co.naentedl by Article IV, that the Bay of
San· Juan, which a.lways exolusively belonged to .her and
over which sbe ·exercised exclusive jurisdiction, shoulrl be 249
10
coinmon to both Repu blies; anclby Article VI she consented,
also,that Costa Rica shoulcl have, in thewaters of the river,
from its mouth on the Atlantic up to three English miles .
befo1·e reachiug Castillo Viejo, t~1 perpetuai right of free
no.vigation for pm·poses of commerce. Is Costa Rica bound
to concur with Nicaragua in tl~ expanse necessat·y to pre
vent the Bay from being obstrncted, to keep the navigation
of t.he river and. port free a.ud unemba1·rassed, and to improve
it for thecommon benefit? If so,
5,. In wbat propo1·tionmust Costa. Rie~ contl·ibute? In.
cacSeshe has to cont.l.'ibute notbing-.
6. Can Costa Rica prevent Nicaragua from executing, at
hel' own expanse, the works of imp1~pveme Ont.?hall she
have any right to demand inclemnification ior the places
belonging toheron tbe right ha?J:k,wlùch may be necessary
to occupy, or for the lands on the same bank which may be·
floodedor da.maged inany other way in col)sequence of the
saicl wor]Œ? ·
'l'HIRD.
7. If, in view ofA1~ti V clfethe treaty, the bra.nch of the
San Juan :river known as the Colo.ado river.must b. consid.-
ered.as the limit between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, from
its origin to its mouth on the Atlantic?,
FOU.RTB-.
8. If Costa Rica, who, accofding to Article VI of the
tJ.-eaty,has only the right of free navigation for the purposes
of commerce in the waters of the-·San J uo.nriver,can also
nav.igate with men-of-war 01·revenue cutters in the same
waters?
~rH.
9. The eminent domain ove1·t.he San Juan river from its
origin in the Lalre ancl clown to its mouth on the Atlantic,250
ll
belonging to Nicaragua. accot·cling to the text of the treaty,
can Costa. Rica 1·ensonably cleny her the rigl1tof d.eviatiug
th.ose waters ?
SIX'rH.
10. If, considering that the rea.sons of the stipulation con
tained in Arbicle VIII of- the treaty have disappeared, cloes
Nicaragua, nevertheless, temain bound not to.make any grants
f.Olcanal p1:u·posesacross ber 'territory without ih·sto.sking
the opinion of Costa Rica, as therain provided? ·Which at·e,
in thisrespect; the natural rights of Costa Rica allnded to
by this stipulation, and iu wbat cases mttst they be deemed
lllJUl'..•
SEVEN'l'H.
11. Whether the treaty of ~pri11 158,8, gives Costa'Rica
any tight to be a party to the grants of inter-oceanic canal
wbich Nicaragua may maké,orto share the profits that Nic
at:3b,rui.h.oulclreserve for.herself a.s,sovereign o:fliheterritory
and. waters, an~ in compensation of the valuable fa,vors and
privileges she may-ba ~oencecled.?
In transmittiug the above to Yonr Excellency, and request.
ing YO!.llExcellency to acknowledge the receipt thereof, it is
pleasiug to me to reiterQ.téthe assut·ances of my respect and
consideration.
FERNANDO GU.Z .MAN.
To His Excellency THE I\lhN.ISTEROF FoREIGN RELA'1'lONs of
the Govet·nmeut of Costa .Rica.. Annex 37
Secretary to the Diet of the Mayor Republic of Central America to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, 27 July 1897, reproduced in
Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, Gracia, Juslicia, Cuita y
Beneficiencia de la Republica de Costa Rica.
(San José:Tipografia Nacional, 1897) 12-15 TRANSLATION
Secretary of the Diet
of the
Mayor Republic of Central America
San Salvador, 27 July 1897
Sir:
In the edition 136 of La Gaceta - the official daily of the Government
of that Republic - of 15 June, a decree issued by the Constitutional Congress
of the same was published, allowing the import of the goods specified in the
said decree via the San Juan and Colorado rivers.
When the State of Nicaragua became aware of it, it caused the overall
impression that the abovementioned decree threatens the sovereignty of the
Nation that has the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the
waters of the San Juan River, and Costa Rica only has the right to free
navigation for purposes of commerce from the mouth in theAtlantic up to three
English miles before reaching Castillo Viejo; however, it is in no way
authorized to transfer it to ether nations, as inferred in the bread sense of the
said decree, since it does not fimit it to its national ships. Thus, th~
Government of the State of Nicaragua, in fulfilment of its duty to ensure their
sovereign rights are upheld unharmed, has instructed the Diet, in whîch I am
honoured to partake, to present the following protest to Your Excellency's
Government:
"The Congress of the Republic of Costa Rica issued a decree, dated the
12th of the past month, by which it authorizes the import of goods - sorne of
which are taxed and ethers which are free - to the valleys of San Carlos and
Sarapiqui, via the Colorado River and the San Juan River of Nicaragua.
"The following is the text of article 1of this law: "The following goods
may be imported via the San Juan and Colorado rivers: wood for construction,
corrugated iron and sheet iron, wire fencing, etc."
Anyorie reading this article and who does not know that only the
Colorado River is Costa Rican and not so the San Juan, which belongs to the
State of Nicaragua, will, naturally, believe Costa Rica to have the dominion and
rule over the latter; and the further away the readers from Central America,
the greater this belief will be.
"However, it is not only this, since it would, should the case arise, be
relatively simple to clarify the real geographical notion. Thereis somethingmore serious in the text referred to, since, as will be shown below, it damages
the sovereign rights of the State of Nicaragua.
"In effect, the decree we are analyzing states that: Thefollowing goods
may be imported via the San Juan and Colorado Rivers", in other words, the
merchant vessels of al/ nationalities are permitted to navigate along the San
Juan River, in arder to transport their cargo to Costa Rican soi!; and all those
who are farniliar with the law of nations are weH aware that it is an act of
dominions reserved to the sovereign to allow the transit of commercial goods
through any given place, be it inland, maritime or a waterway of the territory,
and to establish or suppress transit or internment taxes. This right bas been
exercised by the Govemment of Costa Rica in the three articles of the
abovementioned law, extending it to the waters of the San Juan River that do
not belong to that Republic but to Nicaragua, and the decree in question
thereby threatens the sovereignty of the Nicaraguan nation.
Nor could Costa Rica allege in its deferree that the Treaty of 15 April
1858 granted it the right to navigate freely for the purposes of commerce in the
waters of the San Juan River, without any limitation except that of navigating
between its mouth in the Atlantic to three English miles before reaching
Castillo Viejo,because that generosity on the part of Nicaragua does not, in any
way whatsoever, affect its sovereignty, as can be clearly seen in the same sixth
clause of the agreement that concedes it, which states, in these very words;
"The Republic ofNicaragua shall have exclusive/y the dominion and supreme
control over the waters of the San Juan River".
This concession, made by Nicaragua to Costa Rica in 1858, is legally
of a persona! nature and cannot, therefore, be transferred without consent of the
sovereign, who is the power authorized to extend it, as it did to that nation in
the abovementioned year; or, in other words, the power that Costa Rica has to
navigate part of the San Juan River in its commercial vessels is exclusively hers
and she cannot extend it to vessels of any other origin, with prior agreement
with Nicaragua, who is the only one who can grant it as owner and sovereign
of the said river.
"If the Govemment of Costa Rica had limited itse1f, in the proper
manner, to setting up a customs post at a given place in its territory, Nicaragua
would not have had to make this observation; however, from the moment it
exceeded its authority, authorizing the passage of goods via the San Juan
without the express limitation that they be transferred to their merchant vessels
or to those authorized by Nicaragua; who is the owner of the territory, this
disposition affects the inalienable rightsf this State and inflicts the subsequent
gnevance. "It can be concluded from the above that the Costa Rican Congress's
decree to which we refer violates, in the tenns in which it is established, the
Treaty of 1858 and strikes at the heart of the State ofNicaragua's sovereignty.
"It is, therefore, the duty of the Govemment of Nicaragua, set up to
safeguard national interests and rights, among which the integrity of its
territory and its subsequent dominion occupy a position of major importance,
to solemnly protest, as it hereby does so before the Govemment of the Republic
of Costa Rica, the advance of dominion that the decree of 12June 1897 entails,
and it, consequently, reserves the full exercising of its jurisdîction over the
waters of the San Juan, with the obligations implicit in the rejection, by ali the
means available toit, of the usurpation of the dominion that could take place at
present or in the future with regard to the abovementioned law.
"This protest does not mean that the State of Nicaragua is unwilling to
respect the existing conventions and the President of the United States of
America's Arbitration Award regarding the Treaty of 1858, but, rather, its
unflinching determination to strictly adhere to these and none other- as has
always been and is currently the case- in which the respective Commission of
limits is established, in order to mark them with the mediation of an arbitrator,
in accordance with the Pact of San Salvador, and wishing to put an end, once
and for ali, to this etemal territorial dispute that has been and is a source of
discord between neighbouring and fratemal countries; and that it is entirely
improper for nations that sooner or later are called upon to unite as one."
The Diet trusts that Your Excellency's Govemment, convinced of the
justice on thepart of Nicaragua and as renewed proof of its sound justification,
will not be inconvenienced to correct the terms of the decree mentioned many
times above, lirniting the rightof free navigation granted only to Costa Rican
vessels.
With sentiments of the highest consideration, I am honoured to remain
Your Excellency's most faithful servant,
E. Mendoza
To His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Govemrnent of Costa Rica
San Jose. REPUBDCOSRICA
-DE~
llfflixoWG1rci,siiuelstn~o~cencia
"
l'RI~ALNTAD
CONGRE SONSTITUCIONAL
-DE-
poseecretario de Estado
EF:SAS C:ARTERI\S
-~·--
San José
TipoNacioQal
MDCCCXCVII ~- [2-
~sel de 1 Ide junio pasado, que permite la importaci6n por el San
Juan y el Colorado de cîertas mercaderias, la exportaci6n de los pro
ductos de San Carlos, Sarapiquî, Parismina, Tortuguero y Colorado
y que exime del pago de derechos ara.ncelariola entrada de deter
minados artîculos.
No se necesita de esfuerzo alguno para comprender que la
licencia de introducir mercaderfasa los valles de que.habla el decre
ta,ha de estar subordinada a las condiciones en que puede navegar
se el rîo San Juan, y desde luego que este es un~ rfo interior, no
abîerto par. su soberano al trafico extranjero,habd de comprenderse
que tai permise se referîa solamente a naves coma las costarricen
ses, que, por el Tratado de 58 y Laudo arbitral de! sefior Presidente
Cléveland, tienen derecho a hacerlo, las cuales, sin embargo, mal po
drian por falta de autorizaci6n nacional ocuparse en la carga y des
carga de productos por puertos no habilitados para el comercio ma-
rftimo. ·
Solo anticipanda, como se hizo, la especie .relatî aanuestras
tendencias de acj.ue.fi.arnosdel rfo y del puerto de San Juan, podfan
con apariencia de verosimilitud atribuirse al decreta fines que no
tiene; mas demostrado lo absurdo y falso de aquel dicho, desaparece
todo motiva para la infundada interpretacién a que vengp refirién
dome.
Tengo la honra de presentar a la Excelentisima Dieta el tes·
timonio de mi respecta y alta considèracién y de suscribirme de V.
E. obediente y segura servidor,
RICARDO PACHECO
Al Excele1ltisùno se-iioSu·retano de la Dieta
de kt Repûbù"ca Mayor de Cenlro América
San Salvador
DE 1.1\
REI'Û"BUM,wor<DlCr.:;oAMf:mcA
San Salvador, 2 7 de julio de 1897
SENOR:
En el nl"nnero 136, co;respondiente <d 15 de jnnio prôximo
pasado, de LetGaceta, diario oficiai del Gobierno de esa Republica,
aparece publicado un decrete, emitido pm el Congreso Constitucio
nal de la misma, permitiendo la il.nportacion, por los rîos San Juan
y Colorado, de l2.sm~rcad~ due sel rnismo decreta t;specifica. -· IJ-
Al tenetse conocimiento de él en el Estado de Nicaragua,
caus6 generalmente la.impresién de que el indicado decreta es aten
tator.iftla soberanfa de la Naci6n, que exclusivamente tiene el do
minic y sumo imperio de las aguas del do San Juan, y Costa Rica
ûnicaménte el derecho de libre navegaci6n para fiues de comercia
desde SlL-desembocadura en el Atlantico hasta. tres millas inglesas
antes de liegar al Castil!or~ic jèro,d-e ningu.na manera estâ auto
rizada para traspasarlo a otras naciones, coma se desprende de la
latitud con que esta concebido el indicado decreta, pues no lo limita
â sus buques nacionales. Con tai motive, el Gobierno del Estado de
Nicaragua, en cumplimiento del deber que tiene de velar par que se
mantengan inc6lumes los derechos saberanos de la Naci6n, ha dada
instrucciones â ht Dieta, de la que tengo el honor de ser 6rgano, pa
ra presèntar al Go}Jierno de V. E. la siguiente protesta:
· " El Congreso de la Republica de Costa Rica dicté, con fe-.
cha I 2del. mes pasado, un decreta por el cual autoriza la importa
cion de mercaderfas, con gravamen unas, libres otras, â los valles de
San Carlos y Sarapiquf, par la vfa de los rfos Colorado y San Juan
de Nicaragua.
" He aquf el texte del artîculo 1? de esa ley : "Permitcse la
importaci6n, par los rios San Juan y Colorado, de las siguientes
mercaderias: macleras de construcci6n, hierro acanalado -y en plan-
chas, alambres para cercas, etc." -
·Cualquiera que Jea este articule é ignore que solamente el rio
Colorado es costarricense y no el Sa1z Jua1t, que pertenece al Esta
do de Nicaragua, conceptuara. desde luego éste camo un dominic y
seô.orlo de Costa Rica; y esta apariencia serâ tanta mayor cuanto
mas distante de. Centra América y de sus peculiaridades se coloque
el que leyere.
"Pero no es esta solo, pues al fin y al cabo fâcil serfa, llegado
elcaso, rectificar la verdadera noci6n geogr:Hica. Hay algo mâs
grave en el texte en referencia, porque, camo se demostrarâ en se
guida, biere los derechos de soberania del Estado de Nicaragua.
" En efecto, el decreta que analizamos dice: Parmitese la int
p01-tatt'ônpor los rios San J·ztan)' Colorado de las sz'gu.t'mtes merca
·derlas" es decir, los buqtees mercattles de todas las naâonalidadcs tù:
nen elpe,"11t:Ùoara 1tavegar for el rio Sa1t Jua1t 1d jin da cottdttcir
su cM~g al suelo costat'n'cettse/ y ·.bien sabido es por todos los que
conocen laley de las nac~on qeus·,s acta de dominio reservado al
soberano, pet'"'lmtù' el transita de efectos comerciales por un lugar
cualquiera, terrestre, maritime 6 fluvial del territorio y establecer 6
suprimir impuestos de transita 6 internaçi6n, Este der:echo Jo ha
ejercitado el Gobierno de Costa Rica en los tres articulas de la ley cl,
que nos referimos; extendiéndolo â las agHas del rio San Juan que
no son de aquella Rep(iblica sino de Nicaragua, y por lo mismo el
decreta en cuesti6n e-•a~~en•ator-oa la so~41..~..de l. na.i6n .~-·. 14-
Ni podria Costa Rica alegar en sd~scar qgeo el Trat~do
de I5 de abril d1858 le otorgô la concesi6n de navegar libremente
para fines de comercio en las aguas del rio San Juasin:mas limi
taciôn que la àe recorredas desde su desembocadura en el At1:intico
hasta tres millas inglesas antes de lleal Castz"tio vùjo,porque
esa liberalidadde Nicaragua no afecta en lo mînimo su soberania,
.como se ve claramente en la misma clâusul6? del convenio que la
concede,la cual expresa estas precisas palabra"La Reptiblùa de
JVù:a·n teglre a:cclusivamente el domz'yzsumo z'mperio de las
aguas del rioS41t .fz.tan."
Esta concesi6n hecha por Nicaragua .aCosta Rica en 1858,
es jurîdicamente decaract perrona!, y no puede, par Io mismo,
traspasarla sianuencia del soberano, quees el poder facultado para
extenderla, como ya io hizo con aquella nacion en el aiio aludiôo;
en otros términos,Jafacultad que Costa Rica tiene parnav~ga enr
parte del rfo San Juan con sus naves de comercio, es privativamen
te de ella y no puede extenderla buques de otra procedencia, sin
previo acuerdo con Nicaragua, que es la unica que puede otorgada
en su calidad de dueiiy.sefior del mencionado rio. ·
"Si el Gobierno de Cost;1 Rica se hubiera limitado, como
era dehido, â establecer una aduana en un punta de su suelo, nada
tendrfa que observar Nicaraaua; pero coma desde el memento que
se extralimJta, autorizando eÏ trânsde mercaderias por el San
Juan, sin la expresa limitaci6n de que pasaborda de sus navios
mercaJ?.tes_6de los buques autorizadopor Nicaragua, que es el
dueno del territo.rsem~ja nipoesici6n afecta los derechos ina
lienables de este Estado éinfiere el agravio consiguiente.
"De lo dicho se deduce que el decreta ·del Congreso de Costa
Rica,a que nos referimos, en los términos en que . esta concebido,
es violatorio del Tratado de 1858 y ataca en su esencia la sobera
nfa·del Estado de Nicaragua.
"Cumple, pues, al deber del Gobierno nicaragüense, cons
titl,lîdo para velar por los intereses y derechos nacionales, entre los
que ocupa un lugar primordial la integridad del territorio y su con
siguiente dominio, protestar solemnemente, como en efecto protesta
anteel Gobierno de la Republica de Costa Rica, por el avance de
sefiorfo que entraiia el decretv12ede junio de 1897, y se reserva.
en consecuencîa, el ejercicio pleno Slimperia sobre las aguas del
San Juan, con.las obligaciones que le son anexasde rechazar por
cuantos medios esténa su alcance las usurpaciones de dominio que
pudieran fundarseal presente 6 en el parvenir sobre lle~ de la·
ley citada. ·
"Esta protesta no significa que el Estado de Nicaragua no
esté dispuestoarespetar los convenios existentey el Laudo arbi
. tral del seiior Presidente de los Estados Unidos de· Amér.ica, relati
vo alTratado de 1SsS, sino su resolucion inquebrantable de suje
tarse estrictamenta el!osynada mas, como se ha sujetado siempre y se amolda en la_actualida1 en que tiene establecida -la respectiva
Comisi6n de limites, para trazarlos con la mediaci6n de un arbitra,
de conformidad con el Facto de San Salvador y deseoso de con
cluir de una vezpara sîempre con esta eterna disputa territorial, que
_ha sido y es semillero de discordias entre paîses vecinos y he.rma
nos; y que es par todo extrema impropia de pueblos que estan Ha
madas â confundirse mas 6 menas tarde en una sola naci6n."
La Dieta abriga la esperanza de que convencido el Gobierno
de V. E. de la justicia que asiste al de Nicaragua, y dando una nue
va prueba de su alta justificaci6n, no tendra inconveniente en recti
ficar los términos del decretaant vae~es citado, limitando el clere
cha de libre navegaci6n que concede solamente â.las embarcaciones
costarricenses. · · -
Con sentimientos de la mas distinguida consideraci6n,tengo
la honra de suscrihirmede V. E. muy atento servidor,
E. MENDOZ-A
A Su, E.xceltmcla el sefMùtùtro de Relaciones
Exterlo'l'es del Gobz'emode Costa Rlca
San José
S&CRSTJ\RII\.
OE
RBLAC!ONE.XTii:R!OltES
San José, 20 de agosto de 18~7
SENOR:
Tengo la honra de acusar aV. E. el recibo de su atenta no
ta·de fecha :n·de julio ultimo, la cual contiene una protesta que, con
instrucciones del Gobierno delEstado de Nicaragua, presenta la·
Excelentfsima Dieta a esta Secretarîa, relativa al decreta 12 de
junio, dictado por el Congreso de ·esta Republica, par el cual se
autoriza la importaci6y exportaci6n de mercaderîas a los valles de
San Carlos y Sarapiquf, par los rios Colorado, SaJnan de Nicara-
gua y Sarapiquî. .
Las francas expos.iciones contenidas en mi cahlegrama de fecha
30 de julio ultimo y mis notas de 31 del mismo mes y 5 del corrien
te son,â juicio del Gobierno de Costa Rica, evidente demostraci6n
de la justicia con que procedi6 el Congreso,aunque por desgracia
ha sida mal interpretado el texto de su decreta par el Gobierno del
Estado de Nicaragua. Annex 38
Costa Rican Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington, J.B. Calvo to United
States Secretary ofState, William Jennings Bryan, 17April 1913, reproduced
in The Republic of Costa Rica against The Republic ofNicaragua, Complaint
before the Central American Court of Justice (Washington, D.C.: Press of
Gibson Bros lnc., 1916), 70-72 • ' l
CENTRAL AMERICAN
COURT OF jUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
. .·-.-
ACAJNST
THE REPUBLICOF NICARAGUA
COMPLAINT
OFTHEREPUBLICOFCOSTARICAGROW.INOUTOFACONVEN~
TIONENTEREDINTOBYTHE REPUBLICOF NICARAGUA
WITHTHEREPUBLICOFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA
FOR THESALE.OF THESANJUAN RIVER AND OTUER
MATTERS.
WITH APPENDICES
(PRlNTEAT THE N!'-TIOI'TALPOFFICEG
SAN JOSE. COSTA RICA)
TRANSLATION
WASEIJNGT6N:.
PRESS OF GIBSON Bk.OS,, INC.
1916 APPENniX O.
LE,GATION OF COSTA RICA,
WASHINGTON. ~pn~l1 1913 .'
.MR.. SECRE1'ARY: News bas reachcd n1y Government,
although informally, to the effectthat durin.gthe last days
of February.l.ast,.a contract,entered .i~to by theOoveru ..
ments of Nicare.gua and. of \Vashington for the construc~
tion. of an interoceanic canal across Nicara.gua, was sub~
ntitted. to the United States Senatefor ratification.
That news, or necessity, caused pro:found surprise to
nty Governntent, because the negotiation thereiu involved
canuot be carried into effect without flagrant vioJatio11
of tlle existence of the clearest possiblt~ea tgyeeni.ents
that inhibit Nicaragua's e11t.ryinto any convention for
iuteroceanJc canalization without first consulting Costa
Rica, itt one case, and in another, without first se.cudng
ber acquiescence.
Article 8th. oftbe Treaty of Limits, concluded between'
Costa Rica and Nicaragua on the 15th of April, 1858,
reads asfoUows:
''Art. 8. If the contracts for canalization or transit
entered.into before the Nicaraguan Government had
knowt.edge of this conv,eution should for any cause
cease to bein force,Nicaragua agrees not to conclude
. any others rel~t tintçeo?jects above stated.w_ith
out first heanng the op1n1on of the Costa R1can
Governntent respecting the disadvantages that 1nay
r·esult to the two cout1tries, provided. that opinion
be given within thirty days after the .requesttberefor
shallhave been received 1n case that the Nicaraguan
Governm.ent should indicate. that a decisionis urgent ;
and .in the event t.hat the e:nterprise should cause no
'iujuryto the uatural rights.ofCosta Rica, that opin ..
ion shall be advisory."
(70) 261
71
. '-The arbitral award rendered by Exeellency Grover
l~leye Preàinet of the United States of Punerica, on
,Uïê22d bf March, 1888,declaresin its.firfind:ing that
;ijle<said.,,TteQfyLimits, -o18s8, isvaHù, and then,
1ti~te hei en.tt of the eleven pointsofdoubtful
t~tfrst sbmiited iothlm gy Nicaragua in theon
~~~~; deci\e~as ol}o\s:
uzo. The Repu.blic ofNicaragua t"emains bond
:·not totnakeany grants focanal purposes across her
.·territorywithout first asking the opinion of the
·..Republior Costa Rica, as provided in ALde VI II
of the Treatof Linlits othe15th day of Aprilont.•
thousand eight hundred andfifty-eightThe natural
rights of the Republic of Costa Rica alluded to in the
said stipulation are the rights which, in view of the
boundaries fixed by the sairl Treaty of Lhuits, she
possesses ithe soilthereby recognizeas bdonging
exclusively to hertherights which she possesses in
_the harbors of San Juandel Norte andSalinas Bay:
and the rights whicshe possesses in so n1uch ti1e
river San Juan as limore than three English miles
.. below CastiUo Viejo, tneasuring from the exterior
fortificatioofthe said castle as tsatneex1stedill
the year 1858; and perhaps othcr rights not ltere
particularly specifted. These rights are to be deemed
injuredin any casewhere the territory belouging to
the Republic of Costa Rica isoccupied or .floodt.·ù:
where there isan encroachment upon either of tlw
said harbors-injurioto Costa Rica.;or wherethere
is such an obstruction or deviation of River San
Juan as todestroyor seriously itnpathenavigation
of the said river any of its branchesatnny 11oint
where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate tsauH~."
, An examination of theahove document!=lwill convinee
.Vôur Excellency that the Repuhtic of Nicaragua was
:::Without legal capacito enter into the conventionin
question, which is now befm·e the Sr.nate, and that lltu.t
_~Ja ofCka:acity-solem.n1ydec1ared, inr888, as above 72
stated, J?y the President of the United States-funda
.mentaUy vitiates the negotiations.
But 1ny Government is .not only supported· by incon
trovertible reasons deju.rein f1er.opposition to the treaty;
contpeUing and controlling reasons de facto force itinto
the controversy, for, as Your ExceUency surely knows, itis
wholly im.possible to construct an interoceanic canal
across Nicaragua without affecting, to a greatet: or less
extent, the lands and waters of Costa Rica.
For the foregoing reasons, in obedience to instructions
frmn my Government, and in its natne, I have the honor
formally to lodge, with great respect, through the n1edium
of Your Excellency, a protest with the enlightened
a~d justi<:e-loving .Governm.ent of the United States,
against the perfecting of tl1e convention for cana.lpur
poses to which 1 have. above referred; arid..I rest in the
confidence that the lofty sentiment of equity that always
guides the_Washington Government, will induce it,on
this occasion, to resolve the question in perfect conformity
with justice and in the traditional friendship with ·which
Costa Rica has always been honored by the great American
Nation.
...
I have the honor to reiterate to Your Excelleucy the
assurances of my highest and rnost distinguished considera·
tion.
J.B. CALVO.
To His Ex.ceUency,·
WILLIAM }ENNINGS BRYAN,
Secretary of State of the
L~11- States df Ame-rica.
1-~ APPENDIX H.
MANAGUA, ./1me 12, 19IJ.
MR. MtNISTER: 1have the honor to reply to thimpor~
tantnote of April 24th, last, in which Your Exeellency is
·pléaseci: nform me that the" knowledge hns reached
your Government that the Legislative Assembly of Nica
~:hb tag gian its appro tova traty 1recently entered
·into between my Government and that of the United
States, relatingto the construt·tionof an interoceanic
canal.
Vour Excellency states that, in view of the cordial and
continuons friendship of which so many proofs have been
given to your govemrnent by mine, the above news has
;(!à.useprofound surpriseto your Governn1ent, since it
:ihvolves a perfecviolationorexisting treatles that regu
,:Ha.the relationsbetween our two countries.
In proof of this. yourExcellency cites articleVHI of
· thetreaty of April 15, 1858 and what was decidcd by
·President Cleveland in his award of ~1arc h2, 1888,
·respectinpoint X ofthe points ofdoubtful interpretation
presented by Nicaragua; and your Excellency assert.s
that theseestablishedconclusivelythe incapacity on the
part of my Government to executeany concession relating
to an interoceanic canal across its terrHory, withottt flrst
hearing the opinion of CostaRica that the omission of
this step, indispensable on Nicaragua's partyour Gov-
,·,·.ëmment conceives to be sufficient to rendthe trcaty
·..·wholly void, and that yoGovernment has so in[ormed
··the United StatesGovernment before which it haslodged
·._aformal protest.
Your Excellency goes on to say thathe close and binrl·
~rtcogmmunity of interests involved for the two countr.ies
by the construction of a canal ou a frontier zonshould
·. bemore than enough in itsrlf to prevent either, without
(73) Annex 39
Costa Rican Minister in Nicaragua, F.Cabezas Gémezto Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Diego M. Chamorro, 27 April 1913, reproduced inThe Republic
of Costa Rica against The Republic ofNicaragua, Complaint before
the Central American Court of Jw;tice (Washington, D.C.:
Press ofGibson Bros Inc., 1916), 68-69 ' 1 1
CENTRAL AMERICAN
COURT OF jUSTICE
THE REP-BLIC OFCO.·.RICA
AGAINST
THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA
COMPLAINT
OFTHEREPUBLIOFCOSTARICAGROWINGOUTOFACONVEN.
TIONENTEREDINTOBYlliE REPUBLICOF NICARAGUA
WITHTHEREPUBLIOFTHEUNirEDSTATEOF AMERICA
FOR THE SALEOF THE SANJUAN RIVERAND OTfiER
MATIERS.
WITH APPENDICES
(PRINTED AT THE NATIONAL PRJNTINC OFFICE
SAN JOSÉ, COSTA ltJCAl
TRANSLATION
WASHING'f6t~.
PRESS OF GIBSON BROS., JNC.
, 1916 APPENDIX Fo .
LEGATioN or: CosTA RICA,
~IIANAG Apri,2.7,I9IJ.
1\(R. 1\diNISTERThe news has .reachedmy Government
that dur~ thn past few daysthe Legishitive Assembly of
Nicaragua bas given itshigh approval to a treaty which
Vour Excellency's Government has entered into with the
Govemment of the United States of'America relating to
the constructionof an interoceaniccanal.
In. \'iew of the cordiality and.consequent Uiendship of
which so many proofs have been given us by the fratèrnal
Goven1n1entof Nicaragua, thisnews bas ~ause pdofound
surprise to my Government, because it involves a direct
violation ·Othe existing treatthat regulate.the relations
between our two countries.
Artic.le 8t·Ofthe Treaty of April 15,·S~sB.and the
interpretation given by Pr.esident Cleveland, in. the
arbitral award of March 22, I8S8, to the .tenth point of
doubtful understandingt~a t as presented by Nicaragua
inthe arbitration which Costa Rica joined with ber in
subn1itting to the decision of that Exalted Judge, positively
establish the inhibition resting upon the former to grant
any concession relatingto an interoceaniccanal across
. ,., . ~
her territory witbout previously hearing the opi.nion of
the latter..· -
The. omission o.fthat indispensable step on the part of
the Government of Nicaragua on.tlie present occasion my
Government c.onceives to be sufficient to vitiate and ren
der who11y void. the treatyinquestion, and thesêviews
.have been transmitted to the American Oovemment,
before which, on..this samedayJformai protest has been
made.
The intim.ate and binding community of .interests
.involved for Costa Ri.cand.Nicara.gua by the constru.c
(68) 6g
~~)V~f~ a onie~zne,woul~bk~~o th·ea
~~~l~~~tf.~ nei~er\fthetwo nationcould,
&m.ll~~ ·isoutey to _the o_ther, enter into a
r~!:W-t!~~ ~pr~oe.hAnd tf,1nthe present case,
~1}1t= J' h~eipr,l!eh~at eao·s~there exists
f::t~.·-'·." agre;ent,;ourExele~y-millandatory
~;-~q~ ·~a\my 9overnment neither can nor should
~H(ilt~ a~sltehignoring of its legitimate rights to
~._J,.s~·~·.ce.
~~t~~ abvt haens, anifulfillment of instructions
f> ,(.·'\. ,, .'''antn.ts namI,have the honor
ç~;pr~~ent-rugh the distinguished medium of Your
1,.-..··.·. te eyl-teed and illustrious Govern-
~men of Nicaragua, formal protest against the unlawful
It,~9n n~ asictin of the treaty to which I have
:\i rfertd.
.- I avait mysethis opportuto reiterate to Your
:.Excellethe assurancesmyfhighest an1osdis-
.tinguished consideration. ·
F.CABEZAS G6MEZ.
To His Excellency,
Seiior DDntGOM. CHAMORRO,
NùtisterForeig1tRelaofo1'lS
The RepubliNicaragua.
(FromtheRepott on ForRelatioofCosta Rica,
. 191Expositive Part, p. IX.) Annex 40
Nîcaraguan Ambassador in Costa Rica, Javier Chamorro Mora, to Costa
Rîcan Foreign Minister, Bernd Niehaus Quesada, Note No. E.N.l323/80,12
November 1980 TRANSLATION
Embassy of Nicaragua
San José,Costa Rica
E.N. 1323/80
November 12, 1980
Excellency:
1have the honour to address Your Excellency to acknowledge receipt of
your Note No 1357-80, dated November 5, by which you filed a formai protest on
behalf of the illustrions Government of Costa Rica, before the Government of
Nicaragua, concerning the events that occurred in the region of the San Juan River
near the confluence with the Sarapiqui River, which involved sorne members of
our border troops stationed in that area.
Your Excellency states that this is not the first time this type of incident
occurs in that area, something which, in your opinion, does not contribute to
preserve the good relations that have existed so far between bath peoples and
govemments, and urges us, therefore, to instruct our authorities in the region to
respect in. the future the free navigation on the San Juan, as set forth in the
agreements in force between bath countries.
With instructions from my government, I would like to inform Your
Excellency that we deeply regret the above-mentioned incident, and that we have
taken the necessary measures to ensure that this type of events will not happen
again, since they do not reflect at ail the official position of the Nicaraguan
government.
On the contrary,1 would like to express to you that, as faithful compliers
of the international treaties, in this case the Canas-Jerez Treaty, we have the best
intentions to respect Costa Rica's free navigation rights on that Nicaraguan
waterway, according to the provisions of bath that treaty and the Cleveland Award.
In the same manner, Your Excellency, the Government of Nicaragua wants
to convey to you, through me, its wishes to develop,in cooperation with whatever
the authorities your distinguished governments deems appropriate, a project to
prevent regrettable situations as the one aforementioned, which do not correspond
to the excellent relations that bath our peoples and governments have cultivated.
1take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency, the assurances my
highest and most distinguished consideration. .
Javier Chamarra Mani
Ambassador of Nicaragua
His Excellency
Mr. Bemd Niehaus Quesada
Minister ofF oreign Affairs and Worship
CityeMBA.IAJ?AENICARAGUA ··AfilO D..LA ALFA8ETIZACION"
' .-.JOSCOSTRJCI,.
E:..tl. 132 3!80"
\
t:...:ec.ci.a :
7engo el!. hono'lC!.e.di.'l.i.(JI.aMVue..4i4·à. û:c.e.le.llcac!-ba de.
acll-6124~tèci1 1oe.-<lHoia t'lo, 1357-80 de.f. S d.e.plt.e.-< :u~.6, .e
1n.edian.t:z. lcua! p!U!-6en.i!/.OMW e_ Pll.Ote.t.i.a~-o;r de.l 1.f-.tf.il..
do Ç/o !J.ie.-t.llo de. Co.fUC.a, an.t~ c.l.Çoti.2.11.nc~e l'i.ca4,agu.rlen
11.elaci ~nlo.o·hecho-<~'aca. 2neclado4e.3i6n d~l Rlo San J~an,
·ce..fl:de la cotitlu.e;u.i.adel·.IU o SaJ!api.qu.l, don.él..de vi.IVI.oa in
va luCA.ado.o al;Ju.no-6·.c.le.auroJ.o.o de ./u.t.i4.0/Jr2gucutda-ti~nf..e.l!.n.6,
~cantonad en 4e.6a zona. ·
Vue..6.t4.a E...:cefi.a ind.i.ca!JU·e.no e-6 Ca p4i..n.ella vez· quq.Ge.
JtC.i4iltan iac. ide.rde..o de..~ nalaAa te.c::a .ela •ume ionad a zona.,
lo qùe. a .ou. juici:o no ayu.:i.a a :,1ant.ee.1leM .llu.e·!a-'~t. ce lna.t.
qui!. lia4lu ta. /.t:.cna han e.i..~J. etti.ido1;...e.opu.elllot.!!go C.i.e.lt-
no-6, ·ù1<~t&ri· lo'n.c-m->i.gu.i.eniP.., ir.t..f: a.nnc..t~l.lt a:.~c-
4idad~. en ea 11.e2i6n pall.a que. en .ee tuluii.O, .tiC44-6R~t .e lip
ill.e. n.a.ve.yaci6e.n e.t Rlo San. Juan ta t.co;-<o·.e4f.e..s.tipu'l.u.do .e.n·
l o-6 con ven i 0-6 u i ge.ntmi.Jt.r:. ao..s pal .6e-6·, ·
Con. in..St'l.uccion.ede lfli go: i«11.it1<1.P4.1tm.Uo comun ictu, a
Vuc..stl!.a ê.JCc€.!.Mcia, qu.e é'amelliaao.p4.o/.unda:t l!.!iciden.ls;,.
ante..s ,,u~nci.on a.qoe. hemo..s i o;;:aç!o la{'I.i.(Ü'!4 pe.JJ.tln.e.li.f.e-6 pa
-ia <1e. h.écho.tJde .ett nat u'll.e. ~oa .,.Jvue Cvan a /!.epeii'l.,pu.i:..o
e.tl_i.n;;uJ/a:Oiltel\t11.et.ejrm la po-6i.ei.6n. o.,li.cf.de.l yoJ1i.eMO ni-
Caf.a(JÛ..en,oe, ·
•• ..!. • ...IJAJAOA DE NICARAGUA
""ARO OE LA ALFABETIZACION""
SANJOSfCOS TA RICA . -Z-
·!.Il. 132.3/80
fJo4 et. con.t11.a11o, n;e pe.Jt.Ttt. ex.pJLe..OaJL.e.qu.e c.ottlO -/.il.e-6
C.Uillfi.dOII.l?.-6delo-6 f.4r:d:.ado.o in.i.e/l.n.a c.i.ee.o, en e.o:te c.a.oo e /!
de Cafi.a.o- )e.4eZ, :i.ene ·fa 11~eOo/l-8.6ena v o éunt ad il d i.-6po.o i.ci.6n
l!.lJLe..op.e.ia./1.ede4ec.'to c~ i.U.11.e nau.e.gaci.tm J..e. Co.o.taRica en
e...saula !.t.u.vial nica11.agÜ.cn.o.e., en l.o.o tJ,wùw4 e-6ta3..l.ecido.o
i.ani.o en di.c:i.o i./l.atad.rc;o;,1o .en"el lm.t.do Cleveland.
_f).ela m.(.61/l•71QiCII.C.- VUe-6t ll.[x.C_e.lenC /Q , ef. 90 l{e/IIJ0. de
Hi.ca•agca, a t/tavi.o de ~i pe•&on.a, ex.p/1.&-0a .ou. voluniad de
e.l.at. O//1.un ;uw y ect o en. co lat. 01ac i 6n con t..o attl o/t i.dade-!q u.e
e "ez·l.u-!>1•.aod go e.e/tn o de Co .aa Ri ca, con .oid elU!.pe.ltf. in ete.o, a
-/.1.-n.depli.even i./1...oi.t,ion. e.o i!.a.'!12f/!..le-!>Olio la ani...e/iOII.JtlMie
11.ee..ttida 1J que n.o van aCO/tde.o con. la-!> mar;n.l;!. c-t.•té:fc..c.i cme.d
.que nue.oi/1..04 do4 puailo4 y go4i.&4no.o han -!>a:ido mant~4 •&4,
l~fM.O t.V. ecc.oi.to. pa/ta 4.e.i.&/I.Q/1a- Vue.4tll.a [x.ce ee.ncia.
la-6 i.cvUJ .G!ade.o de. lÛ CCn4 i.d:a/l..aCi..6n. :T6e:!.. (J d.i.4i. [ngui.da,
JClffl/ :tc. Annex 41
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,to Nicaraguan Chargé
d'Affaires a.i. to Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,
Note No. D.M.l33-82, 8 June 1982 273
TRANSLATION
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry ofF oreign Affairs and Worship
No D.M. 133-82
San José,June 8, 1982
Chargé d'Affaires, a.i.:
Mr. Angel Edmundo Solano Calderon, Minister of. Public Security,
yesterday forwarded to my office a complaint filed on the same date by the
Manager of"SWISS TRAVEL SERVICE, S.A.", a Costa Rican company, stating
that:
"Yesterday, Sunday, June 6, while our boat was heading
to Puerto Viejo with 10 tourists, it was intercepted by a
Sandinista patrol, which forced aliof our tourists to get
off the boat, and show ali their belongings. After arguing
for severa! hours with the passengers and the boatman,
they told our employee that he should notify our head
office that asfyesterday, Costa Rican vessels were not
allowed to pass through the San Juan River, specially
with American and European tourists, like the ones that
were in yesterday's tour."
The incident reported by Mrs. Gamboa is very serious because itaffects the rights
of free navigation on the San Juan River that are categorically and perpetually
guaranteed for Costa Rica, and because it harms the economie interests of the
country. Therefore, on behalf of the Govemment of Costa Rica, I am filing a
protest before the Government of Nicaragua, for the above-mentioned incident,
through Your Excellency. In addition, the Government of Costa Rica requests that
the Government of Nicaragua takes the necessary and urgent actions to sanction
the members of the patrol that incurred in that offence, and to prevent that such
repudiable actions wiIl happen again in the future.
I take this opportunitta reiterate toY our Excellency, the assurances of my
highest and most distinguished consideration.
FERNANDO VOLIO JIMENEZ
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Honourable
Mr. Oscar Ramon Téllez
Chargé d'Affaires, a.i.:
Nicaraguan Embassy lll!fiUm.OE COSTA AIC.I
IIINISTODIRRJCIDE IESUlniEt CDLTD
San Jos!. 8 cllJunlo de 1982
Sellor Eneargado de Negoc los a. 1. :
Don Angel Ednundo SoJ,,no talder&., Mlnlstro de hgurl•
dad ~Gbllc la!,remltl6 ayer la queja que ante 8.1 plantte5 en la 111IIP!II
feeho, la Gerente de la '~WIS TS AVF.LSERVICES.A.", 811JPI'Hacoatarrl•
cense. en al sentldo de que:
" Ayer domingo 6 de·junlo, mlcntraa nuestra lŒnchllM
dlrlçfa eon 10 turlstas hacla Puerto Vlejo fueron lnter
eeptados por. una patru lia :sand ln1staqui.,.. obllgaron
a todos nuestros turfstas o baj< :elrbote. rn:tst!l'llrto
das sus pertenenc:las y después de arqunentar por varlàs
' '
horas con los pasajeros y con cl botaro, avlaaron a nues-
tro ~leado que nottrlcara a la oflclna c.ntral que des
de ayer quedaba prohlbldo a embareaclones tlcas otraveur
por el r1'o San Juan. ~lal-.nte con turlstas norteame
rlcanos,y europeos ·CO!ftlos que vlajaban en la encursl6n
de ayer."
El hecho re,latado por 1; ;eftora Galllboa eIIIU'fgreve. puos
afecta el derecho de libre navegaclôn sobre el rfo San Juan que Costa RI
ca tien. garantlzado categ6rlca y perpctuam!l y npo.que perjudlca
los lnterases ec.on&.lcos del pa1's. En consecuencfa. en-nombre del Gobler-
no de Costa Rica prescnto al roblerno <Jelllc:aragua.por et dlgno medlo •
Honorable Sol'lor
Oscar Ra1.ûn Télle2
Encargado Je ttegoc.los a. 1,
Embajada de ta HepGbllco do Nlcoragu<•
CIUDAD.- lti'PUIADl: COSTA RICA
llm'llfD0(IEIACIOJESEIIDRCESlTO
Vuestra Seftorfa. su protesta por el hecho arrlbacltado •. Aslmluu.
el Goblemo de Costa Rica plde que cl C-ot.lernde Nicaragua tOU*·f••
m.dldas Indispensables v "rgentes para sanc:.looer a los ·rrllem•roe·
la patru11a qase C0111BU5qttel desafucroy evite qu. en et futuro le·
repltan actos tDn repudlables como esc.
-.
Aprovecho la oportunl para~relterar a Vuettra seftorfa
laa segurldades de ni mlis altav dlstln1ulda conslderac15n.
FERNANDV OOLIOJUIENEZ
Mlnlstro de Relacfones Exterloret y CUito Annex 42
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, FernandoJiméne toz~icaraguan Chargé
d'Affaires to Costaa, Oscar Ramon Téliez, Note No. D.M. 126-82,
16Ju1y1982 277
TRANSLATION
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship
D.M. 126-62
San Jose, 16 July 1982
Chargéd'Affaires a.i.:
On the uth of the current month, I received new information on the
interference by the Nicaraguan Arrny to the detriment of Costa Rica's right to
free and perpetuai navigation on the San Juan River, a right that is not subject
to any condition whatsoever, apart from that of not using it for navigatingwith
vessels of war.
The Nicaraguan authorities have set out the following new and illegal
conditions for the navigation of Costa Rican tourist vessels:
1st - Bach boatman must carry proof of having paid the departure
clearance certificate at the Rural Assistance Guard Post in Barra del Colorado,
to the Nicaraguan border post and change it for a new one that is issued there
at a cost orj10.00 each, because, according to the Nicaraguan authorities, the
one issued by the Costa Rican authorities is not valid for navigating the San
Juan River.
2nd - ln order to exchange the departure clearance certificates, the
boatman must go up to the post, which is on top of a hill, and to reach it and
return to the boat, under the rain and through the mud and other
inconveniences, it tak:esapproximately 40 minutes.
3rd_ The boatman must then show the Nicaraguan departure clearance
certificate to the guard at the river bank, who then proceeds to ask the
passengers for their passports and search their luggage and personal
belongings. This takes another 30 to 40 minutes.
MR. OSCAR RAMON TELLEZ
CHARGE D'AFFAIRES A.l.
EMBASSY OF NICARAGUA
CITY.- .2.
The Nicaraguan guards who carry out ali these interferences are armed
and no argument given by the Costa Rican boatmen is valid for asserting the
right to free navigation.
1am aware that my formai written protest and other complaints 1have
lodged to the Govemment of Nicaragua, in addition to other verbal complaints
made before Ex-Ambassador Leal, before you, Sir, and before His Excellency
the Acting Interior Minister,Mr. Victor Hugo Tinoco, have been to no avail.
Ali these interferences, which are unjustified and illegal, contradict the
statements made by the Government ofNicaragua to the effect that it wishes to
maintain cordial and correct diplomatie relations with the Governrnent of Costa
Rica, who has shown articulate signs ofadjusting its conduct to the norms of
international law currently in force, including those that specifically regulate
the relations between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. On lodging this new
complaint, I hope that the Illustrious Govemment of Nicaragua will soon put
an end to the interferences 1 have mentioned, that have no justification
whatsoever, since Costa Rica has always made peaceful and adequate use of its
inalienable and perpetuai right to navigate the San Juan River. In contrast,
Nicaragua has, by means of the repeated interferences l have described, has
shown a hostile attitude that the Govemment of Costa Rica condemns.
I sincerely hope, Sir, that this matter is resolved promptly for the sake
of the relations between the two countries.
1would like to take this opportunity, Sir, to once again express the
testimony of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
Original signed: Fernando Volio Jimenez
FERNANDO VOLIO llMENEZ
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship '
RlPUBI.DE CO&TAICA
•
IIKimBDERHAtiO![:Xl[R ICIIL16
O. H. 126-lil
· Ser'ior fne&r!JadnerJoctoa.1. :
Cl .Jh 1:dt:c.ste~. rectbf nueva 1nformac16acer
ca Je la. hlterfcrencque! ll(•vacleb el fj~r cet·Jciraqua en ·
perjutcto <lel dcrecho de Cost., lala lihr<.vf)t.;r;..navP.und6n
por e1 Rfo liM Juan. derechn rsu.1C!11cond1c15na1'lu • s~1v~la ··
de no utiftzarlo oara lnaw•mcfon ~e huques de qut•rra.
1.
Las autri•lad .~c:ardqu~ •.•tst,hll'c1;!:J 1d'>st-
guientes nuevas en.~ 1ea condic1on's par111an<IYeqa1n dt- P.I'Jbarca
ciones costarriccnsede turfsooo:
lo.- Cada botero de~ llevar la constancta~~haber
ragado el ucrecho de zarpe~n la Gu•rli1a dr.stst•!ndT:ur.ll ;le la -
~arra .:1 Color.sao,1 pwsto frotltetizrliCi!raquo;y ca::t.>hrpor
;.
·uno nuev~uc al·f s~e.r,itJ un cm;~ de f.Fl.ooca.l1uno. en vis'·
de q~r s9un los aut.ri .tanefc.lr<Htt i1etnt1dt'pSr,as auto -
rioJ.tucCOHîlrrt C<!sl'(ju-'!tivaqr>al naVIlar 111tl]1u san ,lu;m
1
;~o•."!n'il hacd~r4anjc de Zrros l1 '•Otro·:l ~ubfo
bir a lacascl ou!~l.<t t~>>~.plil.ï par,l''!;Cy.: r.1tl.dralo~
- i
bote h.tjld lluvi.1o:lt,,wm \r•tra<1n<.:O••(hJ1·1tarJ; ~tprox1P111Ja-
"112nt4:ntuutos.
Jo.- ?ostl.'r!or c.lh.ernUJem ~IO!>t •.lzao.~rre
de !~ted r1atlidldQtJtf!10•1lA ~r11 ll.lR1o0quhm f!lltunces
proceoJt· a \OlfcHIÎCtSiii}O.v!lacerun reqhtro dt!l.!flu y ef:,::aj~s
tos fle~ou< ~:lfs'tur1stas. fu esa acttvüladhay otr.11.·.uo~1 1
trtlJeo 4() ttutos.
~tOIIOMS BLEO~
OSCARKfoJ ~Clf.-1
LiCAKGI\0DE .~EGOC IIIS
t:JI~AJ DE\N[AARNU; A
ClUOAO.- a
v
RI:~BLIOE COSTil fiiCA
MIIIISDRIOEIACIDNEIRIltElto
.a.
Los quarûfasoirl1c~rz tueJUiH7>ln t'lil~S>lC:
1nterfenmc1as ettin11:nn1hso911 er 1sno valP nnt>ÛI'.I)?"{!l.ueJentrn
adueen 1O!r.oterocostar-r1 cennar4 af1 JTIIII.rcl t:!PI"('Ctn.\··'"' 11hre
veqac16n.
Veo que ~>a ~:r1.flt lt!:1c"r.\·lllfhanvalfdn
mi anteror protes ta fo1a.esc rta.n1 otras rpl.l 1rflcnueivtrc:
balmentehe.ec;o ante'el fl.::ulha1adolianteaVu~str s~flnr yfa-
·ante su Excehmcta el Jl1n1'•tel Cxier1por lev,.lon lifct\luqo -
Tinoco.
Todas estasfnterfetenc1as1njustHica•lny anttju
rfd1cas1 contrarflas expre<;.iod-~;GohternGdentc.:trA'que de ··
sean mantcner uncordialy correcta~l~cd iipli!ltit1u con Go -
J
biernodeCosta Rica. elcualha dado!muestraselotuPntes.d~ajustar
suconductaa lasnpnnas vfqentes detlderec1ntern ~clsi:e cfona1,
las que requlan forna partfcula11 selac1onesentreCosta Rtcav
·rcaragua. A1 presentllestanueva p'fatestesperoQuemuy!Jrt.mto •
elllustr Gao~frnode ~1cara t e.~iane. lcsontprferenc1as a~
nilhe referf<!oquP.no tienejustff14act5alquna, pue5Costal'ica -
sferoprha·hechounuso paeff:fcoad,cuadode su 1erechoinalienable
e imprescriptibJe navf!llacfônpor Rfa·SanJuan. F.ncam,1o,ruca
ragua colas rc1teradasfnterfcr qeehecrfltao ha nuesto en
ev:fdencuna actitud hostique elC~~i~dr e CostaP.:fcrepudia.
,;
Es de esperar.Vues, S~farfa,~ueeste asunto s~
_soluc1onepront.:l fbfefCf'las rel.~fo ente ambpspafses.
1\provechOlaoportun:fdaparareftPrara VuestraSe·
norfa lamuestrasde mi mfisalta ·y dfst1nqu1da constdera·16n,
·.
FF.RN/\NOOLI Jtr•!rifcz
fll1n1sde Relac10nP.F":rtpr,nnVtu1to Annex 43
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez, to Nicaraguan
Chargéd'Affaires a.i to Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,
Note No. D.M. 127-82, 20 July 1982 TRANSLATION
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship
D.M. 127-82
San José,July 20, 1982
Chargéd'Affaires, a.i.:
Your Excellency will remember that on Friday, July 16, in my office, 1
informed you of the news received from the Manager of Swiss Travel Service,
concerning a resolution taken by Nicaraguan authorities. They informed her
that "as oftoday (the 16th), at 6 p.m., the passage for ali Costa Rican vessels
will be prohibited, and it will be re-opened on July zznd, because of the
celebration of the Sandinista Revolution." ·
In that meeting, where the Deputy Minister Peters was also present, 1
added that if the news were true and Nicaraguan 'authorities went ahead with
their decision, this would be a serious violation to the Canas-Jerez Border
Treaty, and it would therefore cause a serious alteration in the diplomatie
relations between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
1 also said that1 trusted this was not true, and that the tourist trips
scheduled by Swiss Travel, for next Sunday and Wednesday could proceed
normally, as weil as other trips in Costa Rican vessels.
1 deeply regret to tell Your Excellency that the news were true, because
on Saturday, around 17:55 hours, an outboard motor boat was detained by
Nicaraguan authorities, and its three Costa Rican passengers, were not allowed
to cross the San Juan River. One of them, Mr. Eli Alvarado Sancho, was held
by Nicaraguan authorities, and he was released yesterday moming, thanks to
the negotiations made by Your Excellency on my request. Nicaraguan
authorities stated that the transit across the San Juan River was closed until the
zznd inclusive.
Honourable
Oscar Ramon Telles
Chargéd'Affaires, a.i.
Nicaraguan Embassy -2-
The Manager of "Swiss Travet Service" also tells me that on Sunday
moming, around 10:30, two boats that were sailing from Barra del Colorado to
Puerto Viejo, to pick-up a group of tourists, were detained by Nicaraguan
authorities and forced to go back to were they came from. This caused a great
complication for the tourists and the agency, that bad to rent planes to transport
the tourists, 12 of them Swiss, to Barra del Colorado. On that occasion also the
Nicaraguan authorities stated that navigation in the San Juan River was not
allowed until the 22nd, inclusive. Two Costa Rican Rural Guards, that were on
leave, and were headed to the central zone of our country, were in those boats:
Messrs. Ramon Cunningham Espinoza and Juan Arquida Nufiez.
For ali this, 1must file a protest, as 1 indeed do, for these new hostile
acts that go totally against Costa Rica's unconditional, free and perpetuai
navigation. right on the San Juan River. 1 hope that the Govemment of
Nicaragua understands that these methods, that affect the existing diplomatie
relations between the two countries, must end immediately.
Therefore, 1 shall wait for a proper explanation of the aforementioned
facts, as weil as of earlier events, about whic1 informed the Government of
Nicaragua in previous correspondence.
1take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency, my highest and
most distinguished consideration,
FERNANDO VOLIO JIMENEZ
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship IIU'UD!;1COSTA IIICA
MIIISTIRElACImNESIOYWLTD
o.H. 1:!7-82
tanJos~2.~de Julfode1~82
senor F.ncardeuNe~oct o..!:
~co~t: laosr~~~"rf' a1'e'vf~rnl•f.""Julio en
mf Oospac'locol!'un lbu~ot1th':Uhahfa~cf~ln,-~1G('l"f'nte-
de 1d:Anencf<tde Turhmo "Ciwhs Ttavcl~c~rtl·"-~'~ ,"nuU'un
autor1dades de tl1ciirii'JUillF! ...,qliP ...,. dt'"oy-
(dfa luilas (p.nl'JU~ J"::rot~.~ra;oo,todP~l!lh1U•t:Ati6n Cd"t
tbrrfcenyesP.abrfrdenuevohtstA êl2 doju11Qdubl A~quee~
t/(en celot"tracflad~volu 'snanft;.'
1\!}regué en d~'m s h ouel'i,f6ttL'Ilb·~1n
senoVfce-1ntstroPet.:H·s.d~u59'c:tcrt.anotic.f.!lllevar
se ac:t~Clolst1t!.\In•nuygr.v\\ioladôrJel Tr.atado de lfilliteo;
C<liia.s-e,Zconsecu~ tnlt"efmluvaoe-'~,r:fva::o -~turbac16n
enl.:r~s~lack•'nlooufitfcas en re CO'i.1Hcar.J1ua'1anife~
té.<',,-dsmo, confal>e..qu!lanotf Ilnofueradertil1o mts.
,qque lov1aj ~osturistaprci~ra p~rdolsd~tnq yo~1mfér -
colepr6Y.i•Xpor laantesdichf A.~" ceVi.ajeP\ldft'ran r-ali
zarse. nrisoo qucualesqufe.trosde embarcadonco!>tarrtc~s.
lleploro manffP.a Vuesa lcell.o'lUli'! notf-ia
'
resultCicrtaI)UeScl sâhadn, ce.rco tic las 17:unaranna •
con1110torfuuP.bordafue oeteilnor otutorf,;tlNfcarMtUAv
sust~s tripulantetodo1 costatrfoensP.les i~1Ji la"aveoa
c1ôll pcll!fSan Juany a unnldellos,donEH AlvAraJo Sancho,
se 1e detuyofue1heradthlt.1j.er~or ,~li ""nf11il1s.a.
qesttonehechaporVuP.stlo.;t'la tno:;:tllnchs "L1autort -
IIO~IORJSf~lt
OSCfRA~~~TEllES
ENCfl~' ":ï!l\l5tACJ•
(Hl:fwJ\DIHC.MAGUA
CIUUAD.·IIIISTItRrue!nlStiiDRSCUlTO
..
....
clades n1caraguens.es alegque estaba1nterrump1do et trlinst to por
el Rfo San Juan hasta el ZZ de este mes 1nclustve.
Astmtsmo, la Gel"t'nte de osw1ss Trave 1 Ser"Ytce" me informa
que el domtnqo po!a w~Aan aeca de las 10:30, dos botes que vtajaban
desde la Garra del.tolorahacfa Puerto Viejo a recoqer un grupotu
rlstas,fucnm r...:Wr :.ii.oir·!r:"dü~dN1~i&raquay ob11gadüsde -
voher~ :Jata ~~-;:.unlo de .:lestin!), lo qtoecau.s6 un qranatr-$torno
1os turstn y a dena f:mprcsala que· sr. v1111adaJ a1'luilaav1ones
p~Jrialadar a lo~t~·rist .ocede t:lli'~~~iz aoa Barra del Colo
rado. Taroblénen esa Ot)ortun1dad las ·autorde Ntcararma manffes -
taron que lnav~act ponel Rfo Sao Juan estabproh1b 1sta el 22
dleste mes inclusive.l::n los botes v1ajaen disfrut<" dt> licP.nc1a
y en ruta hacia el centde nuestrpl\1'slios Guar:l111sl!urRles co<;tarrt
censP.s,osseiiores Ram6nCunninfjhan !!spynJuan Arqui Ja Nûimz.
Por loque 'dejrelata ~lba prP.sentacœ~ ~~v~r~a ~o
presenta,una protestpor estosnuevqs~er. hOnsil<;.y tot~l' Cl!lC'flt.~
trariosdl derechodelfbre y~1rpet navcg<1cf6n,sfncnndtci6 ques~·
t1tt~ ;<;a Rfca en el Rfo Siln Ju!Espero·que eî.nh!f'm~eNfc~~ ra
9~comp~ tUd:aebentel'lllffl'lfll('d1ato!Sptefrknc•s~que al ~
teranlas relacionediplon•~t exiH~ntes entre1"~:tnsr~fsn<:.
lluedo, consecuentemt>ntEh, espera de· las drl'lfd~s ex
p11cacfoneSQ!: os~hechos ocurridolo mis1oque subr'! lCls arrtewlores
quel>t)'I •.'i C[~~~n:::t'c..>~b1err tOiii .;,.r<HltoJen ,,ons :anterf n
res.
Aprovecnold ~nortun fara cfterar a VuestrnSe~orfa
lasmuestr de mt m~salta ydistlngùfda consfderac16n,
Ff.RNIINOOUOJ IlolF.:lF.7
M1n1strodr.;Relacfonesslxt~rtores Annex 44
Nicaraguan Chargéd'Affaires to Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,to Costa
Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,Note No. E.N. 789/82,
2 August 1982 TRANSLATION
Embassy ofNicaragua
San José,Costa Rica
2 August, 1982
E.N. 789/82
Dear Mînister:
1 am addressing Your Excellency to refer to your notes N° D.N. 133-82,
of 8 June; D.M. 126-82, of 16 July, and D.M. 127-82 of July, ali of the present
year, conceming Nicaragua's San Juan River.
The Government of Nicaragua, through me, wishes to inform the
Illustrious Govemment of Costa Rica that it is not its intention, and it has never
been, to deny in any way the rights of free navigation on the San Juan River,
from its mouth up to three English miles before reaching Castillo Viejo, which
were granted to the sister Republic of Costa Rica in the Treaty of Limits of 15
Apri11858.
However, the Government of Nicaragua wishes to clarify sorne
situations that have arisen conceming that free navigation right. As was
established by the 1858 Treaty, the Republic of Nicaragua shall exclusively
have the dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the waters of the San Juan
River, that is, the full sovereignty over said River, from its origin in the Lake
up toits outlet in the Atlantic. Based on this eminent dominion that Nicaragua
exercises over that part of its national territory, our country has the right to
establish regulations over said river, which in no way are contrary to the right
of free navigation that Costa Rica possesses.
In our opinion, the right of navigation in part of the San Juan River can
never be interpreted as an obligation from Nicaragua not to exercise acts of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over that part of its national territory, and over the
vessels that navigate on it, particularly when these acts constitute the exercise
of its right of deferreeand conservation. In other words, that within the essential
attributesof sovereignty is included Nicaragua's inalienable right to adopt the
necessary measures airned to preserve its safety and internai order.
My Govemment also considers that these acts of sovereignty do not
contradict or limit in any way Costa Rica's right to navigate in a part of the San
Juan River, since otherwise the dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over theriver, granted exclusively to Nicaragua by the 1858 Treaty, would not make
sense.
On the other hand, the Illustrious Govemment of Costa Rica can rest
assured that ali measures taken outside the decisions of the Government of
Nicaragua, established by local Nicaraguan authorities, in contradiction to the
stipulations of the Jeréz-Canas Treaty, will be derogated, and those responsible
will be sanctioned. You can also be absolutely sure that the Government of
Nicaragua has as one of its goveming principles that of maintaining and
developing its bonds to the fratemal people and Govemment of Costa Rica,
within the highest spirit of Central American brotherhood.
1take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of
his highest and most distinguished consideration.
(signed)
OSCAR. R. TÉLLEZ
Chargéd'Affaires, a.i.:
His Excellency
Fernando Volio Jiménez
Minister ofForeign Affairs and Worship
City J
.. III$TUID DE IELIC10111muiOIEII
MSPACHO DEL M:N STRO
REC;!1;:.J
nm 3 A60 198-2-
~~iW tl, .AfixvQpt~a
~ /-4· ~ !fl:-
~-b ~,•IP~-· Z de Agosto de 1982
E.N. 789/82
SeiiorMinistro
Tengo a bien dirigi~ e Vuestra Excelencia en la ocasion de r~
ferirme a sus Notas No. D.N. 133-82, del S.de Junio; D.H. 126~2. del 16 de-
Julio y D.M. 1Z7-82.de Julio, rodas del corriente ano, en relaciôn al Rio San
J~ de Nicaragua.
1!.Gobierno de Nicaragua, por mi medio, hace del conocimienUl del
!luatrsdo Gobierno de Costa Rica que no es su inteoeiôn, ni nunca la ha sido, -
el negar an forma alguna los derechos de libre navegaciôn sobre el Rio San Juan,
deade au desembncadura hssta tres millas inglesaa antes de llegar al Castillo -
Viejo, que le fueron cnncedidos a la he~na Repûblica de Costa Rica en el Tra
tado de L!mites de 15 de Abril de 1858.
Sin embargo, desea el Gobierno de Nicaragua aclarar algunas situ~
cionea que se han presentado en relsciôn a ese derecho de libre navegaci6n
Segûn estable el Tratado de 1858, la Repûblica de Nicaragua tendra exclusive
mente el domiriioy sumo imperio sobre las aguas del Rto San Juan, es decir, la -
plena soberanîa sobre dicbo Rîo, desde su salida del lago baata su deaembocadura
en el atl,utico. En base a este dominio eminente que ejerce Nicaragua sobre eaa
parte de su territorio nacional, tiene nuestro pais el derecho de eatablecer re
gulacionea sobre dicho rio, de nintuna manera contrarias al derecho de libre na
vegacién que posee Costa Rica.
En nuestro criteria, cl derecho de uavegaciôn sobr ~arte del Rio
San Juan no puede nunea interpretarse como una obligaci6n de Nicaragua de no eje~
cer sobre esa pnrte de su tetritorio nacionnl y sobre las emharcacionea que en ~1
naveguen, aecos de soberanf., y jurbdicci6n, particularmente cuando es.tos accos -
constituyen un cjercicio dt• HU dcr<-ochode dt>fensy conservsci6n. Es dech-, que
dentro de los atributos esenciales de soberania,. se encuentra el derecho inalie
nable de Nicaragua a adoptar las medidaa pertinentes deatinadas a preservar su -
seguridad y orden interno.
Considera ir,unlmentc mi Gobierno que estos actoa de soberanîa no
contradicen ni limitan de ~•nera alguna el derecho de CSota Rica de navegar sobre
uns parte d<'lR'i:oSan Juan, pue~ de otra forma no tendrîa sentido el dominio y -
sLUIIimperiv ,;ore el Ri:o<1"'',.JTrato.do dE"l858atr ibuye exclus ivamente a Nica
ragua.
Pot otro lado, tenga el Iluatrado Gobierno de Costa Rica la plana
aeguridad" que tOdas aquellasmedidas q1,1e,al margen de las decisiones del Gobie!.
no de Nicaragua, hayan est<Jblecido autorid aes locales nicaraguanses en contra-
•.• 1
ExC1Do .enor
Fernando Vilio Jim6ne~
Ministro de Relaciones
Exteriores y CUlto
Ciudad.288
~k;~ tk. .Af~r('
~ /~ ~t> .Jtut,1
;i~ M,"' 9Y'...,;,{,':J" ""<Itt~r,;;,
-2-
dici6n con lo estipulado en el 1'racndo .l!.!rllz-~eriuderORadas y sandona
dos los l'espons lc:s. 1'~·n ranhtJl,'D 1h~pltna ~t- Riod que el C'.oiberno ,...
de lficaraguaticne COIIIuno ûe :<:us ptincipiredores elde preeer:vary deaa
rrolla'lsus virn:ulosccin c1 Ilcrmano pueby r.obie rno de Costa Ricdentl'ode:
mas alto esp!:r'itde frnternidncr.entroamericuna.
Aprovecho lnnportunidad para reiterar aVuestra Excelencia las
mueatraa de su mus alta'1distinguida considerociô'n.
fExCDIOseaor
~Ferna Vnlo oJiménez
'Hinistro de Relacionea
teriorea y CUlto
t: udad.
' Annex 45
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,to Nicaraguan Chargé
d'Affaires a.i to Costa Rica, Oscar Ramon Téllez,Note No. DM 189-82,
19 August 1982 TRANSLATION
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministzy of Foreign Affairs and Worship
D.M. 189-82
San José,August 19, 1982
Dear Chargéd'Affaires:
1refer to the note sent byYour Excellency, N° E.N. 789/82, of2 August,
1982, in which the Honourable Embassy ofNicaragua answers notes N° D.M.
133-82 of 8 June; D.M. 126-82 of 16 July, and D.M. 127-82 of 20 July, ali
three of the current year, concerning the San Juan River, where Costa Rica has
a very important right.
1deplore that the Government of Nicaragua insists on denying what, by
virtue of a standing treaty, belongs to Costa Rica, that is, the perpetuai,
perpetuai, and inviolable right that its vessels navigate, without any condition,
on the San Juan River. Therefore, the Government of Costa Rica cannot, and
does not accept, the unilateral, unlawful, and capricious interpretation that the
Govemment ofNicaragua gives the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, ratified by the
Cleveland Award in 1888. Much Jess, it cannot and does not accept, the thesis
of the Govemment of Nicaragua that this country has the right "to establish
regulations over said river", in detriment of the right of Costa Rica, nor the
thesis that Nicaragua has "the obligation" to "exercise acts of sovereignty and
jurisdiction over that part of its national territory and over the vessels that
navigate on it", in detriment of Costa Rica's right. This interpretation, which
the Govemment of Costa Rica rejects, contradicts and limits what by virtue of
the Treaty does not admit contradiction or limitation.
Your Excellency will understand that the reiteration of the interferences
that are illegal and unlawful violations of the Treaty constitute unfriendly acts
that seriously affect the relations between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. For this
reason, the Government of Costa Rica expects that the Government of
Nicaragua will put an end to such violations, which have not stopped since my
last note ofprotest, because on the 8, 12, and 15 ofthis month, the Nicaraguan
army continued with its acts of interference with free navigation, in detriment
of Costa Rican tourist boats. They even raised the priee of a badly called and
even worse based "departure clearance certificate", which is a tax that is
excluded in Article six of the Canas-Jerez Treaty. Therefore, the Government
of Costa Rica protests again for these interferences and does not accept the
terms of the previously mentioned note. 1hope that this matter will be settled as soon as possible, for the benefit
of the friendly and proper relations that Costa Rica wishes to maintain with
Nicaragua.
I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency, my highest and
most distinguished consideration.
FERNANDO VOLIO llMENEZ
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Honourable
Oscar Ramôn Tellez
Chargéd'Affaires, a.i.
Embassy of Nicaragua ~'
~
RI,UILIIll CIIIRICA
IIIMISTE1I.WIIII(SIUIU81Clltlll
D.M. 189~82
San José, 19 de agosto de 1982
Seilor EncaryMio1h•N•~! o•:<.
Me reffero a lanota de Vuestra Excclencia No.E.N. 789/82
del 2 de agosto de 1982 enlA que la Honor11loll•mb11jade Nlcaragua -
contesta las notas Nos. D.M.133-82 del 8 de junio; D.M.126-82 del
16 de julioy D.M.127-BZdel 20 de julio, las tres de estea~o ,n ~
lacién conel rfo San Juan, dondeCosta Rica tiene un derecho de suma
fmpgrtilntfo•. Deplorque el Goblerno de Nicaragua seempe~ en neqar
10quà por·trotado en ~igo ilpertenece a tosliiIHca, f!Sdtcr, e1 d!
rec p~ o rp~ 1mpurnllript1bl0cInviolable 11quu sus embarcac1onu -
naveguen, s1n ntngunocond1d6n, por el rfo San Juan.. Por lo hnto. •
el Goblernode Costa Rica no puede aceptar, nf acepta, la interpreta -
cf6nuRilateral, antijurfdicay antojadiza que el Gobfernode Nicaragua
le da al Tratado Caftas-Jerez de'1058 ratificadpgr el laudo Cleveland
en 1888- Huchomenospuede aceptar, y no acepta, la tesis del r~bierno
deNicaragua de que este pafs tfene el derecho de "establecer regulaciÇ!
nes sobre dfcho rfo", en perjufcfo del derP.chode CostRica, nf la te
s1s de queN1C:ragua t1ene "111ob1gac16n" de ''ejercer sol!rIlclpute
QI''Ilt.Qrrf torOGci0081 .Y!>UbrQlftCll~l>h lllruJUl!o•n1!1lhiYI~'JUUn,
actas desobaranfa y jur1s<licci6n"en per.Juklu dt!ldert~c dror.u..u ·
R1ca, Esa 1ntrpretaci 6n,.,uct•1 Gobf_erno Co~1;,P.lr.a chau , r.on -
tradl cy lfmf ta 1o 4upar el fra t4dr10fdm1te t.cmtr1kc !lin rdIf mf
tacf6n.
ComprenderaVuestra Seftorfa quelareiteraci6n de las interfe -
rencias ilegales y violatoriasdel Tratado constituyen actos inamisto -
sos que a1teran seriamente las relaciones entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua.
Por ese motiva.~sper el Gobierno de Costa Rica que el Gobiernode Nf
Ciragua I'Ongif1n a1..1s'viulilcioncs a!'cu;des no sr! h,minI.P.rrwp-
HONORAS BLREOR
OSCAR RAMO TELLEZ
ENCARGA OEONEGOCTO AS.l.
EMBAJAD DEAN1CP.Rf,GUA
ClUOAD.~ ""'u&t~DJ COI'A lUCA
•1111 DlREUCIm GID[IIDr Sn
.2.
do desde mt Glt1111nota de protestil,puesto que lo~ dfas O, 12, y 15
.de1 presenteIDI$o1 oJ•rcltQ cjeN1toragua .:alinutium SU$actos de
tnterlerencfa da h. l1bre navf9act6n,.an par juc1o de navescostarrt ~
,censes·de turt$m0; -Inclusivehanaumentado el valor de unmai llama~
do y peor f1Jlldamantad6 "derechde :arpe•, lo que constttuyé un lm •
puesto cuyo estab1ec:fm1ent osu exclui dopor el .-artfculo sexd el~-
Tratado Canas.,Jerez. Por 11)tanto, ~1 Gobierno de Costa Rica protes
ta nuevamente por estas interferenclas y rechaza los términos de la
nota queccintesto..
Eipt:roqua este asunto aea reS:ueltolo mh pronto postble. en
bllneficfodl_ln àmhtosu y correctu reladones que Costa Rica desea
rnantener con Nicaragua.
Aprovecho la oportunidadpara refterar a VuestraSeftorfa las -
mues_trasde mt ml$ alta y d1stfnguida consitleracHin,
..-.
!
1
.J
-'
FERNANDO llO JI~NfZ
Ministra de Relacfons fxteriores y Culto Annex 46
Arnbassador ofNicaragua to Costa Rica, Rogelio Rarnîrez Mercado, to Costa
Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,Note No. E.N. 865/82,
6 September 1982 TRANSLATION
Embassy of Nicaragua
San José,Costa Rica
E.N. 865/82
Septernber 6, 1982
Dear Minister:
1refer to the note sent by Your Excellency, DM/ 189-82, of 19August
of the current year, which responds our note N° E.N. 789/82 of 2 August, in
which you refer once again to the San Juan River.
The Govemment of Nicaragua expresses its justified surprise for the
terrns of the note sent by Your Excellency, as weil as its deep concem for the
concepts expressed therein, since we see that the affirmations made in that note
are extremely injurious to Nicaragua's sovereignty over the San Juan River,
and they are inadmissible to our country, from every point of view.
As was pointed out in our note of 2 August, the 1858 Treaty and the
Cleveland Award are categorical in deterrnining that Nicaragua, and only
Nicaragua, has the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the San
Juan River, thatis to say, full sovereignty and eminent domain, granting Costa
Rica a simple right offree navigation, subject to severa! limitations. Therefore,
Nicaragua bas not made a unilateral, unlawful, and much less, capricious
interpretation, as Your Excellency expressed in an excessive rhetoric, but rather
a reaffirrnation of Nicaragua's sovereignty over the San Juan River, totally in
accordance with standing international instruments between our countries.
We consider that the statements made in the note sent by Your
Excellency, in the sense of disclaiming Nicaragua's inalienable right to
establish regulations in the San Juan River, and to exercise acts of sovereignty
and jurisdiction over that part of its national territory and over the vessels that
navigate on it, disown Nicaragua's sovereignty over the San Juan River, and
impugn the border agreements and treaties, an extremely dangerous and
arbitrary attitude, that goes against international regulations on this subject.
That interpretation seeks to turn a simple right of free navigation into a
common ownership, because only from that point ofview, could we understand
the affirmations made by Your Excellency.
However, and this is registered in several instruments known by Your
Excellency, the San Juan River is a river absolutely Nicaraguan, and on thebase of this unquestionable reality Nicaragua bas exercised, exercises, and will
continue to exercise ali the attrîbutes of its sovereignty, without any detriment
to Costa Rica's right to free navigation, that will continue to be respected by
Nicaragua, as opposed to what Your Excellency states in your note, within the
limits established in the standing treaties, free navigation that will be respected,
moreover, to the extent that Costa Rica respects Nicaragua's sovereignty over
the San Juan River. Free navigation to the degree that such right is not used to
harm the national interests, alter the order and peace of the nation, attempt
against Nicaragua's territorial integrity, or to disrespect the rights that
international norms recognize to the sovereign States.
Therefore, the Government of Nicaragua finds the attitude of Your
Excellency very strange, because we see in it an attempt to ignore what is
already established, and a disrespect to·our condition às sovereign State, for
which we are emphatic in rejecting the note sent by Your Excellency, hoping
that the Illustrious Govemment of Costa Rica will assume the obligations
already contained in the International Treaties, since on our part we are in the
best disposition to respect what those treaties stipulate.
Finally, regarding the purported taxes that according toYour Excellency
are being charged by our authorities in the zone, proper measures have already
been adopted to prohibit that practice, if it were true they were being
demanded, in accordance with that stipulated in the 1858 Treaty.
1take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency, the assurances of
consideration and esteem.
ROGELIO RAMIREZ MERCADO
AMBASSADOR
His Excellency
FERNANDO VOLIO JIMÉNEZ
MinisterofForeign Affairs and Worship
City 295
IIIIIISTEIIOliE REliCIOIIUElTERIOIU
DESPACHO DEL MINISTRO
RECJBIDO
FEC11A'17 Sfl. 132
Septiembre 6, 1982
Seiior Ministro:
Tengo a bien referirme a la nota de Vuestra Excelencia,
DM/169-82 del 1·9 de Agosto de los corrientes, res pues ta a nuestra no
ta No. E.N. 769/62 del 2 de Agosto, en la q1,1ese refiere nuevamente
al Rîo San Juan.
El Gob~erno. Ndecaragua manifiesta su.justificada sorpre
sa por los·têrminas de la nota de Vuestra Excelencia, as{ como su
profunda preocupaciôn por los conceptos en ella vertidos, pués obse!..
vamos.se hacen en dicha nota afirmaciones lesivas en grado suŒOa hi
sooerania de NicaragUa sobre el Rio San Juan, inadmisibles desde to
do p~nto de vista para nuestro pais.
Como senalamos en nuestra nota.del 2 de Agosto, el Tratado
de 1656 y el Laudo Cleveland .son categôricos al determinar que a Nies
ragua y solo a Nicaragua le. corresponden exclusivamente el dominio y
sumo imperia sobre el Rio San Juan, es decir, la· soberania pl ena, el
dominio emi.nen.te,·otor.gândole a Costa Ries un simple derecho de libre
navegaciôn sujeto a mdltiples limitaciones. No bay por lo tanto, por
parte de Nicaragua, ninguna interpretaciéin unilateral, antijurl:dica y
muchas m~nos antojadiza, coma express en un·exeeso· de retéirica Vuestra
Excelencia, sino la reafirmaciéin.de la soberania de Nicaragua sobre el
Rîo San Juan, ajustada.plenamente a los instrumentes internacionales
en vigor entre nuestros paises. ·
. Consideramos que las afirmaciones con.tenidas en la nota de
Vuestra Excelencia, en el sentido de desconocer el.derecho inaliena
ble de Nicaragua de establecer regulaciones sobre el Rio San Juan· y de
ejercer sobre esa parte de su territorio.nacional y sobre las embarca
ciones y personas que en el navegu.en actos de .soberanîa y jurisdicciôn,
constituyen. un desconocimiento de la soberan{a nicaraguense sobre el
Rîo San Juan y una impugnaciSn de los acuerdos y tratados limît~ofes,.
actitud en extremo peligrosa, arbitraria y opuesta totalmente a las
normas internacionales sobre la materia. Esa interpretaciôn p~etende
convertir un simple derecho de libre navegaciéin en un condominio, pués
ûnicamente desde esa Sptica podrîan com.prenderse las afirD\Sciones de
Vuestra Excelencia.
No obstante, y esto consta en multiples instrumentas que Vue~
tra Excelencia conoce, el Rio San Juan es un ·rio absolutamente nicara
gu.ense, y en base a esta realidad inobjetable Nicaragua ha ejercido,
ejerce y seguira ejerciendo todos los atributos de su soberania, sin m~
noscaho alguno del derecho de Costa Rica a la libre navegaciôn, que se
guirâ siendo respetado por Nicaragua, al cont~ar io·lo que expresa
Vuestra Excelencia en su nota, dentro de los limites estaolecidos en
los tratados vigentes, libre n~vegaçi qôenserâ resp~tad par,demâs,
en la medida en que Costa Rica respete la sooeran!a d'e Nicaragua sobre
.../. -2-
~la.l de ..zl{;(u'ta?tza
~fo~L
~'""' ~ k-9'~-
E.N. 86sfs2
el Rio San Juan. Libre navegaei6n en la medida en que no se utiliee
ese dereebo.para perjudicarlos interesesnacionales, alterarel orden
y la.paz de la naciôn,atentar contra la integridadterritorialnicara
guense, ni para irreapet:los derechos que las normss in.ternacionales
reconocen a los estadosoberanos., ·
Para el Gobierno de Nicaragua,. en consecu'é.ncia, resum.!
mente eJC:traiia la actide Vuastra Excelencia,pués vemos en ellaun
intente de desconocerlo que ya estâ establecido,un irrespetoa nues
tra condiciôn deest~d soberano, por lo cual reehazamos enérgicamente
la nota. de Vuestra; Excelencesperando que el IlustradGobierno de
Costa Rica asumà las. obli.gacioconsagradasya en los Tratadoslnte!_
nacionales, pués.por nuestraparte estamos en la mejor disposiciôde
respetarlo que esos mismos tratadosestipulan.
Para finalizar,en lo que se refierea los presuntosimpues
tos que segûn Vuestra Excelencicobran nuestrasautoridadesde la zo
na, se han adoptado. ys las medidas del caso para. prohesa prâctica,
si en verdad se hubierenestadoexigiendo,en. consonancicon lo dis
puesto en el Tratado de 1858.
Aprovecho la oportunidadpara reiterara Vuestra Excelencia
laa muestr as. de consideracyôestima.
ExcèlentîsimoSenor
FERNANDV OOLIOJIMENEZ
Minis,tro de Relaciones
Exterioresy Culto
Ciudad.- Annex 47
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Fernando Volio Jiménez,to Nicaraguan
Ambassador to Costa Rica, Rogelio Ramirez Mercado,
Note No. D.M. 014-83, 8 March 1983 TRANSLATION
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship
D.M. 014-83
San José,March 8, 1983.
Dear Ambassador:
On 19August, 1982, 1sent a note ofprotest to Your Excellency, which
was added to the previous ones, for t:J;eonstant and serious violations to Costa
Rica's right of free and perpetuai navigation on the San ·Juan River. Said
violations were committed-and are being committed-by the Illustrious
Government of Nicaragua, through the use of the armed force. On that
occasion, moreover, l also refuted the thesis of that Illustrious Government of
it having "...the right to establish regulations over that River" as weil as to "...
exercise over part of its national territory (the San Juan River) and over the
vessels that navigate on it (including those of Costa Rica) acts of sovereignty
and jurisdiction".
This thesîs is unlawful and clearly infringes the Cafias-Jerez Treaty and
the Cleveland Award of 1888, which ratified, without any doubt, Costa Rica's
right of free an<;lperpetuai navigation on the San Juan River, without
regulations, controls, or interferences. refuted it in my note D.M. 189-82 of
19August, 1982. l said then, and I repeatîtnow, that "the Govemment of Costa
Rica cannot, and does not accept, the unilateral, unlawful, and capricious
interpretation that the Govemment of Nicaragua gives the Canas-Jerez Treaty
of 1858, ratified by the Cleveland Award in 1888", because that interpretation
"contradicts and limits what by viitue of the Treaty does not admit
contradiction or limitation". Since then, 1have reiterated Costa Rica'sprotest
verbally to Your Excellency, and mainly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, His Excellency Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, when upon my
invitation we met in New York, 1ast 13 October, with the pleasant company of
Ambassadors Javier Chamorro, from Nicaragua, and Fernando Zunibado from
Costa Rica. Recently in Tegucigalpa, in an interview requested by the
Ambassador of Nicaragua in Honduras, Mr. Guillermo Suarez Rivas, 1 asked
him to explain to your Illustrious Govemment, the need to cease the violatior:ts
to Costa Rica's right that its vessels navigate freely on·theSan Juan River, and
not to minimize the reaction of the Govemment of Costa Rica to this hostile
act.
His Excellency
Rogelio Ramirez Mercado
Ambassador of the Republic ofNicaragua I must now submit a new note of protest, based on the events suffered
by Costa Rîcan journalists Mr. Edgar Fonseca and Mr. Mario Castillo, from the
"La Nacion" Newspaper, and Mr. JoséAngel Maya, from the radio news "La
Voz de San Carlos" when on 23 February of this year they attempted to make
a report ofthe facts denounced by the Government of Costa Rica in regards to
the San Juan River.
These journalists narrated in articles inLa Nacion" and in "La Voz de
San Carlos", that their rights as professionals dedicated to finding and freely
divulging information on what is occurring in the San Juan River, where
violated. The violation was committed by members of the Sandinista Popular
Army, taking advantage of the force of their arms, which allowed these
arbitrary authorities to confiscate their note pads, photographie films, and a
tape containing recordings of what they were investigating. The joumalists
verified for themselves, and through the testirnonies of people from the zone,
that the Sandinista Popular Army has a total and illegal control over the
navigation of Costa Rîcan vessels on the San Juan River, which causes serious
complications in the activitiesof the Costa Ricans. They could even verify that
said authorities even totally impeded navigation from 18:00 hours to 6:00
hours; which also constitutes a serions violation to the Canas-Jerez Treaty.
For ali this, and because the Illustrions Government of Nicaragua
persistsin its unlawful and hostile attitude, which constitutes a serious cause of
tension between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, I must protest once again for the
facts rnentioned above, which reflect a forrn of conduct of the Illustrions
Govemrnent of Nicaragua, that is totally contrary to the nonns of standing
international law. Ibeg Your Excellency to transmit this protest, and I trust that
the Illustrions Govemment of Nicaragua understands that this is a Costa Rican
national cause, and because of this, the Govemment of Costa Rica will not
yield in its efforta claim what in the Law rightfully pertains ta the Costa Rican
State.
I take this opportunity ta reiterate ta Your Excellency the assurances of
my highest and most distinguished consideration.
FERNANDO VOLIO JIMÉNEZ
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship ..
I!PIInii:H COSTAfUCA
•
IIIIIISJBIDEWIDIm IEROI iYCUllO
D.M.014-83
san José, 8 de marzo de 1983
Seftor Edlajador:
El 19 de agosto de 1982 envté a Vuestra Excelenc1a -
una nota de protesta, que se unt6 a otras anterfores, por las cons -
tantes y graves vtolactones al derecho que ttene Costa Rtca a la li
bre y perpetua navegac16n en el Rfo San Juan. Dtchas vfolacfones -
las realfzaba - y las realtza - el Ilustrado Gob1erno de Nicaragua,
med1ante el usa de la fuerza armada. En esa oportunfdad, astmrtsmo,
refutlila tests de ese llustrado Gobferno de que él tfene "••• el -
derecho de establecer regulacfones sobre dfcho Rfon, lo mrtsmoque de
"•.• eejercer sob.re parte de su terr1torfo nactonal (el Rfo San Juan)
y sobre las embareacfonesqueen ~1 naveguen. (fnclufdas las de Cos-
ta R1ea), actos de soberanfa y jurt sdfceiôn". ~.
La anterfor tests es anttjurfdica y claramente vfola
torfa del Tratado Caflas-Jerez y del Lauda Cleveland de 1888, que ra
ttftc6, sin lugar a n1nguna duda, el derecho de Costa Rica $1l•Ll.L
bre 1 perpetua-na.vegadô.n....en._e.LoSan.Juan,.:.sJn..Œguactones ,..con-.:...
troles nf fnterfe~ La refuté en mf nota O.M. 189-82 del 19 -
de agosto del aflo pasado. DUe entonces y re1tero ahora que "el Go
bferno de Costa Rica no puede aceptar, ni acepta, la 1nterpretacf6n
unilateral, ant1jurfd1ca y antojadfza que el Gob1emo de Nicaragua -
da al Tratado Caflas·Jerez de 1856. ratif1cado por el Laudo Cleveland
de l888u, en vista de que tal fnterpretacfôn "contradfce y l1mfta lo
Exeelentfstmo Sei'lor
Rogelfo Ramfrez Hercado
EfltlaJador de la Repüb11ca de N1caragua
CIUDAD.- AP'U.LICADIE coaTRICA
••
~IISI DUI[IJDlOifSTUIDH YSWLTO
.2.
que en el Tratado no ad'Jlftcontrad1cci6n nf 11m1tact6n". Desde en
toncas he retteraclo la protesta de Costa Rfca en fonna verbal il!lt-
Vuntra Excelenc1a, y sobre todo, ante el Mfnfstro del Extertor de -
Nicaragua, Su Excelencia don Miguel O'Escoto Brockman, cuando nos -
reun1moa por 1nv1tac16n mfa, en flueva York, el 13 de octubre pasado,
eon la grata comparlfa de los ·EI!bajadoresdon Javier Challl)rro, de Ni
caragua_,y don Femando Ztmbado, de Costa Rfca. Recfentemente, en
Teguctgalpe, en entrevista que me so11cft6 el sei'lor E_mbajadorde Ni
caragua ante el Gob1emo de Honduras, don Gu111ennGSulrez R1vas, le
pedf que le htciera ver a su Jlustrado Gobferno la necesfdad de que
cesaran las vfolactones al derecho de Costa Rica a que sus embarca -
c1ones naveguen 11breŒnte en el Rfo San Juan, y que no mfnfmfzara -
la reacctdn del Gobfemo de Costa Rfca ante ese hecho host11.
Ahora debo presentar una nueva nota de protesta, fun
dada en los hedtos de que fueron vfctfmas los per1od1stas costai'Tf -
censes don Edgar Fonseca y don Marto Castfllo, del Perf6dfco "la tla
ctdn" y don Josii Angel Moya, del Rad1ol'erfôdico "la Voz de San Car
1
los", cuando el dfa 23 de febrero de este ai'itrataron de real~zar
un report&je sobre los hechos que ha denunc:ladoel Gobfemo de Costa
Rfca relatfvos al Rfo San Juan.
Dfchos perfodfstas relataron en reportajes de '·La Na •
ct6n• y de "la Voz de San Carlos", que fuerOn vfolados sus derechos
como prafesfonales dedfcados a buscar y dffundtr libremente\fnforma
dones sobre lo que ocurre eri el Rfo San Juan·. la violacf6n la come·
tteron mfetd:lrosdel Ejérdto Popular Sandfntsta, prevalecténdose de •
la fuerza de las annas, que penrrlt16 a clichas autondades arbitrarias
decom1sar las lfbretas de apuntes, los rollos foto~raff ycuns cfn·
ta que contenfa grabacfones sobre lo que investf~an ls perfodts
tas eonstataron ellos mfSillOy por tnstfmonfos de vec1nos, fJUe elEj•
eito Popular Sandfnfsta ejerce un control tcltal eileqal sobre la na 301
.P,vÎuc1>.-A "'"
lfiRISTEItEWID mIIwΠYCULTD
-~ ~ -. . -
.3.
Ngad&l da 111vescostarrtcoosee11el ltfo San Juanlo que causa se
0
riGI traeon- a tu acthfdades de los c:estaM1<:t l~n:seopu
cHeranCOIIItltarque las cttadasautortdadesllegan tulstl~tr del
·todo lanav.pct6n datas IB:OO h<»'aa las 6:00!toNI. to quo tllltltêft
Cllllll u111grave v1o1ac:t6nal Tratado tailaS-Jare:z.
l'or ·tado1o antarioy en vista de qua el 11Witrado • .
0
&ati1III'IX·Idl Ntcangua Plrstste an su ac:t1tud anttjy llost11quai:
constt-. unanria causa de tells16entre Costa Rfca·yltfcaraouacf!
bo PJ"'\:eetde llUIWpar 1os llac:hosqudejo rela dos los cua1es "!
0
f1e,ta1111fonDa de COlldUCtael 11ustrado Gobtemode ltfC11'8Vuata •
talllliDte contrar1a a lu nonŒs ddarec:lltntemac:t0111v1!JIII•.oa
Rwga a Vuntnt Exc:e1enc:tatnsm1ttresta protnta y conffo en Que el
Il utndo Gabterno deNtc:&1'41JUaIJIIl1"!uelso tnta de una causa •
n.eianal costai'T'tc:ansey que. po1'elloGobte~ de Costa Rtc:a no
cedlrf en elprophtto de reclam ~~qre en Derec:hole pertenece al
htf4.!tl;C01tlrrtcenie.
Aprovechola o)IOI"tUnfdlldpan rettena Vuest1'aE11ce-
Jacta let s9f'1dldel de 1111 b alta ydbtingutda constderac16n. Annex 48
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Ernesto Leal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Bemd Niehaus Quesada, Note No. 940284, 21 March 1994 TRANSLATION
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua
March 21, 1994
N° 940284
Dear Minister:
I have the honor to address Your Excellency to refer to your note of
dated San Jose, March 15, 1994, which mentions the alleged charge of a
"transit toll to Costa Rican vessels that navigate on the San Juan with the
purpose oftransporting tourists." [con el objeto de transportar turistas].
In this regard, the Government of Nicaragua wishes to make the
following observations:
1.The Caftas-Jerez Border Treaty granted to the Republic of Nicaragua
"exclusively the dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the waters of the San
Juan, from its origin in the Lake to its mouth in the Atlantic." That is to say, by
virtue of that Treaty, Nicaragua exercises full sovereignty, control, and
jurisdiction over the San Juan.
2. On the other band, the Treaty mentioned establishes that the
Republic of Costa Rica "shall have the perpetuai right of free navigation in the
said waters, between the said mouth and the point three Englîsh miles distant
from Castille Viejo, said navigation being con objetos de comercio" and not for
other type of activities. Therefore, the expression in the Treaty "con objetos de
comercio," excludes any other activity, and the terrns of the Treaty should be
interpreted in the standard sense they bad at that time and, being it a Treaty of
Limits, it should be interpreted in a restrictive way.
3. The charge for the Tourist Card is not a transit toll, but a measure of
migratory control. ln any case, we must remember that Costa Rica's perpetuai
right of free.navigation, in the portion indicated in the Treaty does not inelude
tourism, and rouch less the free access to Nicaragua's sovereign territory to
foreign citizens who travel in Costa Rican vessels that navigate on said River,
"for the purpose of transporting tourists", as your own note states.
4. The Canas-Jerez Treaty does not limit in any way the exercise of
Nicaragua's Sovereign Rights to establish the necessary migratory and security
controls, along and across the whole San Juan from its origin in the Lake to its
mouth in the Atlantic.
5. In conformity with these sovereign rights the Government of
Nicaragua bas established Migratory Control Posts to regulate the payment ofthe entry visa of citizens of those countries that, according to the Treaties in
force, are not exempted from this requirement.
The Government of Nicaragua does not charge any type of tax to the
Costa Rican vessels that dock on the banks of the San Juan River, in the part in
which navigation is common, when they navigate "con objetos de comercio".
I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurances of
my highest and most distinguished consideration.
Ernesto Leal Sanchez
Minister
His Excellency
Dr. Bernd Niehaus Quesada
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship ·
of the Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry ofF oreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua 305
.....
.·~~.~·' 't
A)
'~~A~ ....
MJNISTERIO
RELACIONES DEXTERIORES
21 de Marzo de 1994.
Managua,Nicaragua N")4(12!14
SeriorMinistro:
Tengo el honor de dirigirme a Vues!ra Excelencia en ocasi6n de referirme a
su Nota fechada San )15 de Marzo de 1994 en la cual se hace referenda al supuesto
cobra de "un impuesto de peaje a embarcaciones costarricenses, que navegan por el Rfo
Sàn-Juan,con el objeto de transportar turistas".
Al respecta el Gobiemo de Nicaragua desea formular las siguientes
consideraciones:
1.El Tratado de !fmites Caf\as.Jerézotorg6 a !a Repûblica de Nicaragua,
"exdusivamente, el dominio y sumo imperia sobre !as aguas de! Rfo San Juan, desde su
sa!ida de!ago, hasta su desembocadura en el Atlantico". Es decir, en virtud de este
Tratado, Nicaragua ejerce p!ena soberanyajurisdicci6n sobre el Rio San Juan.
2.Por otra parte,eferido Tratado establece que la Repûblica de Costa Rica
"tendra en clichas aguas los derechos perpetuas de libre navegaci6n, desde la expresada
desembocadurahasta 3 millas inglesas antes de llegar al Castillo Viejo con objetos de
comercio" y no para otro tipo de actividades. De allr que la frase del Tratado "con objetos
de comercio" exduye cualquier otra actividad, debiéndose interpretar los términos del
Tratado enl sentido corriente que tenfan en aquella época y, por ser un Tratado de
Lfmites,interpretarse de manera restrictiva.
3.EIcobra de la Tarjeta de Turismo no es un impuesto de peaje, sino una
medida de control migratorio. Entodo caso, debe recordarse que los derechos perpetuas
de libre navegaci6n de Costa Rica, en el trecho que seiiala el Tratael, noïncluyen
turismo y, mucha menas, el libre acceso al lerritorio sobet"ano de Nicaragua de
ciudadanos exlranjeros, que viajan en embarcaciones costarricenses que navegan por el
citado Rfo "con el objeto de transportar turistas", como _loseiiala la propia Nota.
4.EI Tratado Caiias.jeréz no limita de ninguna manerade loserddo
Derechos Soberanos de Nicaragua a disponer los controles migratoribs y de seguridad
necesarios a lo largo y ancho del Rfo San Juan en toda su extension, desde su salida del
Lage hasta su desembocadura en el Atlantico.
S.De conformidad con estos derechos de soberanfa el Gobierno de Nicaragua
ha establecido Puestos de Control Migratorio a fin de regular el cobro de Visa de lngreso
requisito.ose pafses que, de acuerdo a los Trarados suscritos, no estan exentos de este
~····
A! ExcelentfsimoSeiior
OR. BERNONIEHAUSQUESADA
Ministro de Relaciones ExtyrCulto
de la Republica de Costa Rica MJNISTERIO
DE
REL4CIONES EXTERIORES
Mmla_gu,icaragua
- 2-
El Gobierno de Nicaragua no cobra ninguna dase de impuestos a las
embarcaciones costarricensesque atracanen lasriberasdel Rfo Sanjuan, en la parte en que
la navegaci6n·es comun, cuando navegan "con objetos de comercio".
Hago propicia la ocasi6n para renovar a
y distinguida consideraci6n. Annex 49
Nicaraguan Acting Minîster of Foreign Affairs, Carlos R. Gurdian Debayle,
to Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lépez, Note. No.
VM/08/0685/98, Il August 1998 TRANSLATION
(Seal of the
Republic ofNicaragua,
Central America)
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Managua, Nicaragua
Il August 1998
No.: VM/08/0685/98
Dear Minister:
I have the honour to addressYour Excellency on the matter ofreferring
to the Joint Communiqué dated 30 July 1998 and_undersigned by the
Nicaraguan Minister of Defence, Mr Jaime Cuadra, and the Costa Rican
Minister of Government, Police and Public Security, Mr. Juan Rafael Lizano.
In this regard, having revised and analyzed the aforementioned
document exhaustively, the Govemment of the Republic of Nicaragua has
concluded that, in accordance with our Political Constitution, the said
document fundamentally lacks the power of a legally binding document and,
therefore, does not admit regulations, forcing the Govemment of Nicaragua to
declare it legally null and void and non-existent.
In this sense, I request thatYour Excellency kindly take note of the
above and inform the appropriate authorities of Your Illustrious Govemment
and, in particular, the Public Security authorities.
The Govemment ofthe Republic ofNicaragua-reiterates its willingness
to continue working in accordance with the international legal documents that
state Nicaragua and Costa Rica's rights pertaining to the San Juan River, in the
interests ofstrengthening the bonds offriendship and cooperation that unite our
nations and governments.
I avait myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurance of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
(signature)
Carlos R. Gurdian Debayle
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas L6pez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica
His Office MINISTERIO
DE
RELACIONESEXTERIORES
-
11 deagosto de1998
N :VM\08\0685\98
Set'lorMinistro:
Tengo a biendirigirmeaVues.traExcelencien ocasi6n de referirmal
Comunkado Conjunto que con fecha 30 de julide 1998, suscribieraneMinistrde
Defensa de Nicaragua,Don Jaime Cuadra con cl Ministrde Gobemaclon, Po!icia y
SeguridadPûblicade CostaRlca,DonJuan Rafaellizano. ·
A este respectael Gobierno de laRepOblica de Nicaragua habiendo
revisado y analizado exhaustivamente el documenta antes referido, hapodido
conslatar con basen nuestra Constituci6nPolftlcaque el mismocarece de la fuerza
legasus~an ylen cansecuenda no admite reglamentaci6n,obllgando Gobierno
de Nicaraguaa con~ide jufdilmoente nulo e inexistente.
En est.sentidosolicito a Vuestra Excelenciatomdebida notade lo
expresado anterlormenteyc'omunicarlo a las autoridadès competentes de Vuestro
llustrado Coblern~·e narticular a las autorldades de Segurid.adPub!ica.
EtGobierno de la Republic:a de Nicaragua reitesu disposici6nde
contlnuar trabajandcon base en losinstrumentasjurrdicas intemacionales que
determlnanlos derechosde Nicaraguay Costa Ricaen elRfa San Juan, en favordel
estrechamlentode los vînculos de amistad y cooperadon que unen a nuestros
pueblosy goblemos.
Hago propida la ocasion para manlfastar a VuestrExcelencia las
seguridadesdemi mas altaydlstinguldaconsideracî6n.
C" Annex 50
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas, to Nicaraguan Acting Foreign
Minister, Carlos R. Gurdian Debayle, Note No. DM-097-98, 12 August 1998 309
TRANSLATION.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San Jose, 12August 1998
DM-097-98
Your Excellency:
1 address Your Excellency to acknowledge receipt of and reply to your letter
No. VM 08/0685/98 of August 11, 1998, in which you inform me that the
Govemment ofNicaragua considers the Joint Communiquésigned on July 30
of the current year by the Nicaraguan Minister of Deferree, Mr. Jaime Cuadra,
and the Costa Rican Minister of Public Security, Mr. Juan Rafael Lizano, null
and unconstitutional.
Your letter, Minister, does not explain the reasons on which your Govemment
based this decision of nullity and non-existence.
With respect to Costa Rica's navigation rights in the San Juan River, my
Govemment sustains the sarne position ithas always upheld, in that it is the
treaties and other norms of International Law which should prevail in the
relations between the both States. In this regard, I reiterate the fact that the
Govemment of Costa Rica complies with ali the points set down in the Caii.as
Jerez treaty of 1858, the Cleveland Award of 1888 and the Central Arnerican
Court'sjudgement of September 30, 1916.
In effect, articles 4, 6 and 9 the Canas-Jerez treaty, in addition to the right of
free navigation with purposes of commerce, establish Costa Rica's obligations
of a defensive nature in the San Juan River and very clearly forbid both
countries from carrying out hostile acts there:
"Article 4: (... ) Costa Rica shall also be bound, as far as the
portion of the banks of the San Juan river which correspond
to it is concerned, on the same terms that by treaties is
Nicaragua, to contribute toits custody in the same way as the
two Republics shall contribute to the deferree of the river in
case of externat aggression (... )"
"Article 6: The Republic ofNicaragua shaii have exclusively
the dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the waters of
the San Juan river from its origin in the Lake to its mouth in
the Atlantic; but the Republic·of Costa Rica shall have the
perpetuai rightof free navigation on the said waters, between the said mouth and the point, three English miles distant
from Castille Viejo, said navigation being for the purposes of
commerce (... )"
"Article9: Under no circumstances, and even in case that the
Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua should unhappily find
themselves in a state of war, neither of them shaHbe allowed
to commit any act ofhostility against the other, whether in the
port of San Juan del Norte, or in the San Juan river, or the
Lake ofNicaragua".
ln accordance with point li of the Cleveland Award, Costa Rica'srights of free
navigation exclude navigating the river with vessels of war, but expressly
authorizes it with vessels of the Revenue Service or as may be necessary for
the protection of the enjoyment of the commercial navigation:
"Second. -The Republic of Costa Rica under said Treaty and
the stipulations contained in the sixth article thereof, bas not
the right of navigation of the San Juan River with vessels of
war; but she may navigate said riverwith such vessels ofthe
Revenue Service as may be related to and connected with ber
enjoyment of the "purposes of commerce" accorded to ber in
said article, ors may be necessary to the protection of said
enjoyment".
Given the above, it is not understood how she can exercise the fiscal custody
or protection of commercial navigation in the San Juan River, to which the
Cleveland Award expressly refers, if the Costa ,Rican Civil Guard cannot
navigate the river with its service arrns, in vessels that are not vessels of war.
Bear in mind that even before the existence of the. Lizano-Cuadra
Communiqué, this international ruling recognizes the Costa Rican right to
navigate with vessels of the revenue service or as may be related to the
protection of commercial navigation.
On the other band, the Central American Court of Justice judgement of 30
Septernber 1916 expressly ratifies that Costa Rica has a perpetuai and
inalterable real right of use, for navigation on the lower San Juan, with
commercial, fiscal and defensive purposes. ln this respect, the said ruling
states the following:
"(... ) Costa Rica has in the San Juan, for purposes of
commerce, the permanent rights of free navigation from its
mouth up to within three miles ofCastillo Viejo; and she may
bring her vessels to, on either shore indiscriminately, without
its being pennissible to charge ber any dues in the part where the navigation is common. It is therefore plain that the
dominion which the Republic of Nicaragua exercises over the
San Juan River is not absolute or unlimited; it is neèessarily
restricted by the rights of free navigation attached th eret o
and so remarkably granted to Costa Rica, especially if we
consider-that s'uch rights, exercised for fiscal and·
defensive purposes, are confounded in their development,
in the opinion of treatise writers, with the sovereign faculties
of imperium. Such a concession is equivalent to a real right
of use, perpetuai and inalterable, which places the Republic
of Costa Rica in the full enjoyment of the ownership for
practical purposes of a large part of the San Juan River,
without prejudice to the full ownership which Nicaragua
preserves as sovereign of the territory... appears evident.. .b)
The idea that the rights of navigation granted to Costa
Rica on the San Juan River do not extend to war vessels, but
simply to vessels for fiscal and defensive purposes; this being
an interpretation which in no way weakens the doctrine set
forth regarding the practical ownership which Costa Rica bas
of a large part of the San Juan River; for navigation with war
vessels, besides being likely to constitute a cause of
uneasiness, would imply a function peculiar to territorial
sovereignty, (...)".
For ali of the above reasons, Minister, my Government, whilst reasserting its
respect for Nicaragua's sovereignty over the San Juan River, reaffirms Costa
Rica's right to navigate the part of the San Juan River stipulated in the Canas
Jerez treaty with vessels other than those of war.
Costa Rica has every intention of maintaining amicable relations with
Nicaragua, as demonstrated by the moderation exercised by Costa Rican
Govemment officiais, beginning with the President of the Republic himself,
Mr. Miguel Angel Rodriguez, so as not to aggravate the situation or fuel
tensions by making hostile declarations. However, this does not mean that the
Costa Rican Government is prepared to renounce the rights acknowledged in
the aforementioned treaty, award andjudgement, or allow them to be restricted.
In regard to your Illustrious Government's willingness to work based on the
international legal documents that determine Nicaragua's and Costa Rica's
rights on the San Juan River, expressed in your letter, I should like to reiterate
that Costa Rica bas never intended to exercise more or less rights other than
those granted by said instruments and, in this respect, it reiterates its readiness
to maintain the channels of negotiation that should always exist between sister
nations open, insofar as Nicaragua is equally willing and prepared to appoint
appropriately authorized persons to carry out negotiations.In view of the above, 1 would like to request Your Excellency to indicate the
steps which should be taken in order that the goodwill expressed in your letter
may result in the appropriate resolution to this dispute.
1 avait myself of this opportunity to renew the assurance of my highest
consideration,
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Carlos Gurdian Debayle
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua 313
SanJosé,12de agostode 1998
DM-097-98
Excelentisimoseiior:
Me dirijoa VuestraExcelenciaen ocasi6nde acusar reèiboy darrespuesta a su
notaN° VM 08/0685/98de11de agostode 1998 e~ Jacual meexpresa que el
Gobiemo de Nicaragua considera nulo e inconstitucional el Comunicado
Conjwttosuscritoel 30 dejulio del presenteafi.opor el Ministre de Defensa de
Nicaragua Don Jaime Cuadra y el de SeguridadPU.blicade Costa Rica, Don
Juan RafaelLizano.,-_
Su nota no aclara,sefio;Ministre ,os motivas en que fonda su Gobiemo la
consideraci6nde nulidade inexistencia.
En relaci6n con los derechos de navegaci6nde Costa Rica en el rio San Juan,
mi Gobiemo sustentala misma posici6n que ba mantenidoen todo memento,
en el sentido de quelos tmtadosy demasnormasdel DerechoIntemacionalson
los que deben presidir lasrelaciones entre ambes Estados. Al respecta, le
reitera que el Gobiemo de Costa Rica se ajusta en todos sus extremos a lo
dispuestopar el tratadoCaftas-Jerezde 1858,el Lauda Clevelandde 1888y la
sentenciade la Cortede JusticiaCentroamericanade 30 de setiembrede 1916.
Precisamente;·los articulas 4, 6 y 9 del tratado Cafias-Jerez. ademâs del
derecho de libre navegaci6n con objetos de comercio, establece para Costa
Rica obligacionesde canicter defensive en el rio SanJuan, y bien claramente
prohibea ambes paisesejerceractas de hostilidaalli: "Articula 4: (...) TambiénestarâobligadaCosta Rica, par la parte que le
correspondeen las margenesdelrio de SanJuan, en los mismosténninos
quepar tratadoslo estaNicaragua,a concurrira la guarda de él,del
propiomodoque concurrirânlas dosRepûblicasa su defensa en casa de
agresiônexterior(...)"
"Articule6: LaRepûblicadeNicaraguatendra exclusivamenteel
dominio y sumoimperiasobrelas aguasdelRio SanJuan desde.su salida
del Lagohastasu desembocaduraenel Atlântico;pero laRepùblicade
CostaRica tendnien dichasaguaslos perpetuas derechosde libre
navegaciôn,desde la expresadadesembocadurahasta tres millasinglesas
antesde llegaral CastillaViejo,conobjetàs de comercio(...)"
"Articule9: Porning(Ùm1 otiva,ni en casa de guerrenque por
desgraciallegasena·"ëncontrarlasRepùblicasde Nicaragua yCosta
Rica, les serâ pernritidoejeningtm acte de hostilidadentreelias en el
puerto de San JuandelNorte,ni enel rio de este nombryLagode
Nicaragua".
Confonne al punta II delLaudaCleveland,los derechos de libre navegacide
Costa Rica excluyeo la navegaciénen el rio con buques de guerra, pero
expresamentela autorizacon buquesde serviciofiscal o camo se necesitepara
la protecci6ndelgace de lanavegaciéncomercial:
"Segundo.-La Repùblicade CostaRica no tiene segùndichoTratado, y
conforme·a las estipulacionesde suarticulasexto, el derechode navegar
el rio SanJuanconbuquesdeguerra,pero puedehacerlo con
embarcaciones delserviciofiscal,segûncorresponda y tengaque ver
con el gace de losabjetosde comercio,que se le reconace par dicho
articuloo coma se necesiteparalaprotecciénde clichagace"
2Dado lo anterior, no se comprende cômo podria ejercer la vigilancia fiscal o la
protecci6na lanavegaci6n comercial en el rio San Juan a Ia que expresamente
se refiere el Laudo Cleveland, si la Guardia Civil costarricense no puede
navegar en el rio con sus armas de reglamento, en naves que no son buques de
gu erra.
N6tese que aûn cuando no existiese el Comunicado Lizano-Cuadra, este faiio
intemacional reconoce el derecho costarricense a navegar con buques de
servîcio fiscal o para la protecci6n de la navegaciôn comercial.
Por otra parte, la sentencia de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana de 30 de
setîembre de 1916, expresamente ratifiea que Costa Rica tiene un derecho real
de uso, perpetua e inalterable, para la navegaciôn en elan Juan,con fines
comerciales,fisca l~defensives. Al respecta, dice dicho falla en Jo
conducente:
..(...)Costa Rica tiene en el San Juan, para objetos de comercîo, los
derechos pennanentes de libre navegaci6n, desde su desembocadura
hasta tres millas antes de llegar al Castilleypodrâ atracar sus
barcos, en cualquier orilla indistintamente, sin que sea licita imponerle
gravâmenes en aquella parte en que la navegaci6n es com6n. Claro esta,
pues, que el dominic que la Republica de Nicaragua ejerce en el rio San
Juan, no es absoluto ni ilimitado; tiene que estar restringido por los
derechos de libre navegaci6y anexos, tanremarcabl~ otoegndtsea
Costa Rica, sobre todo si se considera que tales derechos, ejercidos para
fmes fiscaley defensivos, se confunden en su desarrollo, ·seg(mel sentir
de los tratadistas, con las facultades soberanas del impériwn. Tal
concesiôn equivale a un derecbo real de uso, perpetua e inalterable, que
coloca a laRepublica de Costa Rica en el gace pleno del dorninio util de
gran parte del rio San Juan, sin perjuicio del dominio pleno que conserva
Nicaragua como Soberana del territorio .... resulta evidente .... b)
3 El concepto de que los derechos de nav.egaci6n otorgados a Costa Rica
en el rio San Juan no se extienden a buques de guerra, sino simplemente
a embarcaciones para fines fiy.defensivos; interpretaciénque en
nada desvirtlla la doctrina expuesta sobre el dorninio ùtil que a Costa
Rica corresponde enanparte del rio San Juan, porque la navegaci6n
con buques de guerra ademas de poder constituir una causae
intranquilidad,implicaria una ftmci6n propia del soberano territorial,( ..)"
Por toda la anterior, seiior Ministre, mi Gobierno, a la vez que reaflfllla su
respeto par la soberania de Nicaragua en el rio reitera el derecho de
Costa Rica de navegar en élen la parte que estipula el tratado Canas-Jerez con
buques que no sean de guerra.
Costa fuca esta.ci. del mejocp.opésit~de maniener ·con Nicaragua
relaciones fratemas,o lo ha demostrado la mesura observada par los
funcionarios del Gobierno costarricense, empezando propio Presidente
de la Republica Don Miguel Angel Rodriguez, en cuanto a no agravar tensiones
ni ex.acerbar los animas con declaraciones virulentas. Sin embargo, esta no
significa que el Gobierno de Costa Rica estédispuesto a renunciar o a permitir
que se restrinjan los derechos que le reconoce el trayla sentenciaa
antes mencionados.
En cuanto a la disposici6n de su Ilustrado Gobierno de trabajar con base en los
instnunentos juridicos internacionales que determinan los derechos de
Nicaraguy Costa Rica en el rio San Juan, expresada en su nota, me pennito
reiterarle·Costa Rica nunca ha pretendido ejercer ni mas rùmenas derechos
que los que dichos instrumentas le conceden, taisentido, reitera su
disposici6n de mantener abiertos los canales de negociaci6n que siempre deben
ex.istirentre pueblos hennanos, Nicaragua existe idénticavolyelad
anima de nombrar para negociar.apersonas competentemente autorizadas.
4 317
Por lo expuesto, ruego a Su Excelencia indicaime los pasos a seguir a efecto de
que la buena voluntad expresada en su nota pueda traducirse en la soluci6n
adecuada a este diferendo.
·Aprovecho la oportunidad para expresarle el testimonio de mi consideraci6n,
Excelentisimo seiior
Carlos Gurdiân Debayle
Ministre de Relaciones Exteriores
par laLey
Managua, Nicaragua Annex 51
Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister, Carlos Roberto Gurdiân, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRE/98/02638,
28 August 1998 TRANSLATION
(Seal)
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua
Managua, 28 August 1998
MRE/98/02638
Dear Minister:
1am writing in reference to your letter DM-097-98 of 12 August 1998
and would like to express the following in this respect:
The Nicaraguan Govemment coïncides with Your Excellency in that the
Jerez-Cai'ias Treaty signed on 15 April 1858 and the Award in this regard
delivered by the then President of the United States of America, Grover
Cleveland, in 1888, constitute the legal instruments that establish the legal
status of the San Juan River. Any alteration of the terms used in the said
instruments should result in a treaty between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, to be
signed in accordance with the regulations established by international law and
the constitutional regulations currently in effect in both States.
The Republic of Nicaragua respects and will continue to respect the
rights, set clownin the Jerez-Canas Treaty and the Cleveland Award, granted by
the Republic of Nicaragua to the Republic of Costa Rica. These rights were
expressly granted by Nicaragua to Costa Rica, in its capacity as the State that
bas possessed and possesses the full sovereignty; being these rights limited in
accordance to the terms strictly stated in the Treaty and Award, respective!y. In
this regard, 1 quote: "The Republic of Nicaragua shall have exclusively the
dominion and sovereign jurisdiction over the waters of the San Juan
River" (Art. 6 Jerez..:CafiasTreaty). Consequently, the rights exercised by
Costa Rica can be no other than those expressly stated in the aforementioned
legal instruments.
Tb this effect, please allow me to cite the words of the great Costa Rican
statesman and jurist Ricardo JiménezOreamuno who, in a study published in
1888, expressed:
"The emphasis that article 6 of the Treaty places on
Nicaragua's possession of full dominion and sovereign
jurisdiction over the river's waters underscores the desire to
establish a difference between the rights it was advisable
Nicaragua and Costa Rica should have over those waters." lndeed, if the rights of Nicaragua and Costa Rica were the same then,
as Mr. Ricardo Jimenez rightly points out: "...what is the practical effect of the
solemn declaration stating that the dominion and sovereign jurisdictionis held
by Nicaragua?"... "The exception stipulated that Costa Rica would have
perpetuai rightsof free navigation con ohjetos de comercio. If the exception
regarding vessels of war does not appear in the article, then the inference îs
logical; it was understood that Costa Rica does not have a right in this respect."
In regard·to the words of Costa Rica's ex-President, a very logical
conclusion emerges: by means of the Jerez-Canas Treaty, Nicaragua granted
Costa Rica a right of free navigation con objetos de cornercio, and not an
unrestricted right. Any form of navigation undertaken by Costa Rica in the
waters of the San Juan River that does not correspond to navigation con objetos
de comercio or thatis not carried out with vessels belonging to revenue services
related to the enjoyment of the objetos de cornercio in the part of the river
~tipula intete international instruments currently in force, should be
expressly authorized by Nicaragua as the country that possesses full
sovereignty over the waters of the said river, thus allowing the establishment of
ail types of regulations which by virtue of said sovereignty she requires to
establish. Nicaragua has exercised, does at present exercise and will continue
to exercise ali the attributes of its sovereignty, without adversely affecting
Costa Rica's right to free navigation as set down in the Jerez-Canas Treaty and
the Cleveland Award.
ln relation to Your Excellency's reference to articles 4 and 9 of the
Jerez-Canas Treaty, allow me, with ali due respect, to point out that these
situations are not currently pertinent.
Fortunately, no extemal acts of aggression exist, nor are we facing or
are likely to face a war or any act of hostility. ln any case it would be the
Republic of Nicaragua's responsibility to qualify any act carried out in its
territory by a foreign nation. I would, at the same time, like to reaffirm that
Costa Rica's obligation, as express!y stated in the Treaty, to attend to the
custody of the river is from its territory (respective bank).
Regarding the deferree of the San Juan River, allow me to quote, once
again, Mr. Ricardo Jiménez:"It is Costa Rica's obligation, as stated in article
4, to defend the San Juan River as Nicaragua's ally; and since when hasan ally,
by its very nature, assumed the right, in the absence of war, to travet through
the allied territory with its troops, to navigate with vessels of war along
domestic waters or station its navy at its ports?"
Finally, Minister, 1 would like to reaffirm that, within the spirit of
solidarity and fratemity that should prevail between the nations of Central
America guided by the judicious principles of good neighbourliness andpeaceful coexistence, in particular between neighbouring countries united by
close ties offriendship, 1extend our full readiness and cooperation in arder that
both countries, by means of their respective foreign ministries, explore the
possibility of establishing mechanisms of cooperation that satisfy our înterests
without adversely affecting our sovereignties and that strictly adhere to the
terms and spirit of the legal instruments currently in force and mutually and
historically acknowledged, the correct interpretationof which must not give
rise to any dispute whatsoever.
1 avait myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurance of my highest consideration and esteem.
(signature)
CARLOS ROBERTO GURDIAN D.
Acting Minister
His Excellency
ROBERTO ROJAS LOPEZ
Minister ofForeignAffairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica :!:.;··,_·;::·-·;,:--···.:.--·:-_·
oaoO::'li9
J 1'" ~2.j= u~f
:1 l ': 1f .1 1~1 i , . '
MINISTERIO
DE
RELACIONESEXTERIORES
Managua,Nicaragua
·Managua, 28 agosto de 1998.
MRE/9S/02638
Selior Ministre:
Tengo a bien dirigirme a Vuestra Excalancia en ocasiôn de refelirme a su
nota DM-097-98,del 12 de agosto de 19va ese respecta me permito expresarle:
El Gobierno de Nicarag1,1acoinccon Vuestra Excelancia, que el
Tratado Jerez-Canas suscrito el 15 de abril dv el lauda qua al respecta en 1888
emitiera el Presidente da los Estados Unidos de América Grover Cleveland, losstituyen
instrumentasjurfdicos que establela situaci6jurldica del Rfo San Juan. Cualquier
alteracion de los términosgnados en dichos instrumentes, debe ser objeto de un tratado
entre NicaragvaCosta Rfca, suscrito de acuerdo a las normes establacidas par el derecho
internacionalas nonnes constitucionales vigentes de ambos Estados.
la Repüblica de Nicaragua respevarespetaré los derechos que en
virtud del Tratado Jerez - y el lauda Cleveland, le fueron concedidos par la Repüblica
de Nicaragua aa Repüblica de Costa Rica. Derechos que Nicaragua, en su calidad de Estado
queha tenidy tiene la soberanra plana, le concedi6 expresamente a Costa Rica; siendo estos
derechos limitados de acuerdos ténninos estrictamente contenidos en ev Laudedo
respective. Al respecta cita: "la RdelNicaragua tendra wc:cluslvamente el dyminic
sumo imperia sobre las aguas deRro San Juan" !Arta.6 Tratado Jerez-Caftas)En
consecuencia, los derechos que Costa Rica detente no pueden ser otros que los expresamente
consignados en los instrumentasdicos supra mencionados.
En ese sentido, me permito citar las palabras del grvnjuristesta
costarricensa Ricerdo Jiméne..:Oreamuno, quien en un estudio 1888iexpresara:
~Elénfasis con que el artf6udel Tratado consigna que Nicaragua tendra el
dominic v sumo imperia sobre las egues del rfo, manifiesta que se quiso
astablecerdiferencientre los derechos quaicara,guav Costa Rica se
convenfe tuvieran en aquellas aguas".
En efecto...
Al Excelentfsimo Selior
DON ROBERTO ROJAS LOPEZ
Ministre de Relaciones ExtevCuita
Republica desta Rica 323
En efecto. y si los derechos de Nicaragua v Costa Rica fuesen los
mismos, entonces como bien lo expresa don Ricardo Jiménez: "...qué efècto prâctico tiene la
solemne declaraciôn de que el dominic y sumo imperia corresponde a Nicaraguàr ... "La
salv&dad se estipul6, que Costa Rica tendrra derecllos perpetuas de libre navegaciôn con
objetos de comercio. Si no aparece en el artfculo la salvedad de naves de guerra, la inferencia
es 16gica; no se crey6 que Costa Rica tuviera derecho a ello".
De lo expresado por el Seiïor Ex Presidente de fa Repûblica de Costa
Rica, se desprende algo muy J6gico: Nicaragua concedi6 a Costa Rica en virtud del tratedo
Jerez-Canas un derecho de libre navegaci6n con objetos de comercio, no un derecho
irrestricto. Cualquier navegaci6n queosta Rica efectue en las aguas del rfo San Juan que no
corresponda a la navegaci6n con objetos de comercio o con embarcaciones de servicio fiscal
vinculadas al goce de los objetos de comercio, en la parte del rio establecida en los
instrumentas internacionales vigentes, debe ser autorizada expresamente por Nicaragua, como
pafs en el cual recae la soberanfa plana, sobre Jas aguas de dicho rfo, pudiendo entonces
establecer todo tipo de regulaciones que en virtud de dicha soberanfa requiera establecer.
Nicaragua ha ejercido, ejerce y segui nj~rclendo todos los atributos de su soberanla, sin
menoscabo alguno al derecho de Costa Rica de libre navegaci6n, estipulado en el Tratado
Jerez - Canas y Lauda Cleveland.
En cuanto a la mendon que Vuestra Excelencia hace de los artfculos 4 y
9 del tratado Jerez-Canas, respetuosamente me permito expresarle que se refieren a
situaciones que en la actualidad no vienen al case.
Afortunadamente, no existe ninguna agresiôn exterior ni tampoco nos
enfrenta, ni seguramente nos enfrentarâ, ninguna guerra, ni acta de hostilidad. En todo casa a
la Republica de Nicaragua le corresponderla calificar cualquier acto que un Estado extranjero
ejerza en su territorio. Al mismo tiempo, me permito reiterer lo expresamente consignado en el
Tratado de que la obligaci6n que pesa sobre Costa Rica de concurrir a la guarda del rfo. es
desde su territorio (margen respectival.
Respecta a la defensa del rfo San Juan, me permito volver a citar
textualmente, a don Ricardo Jiménez: "Costa Rica por el artfcul4 qued6 obligada a defender
el San Juan camo aliada de Nicaragua; y c.cuéndo se ha visto que un aliado, por serlo,
pretenda tener derecho, no habiendo guerra, para transitar con sus' trepas por el territorio
aliado, para navegar con buques de guerra sus aguas interiores o estacionar armadas en sus
puertos?".
Para concluir... Para concluir, deseo reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia que dentro del espiritu
de solidaridad y hermandad que deben de prevalecer entre los paises .de Centroamérica y
guiados por los sabios principios de buena vecindad v convivencia pacffica,partict:~larmente
entre paises vecinos unidos por estrechos lazos de amistad, me permito ofrecer toda nuestra
voluntad y cooperaci6n para que ambos paises, a través de las respectivas Cancillerfas,
exploremos la posibilidad de estab!ecer mecanismos de cooperaci6n que satisfagan nuestros
intereses, sin lesionar nuestras soberanfas y en estricto apego a la letra v el espfrîtu de los
instrumentas jurfdicos vigentes, comunmente e hist6ricamente reconocidos, cuya correcta
interpretaci6nno pueden dar lugar a diferendo alguno.
Aprovecho la oportunidad para reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia, las
muestras de mi mas alta consideraci6n y estima. Annex 52
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lépez,to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, 7 September 1998 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Eduardo Montealegre
Minister ofF oreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua
Dear Mr. Montealegre:
I would like to take this opportunity to greet your Excellency and,the
same time, infonn you of the problems being encountered by the Programme
Technicians of the Eradication of Screwonns from Cattle Programme. This
programme, which operates at a national level, is being carried out by officiais
who make regular visits to the cattle fanners.
Over the past few days a serious problem has arisen due to the fact that
the Nicaraguan authorities in the Atlantic Huetar Region are blocking the right
of passage that is established in the Cafias-Jeréz Treaty and the Cleveland
Award.
The technicians who have been directly affected by these orders are
Gustavo Quiros Pereira, ID No. 1-789-672 and Johnny Dias Vega, ID No. 7-
126-677, whose itineraries include passage along the San Juan River.
1 would be most grateful if your Excellency could intercede and
forcefully call the respective authorities' attention to this matter in order to put
an end to these regrettable incidents.
(Signature)
Roberto Rojas
Minister
(Seal)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
San Jose, Costa Rica
cc/ Juan Rafael Lizano, Minister of Public Security
Esteban Brenes, Minister of Agriculture and StockbreedingSef'ior
Eduardo Montealegre
Ministrede Aelaciones Exteriores
Republica de Nicaragua
Su Despacho:
Estlmado sèf'ior Montealegre:
Me es grata la ocasi6n para·saludar a Vuestra Excelenciy a la vez hacer de
su conocimiento los problemas que estân teniendo los Técnicos del Programa para la
Erradicacl6n del Gusano Barrenedor del Ganado. Este programa que opera a nival
nacionalesta a cargo de funcionarios que rea!izan visitas periôdicas a los ganaderos.
En estos ultimos dias, se ha presentado un problema seria con las autoridades
nicaragüenses en la Regi6n Huetar Atlântica, las cuales impiden derecho de paso
establecido en los Tratados Cafias..Jerézy lauda Cleveland.
Los técnlcos que han sida afectados directamente par esas disposicianes son
Gustavo Quir6s Pereira, ced.1-789-.672y Johnny ,Dias Vega, ced.7·126-Bn, cuyas
rutas incluyen el paso por el Rfo San Juan.
Le agradezco a Vuestra Excelencia muche interponer sus buenos oficios y
hacer un llamado vehemente a las autoridades respectivas para que estos heches tan
lamentables no se sigan dando.
0.&i:Jf_
Roberto Rojaé
Ministre
Œf Juan Rafael Uzano, Ministre de Seguridad Publica.
Esteban Brenas, Ministre de agricultura y Ganaderia. Annex 53
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. [illegible], 30 September 1998 TRANSLATION
(Seal)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua
September 30, 1998
(IIIegible Ref. No.)
Dear Minister:
1 have the honour to address Your Excellency on the matter of your
letter of 07 September 1998 regarding the problems encountered in the Atlantic
Huetar Region by the technicians working on the Programme for the
Eradication of Screwonns from Livestock.
In this respect, 1 beg to differ with Your Excellency's remarks
concerning the fact that the Jeréz-Cafi.as Treaty and the Cleveland Award
establish a rightf passage along the San Juan River. On the contrary, allow me
to remind you that the perpetuai rights offree navigation granted by Nicaragua
to Costa Rica in the aforementioned legal instruments are specifically limited
to objetos de comercio and a perfectly clearly defined stretch of the said river.
However, in view of your request and taking into account that this
programme's development is of great significance and benefit for your nation
and, indirectly, for ours, due to the fact that we are neighbouring countries, we
are calling this matter to the attention the respective authorities in order that
they may provide the Costa Rican technicians wîth the support they require to
carry out their work efficiently in this area.
I avait myself of this opportunity to renew the assurances of my
highest consideration,
(signature)
Eduardo Montealegre R.
Minister
His Excellency
Mr. ROBERTO ROJAS
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
San Jose, Costa Rica @
MJNIJTitRIO
DE 30d~sepliernbre1'J'Jit
RELACJONBS KXTERlORRS "\\U~·••-u•~l·l·~~~~
Mani---kanlatte
5(!•rv\ino:sh
Tt!:sumo.:Jgraen dirisJVvestrbt~;~ en~culnide hacrefeur::a•
,, •v wrnci\ci•e.h:uiP.07 de~plie• t~19r8,.abre pro!Jiemasque t"stân
tPnif'ndntcnit:of rograrpa1ala l:.rrarllGuumonBarrenadordel Comado,
t>1,ftPP,Hut'l;'lrAtl.tntir.a.
A':!re~pP rreermito.u~t fno elsprf porV~IAU1xcelencde,qu~
el Tratado jeréz·ClLaudaCle.,.elande~talndcrcnodepaso pelrioSat'
)u,\yoor econtrarme permlto r!!COitlos derecperpeiUde libnavega·
cioeom:(' d6idiaagua CostRicen vlrltidde lnstrumP.ntr>jsurldiros P!!lén
•t$J1Prllic;lmenle condklolnetos de-wmerdoP.o un tredm plHfcctamclltf'
,Jdi,idt>rlicho rio.
Sinernhargo~na1end<'a ;u ~oll cittandoen considerACque el
do•~ar rlentepograma ede graimportancy ben~l patotuopaleimlirec
tanll'llte par.t el orser r;aiseos venot~a.haendo un llarnado a l.u
,,otoridildes torrP~poparaueebrtdnsa lotécnicos co9lnrricel,5es el apoyo
nec•· q~<aléi~orm r.lilde forma eflc~ulr<\ben.dlclla'zona.
H.1gpropicila ocasi6npexrJIla srn. ~sltrmt ::cmslderaci6n.
~~y
ftlu.:~lontea l.egrP
Mlnistru
Alh.cehmti~ Seir
Dun R08ERTOROJA~
MinistroRel;~c bteoreseyCuho
R~!Jll •EClstt:ial
S;mJrm'!.CoRiG' Annex 54
Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Walter Niehaus, to Nicaraguan Deputy
Foreign Minister, Guillermo Argüello Poessy, Note No. DVM: 607 -99, 11
May 1999 TRANSLATION
San Jose, 11 May 1999
DVM: 607-99
His Excellency
Dr. Guillermo Arguello Poessy
DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Republic ofNicaragua
Dear Deputy Minister:
According to our conversation at the IV Regional Conference on
Migration held from 26 to 29 January in San Salvador and which we were
unable to follow up on untillast Thursday 6 May during the meetings of the IX
Mixed European Union- Central America Commission, due to the accident I
bad in February, pleaseind enclosed the document that Costa Rica agrees to
sign and that would normalize navigation on the San Juan River and promote
development within the atmosphereof cooperation and friendship that prevails
over our neighbouringnations:
Yours faithfully,
(signature)
Walter Niehaus B SanJosé, Il de mayo, 1999
OVM:,607-99
Excelentisimo
Dr.Guillermo Arguello Poessy
VICECANCILLER
Republica de Nicaragua
EstimadoSeôor Vicecanciller:
De acuerdo a nuestra conversaci6n sostenida durante la IV Conferencia
Regional sobre Migraci6n que se efectu6 entre 26 y 29 de enero en San
Salvador, y a la cualle pudimos dar continuidad hasta el pasado jueves 6 de mayo
durante las reuniones de Comisi6n MixUnionEuropea- Centroamérica,
debido al accidente que yo sufriera en febrero, me pennito remitirle el documento
que Costa Rica estaria de acuerdo en firmar y que vnormalizar la
navegaci6n sobre el Rio San Juan e ünpulsar su desarrollo, dentro del ambito de
cooperaci6n y amistad que reina entre nuestros pueblos hennanos.
Con toda consideraci6n
--~14Jt.~;d;!s
/Walter Niehaus B · Annex 55
Nîcaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister, Guillermo Argüello Poessy, to Costa
Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Walter Niehaus, Note No. MRE/99/01347, 12
May 1999 TRANSLATION
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
MRE/99/01347
Managua, 12May 1999
Dear Deputy Minister:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt ofyour letter DVM: 607-99 of 11
May in which you refer to our conversation held during the IV Regional
Conference on Migration.
In the aforementioned letter you enclose a proposai that Costa Rica
would be willing to sign. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is studying the said
document in order to formulate the approprîate response.
1avail myself of this opportunity to renew the assurances of my highest
consideration.
(signature)
Guillermo Argüello Poessy
His Excellency
Walter Niehaus
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
of the Republic of Costa Rica
His office
(seal)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua
Central America
(stamp)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Deputy Minister 'sOffice
RECEIVED
Date: 13/5/99 ,.
MRI:P.I9401.1
Managua, 12 de mayo1999
fstimado Sciior Viceministro.
Tengo cl agrado de dir11listed,ocasiondeilCU r~io dr sunota
DVM:(> 0e711~tm9aya, lacual hareferencinuR~ cnrcs.aci6nsostenida
duranlla IVconfcrencla Resobre Mlgraci6n.
Endlt:ha nota se nmmlsl6nde un.:Jpropucst;rde doqueCostaRica
~~li dli~ip<aefmaraLa Candlferestiestvdiamelcitaddocumenta para su
oporturcspu~.~ta.
Hago propida ocasl6par<rexpresar lasmu.emicrnsiP.raci6ny estima.
ExŒI1~nl Sleri~or
Waher Niehaus
Vir:cmlnide Reladones ExteryoCullo
dl' l<1R!:'p(iblkatle Costa Rica
Sur:kspacho
0000648 Annex 56
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, Note No. DM-015-2000, 21 January 2000 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
21 January 2000
DM-015-2000
Your Excellency:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency, once again on the
possibilityof continuing talks regarding the maritime delimitation between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
In this respect, as I pointed out in my letter Ref: DM 535-99 of 20
December 1999,the Govemment of Costa Rica reaffirms its ample willingness
to continue talks with Nicaragua on this matter of interest to both our countries,
once the talks being carried out on the scope of Costa Rica's rights of free
navigation on the San Juan River have reached a satisfactory conclusion.
On this understanding, and in view of my public engagements already
planned for February, 1would like to propose toYour Excellency the possibility
of holding meetings regarding this matter during the first week of March to
begin discussions on the maritime border delimitation in the Pacifie Ocean.
The meetings could take place in San Joséin accordance with the proposai of
Your Excellency, and the specifie dates during that first week of March couId
be agreed upon via diplomatie channels.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurance of my highest consideration.
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Eduardo Montealegre
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua 21 de enero de 2000
DM-015-2000
Excelentisimo senor:
Me es grata saludar a Vuestra Excelencia en ocasiôn de referirme nuevamente a la
posibilidad de continuar conversaciones sobre la dc!imitaciôn mari!ima entre CostayRien
Nicaragua.
Al respecta, de conformidad con lo planteado en mi nota DM 535-99 de 20 de
diclembre de 1999, elGobierno de Costa Rica reitera su plena disposiciôn de continuar el
dialogo con Nicaragua sobre este tema de interés comun, una vez concluido
satisfactoriamentel dialogo que se desarrolla sobre el tema de los alcances del derecho de
libre navegaci6n de Costa Rica en el rio San Juan. ..,
En este entendido, y en atenciôn a compromises de mis funciones ya adquiridos
para el mes de febrero pr6ximo, me permito plantear a Vuestra Excelencia la posibilidad de
efectuar las reuniones sobre particular en la primera semana de marzo, e iniciar en elias
las conversaciones sobre la delimitaci6n fronteriza maritima en el Océano Pacifiee. Las
reuniones podrian efectuarse en San José, de conformidad con la propuesta de Vuestrn
Excelencia, y sus fechas precisas, dentro de esa primera semana de marzo, podrian
determinarse, de comun acuerdo, por la via diplomâtica.
.
Aprovecho la oportunidad para reiterarle el testimonio de nil distinguida
consideraci6n.
EXCELENTISMO SENOR
EDUARDO MONTEALEGRE
_MANAGUA_________IONEE SXTERlO_ED SENICARAGUA Annex 57
Nîcaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Roberto Rojas Lôpez, Note No. MRE/DM/3882/01/00,
28 January 2000 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
28 January 2000
MRE/DM/3882/0 1/00
Dear Minister:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency to acknowledge receipt of
your letter Ref: DM/015/2000 of21 January ofthe current year regarding the
continuation of talks on the maritime delimitation between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica on both Oceans.
In this respect and, bearing in mind that it is impossible for Your
Excellency to attend a meeting in February due to your previously scheduled
engagements, allow me to suggest that, in order to discuss the maritime
demarcation between Nicaragua and Costa Rica on both oceans, and to
continue talks regarding navigation on the San Juan River, the meeting be held
on 3rd March of the current year in the city of San Jose, Costa Rica.
The Nicaraguan delegation will be presided over by Dr. Guillermo
Argüello Poessy, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Nicaragua.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew, Your Excellency, the
assurance of my highest consideration.
(signature)
Eduardo Montealegre R.
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas Lopez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica336
28rieenero del 2000
MRE/ONII:/0Inn
Sr!llMlnistro:
lengo et agrado de dirigirVucstrExœlr~e• n1ndtsiémde refcrlrme a su
N{)l<! OM-0.15-2000 dia 21de enero deaftocmt:urso,rnl;,làila contint•ad6n
dtl1:conv!!rsaciones s,,bre limitacionmarmaimt re Nic<tragl.Costt i~a·R
,uniJos Cké<mns.
Al rr.spŒto, tomando nota dela imposibilid<de VuestraExc:~le dn.cia
[Prwr unencuclllren elmosdfJfebrcroenvirtud de lc:on•promisuyaadquiridüS,
nw pcrmiln sometcra su considf: qtretencarôtde abordar ladelimitaci6n
m;1rm.1 t~nt r c:.1mgv" yCo!iliRica, en ambos oçé.:fnos,y de continuar
<"nnversM:ionerespecta<lanavcgacibnen cl rio SanJu1:m refcridencucntrose
m.1fi~el J demarzotlelano <!Ilwrso, ladudad de SanJosé ,ostaRic:a.
lnformo ;\ Vuestr<lExcdend;t que la DeledecNic.an1glcstarpresidi~<'l.
por c!lDr.Guillmnro/\rgücl!oPm~ss ViC,t.=Jminirl! Relar.io[xtr!riorde la
~(!f)l do•NilcM<<~gua.
AprovPrho taoc<lsiopr~ rier<lra VuestExŒI~n l.>mauestrade mi mas
••ttydistinguida cnnsideraci6n.
Eduardo Montealegrc R.
Exœk~ntfs Sifoo
Koberw Rojas l6pcz
Minislrd~ Relaciones Extmiury Cullo
Repûblica d(osta l{ka
ICifltp Annex 58
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, Note No. DM-079-2000, 15 February 2000 TRANSLATION
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Minister's Office
15 February 2000
DM-079-2000
Dear Minister:
1 have the honour to address Your Excellency in order to acknowledge receîpt
of your Ietter MRE/DM/3882/0l/00 of 7 Janual-y 2000 regarding the
continuation of talks on maritime delimitation between the Republics of
Nicaragua and Costa Rica as well as on the navigation on the San Juan River.
In this respect,e are pleased that a meeting is to be held tomorrow in the city
of Managua, Nicaragua, between the Costa Rican Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Dr. Walter Niehaus, and the Nicaraguan Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Dr. Jose Adan Guerra, in which talks on the aforementioned rnatters
begun with the former Deputy Minister ofF oreign Affairs, Carlos Gurdian, will
be continued.
1avail myself of this opportunity to renew, Your Excellency, the assurance of
my highest consideration. ·
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Eduardo Montealegre
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua ../t'mtJ~ ~cif& lw,..~u.~?&
DESPACHODELMINISTRO
15de febrerodel2000
DM-079-2000
SefiorMinîstro:
Tengo el ·agradode dirigVu~tra Eacelencia eu·ocasion de acusar
recibo de su nota ::MRE/DM/38del 7 de enero del 2000, relativa a la
continuaci6n de las conversaciones sobre la delimitaci6n maritima entre làs
Repùblicas de Costa Rica y Nicaragua,y sobre la navegaci6n par el Rio San
Juan..
En ese sentido, noses grata qmruïanse lieve a cabo wrencuentro
entre el sefiorViceMinistro de RelacioyCuita de la Republica
de Costa Rica,·or. Walter Niehaus, y el sefi.orVice Ministro de Relaciones .
Exteriores deRepublica de Nicaragua,Dr. JoséAdân Guerra, en la c!i.üdad
deManagua, Nicaragua, donde se coritinuaracon la discusi6n de los ternas
apuntados,iniciadacon el ex ViceMinistroCarlosGurdiân.
~ag oropiciala.ocasiônpara reiterar a VuestraExcelencia.lasmuestrasde mi
ma sltacqnsideraci6ny estima.
!J.IJ;
RobettoRojas]
ExcelentisimoSefior
EduardoMontealegre
Ministrode Rela9ionesExteriores
Republica.de Nicaragua Annex 59
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No.RE/DM/3965/02/00,
16 February 2000 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
16 February 2000
MRE/DM/3965/02/00
Dear Minister:
1have the honour to address Your Excellency to acknowledge receipt of your
kind letter Ref:M/079/200 in which you make reference to the meeting of the
Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs ofNicaragua and Costa Rica that will be
held today in Managua.
The Govemment of Nicaragua is, like Your Excellency, pleased that our
Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs are meeting to follow up on the
conversations regarding the maritime delimitation between our two countries
and to discuss the possibility that the Nicaraguan authorities provide assistance
to the sister Rep!Jblicof Costa Rica, for the provisioning of its border posts.
I avail myselfof the opportunity to express to Your Excellency the assurances
of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
(signature)
Eduardo Montealegre R.
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas Lopez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica
San Jose 16 de febrero de 2000
MKEIDM/3965102/UU
Seiior Ministro:
Tengo.el <~gr deaddirgirme a Vuestra Excclencia en ocasi6n de acusar redho de !;li
atenta nota DM-079-200, en laque sc rcfiere al encuentru que sostendran el dia d~
hoy, en Managua, los Senores Viceminîstros de Relaciones Exteriores de Nicaragua -y
Costa Rica.
lgual que Vuestra Excelenda, el Gobierno de Nicaragua ve con agrado que nuestros
Viceministros sc rcûnan para dar continuidad a las conversaci,ooes snbre la
delimitaci6n marftima entre nuestros paiscs y sobre la posibilidad de que las
autoridades nicaragüenses brinden asistenda a la hermana Republica de Costa Rica
para cl avituallamiento de sus puestos fronterizos_
...... .
Aprovccho la ocasi6n para rcitcrar a Vuestra Excelencia las mucstras de mi mas altay
dislinguidaconsiderJci6n.
Eduamo Montealegre R.
Excelentfsimo Senor
Roberto Rojas
Ministre de Relacîones Exteriores y Culto
Republica de Costa Ric.a
SanJosé
1_1 .. Annex 60
Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the Organization of American
States, Amb. HerminR. Castro, to the President of the Permanent Council of
the Organization of American States, James Schofield Murphy, 3 March 2000 TRANSLATION
(seal)
Costa Rican Permanent Mission
Before the Organization of American States
Washington, D.C.
Washington, 3 March 2000
Honourable Mr. President:
I have the honour to address you, on the occasion of informîng, through
your worthy channel, the Honourable Permanent Council of the Organizatîon
of the American States of the deep concem of the Govemrnent of the Republic
of Costa Rica regarding the events and controversy that have been taking place
with the Republic of Nicaragua, who bas prevented the exercising of the
perpetuai right of free navigation that the Republic of Costa Rica possesses on
·the San Juan River, which has constituted a situation that could jeopardize
peace and requires the analysis of this matter in the light of regional and
international regulations.
The right of the Republic of Costa Rica to free navigation on the San
Juan River complies, at alllevels, with that stipulated in the Canas-Jerez Treaty
of 1858, the Cleveland Award of .1888,the Central Arnerican Court of Justice
judgement of 1916, the Friendship Pact between the Govemrnents of the
Republic of Costa Rica and Nicaragua of 1956 and ali the other related
international instruments.
Thus, the Cafias-Jerez Treaty indicates in its articles 4, 6 and 9, in
addition to the right of free navigation for purposes of commerce, obligations
of a defensive nature on the San Juan River, c\early prohibiting both countries
carry out hostile acts there.
"Article 4: (...) Costa Rica shall be bound, as jàr as the
portion of the banks of the San Juan river which correspond
toit is concerned, to contribute to ils custody in the same way
as the two Republic.s shall contribute to the defence of the
river in case of external aggres.sion(...)"
''Article6: The Republic ofNicaragua shall have exclusive/y
the dominion and sovereignjurisdiction over the waters ofthe
San Juan river from ils origin in the Lake to its mouth in the Atlantic; but the Republic of Costa Rica shall have the
perpetuai right offree navigation on the said waters, between
the said mouth and thepoint, three English miles distant from
CastilloViejo, said navigation being for the purposes of
commerce (...)"
"Article 9: Under no circumstances, and even in case thal the
Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua should unhappily
find themselves in a state of war, neither of them shall be
allowed to commit any act of hostility against the other,
whether in theport of San Juan del Norte, or in the San Juan
river, or the Lake ofNicaragua ".
The Cleveland Award, for its part, elaborates on the provisions of the
Canas-Jerez Treaty referring specifically in point II to the scope and limitations
of Costa Rica's free navigation. ln this point, navigation on the river with
vessels of war is excluded, however, it is expressly authorized with vessels of
the revenue service or those required for the protection of the enjoyment of
navigation for purposes of commerce.
"Second..The Republic of Costa Rica under said Treaty and
the stipulations contained in the sixth article thereof, has not
the right of navigation of the river San Juan with vessels of
war; but she may navigate said river with such vessels of the
Revenue Service as may be related to and connected with her
enjoyment of the "purposes of commerce" accorded to her in
said article, or as may be necessary to the protection of said
enjoyment."
Indeed, in the interests of being able to exercise the revenue
surveillance to which the aforementioned article refers, in order to protect
navigation for purposes of commerce it should be understood that the Costa
Rican authorities require their protection equipment, including their service
arms, to be able to fulfil this function.
The Central American Court of Justice judgement, of 30 September
1916, equally ratifies the real right of use, perpetuai and inalterable, that Costa
Rica possesses to navigate the San Juan River with commercial, fiscal and
defensive purposes. ln this regard it establishes:
"(...) Costa Rica possesses in the San Juan River, for
purposes of commerce, permanent rights ofjree navigation
from its out/et as jàr up as three miles below Castillo Viejo,
and the rightfor her vessels to moor at al/ points along either
bank, exemptfrom the imposition of any charges, in that part
of the stream in which navigation is common. ft is clear, 343
therefore, that the ownership which the Republic of
Nicaragua exercises in the San Juan River is neither absolute
or unlimited; it is necessarily restricted by the rights o.ffree
navigation, and their attendant rights, sa clearly adjudicated
to Costa Rica- the more sa ifilis considered that such rights,
exercised for revenue and defensive purposes are, according
to the opinion of statesmen, usually confounded in their
development with the sovereign powers of the imperium, such
a concession is equivalent to a realright of use,perpetuai and
unalterable, that establishes the Republic of Costa Rica in the
full enjoyment of practical ownership of a large part of the
San Juan River without prejudice to the full ownership
reserved to Nicaragua as sovereign over the territory...are
evident...b) the proposition that the rights of navigation on
the San Juan River that were confirmed in Costa Rica do not
extend ta vessels of war, but simply to vessels devoted to
revenue and defensive purposes- an interpretation that in no
way detracts from the doctrine set forth concerning the
practical ownership pertaining in great part to Costa Rica
over the San Juan River because navigation with vessels of
war,asidefrom constituting a causefor disquiet, would imply.
a.function appropriate to territorial sovereignty,(...)"
Finally, the 1956 Amity Pact between both states, stipulate that:
"!- The two Parties, acting in the spirit which should move
the members o.lthe Central American.family of nations, shall
collaborate to the best of their ability in arder to carry out
those undertakings and activities which require a conimon
effort by bath States and are of mutual bene.fit and, in
particular, in arder to facilitate and expedite !raffle on the
Pan American Highway and on the San Juan River within the
terms of he Treaty o./"15 April 1858 and its interpretation
given by arbitration on 22 March 1888, and also in arder to
facilitate those tramport services which may be provided to
the territory of one Party by enterprises which are nationals
of the other."
However, and despite the abovementioned regulation, on 15 July 1998
the Republic ofNicaragua unilaterally impeded free navigation, a situation that
has continued up to the present time, bilateral talks not having been productive,
in open disrespect, on the part of the Nicaraguan Govemment, oflntemational
Law.
As a consequence of the above, on 30 July 1998 a Joint Communiqué
was signed by Mr. Jaime Cuadra, the Nicaraguan Minister of Defence, and Mr.Juan Rafael Lizano, the Costa Rican Minister of Public Security, confirming
that the Costa Rican authorities could navigate the San Juan River carrying
their service anns.
"TH/RD: Bath Ministers manifest their willingness to resolve
the regrettable inconveniences thal occurred over the past
few days and, for this purpose, they are establishing the
following orders for their respective subordinates:
1.- The crew of the vessels of the Public Force of Costa Rica
that carry out relief of police and the supply of the border
posts located on the right bank of the San Juan River will
navigate along the aforementioned river after having given
the required notice carrying on/y their service arms, and the
Nicaraguan authorities may accompany the Costa Rican
vessels making thisjourney along the San Juan River in their
own separate means of transportation. Should the
Nicaraguan vesse/ not accompany the Costa Rican vessels,
the latter may carry out their rounds in keeping with the
corresponding border post reports as indicated in this
agreement. "
Despite the signing of the said agreement, which is in full force under
international law, the Nicaraguan National Assembly denied the authority of
Minister Cuadra's signature by declaring the said agreement "null and void and
inexistent".
"In this regard, having revised and analyzed the
aforementioned document exhaustive/y, the Government of
the Republic of Nicaragua has concluded that, in accordance
with our Political Constitution, the said document (Joint
Communiquéof 30 July 1998) fundamentally lacks the power
of a legal/y binding document and, therefore, does not admit
regulations, forcing the Government ofNicaragua ta declare
itlegally nul/ and void and non-existent" (Diplomatie Note
No. VM/08/0685/98, of 11 August 1998, from the Deputy
Minister of Nicaragua, Carlos Gurdian Debayle to the
Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, Roberto Rojas)
Lastly, and as an aggravating factor to the flagrant violation initiated by
the Govemment of the Repuhlic of Nicaragua of our right to free navigation on
the San Juan River, with the arbitrary suspension ofthat navigation, as weil as
the unilateral invalidation of the Lizano-Cuadra agreement, it demonstrated
contempt for the principles of law, as well as an infringement of the
international legal framework and normative, on threatening the Republic ofCosta Rica, a country without an anny, with the use of force if it navigated the
nver.
These declarations, made on 3 August 1998, during a visit to the towns
on the San Juan River likewise contradict the spirit of the bilateral Agreements
mentioned. On that occasion, President Aleman stated:
"( ... ) !f we need ta make use of the institution of the armed
forces of Nicaragua, we shall make use of them ( ... ) The
sovereignty of a nation is not something that is discussed, itis
dejended with arms in hand (...)" (El Nuevo Diario,
Managua, Nicaragua. A leman: "! could take up arms ''.
Thursday 30 July 1998,page 12).
"We are a peace.ful nation; we are civic-minded, but we are
brave enough to defend, as General Sandino said, the
sovereignty of a country gun in hand (...) andifit is necessary
to sacrifice our lives, we will sacrifice them also ". (La
Nacion. San Jose, Costa Rica. Nicaraguan hostility worsens,
Tuesday 4 August 1998, El Pais section, page 6A) ".
In contrast to this position taken by President Aleman and, in keeping
with international Law, the President of Costa Rica, Dr. Miguel Angel
Rodriguez, demonstrated an important difference in the way he approached this
matter, pointing out in his speech simultaneously broadcast on national
television and radio on 13 August 1998:
"Fellow citizens, let it be quite clear that we will jirmly
defend our rights using the on/y path that we, Costa Ricans,
know: the dialogue and the legal instruments. ( ... ) Our aim
is thatjustice be restored in this case, through the appropriate
means. Our way, as a/ways, ispeaceful mean. This is the way
of JoséMaria Castro Madriz, who showed us that the sword
is a/ways the enemy offreedom. ft is the path of concord that
was taken by our great grand fathers to support the co
existence in understanding and not in confrontation.. (...) On
this occasion we should, as a/ways, recur to the law and
respect for Human Rights, which are the on/y possible
foundations for guaranteeing that individua/s and nations
live together in a civilized jashion. We respect the rights of
others; however, when wefeel our rights are being infringed
upon we recur to legal instances tosettle the disputes. Weare
peace !avers; however, we are a/sa aware thal peace is based
onjustice. In keeping with this tradition I hereby inform you
that we shall employ al! the mean.'iprovided by International Law to demand, in dignified manner, that the full enjoyment
of our rights to navigate the San Juan River, which has been
infringed upon, be restored. We are not going to put any of
the lives of our respected police officers in danger.. Every
single humanlife is sacred and inviolable. Nonetheless, we
do not intend to yield even an inch of our rights. The
Government of the Republic reasserts ifs jirm determination
to defend what is ours, through the channels established by
International Law. The Costa Ricans have chosen thepath of
the law as the basisfor a long history ofpeace and solidarity.
Just as internally we have based our co-existence on the
respect for the rights of others and on social solidarity, we
also uphold these values in our international actions. Just as.
we respect the rights of others, so too those others must
respect our rights" (National simultaneous television
broadcast given by the President of the Republic, 13August
1998).
Given this situation, the Govemment of the Republic of Costa Rica has
shown continued interest in reaching a satisfactory solution to this dispute, by
means of extraordinary efforts in favour of dialogue and ether mechanisms of
peaceful negotiation. As part of these mechanisms, we should mention the
exchange of diplomatie letters and the numerous meetings held, in which a
dialogue and .the exchanging of views within the framework of regional
meetings between the Ministers of Foreign·A:ffairsof both countries has been
sustained, the most recent of these being the one held within the framework of
the IX Rio Summit and XVI Ministerial Meeting of the San Jose Group in
Portugal from the 19th to the 26th of February 2000. Likewise, meetings have
been held to this effect between the Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs in
September and October of 1998, August of 1999 and February of 2000. The
Republic of Costa Rica has also presented texts for possible agreements on
several occasions with a view to re-establishing the exercising of its right to
free navigation on the San Juan River.
The Republic of Costa Rica considered the path of dialogue exhausted
when, on 2 March 2000, President Miguel Angel Rodriguez contacted
President Arnoldo Aleman by telephone with the aim of reaching a definitive
agreement on the free navigation of Costa Rican official vessels on the San
Juan River. This Costa Rican initiative did not meet with a positive response
from the Nicaraguan government and the negotiation stage was thereby
considered terininated and we tum to this distinguished organization to
promote the application of the mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of
controversies in the interests ofre-establishing the situation prior to the conflict
and of guaranteeing the rights of the free navigation of Costa Rican authorities'
vessels on the San Juan River. The Govemment of the Republic of Costa Rica, faithful to its peaceful
vocation, requests, in light of the abovementioned facts, that by means of your
worthy intervention, the Permanent Council be convened to proceed to appoint
a special representative to mediate in the matter, promote an effective dialogue
and issue recomrnendations leading to the resolution of the awkward and tense
prevailing situation and prevent acts that may disturb the peace in the
hemisphere. Consequently, we expressly request that the Bogota Pact and the
lnter-American Reciprocal Assistance Treaty he activated, thereby establishing
a process of mediation between the parties.
It is equally requested that,n the interests of avoiding any subsequent
conflict with the Nicaraguan authorities, the Govemrnent of the Republic of
Nicaragua be notified of its obligation to find a peaceful solution to this
controversy and that it be wamed to abstain from preventing, by means of the
threat of the use of force or by any ether act, the free navigation of official
vessels of the Costa Rican authorities carrying their duly registered sevice
arms.
Furthermore, it is also expressly requested that the transit ofvessels of
the revenue police and Costa Rican border control on the San Juan River be re
established, under the same conditions that prevailed prior to the conflict.
1 would like to recall the words of the Costa Rican President, Miguel
Angel.Rodriguez, who, in his speech of 13 August 1998, he said:
"Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans can only progress in a
fraternal manner and co-exist under the same sky,·byfinding
joint/y solutions to true common problems such as poverty,
environmental damage and the need to improve cultural and
economie exchanges between nations thatface challenges in
a world where we are all interdependent. "
1 avail myself of this opportunity, Mr. President, to renew the
assurances of my highest esteem and consideration.
(signature)
Hernan R. Castro H.
Ambassador, Permanent Representative
Honourable President
James Schofield Murphy
Pennanent Council
Organization of American States
Washington, D.C. •
Tell&d'.... de~ a.U5bdm oc:aaiOa. commdoareor su.ipa IIIDdio.
al~ c..Jo ~ de la Oiiji {'tribn de B:ados Anwfc;mos.la prdiJlda
pft!OOupt(i4elGobfwilode laRcpüb&Œ cioQ)SilRica• ~ coralesJaooU ya
~ qgo• ba·vaaidosusc:î:oŒla bpltblfŒ de'N'i::llqal. .aimped.ido
el ej~ del dcndio l*lJIIIIlla1ibi-~ qD6laJt4p1Micll o Cola&llica
poKO ŒW rlv S..Jillld.IGuuoŒftrnüloualilulcj6PUCI"ptibdepoMr c.pe&,ro
la paz,'/hao~ el d!isiJ lillUllla:1&luz'dola UOimai'N:ri~ ·o
~.
Eldlno:bodaJi.&l;p6LJ•Œ Cosa.Rie& la .. ~ - Il riA Sa:a.l'DIIlte
ajustea.todau.dimcA1IiOA1odi.spwntpcr cTraado Caftes-lede 1858,à LuiiO
~ dai- ala.llCD"'4ela·Colt;61UIIi:lil. •m";....,dt1SJ16·Pacco
de .AmiiJ:4rea Gobi.emoc4e la B";J6JWdeCotm.BiΠy~ de19$6.y a
todùs1osdc:m6t ••WJ !.ÎlCIW..U...~
' .
El ~ ~- pcrsu ~ dcaraUa le ditPOê'iODdtl Ttaaado Qdlu.
Jcra te:&iMli:espeGtiklzntotec m PWiiuDL~oas!C~J y~lmttŒdtmesc11alibré
Œve,gzd6ac~e·C Bmis.En ·~ 5JI!I5e.oa::lca.:aawsgaclea.eldoCOD~ de::
~ paco~ Allaa:UtadzlOA~ de Sl!rYlflscld.·acamoseaecll:sito
PUll.laproeec:climdel1eta~n~
~ ea.arude poda f!im:claW.lal:ol&oal a laquô sere6tn fl1
s.rtic~para~ lana~~ debe~que lasanrmidadft;
ca.~ • ·lfdo 11equ:ipode~ illahridu sana.ade rtR~
PŒa:Œap COlesb.~
SinClllbaly,apesardé!a not'!UiciŒ.dellS dojulide1998 tRepibüŒde
~ iiDPi& ,jnileteŒlmcgtcl&lre snuac;ŒqŒ ~ba:~ bata· ttJ.~r·~j~~r~i ··~i~~~
. ·Jt ft~~~J~IJ~•"'~,4·.P
.l!~1-~r~1.~Œ4 ·a'f.:~~-~~
:rlttltr~.r'~-•.R'Il.~f
lt~~ .~·tlini·; i·ii~···.~
:d't 1:.:..1f·§t ~1ifB: '
• ...
~ [~]
- . .
t.!1~ ·rïn-tl~•··
. ···-o,.0'3 .Il IJi u"l
-~ ·iJI!J~:..!~' ·~! ·!·"U!hfr·ltlhil
·~ ijJ ~~ ft!J.u ·ls..•;~• Qn
o tr&-1l••i.... lit.•·-,tll
l!fa rof.a··s:..t~r_:•_~-lt~ttlJ_.a-
•t'-_•.,:_.Œrt••••i•"t.'-V•t. · \,11 351
;,.~ "'1'19~~~ MlmM~~ fém;jto de
~~6iœ&"'Y C.COI'droi.~·Cosrrt·:fliœ.por-el-rioSM·
1ûan;... ~-~·qua ildaM"iBIIIileel Œnflii:to: .
QUI= cOotdatr;pa1abm.éil'di&cdall'dl!aptde !.98 d!L"~ dl!
ç~ JljMlaOA Omif1\iiddiii(WZ.lljp; .
' . . Annex 61
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lépez,to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, Note No. DM-125-2000, 10 April 2000 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San Jose, 10April 2000
DM-125-2000
Your Excellency:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency on the matter of
expressing the need tQexplore other mechanisms for solving the controversy
tl:iatexists between our two countries, with regards to the navigation of the
Costa Rican police with service arms on the lower course of the San Juan River.
As we jointly announced it to the press on concluding the meeting we
held in San Jose on 3 April, differences persist in this respect, despite having
held bilateral rounds of talks and negotiations on this matter for over a year,
and having concluded that same April 3 the rounds of talks that included the
presence of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, in
his capacity as facilitator. In accordance with what was also agreed upon in the
presence of the Secretary General, our countries must now consider other
possible mechanisms for finding a definitive solution to the dispute.
As Your Excellency knows, in article III of the Esquivel-Sevilla
Friendship Pact of 21 January 1949, currently in force between the two
countries, Costa Rica and Nicaragua agreed to submit the controversies that
may arise between them to the methods of the peaceful settlement of
international conflicts and to this end they agreed to apply the American Treaty
on Pacifie Settlement (Pact of Bogota) and give it full effect for the
controversies between them, even before this Treaty was formally ratified and
entered into force in ali the American Republics.
In view of the fact that, in accordance with the hypothesis anticipated
in article IIf the Pact ofBogota, direct negotiations between our two countries
via the usual diplomatie channels for approximately one and a halfyears have
not resulted in the settlementof the existing dispute, even with the presence of
the Secretary General of the OAS as facilitator of the talks, the Government of
Costa Rica deems it necessary for both countries to make use of the procedures
established in this inter-american instrument, in the manner and conditions set
down in its articles.
Given the numerous ties that bind Costa Rica and Nicaragua, their
shared interests in many areas and the particular characteristics of the existing
dispute, the Government of Costa Rica believes that the most appropriate
mechanism of those provided for by the Pact of Bogota for attempting to. fnd
a solution to the problem is that of mediation, as set forth in articles XI .andsubsequent of that agreement. The conditions of mediation itself, in the terms
of the Pact, offer assurances in the sense that they represent an objective and
confidential procedure, which, at the same time, is simple and free from the
formalities and costs that other mechanisms provided by International Law
could cause.
ln accordance with above-mentioned article Xl, the role of mediators
should fall on one or more American govemments or to one or more eminent
citizens from any American State not a party to the controversy, in either case
chosen by the mutual consent of the parties.
Thus, in compliance with what was agreed upon in San Jose with regard
to exploring other means of resolving this controversy, and of the provisions of
the Pact of Bogota, the Government of Costa Rica is pleased to formally
propose to the Honourable Govemment of Nicaragua that, by mutuai consent,
they request the mediation of an Honourable Government of an American State
in order to attempt to find an acceptable solution to the dispute. know there
are countries in the hemisphere that would be more than willing to carry out
this fratemal mission and that, in addition to having proven credentials in legal
and diplomatie matters, professa cordial :frîendshipto our region and offer, in
the opinion of the Govemment of Costa Rica, sound assurance of the
seriousness, objectivity and correctness with which they would undertake their
responsibility as mediators, should they accept the request made of them to this
effect.
Should the Honourable Govemment of Nicaragua accept this proposai,
the choice of mediator and the terms of the request for mediation to the State
that is chosen could be agreed upon through the usual diplomatie channels.
The Govemment of Costa Rica fraternally urges the Honourable
Govemment of Nicaragua to consider this possibility and is hopeful that it will
give an affirmative response, with a view to contributing to strengthen the
fraternal relations that have prevailed in the two countries and that are
manifested daily in the numerous economie, cultural and famîly ties, as weil as
those of cooperation, that bind them, as natural development of geographie
neighbourhood and cornmon historical roots.
I avail myself, Your Excellency, of this opportunity to renew the
assurance of my highest consideration.
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Eduardo Montealegre
Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua.- ..~...
<ff/itM:Jw t/e ~e.la c:fàt'û;/e:s lff.M.
·san José,10 de abril de 2000
DM-125-2000
Excelentisimo sefior:
Tengo el honor de saludar a Vuestra Excelencia, en ocaston de
plantearle la necesidad de explorar otros mecanismes para la soluci6n de la
diferencia que existe entre nuestros dos paises, con respecj:g. a la
navegaci6n de1a policfatanicense' con armas de reglamento en el curso
înferiar del rio San Juan. J
Coma lo anunciamos conjuntamente a la prensa al concluir la
reuni6nque mantuvimos en San José el pasadod~ abril, persisten las
diferencias sobre ese particular, a pesar de haberse realizado durante
de un afio randas bilaterales de düüogo y negociaci6n al respecta, y de
haberseya concluido, ese mismo 3 de abril, con las rondas de diâlogo que
cant~·on con la presencia del se.iior·Secretario General de la Organizaci6n
de los Estados Americanos, con ca.râcter de facilitador. De conformidad
con loque tam.biénconvinimas entm{cesen presencia dels~ëretaria.
General, nuestrospaises han dec~onsiderarahora ?tros posibles
mecanismos para solucionar en1Iladefinitiva el diferendo.
!
Camo es del conocîmiento de -Vuestra Excelencia, eri el articula III
delPacto de Amistad Esquivel-Sevilla de 21 de em1ro de 1949, vigente
entre ambos paises, Costa Rica y Nicaragua convinieron enter las
controversias que surgiesen entres a los métodos de soluci6n pacifica
de los conflictos intemacionales.ra ella convinieron en aplicar el
Tratado Americano de Soluciones ~acit (Pactede Bogotâ) y darle
plena validez para lasntroversia8 entre ellas. aûn antes de que ese
convenio fuese fonnalmente ratifyentrase en pleno vigor entre todas
las Repûblicas_apïqicap.as. \'
_En atenci6n a quaeacuerdo con la hip6tesis prevista en el articule
II del Pacto de Bogota, la negociaci6:p.directa entre nuestros dos paises par
los medios diplomaticos usuales, durante derun afiymeà.iono
J . ct~6$v do &fe.?aao/U :j..v/ ~< &VQ"~o.Ptt-~
ha permitido splucionar el diferendo existente, ni siqfera con la presencia
del seîior Secretario General de la O. E. A. camo facilîtador del diâlogo, el
Gobiemo de Costa Rica estima que corresponde ahora que ambes paises
hagan uso de los procedimieiitestableciden ese instrumenta
interamericano, en laycondiciones previstas en su m1iculado.
Dadas los mUltiples lazos que vinculan a Costa Rica y a ::r:Jicaragua,
la comunidad de sus intereses en muchas campos y las caracteristicas
propias del diferendo existente, el Gobiemo costarricense cree que el
mecanismemas adecuado de los·previstos en el Pacte de BagoUt para tratar
de hallar una soluci6n al problema, seria el de la mtratani6n, de que
los articulas XI y siguientes de ese convenio. Las coQ.dicionesmismas de la
mediaci6n, en los términosdel, ofrecen seguridades en el sentido de
que representa. procedimiento .objetivo y confidencial, a la vez que
sencillo y alëjado de las fonnylcostes que pudieran representar
otros de los mecanismes previstos en el Derecho lnternacional.
De conformidad con el arXIcitado, el papel de mediadores ha
de corresponder a onmâs gobiernos americanos, o a uno o mas
ci~dada emioetes de cualquier ·Estado americano extrados a la
controversia, escogidos,o u ·otro casa, de comim acuerdo por las
partes. · ·.·
En cumplimiento par consiguiente de loque éliSan José
en el sentido de explorar otros medios de soluci6n pary esta conrrôversia,
de lo dispuesto en el Facto de Bogota, para el Gobiemo de Costa Rica es
grata proponer formalmente altradoGobiemo de Nicaragua que de .
comlin acuerdo soliciten la mediaci6n del algûn llustrado Gobiemo de un
Estado americano para tratar de hallar una soluci6n aceptabrledel diferendo.
Tenemos conocimiento de que hay'paises del hemisferio que estarian en la
mejor dîsposici6n de cumplir esta Ïfratemal misi6n y que ademâs de tener
probadas credenciales en materiaydiplomâtica, profesan cordial
amistad a ntmsregion y ofrecen, a juicio del Gobierno de Costa·Rica,
una. certera garleQl~serie o~jtiidad y correcci6n con que
desempefiariairesponsab dimeiidars,e~ sasa de aceptar la
solicitud -~e•, -, se le.;_ormUle.
.......... Si el llustrado Gobiemo de Nicaragua acepta· esta propuesta, la
escogencia ·del. mediador y los términos de la solicitud de mediaci6n al
Estado que elija podrian convétrirse por los canales diplomaticos de
estilo.
El Gobiemo de Costa Rica insta.fratemalmente al Ilustrado Gobiemo .
de Nicaragua a considerar esta posibilidada de que darâ
una respuesta afrrmativa, en aras de contribuir a la consolidacién de las
fratemales relaciones quedo entre ambos paises y que se
manifiestan diariamente en los multiples vinculos econémicos, cultmales,
familiares y de cooperaci6n que los unen, como desarrollo natural de la
vecindadgrâfica y las comunes raices..:~.---cas.
Aprovecho la oportunidad para renovar a Vuestra Excelencia el
testimonio de mi distinguida consideracién,
r;)J,}
~o b e jr to
Excelentisimo seftor··'
Eduardo Montealegre '·
Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Nicaragua
Managua.- · -.. Annex 62
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. MRE/DM/4366/04/00, 6 May 2000 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
6 May 2000
.MRE/DM/4366/04/00
Excellency:
1have the honour to address Your Excellency in response to your letter
DM-125-2000 in which you proposed the need to explore mechanisrns for
resolving the controversy that exists between our countries regarding the
navigation of the Costa Rican police with service arrns on the lower course of
the San Juan River.
The area of controversy having been thus defined, it is the opinion of
my Govemment that this is a matter that has already been resolved in the Jerez
Canas Treaty and the Cleveland Award. On the other band, an atternpt is being
made to open to discussion the matter ofNicaragua exercising sovereignty over
ber territory, which is indisp11tablyand historically established in the various
international instruments that recognize Nicaragua's exercise of sovereignty
over the entire San Juan River from the lake toits mouth.
It is true that the Honourable Governrnent of Costa Rica has repeatedly
declared that it recognizes this sovereignty, however, immediate}y afterwards it
begins to vary the tone of the contents ofthat sovereignty to such an extent that
it leaves it void of content, so that the recognition results in a theoretical
statement, which in realîty is distorted in practice with pretensions that
contradict such staternents.
Certainly, at the meeting on the third of April we discussed different
topics, among others the need to continue working to attain the goal of finding
a satisfactory and respectful solution to the rights of the parties in their
respective areas of sovereignty, not having been possible to agree on any
solution regarding the search for possible settlement mechanisms.
Nonetheless, l agree with Your Excellency in that, for the good of our
respective peoples and countries, it is necessary to carry on working towards
finding a solution to the dispute, to which neither the Sevilla-Esquivel
Friendship Pact nor the Pact of Bogota are applicable.
1regret, however, to have to differ with Your Excellency with regard to
mediation being the most adequate mechanism for resolving this situation at
band, even though 1agree there are friendly countries in the Hemisphere whowould be more than willing to fulfil this fratemal mission, guided by the
resolve to offer the assurance of seriousness and objectivity.
In my opinion, mediation îs the appropriate mechanism for solving
disputes that arise between countries. Nonetheless, in the present case, since
this is a matter such as that raised by the Honourable Govemment of Costa
Rica, which has already been definitively resolved by the Jerez-Canas Treaty
and the Cleveland Award, and that, furthermore, deals with the Republic of
Nicaragua exercising its sovereignty, this means of solution does not seem
appropriate.
In light of this situation, Minister, l fratemally invite you to reflect on
what has been expressed in the present letter and to mutually attempt, by
common agreement, to find a solution to the dispute that separates us, in the
assurance that, for my Govemment's part, we are firmly resolved to assist in
the provisioning and relief of the Costa Rican police posts on the right bank of
the lower course of the San Juan River, provided Nicaragua's sovereign rights
are not affected.
1regret, once again, Your Excellency, having to differ with regard to the
means of solution that you have proposed and 1take this opportunity to renew
the assurance of my distinguished consideration.
(signature)
Eduardo Montealegre R.
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas Lopez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
of the Republic of Costa Rica 6 de mayo del2000
MREIDM/4,366104100
Excelencia:
Tengo el hanor de dirigirmea Vuestra:Excelenciaen respuesta a su nota DM- 125-
2000 en la que planteaba neŒsidad de explorar mec:.anismospara.la soluciOn de la
diferencia que existe entre nuestros pafses;con respecta a la navegacion de la policla
costarricense con armas de reglamentoen el curso inferiordel rio San Juan.
]
Precisado asl elambito de la diferenda, a juicio de mGobiemo se !rata de una
·:cuesti6quey a han deja.doresueltael TratadoJerex-Canasy ellaudo Cleveland. Par otra
p.me se pretende abrir a discusi6n el temadêlejcrcicio de la sobemnfa de Nicaragua sobre
su territorio, lo cual esta indiscutîble e 'hist6ricamente establecido en los diverses
iiutn.rmcntos internacionales QuP.reconocen que Nicaragua ejerce soberanla sobre todo el
.rfoSan Juandesde, el lago hasta su desembocadura.
Es ciertoque reiteradamente el llustrado Gobierno dCosta Rica ha afirmado que
reconoce esa soberania, pero, acto seguido,'entraa matizar el contenido de esa sobcranra
a tai punta que la dcja vada de contenido, resultando el reconocir enn~nnlo
planteamiento teôrico, que en realidad es tertiversado en la practica con pretcnsiones que.
contradîcen tales!lfirmadones.
Ciertamente, en la reunion del pasadtÙres de abril conversamosde dÎstintos ternas,·
entre elias la necesidade seguirtrabajando en la consecucl6n del objetivo deencontra
una solucion satisfactoriy rP.speluosade'losderechos de las panes en sus respectivos
ambitos de soberania, no habiéndose logrâdo convenir ning.:inpropôsito referido a la
busqueda de posibles mecanismos de·soluci6n. No obstante, ooncuerdo con Vueslra
bŒlencia en que, para bien de nuestros respectives pueblos y paises, es neŒ5al'ioseguir
trabajartdoen la busquedade una solud6n a ladiferenciaa li:lcuano son aplicables el
Pactode Amistad S.villa-Esquivelni el Pac\ode Bogotâ.
lamento, sin embargo, ten(!lque dife'rirconVuestraExŒlcnciarespecta a que sea
iilmediacion la que constituye el mecanismemas adecuado para la soluci6n de esta
situaciônque nos ocupa, aun cuando ooincido en que hay palses amigos en el Hcmisferio
que estarian en la rrnijor disposici6n de cumplir esa fraternal misi6n, guiatjos por el
propésitode orrccer garantfade seriedad y'objetivîdad. .. · 362
:·.
Enmiopini6n, la mediad6n vienea s'eremecanlsmo a'pr~ paprareoldeilas
diferenciaque~ prodiK:en entre pafses. No obstante, en el wesente caso al tratarse de
una cuesti6como la queha suscitadclllustradG()biemode CostaRica,que yaha sida
definitivamentre~ue plrtea TratadoJer~-Ca yei auda' Cleveland, y ademâs por
lratarse de un asunto relativo al ejelasoberanfa de la Repûblica de Nicaragua, este
media de soluci6n no pareŒser eapropiado.
· Ante esta situaci6ScflorMinistrq)e invita fraternalmea que reflexionernos
sobreloexpuestoen lapresentenotaytratemos de encontrarcomûn acuerdolasoluci6n
a lad,iferendque nos separa,en la seguridde que de partedemi Gobiemo existeel
firmeprop6silodedar toda facilidad pelavitua.llamlentoreleva delos puestode la
polida costarriŒnse elamargen d~rech carso lnelordelrfoSarijuan,sîemprcque
no SIafccten los derechos soberanos de Niçaragua.
....
Reitera a Vuestra fxcelencia mi sentimiento de tener quees~ectaral media
-de soluci6nue me ha presentado y aprovecho la oportunidad para renovarle el-teslimonio
de mi distinguida consideraci6n. J
EduardoMçmtealegreR..
fxcelenlfsimo Seiior
RobertoRojasl6pez
MinistrQde RelacionesExterioresCulto·
de la Republicde Costa Rica Annex 63
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lépez,to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, Note No. DM-165-2000, 22 May 2000 363
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
22 May 2000
DM-165-2000
Your Excellency:
1am writing in reference to your reply of 6 May of the current year.to
our proposai of exploring adequate mechanisms for solving the controversy
that exists between our countries, according to the terms of my last letter DM-
125-2000.
On rejecting the mediation proposed by my Governrnent as one of the
most adequate mechanisms for resolving our differences, your communication
asserts that it is a matter specifie to the internai sovereignty ofNicaragua, and
that it is thus defined in the Canas-Jerez Treaty and in the Cleveland Award.
That is why, in your illustrious opinion, the Esquivel-Sevilla Friendship Pact
and the Bogota Pact are not applicable to the case, and it is, rather, the domestic
laws and rules of your country, as well as any other type of internai regulations
that, by virtue of ber sovereignty, Nicaragua needs to establish in the future.
Naturally, this opinion cannot be accepted by Costa Rica and it
contradicts both the historical reality of the navigation of the river, as weil as
the views upheld by the Government of Nicaragua itself in sorne of its formai
declarations on this case.
With respect to the historical reality of our relations regarding the San
Juan River, it is evident that its legal regime cannat be dealt with as though it
were that of the application of the internai legislation of one country or another.
If this were the case, such a view would lead to the surprising conclusion - to
say the least- that both the Treaty and the awards would have been absolutely
unnecessary and futile. Why would one bother to negotiate treaties and seek
awards if the matter were purely an internai one, as are criminal, civil or
commercial legislation?
The very existence of the Treaty and Award demonstrate, naturally, that
this is a very different matter. It is a question, rather, of a special regime
established by a Treaty and Award that are characteristic of and specifie to
Public International Law, which even though it grants sovereignty and
sovereign jurisdictionto Nicaragua over the river, it also explicitly and clearly
recognizes ·costa Rica's perpetuai rights of free navigation. And although,364
according to the Cleveland Award, Costa Rica does not have the right to
navigate with vessels ofwar,- which, in ali other respects, as a peaceful nation
without an army, we do not possess- it does expressly grant and recognize the
authority -which the Govemment of Nicaragua cannot restrict unilaterally,
neither by its own acts nor by internai legislation- to navigate said river with
vessels of the revenue service as may be related to and connected with her
enjoyment of the purposes of commerce accorded to her...or as may be
necessaryfor the protection of said enjoyment.
So much so that Your Excellency, in his presentation before the
Permanent Council of the Organization of theAmerican States on 8 March, had
to recognize that the essence of the matter and the dispute caused have to do
with a different legal interpretation of the scope and meaning of the Treaty and
the Cleveland Award, made by each of our States. On this occasion, Your
Excellency declared, on rejecting the eventual application of the Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance, that: "This instrument does not have the slightest
application in the present case given that the dispute does not arisefrom an act
of aggression on the part of Nicaragua but rather from a different
interpretation of the instruments that govern the relations between both
nations".
And, as Your Excellency weil knows, these instruments are none other
than the Canas-Jerez Treaty and the Cleveland Award, and not the Constitution
or the internai legislation of Nicaragua.
lt is a matter, essentially, in this particular case, of reconciling our
Govemments' dissimilar interpretations of two of the basic concepts contained
in those instruments of Public International Law that govern our rights and
faculties. And this does not concem other matters or aspects of our bilateral
relations, but, rather, specifically one of the aspects of the perpetuai right to
free navigation that Costa Rica has in the lower course of the San Juan River.
lt was your Govemment itself, Your Excellency, that, on questioning, at
the end of the XIX century, the right of Costa Rica to navigate with vessels of
war and with vessels of the revenue service, recognized that it was logical and
evident that the latter, by their very nature and the purpose of protection that
they exercised, should navigate armed, as it was logic and evident.
As 1 pointed out in my speech in the Permanent Council of the
Organization of the American States literally, in îts pleading before President
Cleveland your Honourable Government defined the·vessels of the revenue
service in the following .terms, and I quote:
"The vessels of the revenue service are akin to vessels wa~.
While they have not ali the means·of aggression. as. the former, still they are armed vessels, capable of enforcing their
demands by force, and must be classed in the category of
vessels of war."
This is why it is surprising that, now, so many years later, a different
interpretation that contradicts that recognized by the Nicaraguan State itself
should be extemporized and, above ail, that it seeks to deny the applicability of
the Treaty and theAward and substitute it for an arbitrary attempt to impose the
application of the internai regulations ofNicaragua on the river, as if the former
did not exist and did not govem the specifie regulations of Costa Rican
navigation on the lower San Juan.
It is a matter, therefore, even under the Govemment ofNicaragua's own
terms expressed in its plea before President Cleveland and, more recently, in
your Ministry of Foreign Affairs' presentation before the Organization of the
American States, of a divergence on the interpretation of the terms and scope
of a Treaty and an Award of an international nature, which, in turn, are
govemed in their interpretation and application, as it could not be otherwise, by
the principles, regulations and procedures of Public International Law.
It is in viewf ail these juridical elements; and the continuing eagerness
of our Government to safeguard the good relations between our two
Govemments and nations, that 1am, once again, taking up the suggestion that
Your Excellency makes of his willingness to continue working towards jinding
a solution to the difference, and of attempting by mutual consent to resolve the
difference that separates us.
Needless to say that Costa Rica is more than willing to do so, in
accordance with what was agreed upon in San Jose ori3 April2000; and given
that we have concluded the bilateral negotiation stage, and that the Honourable
Government of Nicaragua rejects the possibility of mediation or any of the
other mechanisms of the Bogota Pact, I request that Your Excellency infomi me
of which other means could be jointly adopted in order to put an end to the
dispute so that my Govemment may assess any useful suggestion that Your
Excellency may have in mind.
1 renew, Your Excellency, the testirnony of my distinguished
consideration.
(signature)
Roberto Rojas .
His Excellency
Eduardo Montealegre
Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua 22 de maya del 2000.
DM-165-2000
Excelentisimo sefior:
Me refiero a~ntes d ~6decmiyidel presente afio a nuestra
propuesta de explotar mecanismes adecuados para de.la diferencia
que existe entre nuestroseglilos términosmiiùtima nota DM-
125-2000. '
Al rechazar la mediaci6n propmiGobiemo, com'auno dëlos
mecanismes mas adecliados para la soluci6n de nuestras diferencias, se afinna
en su comunicaci6n que se trata de un telsoberania interna de
Nicaragua, y que asi aparece decidido en el Tratado Canas-Jerez y en el
Lauda ClevelandPor eso mismo, segim su ilustrado criteria, no"''son
aplicabalcasa el Pacto de Amistad Esquivei-Sactb de Bogota,
sino las lyyreglamentos internas ·de su paîs, asi coma cuah}uier tipo de
regulaciones internas que, p~su soberania, en el futuro Nicaragua
requiera establecer. .;. ·
.,
' ;}~l r
Desde luego que para Costa'Rica tai criteria no es en: absoluto de
recibo y 'entra en contradicci6n tanta con la realidad hist6rica de la
navegaci6n en el rio, coma con IQ,:::sostenidopor el propio Gobiemo de
Nicaragua en algunas de sus numiformates sobre el casa.
,.,
En cuanto a.la realida.dhist6rjca de nuestras ralrioones respecto
San Juan, es obvia que su régimenlegal no se puede tratat cqmo si fuera el
de la aplicaci6n de una legislaci6n in!e.rnade uno u atra pais. De ser asi, tai
criteria conduciria a la s:~ncluden-sridenir lo nie<lque~
tantelTratado coma los laudos habrian sida absolutaménte innecesarios e
inutiles.ara quémolestarsn~go ttaioayrgestionar laudes, si el
tema era un asunto puramente interno,a lo son la legislaci6n penal,
civilo comercial? ·' :
''11112••.
~,
Desde lû'ego,la sexisle e1Tratao iLauda evidencian que
se trata de alga muy diferente. Se !fata, mas bien, de que estamos ante un
.régimenespecial establecido por un Tratado y Laudo propios y especificos
del Derecho Internacional P~quisebien otarga soberania y sumo
.~ r
tfftvlfvu;;w dé fffe/ affawo O~Pt?:~&
imperioa Nicaragua sobel riode maneraexplicitaclara también,
reconoce aCosta Rica sus derechos 'perpetuos de libre naYegacion.
aunque, segieLaudo Cleveland, Costa Rica no tiene derecho de navegar
con buquesdeguerra, -que por lo denias, como nayisin ejército,
no tenemos- expresamente si se leyoreconoce la facultad -que el
Gobiemo de Nicaragua :no puede restringir unilateralmente, ni par actes
propiorupar legislacion·interna- de #avegar en dicho rio con buques del
servicio fisCill relacyconexionados con el goce de los objetos de
comercio que le esta acordque'seanecesariospalaproteccide-r
die/Jogoce. '
.....
Tante es asi, que Vuestra E}(cel.encia,en su presentaci6n ante el
Consejo Permanente de la Organizacj6n de Estados Amer8cdeos del
marzopasado, tuvo que recoquc~a·sencia de la cuestiôn y el diferendo
· planteados, versa sobre una diferente interpretaci6n juridica del alcance y
·significado·del Tratado y del Lauda :.cleveland, por cada uno de nuestros
Estàdos. Dij.oentonces Vuestra Excelëncia, al rechazar la eventual aplicaci6n
del Tratado de Asistencia Recîproca::nstrumenJoLieuelamas
minima ap/icacion epresentcas auestoqueldiferendollOsurde
un acta de agresion de parte de;.:Nicaragua sino de una d.iferente
interpretacide loinstrumentoq~reigen las relaciones anrae
naciones." ·· '1
Y, como Vuestra Excelencia ,s,.abeperfectamente, esos instrumentes
no son otros que el Tratadoas~ l lrLazdo Cleveland, y no la
Constituci6n·o la legislaci6n interna pi.!kragûenses.
l.l •~....
Se trata, en esenci<\~~o eque nos ocupa, ·de· conciliar las
interpretacionesmiles de nuestros;·;G:obiernossobre dos de los conceptos
basicos contenidos en esos instrumentes del Derecho Internacional PUblico
que rigen nuestros derecfacult~ dees.ono sobre otros ternas o
..dimensiones de nuestras relaciones bilaterales,·sinode modo especifico sobre
uno de los aspectas del perp~hodtluronavegaci6n·que tiene Costa
Rica en el curso inferior dJ~~.io San
Fue su p/opio Gobierno, Excelenciaalcuéstionar a fines del
sigloIX~ ~erecho de Costa 'inavegar con buques de guerra y con
buquesfis~ rcon, ci6queést. pors.propia naturaleyapor la •'"WW-.
~'
& ~/tk ai'/f )ftl oef ~a/a e~ .~P6 Ùa/. '@Cd
.'~
·..:.
funci6n de protecci6n que debian ejercer, tearrriqueom~os,ar
era 16gicoyi~ente. · ..," ·
'i
Como lo senaJéemiintervenci6n en el Consejo Permanente de la
Organizaci6n de Estados Americanos, textualmalega a~toel
Presidente Clevelanl~ustr Godimo defini6 lnaves de ser11icio
fiscen los siguientes térmi, ::
"Las naves de sfisqson del mismo géneroque las naves de
guerni. Aunquenotienentodoslosmediosofensivosde lasûltimas,aimasl son
navede guerra, capaces de respaldar sus demydebcn serla fuerza,
clasificadasen la categodeguerra". (En el original, "Vessels"'or'
revenueserviceare akin to vesselsofwar;· Wlùletheyhave not aJJ'themeausof
aggressionas'tl1eformellCarmedvessels,capableof cnforcing their
demandbyforce,and mostbeclassedin the categoryofvesselsofwar.")
Por eso extrafia que ahora, tantos afios después, se improvise una
interpretaci6n diferente eon:'leconocido poelpropio Estado
nicaragüenyesobre todo que busque hegar la aplicabiliday del Tratado
Laudo ysustituîrla por un arbitraride que lo aplicable sea la
reglamentaci6n interna que Nicaragua quieen el rio, coma si
aquéllos no existieran y no rigieran el.,régimenavegac~6ri de la
. 1b. s J ,,,],
cotarcense en aJo an u~. ·:.%. ·
~~tf
Se trata, paunenlos propios términosdel Gobierno de Nicaragua
en su alegato antePresidente Cleveland, y mâsreciente en la
presentaci6n de ésaCanciller1a ante la Organi.aci6n de Estados Americanos,
de una divergencia en la interpretaci6n de yaJcances de un
Tratady un Laudo de carâcter internacional; el cuaJ, par otra parte, esta ..
regido en su'interpryaplicaci6n..:como no podrotramanera,
por los principios, normas y proce4iiniento del Derecho Intemacional:
Pûblico· ·.:,,
Es en atenci6n a todoel~meosjuidiossy al apermanente
de nuestro Gobierna de resguardar las·'buenas relaciones entre nuestros dos
Gobiernosy pueblos, que me perrij}to retomar la sugerencia que Su
Excelencia hdeesu disposide..'~g tubijrndoen-la·bûsquede
una so/ucion a la diferynaiq~ xratemode encontrarde.comun
·acuerdolso/uciOa ladiferenci,..esepara.
')'
.......
./. ..
rffvfl/u3ûo dé !Jlef @a.cte'i-j~ 1f'a&
De·mâ.s estâ: decirle_que Costa Rica estâ en la mejor disposici6n de
hacerlo, de conformidad con·Jo que convinimos en San Joséel 3 de abril del
2000y dado que la etapa del diâlogo bilateral lyquemos por cuniplida,
elIlustrado Gobiemo de Nicaragua rechaza la posibilidad de una mediaci6n o
de cualesquiera otros mecanismes del Pacto de Vuestra solicito a
Excelenciameuindiqc~les serlootromedios a los qpodria
recurrir conjuntparponerfial diferendo y pmiaGobiemo
pueda evaluar cualquier suttil, que tenga en mente Vuestra
Excelencia.
Renuevo a Vuestra Excelencia el testmiodistinguida
consideraci6n, ,, ··
r:Jwr;)~
RobertRoja~].
Excelentisimo sefior
EduardMontealegre
MinistdeRelacioExteriordeNicaragua
Managua, }'licaragua Annex 64
President of Costa Rica, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, to President of
Nicaragua, Amoldo Aleman Lacayo, 28 June 2000
( 1.371
TRANSLATION
Miguel Angel Rodriguez E.
President of the Republîc
San Jose, 28 June 2000
MR. ARNOLDO ALEMAN LACAYO
PRESIDENT
REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA
PRESENT
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
As I have stated on many occasions and reiterated in person during our meeting
in Panama City on 17 June, the Government and people of Costa Rica are
motivated by feelings of fratemity and cooperation towards Nicaragua, to
which, as well as its geography, it is bound by indissoluble family, historical,
cultural and economie ties. In this vein, it is of fundamental importance that
the differences which may arise between our countries be resolved amicably.
With regard to the conversations we held in Panama and in accordance with
your interest in Costa Rica presenting a concrete proposai on the terms of the
navigation of Costa Rican police on the lower course of the San Juan River, I
would like to inform you that Costa Rica's intention in this respect is that the
modus operandi that functioned temporarily prior to July 1998, by which it was
allowed to navigate on this waterway with vessels carrying Costa Rican police,
having prevîously informed the Nicaraguan authorities in each case, be re
established. For its part, Costa Rica is more than willing to not navigate the San
Juan River with police carrying their police equipment without having
informed the Nicaraguan authorities in that area previously, each time they
patrol the San Juan.
The rights that correspond to Costa Rica in accordance with the Cafias-Jerez
treaty and the Cleveland Award are, furthermore, endorsed by the will and
consensus of the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Security and the Nicaraguan
Ministry ofDefence .who, on numerous occasions, have carried out activities of
co-ordination in the border region.
1would also like to reiterate, once more, the Costa Rican Govemment's highest
respect for the dominion and sovereignjurisdictîothat Nicaragua has over theentire course of the San Juan River, and that ittrusts the Govemment of
Nicaragua, for its part, will continue to respect the rights that correspond to
Costa Rica regarding the lower course of this river, in accordance with the
international instruments currently in force between the two countries and in
the manner they traditionally have been exercised.
With the firm hope that overcoming the difference that bas arisen between our
countries regarding this matter will allow for progress in other areas of
comrnon interest and for strengthening the mechanisms of understanding and
cooperation that unite Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the Central Arnerican
region as a whole, 1would like to take this opportunity to renew the assurances
of my highest consideration,
(signature)
MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ ECHEVERRIA
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
(seal)
THE PRESIDENT
REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA A
•
SAN JOSE, 28 DE JUNIO DE 2000
SENOR
ARNOLDO ALElVlAN LACAYO
PRESIDENTE
REPUBLlCA DE NICARAGUA
PRESENTE
ESTIMADO SENOR PRESIDENTE:
Comù Jo he expresaclenmûltiples oportunidaycse loreiicré personuim'Cile
nuestta reunienlaciudaddePanamaelpasado17de junioelGobiero.x el puebla
de CostaRicaseencuentraanimadosdesentimicntodefratemiday de cooperncion
haciaNicaragua,conla que, ademâs la geografilasunen indisolublvinculos
familiare,istoriees,culturaecon6micos.Enesteespiritu,resultfundamentol
importanciala amistosa solucî6n de las diferencias que pueentrnuestros
paises.
De confonnidadcon lascorwersacionque tu•.,imosen Panamy,ateodicndoa su
inte:rseque CostaRicaJeronnuleunapropuest.aconcrsobre lotérminopara la
navegaciôndelasfuerzaspolicialescostarrien elcursoinferiordel rioSanJuan.
quisiermanifesta.euelaaspiraci6costarrkenseaesrespectesqueserestablezca
elmodusoperandi quefuncîontcmporalmentcon anrerioridajuliode1998,segûn
el cualle era perrnnavegarporesv{afluviala las embarcacionesque conduciana
los miemhrosde la policcost~c ervisconocimientoen cadacaso, de !as
autoridadesnicaragüenses.PorparteCosta Rica estâ plena disposicide no
tencrrungunanavegacionen elrio SanJuande policiascon su equipapolhaber'·sin
de previocomunic ~·al outoridadesde Nicaraguaen esa zona, cada vez que
efectûenrecorridospelSanIuart -
'
•
SR. A.Ri'I'OALEMAN LACAYO
PRESIDENTE
RtPUBLlCA DE NICARAGUA
PAC.-02-
SANJOSE, 28DE JUNIO DE 2000
..........----.---.....---..
Los derechqucorresponden a Costa Rica seguCai'las-yel laude
Cleveland,sc cncuentran ademâs respaldadospoycl consedelosad
Ministerios de SeguricladPli.biicyùde Defensa de Nica{]Uen.
reitcrad<ts oportunidadesaccionde coordinac1lrcgiôfronteriUJ.
No omito manifestarle que el Gobiemo de Colma vemass.upleno
respcpor el domysumo imperiaque tieneNientodo el cauce del rio San
Juan, y que confia en que por su patte el Gobiemo rispetanùouaconti11uaro
los dercchos que correspom.!ena CostaRica edeeesc rio, seglin los
instmmentos intemacionaleentre ambos paisccomo tradicionalmente
loshemos cjercido.
Con la firmeesperanzade que la superaciôode la lenTdnueslros han
paises sobre este tema pemlÎfira a.vanzar ecomUnJ"ortallosrleîÙ.terés
mecarüsmosde entendiycooperaciue unen a Costa Ricay Nicaragua, y a la
reJ:,ccntroamericanaen su conjunto, aprovecho la oportunidad para renovarle !as
seguridadesde mi distinguidaconsideracion,
ç[J •,'' 1
Ml)../~~/G HEVERREIA ZE
PR ~ ENTEDELA WPUBI.. A Annex- 65
President of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman Lacayo, to President of Costa Rica,
Miguel Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, 29 June 2000 TRANSLATION
(seal)
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
29 June 2000
Dear Mr. President:
Guided by the utmost readiness to reach an understanding and, taking
into account the importance ·for both countries of preserving and promoting
amicable relations and cooperation, allow me to acknowledge receipt of your
letter containing your proposai for resolving the situation at hand.
1 must express my satisfaction at your Govemment's statement
reiterating its highèst respect for Nicaragua's dominion and sovereign
jurisdiction over the San Juan River, from its origin at the lake to its mouth in
the Carribean Sea, a premise that constitutes the starting point of our
conversations on the matter.
At the same time, Tmust reiterate the fact that my Govemment believes
no situation has arisen that modifies, alters or changes the specifie right of
navigation with objetos de comercio that the treaty of 1858 granted to Costa
Rica, according to their needs ofthat time to use the San Juan River as a means
of commercial communication.
Having clarified the aforementioned, 1 am pleased to express the
willingness of my Govemment to reestablish the modus operandi that the
border authorities of both countries applied temporarily in 1998, within the
framework of the cooperation effort that had been developing since 1995,
following the signing ofthe Joint Communiqué between the Nicaraguan Army
and the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Security. In this respect, my
Govemment is willing to reestablish the cooperation that Nicaragua offered
Costa Rica for the purposes of provisioning their border posts in the lower part
of the San Juan River, thus allowing the Costa Rican police authorities to
navigate that part of the river, with the acquiescence, in each case, of the
Nicaraguan authorities. Said navigation would not involve, as it did not do so
previously, the exercising of any act of jurisdiction, neither will it adversely
affect Nicaragua's authority as territorial sovereign. Nicaragua's willingness to this effect is based on the desire ta
strengthen the ties of friendship and cooperation that should prevail between
our sister and neighbouring nations, which share a common historie
background.
In the hope that the current situation may be overcome in the brîefest
possible period, for the good of our nations, I assure you, once again, that
Nicaragua will continue to respect, as it always bas done, the treatyf limits of
1858 and the award of 1888, these being the instruments that define the legal
framework for the respective rights of our States.
I should like to avait myself ofthis opportunity to renew, President
and friend, the assurance of my highest and distinguished consideration.
(signature)
Arnaldo Aleman Lacayo
His Excellency
Miguel Angel Rodriguez
President of the Republic of Costa Rica
His Office PRESIOENCIA DE LA REPUBliCA
29 de junio de 2000
EstimadoSencirPresidente:
Guiado par la mejar dispasicion de alcanzar un entendimientci y
tomanda en cuenta la importancia que para ambas paises posee la
preservacion y fomenta de las.relaciones de amistad y cooperaoon, me
permito acusar recibo de su carta que contiene su propuestà para la
soluciônde la situaciônque nos ocupa.
Debo expresar mi satisfaccion par la manifestaciôn expresa de su
Gobierno, de reiterar el plena respeto por el dominîo y sumo imperia que
corresponde a Nicaraguasobre el rfa San Juan, desde su nacimiento en el
lago hasta su desembocadura en el mar Caribe, premisa que constituye el
punta de partida de nuestrasconversacionessobre el tema.
Al mismo tiempo, deba reiterar que mi Gobierno considera que no se
ha producido situacion alguna que modifiquè, altere o cambie el especffico
derecho de navegaciôn con objetos de comercio que el tratado de· 1858
concedi6 a Costa Rica, en funci6n de las necesidadesque teriia en aquellos
anos, de utilizar el rio SanJuan camo media de comunicacioncomercial.
Adarado lo anterior, me complace expresarle la disposicion de mi
Gobierno de l·establecerel modus operandi que las autoridades fronterizas
de ambos pafses aplicaban de forma temporal en 1998, en el marco del
esfuerzode caaperacionque se venfa desarrollando desde 1995, despuésde
la firma de Comunicado Canjunta entre el Ejército dé Nicaragua y el
Ministerio de Seguridad Publicade Costa Rica. En este sentido, mi Gobierrio
esta dispuesto a restablecer la cooperacion que Nicaragua prestaba a Costa
Rica, a efectos de avituallamiento de sus puestas fronterizos en la parte
inferior delrio San Juan, par media del cual se permitia a las autoridades
polidales de Costa Ricatransitar par esa parte del rio, con la adquiesencia,
en cada casa, de las autoridades nicaragüenses. Dicha navegaciôn no
implicarîa, camo no implicaba anteriormente, el ejercicio de acta de
jurisdicci6n atguno, camo tampoco resultar en menoscabo de las
competencias que correspondena Nicaraguacoma soberano territorial. PRESIDENGIADE LA AEPUBliCA
La disposicion de Nicaragua, a los efectos expresados, se basa en el
anima de fortalecer los lazos de amistad y cooperaci6n que de~en
prevalecer entre dos pueblos hermanosy vecinos, que comparten un origen
historico comûn.
En la esperanza de que pueda superarse en el plazo mas breve
posib.le,en beneficia de nuestros pueblos, la situacion existente, le reitera a
Usted la seguridad de que Nicaraguaseguira respetando,comasiemprelo
ha hecho, el tratado de limites de 1858y el lauda de 1888, instrumentas
que establecen el marco jurfdico de los respectivos derechos de nuestros
Estados.
Aprovecho ta ocasion para expresarle, Presidente y amigo, las
muestras de mi mas altay distinguida consideracion.
.·
Excelentisimo Seiior
Miguel Angel Roddguez
Presdientede la Republica de CostaRica
SuDespacho Annex 66
President of Costa Rica, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, to President of
Nicaragua, Arnaldo Alemân Lacayo, 29 July 2000TRANSLATION .
Miguel Angel Rodriguez E.
President of the Republic
San Jose, 29 July 2000
Mr. President:
1have the honour to address you in reference to your letter of 29 June
in which you reply favourably to my -interest that our two countries find a
solution to the difference that bas arisen regarding the scope of Costa Rica's
right to free navigation on the San Juan River.
In this respect, it was particularly pleasing to verify that we fully agree
on three fundamental aspects: a) that the sovereignty over the entire course of
the San Juan River corresponds to Nicaragua; b) that, in accordance with the
Cleveland Award of 1888, whîch constitutes an obligatory interpretation of the
Cafias-Jerez treaty of limits of 1858, Costa Rica bas the perpetuai right of free
navigation on the lower course of the river for purposes of commerce, and c)
that since 1888 nothing has occurred to change this legal status. I also consider
it of great importance as a step forward in resolving the dispute that your letter
contain an expression of willingness to re-establish the modus operandi that
existed until July 1998, in which the vessels carrying members of the Costa
Rican police could navigate on the lower course of the river, having previously
informed the Nicaraguan authorities in each case.
Regrettably, in the conversations held, subsequent to your letter,
between the Nicaraguan Minister of Defence and the Costa Rican Minister of
Public Security with a view to putting these demonstrations ofwillingness into
practice, it has still not been possible to reach an agreement on the
reestablishment of the modus operandi, or on the procedures by which Costa
Rica, in each case, would inform Nicaragua, respectively, of the transit of Costa
Rican police on the lower San Juan. This situation deeply concems me and I
hope that with the help ofyour valuable support it will be possible to overcome
it and thus put the contents of our letters of 28 and 29 June into practice. ln
this respect, I have attempted to contact you by telephone over the past few
days, however, unfortunately, this has not been possible due to your multiple
commitments and I have, therefore, been forced to recur to this means in order
to procure your valuable help in overcoming the abovementioned problem. I reiterate, Mr. President, Costa Rica's interest in finding, together with
Nicaragua, a definitive solution to this dispute and in strengthening the
fraternal harmony that should prevail over our two nations that share such close
and numerous ties. I have high hopes that a sîmilar attitude will be expressed
by Nicaragua and its authorities and that this will allow us to join forces with
a view to constructing a bright future.
I would like to take this opportunity to renew the assurances of my
highest consideration,
(signature)
MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ ECHEVERRIA
(seal)
THE PRESIDENT
REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
MR.
ARNOLDO ALEMAN LACAYO
PRESIDENT OF NICARAGUA
"MANAGUA .
.
•
P"F!:ESICENTt:;:DE I.,A AEPUBl..ICA
San José,29 de julio de 2000.
Senor Presidente:
Al saludarle atentamente. deseo referirme a su nota del pasado 29 de jWlia, en la
cual respondi6 favorablemente a mi interésde que nuestros dos paises encuentren una
soluci6n de la diferencia que han mantenido con respecta a los alcances del deréehode
libre navegaciôn de Costa Rica en el rio San Juan.
Sobre el particular, ha sido especialmente satisfactorio constatar que
coincidimos plenamente en tres elementos fundamentales: a) que la soberania sobre el
curso del rio San Juan, en toda su extensi6n, corresponde a Nicaragua; b) que, de
acuerdo con el Laudo Cleveland de 1888, que constituye una interpretaci6n obligatoria
6
del tratado de limites Caîlas Jerez de 1858, Costa Rica tiene derechos perpetuas de libre
navegaci6n en elcurso inferior del rio con prop6sîtos de comercio, y c) que desde 1888
no ha sucedido nada que modifique esa situaciénjuridica Tambiénhe considerado de
suma importancia, coma un paso adelante en lasoluci6n del diferendo, la manifestaci6n
de voluntad contenida en su nota, en el sentido de estar en disposici6n de que se
restablezca el modus operandi existente hasta julio de 1998, segt'm el cual las
embarcaciones en que viajaban miembros de la policia costarricense podlan navegar en
el curso inferior del rio, con previo conocimiento, en cada caso, de las autoridactes de
Nicaragua
Lamentablemente, en las conversaciones que con posterioridad a su nota ha
mantenido el Ministre de Defensa de Nicaragua con elde Seguridad Pûblica de Costa
Rica, con miras a poner en ejecuci6n esas manifestaciones de voluntad, todavia no ha
sido posible alcanzar un acuerdo sobre el restablecimiento del modus operalUii-., ni
sobre los procedimientos mediante los cuales Costa Rica, en cada caso, haria la
correspondiente comunicaci6n a Nicaragua sobre el trânsito de poücias costarricenses
en el bajo San Juan. Me preocupa profimdamente esta situaci6n, y espero.que mediante
su valioso concurso sea posible superarla y dar asi concreciôn a lo contenido en nuestras
notas de 28 y 29 de junio. Con tai prop6sito, he tratado de localizarlo por la via
telef6nica durante los Ul.timosdias, pero lamentablemente eso no ha resultado posible en
virtud de sus mUltiples ocupaciones, por lo que me veo obligado a recurrir a esta via
para procurar su valioso concurso atinde superar el inconveniente sefialado. ~
•
PRESIOE.Ntl!: DE LA REPUBUCA
Plig.2
Le reitero, sei'ior Presidente, el interés de Costa Rica de encontrar,
conjuntamente con Nicaragua, una soluci6n dyde consolîdarte diferendo,
la fratemal armenia que debe reînar entre dos paises que comparten tan estrechos y
multiples vinculos. Tengo la firme esperanza de que haya una actitud similar en
construcci6n de un fecundo P<?rvenir. ello nos permita aunar esfuerzos con miras a la
Aprovecho la oportunidad para renovarle el testimonio de rru distinguida
consideraci6n,
SENOR
ARNOLDO ALEMAN LACAYO
PRESIDENTE DE NICARAGUA
MANAGUA Annex 67
President of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman Lacayo, to President of Costa Rica,
Miguel Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, 3 August 2000 TRANSLATIO~
(seal)
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
3 August 2000
Mr. President:
1 have the honour to address Your Excellency to acknowledge receipt of
your Ietter of 29 of July in which you express your concem for the fact that the
defence and security authorities of both countries have still not reached an
agreement regarding the reestablishment of the modus operandi that existed
between 1995 and 1998, or on the procedures by which the Costa Rican
authoritieswou.ldnavigate a predetermined stretch of the San Juan River with
the acquiescence, in each case, of the Nicaraguan authorities. Said consent, in
each of the cases, is to be expressed by the national authorities fully exercising
their sovereign attributes.
In this respect, allow me to express to you that 1 fully share your
concem, however, 1 have been informed of a series of coincidental operative
aspects that constitute evident progress in the talks between both authorities,
Ieaving pending situations that require, on our part, the concurrance of other
Powers of State, in accordance with our internai legislation. As I am
committed to resolving this situation and totally convinced of the importance
of strengthening relations between two sister countrie1,have personally taken
steps before the relevant authorities in order to speed up the necessary
procedures.
In this regard, 1 would like to reiterate my utmost willingness to
cooperate in order that your country's police authoritîes may resolve the
difficulties they face in provisioning and relieving their border posts, located
on Costa Rican soil.
At the same time, I am pleased to note from your recent communication
that, as in your letter of29 June, you reiterate the fact that "the sovereignty over
the entire course of the San Juan River corresponds to Nicaragua." I must,
likewise, reiterate our positionf unlimited respect for that stipulated in theJerez-Canas Treaty of 1858 and the Cleveland Award of 1888 regarding the
rightof free navigation for purposes of commerce that Nicaragua granted Costa
Rica on a specifie part of the San Juan River. Both statements in your recent
letter, therefore, constitute examples, as Your Excellency rightly pointed out,of
full agreement between us both that, without a doubt, form the basis on which
we may continue to strengthen our bilateral relations.
On reiterating my utmost willingness to cooperate in regard to the case
at hand and expressing my most sincere wish that satisfactory progress be made
in this and the many other matters on our bilateral agenda, allow me to renew,
Mr. President Rodriguez, the assurances of my consideration and esteem.
(signature)
Arnoldo Aleman Lacayo Manasua 3.:dagosroe2000
SetloPrt!sidenre:
Me ditPoa VUI!:Excefentia.felob.Jedo-QCUS8rrecibde'Wc:;ardel
pasadO2CdeÎul atacéSdefac-.ml matllfietupniOC.UpaQMporelhedlo de
que faalliOridade defensvsesurldade arnbo5paiSe,· .nohanaJc:cw.a•o
un acuerdcon ~n alresrabJ«imJendelmoduS cper.tndiuew!f.iG~~
1995 y1998. ai~ 1Œ.tm,Œd'uniCM mOediillfoi cualadoridadede OJ.ga,
Ricanavep1a1 enun~ ~·1trrwi m iJ'rOanuan; colaaquïesŒndaen
ŒdaGUO. delUautoridadenicaragOeftDsidtGconsemifftieen,cactanode
locasosl.~ lasaulDt'idanadonaletmptenoèjettidde susatrlbuaos
soberanos.
Al respeao, petmflame &&;prue.eoftlpctotaltnersupreocupacl6rl,
no obSialrh.e sl.intormadde unasenede pumosde coinddet1copeontivŒ
queconstitu,-un avance evidenteen· las platicaseambas at.tnrtdEides.
Guedando~ient tilaclonesquerequietenpornuestrapmdel.coocursode
Db'oPs ode drE atado,CORSI;WU'lionnuestrb!8l5lacf6ntem Aa.sentlrrne
cornprometidcoo fa soludde esta5i1Uad6v porm1 f'itmconvï~ de la
importanciqcserevhte elesttechamienoe las reladones·emr®s pafses
hermano serealitilpei'SOf'lalmenslonesntefasautoridasertinentsfm
de.agilizar1Qrrti~-l
AI•espectodesereiterarmima irmevoluntaddecooperacl6n,llod~
que las uol1dadepolicialde .su palpoedan resolvelas dific;l.fsuee
enfremanenet.iWituall.emientoy relevo de suspuestolos,ubkadΠ01
ter~" ŒstaotŒio. A suva. meŒmpbŒ mciblr en su recienŒmistva.~[acïO dnlo
expresadensunotadel29 dejunipasadoenel senddqΠ'1a~a sabreel
CW'SOdelrfSanJuan,en toda su extens~On, a Nicatag:ùa•.Almlsmo
tlempadebo teberarnuestrposici6ndein'estrtespeta lodispuestq pot el
TraladJere.t.cade 165Byellaudo Oevelande 1888,ton Rfa:ïŒ.derecho
de litmtnavqacl6n cobidO$decornem q:rNicaraguc.onŒdi6aCmla Ria,.
en detetminadlrechadelrioSanJllall.· AfJ.xpresionamti~ en sv
recientmlslva,onsdtuym pues,elemenms ,omo Vue:JttaExO!Ienbtsn lo
manffie5d.e ùnplencofncidendaentreambes,leualSinlugara dudsfent3
lasesesparacontinuaav.m.tandon el fof'falecimdeonuesrrarlaciones
bltalerale!;.
Al reilelmitmisfit ~œ1umadde cooperadoŒn reiaàO.al casoque
nesocupayexptesar1etné si~ "e'seoe~ satisfa anê stianen~
en otrosde tmuthostemasque.COfi\IXInUf.Sb'gendabilme meraemito
ranovarle,Sei\orPŒsld! odrfguezl,aimuedemidlstin&uiaonsideracin
eslima. Annex 68
Costa Rican Acting Foreign Minister, Elayne Wbyte, to Nicaraguan Acting
Foreign Minister, JoséAdan Guerra, Note No. DVM-420-00, 28 September
2000 387
TRANSLATION
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
DVM-420-00
San Jose, 28 September 2000
Y our Excellency:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency in regard to the following:
On Tuesday 26 September a Costa Rican vesse! carrying two judicial agents
and a member of the police force were preparing to navigate the San Juan River
towards the Cafio Rio Jardin area, situated five kilometres from the mouth of
the San Carlos River on the southem bank of the San Juan River, in Costa
Rican territory. These officiais were travelling this town to undertake tasks
related to their post, within the bounds ofthose permitted by the second article
ofthe ClevelandAward, issued on the twenty second ofMarch, eighteen eighty
eight. On arriving at the Nicaraguan army post, located in front of Boca San
Carlos they were not allowed to enter the San Juan River.
This matter constitutes a flagrant violationf the rights to free navigation in
perpetuity that the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, the Cleveland Award of 1888
and the Central American Court of Justice judgement of 1916 grant the
Republic of Costa Rica.
The Govemment of the Republic of Costa Rica hereby strongly protests against
these acts to the Govemment of Nicaragua, requests the corresponding
explanations and that the Republic of Costa Rica's right to free navigation be
put into effect.
I would like to take this opportunity to renew the assurances of my
consideration.
(signature)
Elayne Whyte
Interim Minister
His Excellency
Jose Adan Guerra
Minister by law of Foreign Affaîrs
Republic ofNicaragua ~ ~MURt t449 l asf~ ~~a:J ~ ;
DYM4i0-o0
SanJΎ2.ds Stptlmtde2000.
ExwiMtlsfmouitor:
Me dJ~a oaunr~~hCi ~d0«181nAllt.:icerrDIJJ.JlgWshs~hos:
Eldft1!J1116dt1etkmb lre. harcocnomurlcenf1colldm:doagente.s
judttltJksy vnlfJela[utna piHJldi1ptma1i~M 8lrllfoSanJuan,
condulfn1laZanrlCaltoR.1tJrlt,biaclnŒkll6m1t.re1e.stmbol:aduN
rk/Ri&znCorlos,enmt:ITgfmdaklo&m.liai.territuCCMIIJn'l.to8W
./ilnd4naas4ll'lgQuutDlocalld11redizgt~'t potfsde~~ucŒgo,
~ ®nrrodiIdspmahidiJ11QIT(cnpndotlelLauClew~ Jmltdo.
elllflhltlmt11deMildocientrn denia 1 oc'ho.al Jr;mtkl qbcita
"'~'· liluado/r"BŒa SaQzrlŒ11lu~ pt1'11alrdnsipo~~Rio
San./wim.
Eau ~ entraiUIIjltJgnnoltr Q~101rlrrdoa de l~~~mgA (Cién
ptrpelrüdf11el TwltCdftahlerdel&'fel L2UtClfveltmdde 1y8fa
.ŒntencJela CoCtlRIToal 6Jeri.ctmkt6,~e oldrgtaRepûblide
Cos/aRica.
ElGo~ dllR~tp tùCbulRçoaruentpol!&mediUM etJJrgyrotesta
aGobfffldela RtpûbrhNICfliQf07't0h•~lw lIOlfckuaaplir:r:ciones
~rmpondla J!qses1up 1/fCJetwpttodeldeNclde Ubri navejc2la6n
.RqNblfdeCo.sRlct.J
.A,p ÙoporunidoXJUJITUarsltestlrdsmiconstdlracl6n
&«1~~ &1~11 1 0
JraAClGnutmz
Minlltro Jilrla R.tlDC&:.rioNS
Rqlalfcq d• li'ICdT'OZW Annex 69
Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister, JoséAdim Guerra, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lopez, Note No. MRENM-JI/483/1 0/00,
18 October 2000 389
TRANSLATION
(seal)
Republic of Nicaragua
Central America
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
18 October 2000
MRENM -JI/483/10/00
Excellency:
1 have the honour to address Your Excellency in reference to our reply
MRE/DM/4977/09/00 of 29 September of the current year to your Letter
DVM-420-00 of the 2sth of the same month and·year, in which you were
informed ofthe investigation into the events you-referred to in your letter that
were being carried out with a view to analyzing if the navigation mentioned on
that occasion is covered by that stipulated in the Jerez-Canas Treaty of 1858
and the Cleveland Award of 1888.
In this respect, I would likeo make it known to you that, as a result of
the investigations, this Ministry of Foreign Affairs was informed that, on 26
September, members of the Costa Rican Judicial Investigation Organism
arrived at the Border Police post on Costa Rican soil from which they sent a
message to the Chief of Border Police in Boca San Carlos, Sergeant II
Sandoval, asking him to authorize their navigation on the San Juan River and
arrivai at the area known as La Curafia, where a robbery had taken place, and
recommending that the abovementioned Sergeant II present the request to a
higher ranking official, since the pertinent authorities had not, at that time,
received any request.
1avait myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the assurances of
my highest consideration,
(signature)
Jose Adan Guerra
Minister by Law
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas Lopez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
18 de octubre de 2000
MRfNM-jl/483/1 0/00
Excelencia:
Tengo el agrado de dirigirme a Vuestra Excelencia, en ocasi6n de hacer
referencia a nuestra Nota MRE/DM/4977/09/00 del dia 29 de septiembre del ai'iDen
curso, en respuestaa su Nota DVM-420-00 del 28 del mismo mesy ano, en la que se
le informaba que se estaban investigando los hechos a los que hace alusi6n en su
comunicaci6n, con la finalidad de analizar si la navegaci6n referida en esa
opo_rtunidad,estacomprend ida dentro de Joestableddo en el Tratado Jerez-Canasde
1858 y el Lauda Cleveland de 1888.
Al respecta, me permito hacer de su conocimiento que camo resultado de las
investigaciones, estaCancillerla fue informada que el dfa 26 de septiembre, miembros
del Organisme de lnvestigaci6n judicial de Costa Rica, llegaron al puesto de Policla
de Fronteras en territorio costarricense, desde el cual enviaron mensaje al Jefe de
Policia de Fronteras en Boca de San Carlos, Sargento Il Sandoval, para que les
autorizara navegar por el do SanJuan y llegar al Jugarconocîdo como LaCurana, en
donde se habla realizado un asalto, recomendando el citado Sargento li presentar la
solicitud a un nivel superior, no habiendo recibido a la fecha, las autoridades
competentes, ninguna solicitud.
Aprovecho la ocasi6n para reiterar aVuestra Excelencia las muestrasde mi mas
altay distinguida consideraciôn.
Excelentfsimo Senor
Roberto Rojasl6pez
Ministro de Relaciones Exterioresy Cuita
Republica de Costa Rica
-'· Annex 70
Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Elayne Whyte, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Note No. DVM-111-01,
18 April 2001 TRANSLATION
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
18 April 2001
DVM-111-01
Your Excellency:
I address Your Excellency on the matter of a fee of US$ 25.00 (twenty
five US dollars) that the Nicaraguan authorities charged Costa Ricans
travelling along the San Juan River during the past month of March. This
illegal charge took place when Costa Ricans were navigating the San Juan
River in vessels carrying the national flag. In this respect, we are enclosing one
of the receipts issued by the Nicaraguan authorities, which proves the charge of
the above-mentioned fee.
This fact constitutes a flagrant violation of the Republic of Costa Rica's
rights of free navigation on the San Juan River that the Canas-Jerez Treaty of
1858, the Cleveland Award of 1888 and the Central American Court judgement
of 1916 grant the Republic of Costa Rica.
The Govemment of Costa Rica hereby strongly protests to the
Govemment of the Republic of Nicaragua in regard to these actions,
respectfully requests the corresponding explanations and reiterates the need, in
the future, to avoid situations that violate the rights of the Republic of Costa
Rica of free navigation on the San Juan River that are established and fully
recognized in the legal instruments that govem the relations between the two
countries.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurances of my consideration,
(signature)
Elayne Whyte
Interim Minister
His Excellency
Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua /.de 11bride 2001
lJJM-1 l1-U/
Exc:elentlsimv:wnor:
Me dirijoa V11estm l~rcele em:U t.tUir.iJtr~feri cicoebtv tmr tNJrfeJe
autoridade.t nic:aragtlenw.rde m1a I11.'K1/t! US$ 2 5.Q(J (l'f!illlic:iJo/ares
estadmmidemc.v. a cnJimric:el/se.tqutrumitahonpur el IUc1 San.hum, durante el mes de
11/0I"/KlSOOU J.!.ti/eg/liiiwbro ÎIIIl11gurCllflliC:fl.\'larti<.'W!'ti(U()(pur eJU/o
Sem Jmm en embt.11·,udone.tde handen1 ttm.:lo11al.A1 rcJpeclrJtk/jmrtamo.tJH.IIV.nt
iluslmcifil<.vpiade "'"' defost'f!cilm.textemlidopor cmroridadesili<.'amgflemres, /o que
comprueboel coflrodc la rnw referida.
lùle llechoe11trat111rflagrwrte l'ifllm:ilFlosderedm.tde libre rrw·egct<.'idfr.ir
Reptiblica de Cmla Uim en el /Uo San .Jmm qr~ el 1htladu L'mlrrs- .Jerézde 1/U,Y,cl
I.audo Cler•elandde I.Y8J'la senlenda de la Corte Ceutn.xtltlericwwde ./JJ,tlde /')/6,
Jeolorgan a lalleptiblica dOulu /Um.
El Gobiemo de la lleptiMim Je ('o.tld RiCtllll!lll/fieeste medir;1/tlem!rgi'u
protesfa al Gobienw de la llepliblicCI de Nimmgrra pur e.rtos hec:ho.v.wlicila
respetuo.ramenlelusexplil.:uc:ùmu.tf'll!.tJH.mdiete.iitem laucce.vidadque eu elfutum
se e•·ifeusiltwcifme.rquel'iolmtrmlos Jereclm.rde libre llm·egudr.inciela UepûblicaJe
Costa Rieu.1!1e//UIJs,m Jtl(lle.rlublecido.)f'f!CC)//(}plouamel/(e e/1lrA'ii11Sfl11111ertlo.r
jurldico.qrterige11fasrelacione.tentree~mb nac.irue.t ·
Apr01V!c:l ma IJportuuidudpwn expl'l!.'idJ'ue.1·tKrcelmâtt elteslimo11iJe mi
COIISicJerocicill. .
Excefeutlsimo Senor
FrcmciscoXm·ierAl(llirteSm:tua
Minislm de Uelur:icmeJ•:rterion•,r
ReplibliCfldeNicuragnCJ Annex 71
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas Lôpez, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Note No.207-2001,
9 May 2001 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
9 May 2001
DM-207-2001
YourExcellency:
1 am addressing Your Excellency in reference to the sum of US$ 25.00 that
Costa Rican vessels navigating the San Juan River are being charged as a so
called departure clearance established by the Nicaraguan authorities.
According to the attestation of deed number twenty two of the Third Volume of
the Protocol of Notary Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godinez of the fifth of May
2001, a copy of which 1 am enclosing for Your Excellency, the Nicaraguan
authorities are charging each Costa Rican vesse}navigating the lower course of
the San Juan River a tax of US $25.00 and US $5.00 to each Costa Rican
travelling in these ve·ssels.
In the abovementioned document Mr. Norman Scott Chinchilla, a Costa Rican
merchant, declared that he has to pay the Nicaraguan authorities US$ 5.00
every time he-wishesto travel to his farrns and engage in commerce.
In this same document, Mr. William Rojas Ugalde, a Costa Rican who is
President of the Chamber of Tourism of Sarapiqui, declared that the
Nicaraguan authorities charge each Costa Rican vessel that navigates the lower
course of the San Juan River$ 25.00, a statement backed up by Mr. Jorge Lao
Jarquin who, in addition to having to pay this sum, is obliged by the
Nicaraguan authorities to lower the Costa Rican flag on his vessel when he
navigates on that waterway.
The deed issued by the Notary Ugalde Godinez mentions what happened to
him and Mr. Carlos Alvarado Valverde on a trip along the San Juan River
leaving from Puerto Viejo of Sarapiqui, in Costa Rica, to Barra del Colorado,
also in Costa Rica, on a retum joumey.
According to the notarial deed, on leaving the Sarapiqui River and entering the
San Juan River the vessel in which Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Ugalde were
travelling was required by the Nicaraguan authorîtîes to stop at the Nicaraguan
Army border post located on the northem bank of the San Juan River and there
they were charged the US$25.00, as can be seen from the enclosed receipts.Furthermore, they were informed that the vessels had to report tbere in order
for them to be authorized to navigate the river.
At this Nicaraguan border post, despite the fact that the Costa Ricans explained
that the purpose of their trip was commercial, the Nicaraguan migration
authorities demanded they pay the OS$5.00.
The vesse! proceeded in the direction of Barra del Colorado and, once more,
the Nicaraguan authorities forced them to stop at another border post in
Nicaragua, known as The Delta Post, and obtain authorization there for leaving
for Costa Rica. On their retum joumey via the same route, they bad to report
at the Nicaraguan Army's Delta Post once again. The Nicaraguan authorities
once again charged them OS$ 25.00 for passing through the San Juan River
and, in addition, they were informed they could only navigate the river during
the established schedule between 6:00am and 5:30pm.
According to the attached deed, the vessel stopped at the Nicaraguan Army
Border Post, located at the mouth of the Sarapiqui River, where the receipts
issued by the Delta Post were inspected and the departure of the vessel and its
crew members from Nicaragua was authorized.
These events, Minister, openly contradict that stipulated in the international
instruments currently in force between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Article VI of the Cafi.as-Jerez Treaty establishes that "The Republic of
Nicaragua sha11have exclusively the dominion and sovereignjurisdiction over
the waters of the San Juan river from its origin in the Lake to its mouth in the
Atlantic; but the Republic of Costa Rica shall have the perpetuai right of free
navigation on the said waters, between the said mouth and the point, three
English miles distant from Castillo Viejo, said navigation being for the
pm-posesof commerce either with Nicaragua or with the interior of Costa Rica,
through the San Carlos river, the Sarapiqui, or any other way proceedîng from
the portion of the bank ofthe San Juan river, which is hereby declared to belong
to Costa Rica. The vessels of both countries shaH have the power to land
indiscriminately on either side of the river at the portion tlllereofwhere the
navigation is commun; and no charges of any kind, or duties, shall be
collected unless when levied by mutual consent ofboth Governments".(The
boldface is not from the original).
These Costa Rican rights were confirmed in 1888 by the Cleveland Award and
in 1916 by the Central American Court of Justice.The Central American Court of Justice established that "Costa Rica has in the
San Juan, for purposes of commerce, the permanent rights of free navigation
from its mouth up to within three miles of Castillo Viejo; and she may bring
ber vessels to, on eitber shore indiscriminately, without its being pennissible to
charge her any dues in the part where the navigation is common. It is therefore
plain that the dominion which the Republic of Nicaragua exercises over the San
Juan River is not absolute or unlimited; it is necessarily restricted by the rights
of free navigation attached thereto and so remarkably granted to Costa Rica,
especially if we consider that such rights, exercised for fiscal and defensive
purposes, are confounded in their development, in the opinion of treatise
writers, with the sovereign faculties of imperium. Such a concession is
equivalent to a real right of use, perpetuai and inalterable, which places the
Republic of Costa Rica in the full enjoyment of the ownership for practical
purposes of a large part of the San Juan River, wîthout prejudice to the full
ownership which Nicaragua preserves as sovereign of the territory".
As the attached notarial deed demonstrates, firstly, theCosta Rican vessel was
illegally charged a taxof US$ 25.00 each way, US $50.00 in total, without any
agreement having been made between the Republic of Nicaragua and the
Republic of Costa Rica for imposing these payments on Costa Rican vessels
that navigate the San Juan River in the part where navigation is common, in
accordance with the provisions of the Cafi.as-Jerez Treaty of 1858, the
Cleveland Award of 1888 and the Central American Court of Justice judgement
of 1916.
Secondly, the Govemment of Nicaragua imposed a tirnetable for the use and
navigation on the San Juan River which binders the free navigation that Costa
Rica bas on the lower course of the said waterway. This unilateral restriction
on Nicaragua's part is inadmissible, given that it is not stipulated by any
agreement between the two States.
Thirdly, the occupants of the abovementioned vessel infonned the Nicaraguan
authorities that the purposeoftheir joumey was the purpose of commerce, but
despite this they were charged US$5.00, in violation of article VI ofthe Canas
Jerez Treaty.
Fourthly, the fact that the Nicaraguan authorities demand that Costa Rican
vessels lower the Costa Rican tlag as a requirement for navigating the San Juan
River distorts custom and international Law in this respect.
In conclusion, Excellency, the sums charged and the conditions that the
Nicaraguan authorities have imposed on the Costa Rican vessels that navigatethe lower course of the San Juan River constitute an open violation of the
provisions of the Canas-Jerez Treaty as weil as the provisions of the other
aforementioned international instruments, and the Government of Costa Rica
therefore strongly protests and requests explanations in this regard and that the
appropriate measures be taken to avoid these events, that violate Costa Rica's
rights to free navigationon the San Juan River, from taking place in the future,
since they in no way contribute to the harmonious and fraternal relations that
should prevail over our two countries.
The Govemment of Costa Rica, Minister, bas attempted, on repeated
occasions, to find a solution, by means of dialogue and negotiation, to the
constant problems that have arisen between the two Republics as a result of the
restrictions that, since 1998, the Government of Nicaragua bas unilaterally
imposed on Costa Rica'srights of free navigation on the San Juan River. The
Govemment of Costa Rica, faced with the evident difficulty of resolving these
controversies through bilateral channels, once again invites the Nicaraguan
Government to jointly consider other methods of International Law, such as
mediation or arbitration, for resolving this type of difficulties, and hopes that,
in the meantime, it ceases its policy of establishing new restrictions to Costa
Rica's rights to the lower course of the San Juan suddenly and without
consultation.
1renew the assurances of my consideration,
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Francisco Xavier Aguirre S.
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua 9 de mayo,2001
DM-207-2001
Excelentfsimo sefior:
Me dirijo a Vuestra Excelencia en ocasiôn de·referirme al cobra de US $25.00 a
las embarcaciones costarricenses que navegan en el rio San Juan, par concepto
de un denominada derecho de zarpe establecido por las autoridades
nicaragüenses.
Seglin el testimonia de la escritura numero veintid6s del Tama Tercera del
Protocalo del Notario Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godinez de fecha cinco de maya
de 200l, copia del cual adjunto a Vuestra Excelencia, las autoridades
nicaragüenses cobran un impuesto de US $25.00 a cada embarcaciôn
costarricense que navega en el curso inferiar del rio San Juan y US $5.00 a cada
costarricense que viaja en esas embarcacianes.
En el documenta arriba citado,l sefior Norman s·cattChinchilla, costarricense,
comerciante, declar6 que se ve en la obligaci6n de cancelar US$ 5.00 a las
autoridades nicaragüenses cada vez que desea llegar susfincas y ejercer el
comerc10.
En esa misma escritura, el sefior William Rojas Ugalde, costarricense,
Presidente de la Câmara de Turismo de Sarapiquf, declan) que las autoridades
nicaragüenses cobran $ 25.00 a cada embarcaciôn costarricense que navega por
el curso inferior del rio San Juan, afirmaci6n respaldada par el sefior Jorge Lao
Jarquin, a quien, ademâs del cobra, las autoridades nicaragUenseshan obligado
a arriar la bandera costarricense de su embarcaciôn cuando navega por esa via
fluvial. ·
En el acta levantada por el Notario Ugalde Godinez, hace menci6n de Joque Je
sucedi4 aLéLyal sefior Carlos Alvarado Valverde, en un desplazamiento por el
rfo San Juan, partiendo de Puerto Vieja de Sarapiqu f,sta Rica, con
destina a Barra del Colorado, tambiénen territorio de Costà.Rica, en un viaje de
ida y regresa.De acuerdo con Joexpuesto en el acta, al salir del rio Sarapiquî y entrar al rio
San Juan, la embarcaci6n con los sefiores Alvarado y Ugalde fue requerida por
las autoridades nicaragüenses a detenerse en el puesto fronterizo del Ejércilode
Nicaragua ubicado en la margen norte del rio San Juan y alti le fueron cobrados
los US$25.00, seg6.n consta en los comprobantes adjuntos. Ademâs, se les
infonn6 que las embarcaciones deblan reportarse ahi para recibir autorizacion
para navegar en el rio.
En ese puesto fronterizo rùcaragüense, pese a que los costarricenses dijeron que
el prop6sito de su viaje era comercial, las autoridades nicaraguenses de
migraci6n les exigieron el pagode los US$ 5.00.
La embarcaci6n prosigui6 con nunbo a Barra del Colorado, y de nuevo por
exigencia de las autoridades rùcaragüenses hubo de detenerse en otro puesto
fronterizo de Nicaragua, conocido coma Puesto El Delta, y obtener alli
autorizaci6n para salir a territorio costarricense. Al emprender su viaje de
regreso por la misma ruta, se vieron obligados a reportarse nuevamente en el
Puesto El Delta del Ejército de Nicaragua. Las autoridades nicaragüenses les
cobraron nuevamente US$ 25.00 por transitar por·el rio San Juan, y ademas les
comunicaron que la navegaci6n en el rio solo se permitîa dentro del horario
establecido de 6:00am hasta las 5:30 pin.
Seg(m la escritura adjunta, la embarcaci6n se detuvo en el Puesto Fronterizo del
Ejércitode Nicaragua ubicado en la desembocadura del rio Sarapiqui, donde
inspeccionaron los comprobantes de pago emitidos por el Puesto El Delta y
autorizaron la salida de la embarcaciôn y sus tripulantes del territorio de
Nicaragua.
Estos .hechos, seiior Ministro, contradicen de modo flagrante lo dispuesto en los
instrumentas intemacionales vigentes entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua.
El artfculo VI ·del Tratado Caftas-Jerez establece que "La Republica de
Nicaragua tendra exclusivamente el dominio y sumo imperia sobre las aguas del
rio San Juan, desde su salida del Iago hasta su desembocadura en el Atlantico;.
pero la Repûblica de Costa Rica tendrà en dichas aguas los derechos perpetuas
de libre navegaci6n, desde la expresada desembocadura hasta tres millas_ inglesas antes de llegar alcastille Viejo, con objetos de comercio, ya sea con
Nicaragua o al interior de Costa Rica por los rios de San Carlos o Sarapiqui o
cualquiera otra via precedente de la parte que en la ribera del San Juan se
establece corresponder a esta Repûblica. Las embarcaciooes de uoo u otro
pais podrao indistintamente atracar en las riberas del rio, en la parte en
que la.navegacioo es comtin, sin cobrarse ninguna clase de impuestos, a no
ser que se establezcan de acuerdo entre ambos Gobiernos." (La negrilla no
es del original). •
Estos derechos de Costa Rica fueron confirmados en 1888 por el Lauda
Cleveland y en 1916 por la Corte de Justicia Ceotroamericana.
La Corte de Justicia Centroamericana estableci6 que "Costa Rica tiene en el San
Juan, para objetos de comercio, los derechos permanentes de libre navegaci6n,
desde su desembocadura hasta tres millas antes de Jlegar al Castille Viejo; y
podrâ atra,carsus barcos, en cualquier orilla indistintamente, sin que sea licita
imponerle gravâmenes en aquella parte en que la navegaci6n es com!ln. Clara
esta, que el dorninio que la Repûblica de Nicaragua ejerce sobre el rio San Juan,
no es a.bsolutoni ilimitado, tiene que estar restringido por los derechos de libre
navegaci6n y anexos, tan remarcablemente otorgados a Costa Rica, sobre toda
si se considera que tales derechos, ejercidos para fines fiscalesy defensives, se
confunden en su desarrollo, seglin el sentir de los tratadistas, con las facultades
soberanas del imperium. Tai concesi6n equivale a un derecho real de uso,
perpetuo e inalterable, que coloca a la Repûblica de Costa Rica en el gace pleno
del dominio titi! de gran parte del rio San Juan sin perjuicio del dominio pleno
que conserva Nicaragua camo soberana del territorio."
Camo se desprende de l.oexpuesto en el testimonio notarial aportado, primera,
se cobra a la embarcaci6n costarricense, de manera ilicita, un impuesto de US
$25.00 de ida y otro tanta de vueita, para un total de US $50.00, sin que nunca
baya mediado acuerdo entre la Republica de Nicaragua y la Repûblica de Costa
Rica para imponer tales cargas a las embarcaciones costarricenses que naveguen
por el rio San Juan en la parte en que la navegaci6n es comll.n, segun lo
disponen el Tratado Cafias-Jerêzde 1858, ellaudo Cleveland de 1888 y la Corte
de Justicia Centroamericana de 1916.~---··
1
1
1
En segundo lugar, el Gobiemo de Nicaragua impuso un horario de uso y
navegaci6n en el rio San Juan que obstaculiza la libre navegaciôn que posee
Costa Rica en el curso inferior de dicha via fluvial. Esta restricci6n unilateral de
parte de Nicaragua es improcedente, dado que no la establece ning6n convenio
entre ambos Estados.
Tercera, los ocupantes de la embarcaci6n mencionada indicaron a las
autoridades nicaragüenses que el propôsito de su viaje era con objetos de
comercio, pese a lo cual se les cobraron US $5.00, en violaci6n del articula VI
del Tratado Caftas-Jerez.
Cuarto, la exigencia de las autoridades nicaragüenses de que las naves
costarricenses han de arriar la bandera de Costa Rica camo requisito para la
navegaciôn en el rio San Juan, violentan la costumbre y el Derecho
intemacional al respecta.
Excelencia, en conclusion, los cobras y condiciones que han establecido ta.S
autoridades nicaragüenses a las embarcaciones de Costa Rica que navegan en el
curso inferior del rio San Juan, entrafian. una flagrante violaci6n a las
disposiciones del tratado Caiias-Jerez y a las "disposiciones de los demas
instruin.entosintemàcionales antes mencionados, por lo que el Gobiemo de
Costa Rica presenta. su mas enérgica protesta, solicita que se .le den las
explicaciones del caso y que se tomen las medidas pertinentes para que en Jo
sucesivo se eviten situaciones que violenten los derechos de libre navegaci6n de
Costa Rica en el rio San Juan que en nada contribuyen a las relaciones
armoniosas y de hermandad que deben imperar entre nuestros dos paises.
El Gobierno de Costa Rica, sefior Ministro, ha procurado en formas reiterada
encontrar soluci6n. mediante el diâlogo y la negociaci6n a· los repetidos
problemas que han surgido entre ambas Republicas coma consecuencia de las
restricciones que desde 1998 ha impuesto unilateralmente el Gobiemo de
Nicaragua a los derechos de libre navegaci6n de.Costa Rica en el rio San Juan..
El Gobiemo de Costa Rica, ante la dificultad evidente de resolver estas
diferencias por la via bilateral, invita nuevamente al Gobierno de Nicaragua a ____ 401
recurrir conjuntamente a los otros mecanismos que ofrece el Derecho
Intemacional para resolver este tipo de dificultades, tales coma la mediacion o
el arbitraje, y espera que entre tanto se llega a esa solucion, cese en su polltica
de establecer de modo subito e inconsulto nuevas restricciones a los derechos
que Costa Rica tiene en el curso inferior del San Juan.
Le reitera el testimonio de mi consideracion,
....
Excelentisimo Sefior
Francisco Xavier Aguirre S.
Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores
Republica de Nicaragua Annex 72
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, to Costa
Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. MRE/DM
JI/0818/08/0 1, 3 August 2001 TRANSLATION
(seal)
Republic ofNicaragua
· Central America
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, 3 August 2001
MRE/DM-11/0818/08/01
Excellency:
1 have the honour to address Your Excellency in reference to your
lettersDVM-111-01 of 18 April and DM-207-2001of 9 May, both of the
current year, in which the Honourable Government of the Republic of Costa
Rica protests the fact that Costa Rican registered vessels navigating the San
Juan River are being charged to do so.
In this respect, 1 would like to reiterate, Your Excellency, that the
Government of the Republic of Nicaragua faithfully complies with its
international obligations, and, consequently, with regard to the case at hand, is
respectful of the rights of navigation con objetos de comercio granted to Costa
Rica on the lower course of the San Juan river under the Jerez:-CafiasTreaty
and the Cleveland Award.
With regard to the motive for your protest, I would like to inforrn yoù.
that the sum of US$ 25.00 being charged is, contrary to that expressed by Your
Excellcncy, not for navigating the San Juan River, nor does it constitute any
type of tax, but is, rather,·the amount charged for providing the departure
clearance certificate service that both Nicaraguan and foreign vessels in any
Nicaraguan port, including those located in the said river, are charged when
travelling to another State.·
His Excellency
Mr. Roberto Rojas
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa RicaPage No. 2
3 August 2001
1 have the honour to inform you, dear Minister, that, in the interests of
strengthening the fratemal ties of friendship and cooperation that exist between
our countries and Govemments, the President of the Republîc has given
instructions to extend the departure clearance certificate to Costa Rican vessels for
free in Boca de Sarapiqui and the Delta of the San Juan River, as an act of courtesy,
with the exception of vessels related to tourist activities or when they use the Port
of San Juan del Norte. The vessels that receive the complementary departure
clearance certificate will only be required to report at the Nicaraguan Anny's
Military Control Posts on the lower course of the San Juan River.
In regard to the lllustrious Costa Rican Govemment's dissatisfaction with
respect to the Nicaraguan authorities' requirement that Costa Rican vessels have to
lower their country's flag in order to navigate the San Juan River, allow me, Your
Excellency, to express the fact that, as regards international maritime navigation,
every ship entering the sovereign waters of another State raises the flag of that
State, in keeping with international custom and courtesy, so that the lattèr is
hoisted higher than that of the vesse!'snational flag. This act is considered one of
respect and recognition of the exercise of sovereignty on the said waters. If the
vessel does not hoist the flag of the State in whose waters it finds itself, it may not
raise its national flag.
In relation to the limitation on the navigation on the San Juan River as
regards the hours of the day, it should be noted that it is Nicaragua's right and
obligation, as the sovereign State, to adopt the regulations necessary for
guaranteeing the safety of the people and vessels travelling along the river and
avoid aUrrmnnerof criminal activities.
Finally, with regard to the US$ 5.00 the migration authorities charge each
persan entering Nicaraguan territory; allow me to inform you that the latter
amount applies to ali foreigners entering the country.
As Your Excellency can see, the Govemment of the Republic ofNicaragua
faithfully complies with its international obligations and the actions carried out are
implernented in strict adherence to custom and international law and ta Nicaraguan
Positive Law.
1avail rnyself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the assurances
of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
(signature)
Francisco X. Aguirre Sacasa
(seal)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America Managua, 3 de agostodel2001
MRE!OM-j!/081 B/08101
Excelencia:
Tengo el agrado de dirigirme a Vuestra Excelencia en ocasi6n de hacer
referencia aNotasDVM~111 de0118 de abril y DM~207-20 d0l19 de maya,
ambas del ana en curso, en las que el llustrado Gobierno de la Repûblica de Costa
Rica presenta su protesta par el cobra realizado en el rfa SanJuan a embarcaciones
con matricula dea Repûblica de Costa Rica.
Al respecta, me permito reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia que el Gobierno de la
Repûblica de Nicaragua es fiel cumplidor de sus obligaciones internacionales, y en
consecuencîa en relaci6n al casa que nos ocupa, es respetuoso de los derechos de
navegaciôn con objetos de comercio concedidos asta Rica en.el curso inferior del
rioSanJuanpar el Tratadojerez~a ynalLauda Cleveland.
En relaci6n al motiva de su protesta, me permito manifestarle que el cobra de
US$ 25.00, contrario a lo que manifiesta Vuestra Excelencia, no es por la navegaci6n
en el rio San juan, ni constituye ningûn tipo de carga impositiva, sino por la
prestaciôn del servicio del derecho de zarpe, el cual se cobra a aquellas
embarcaciones, tanta nicaragüenses coma extranjeras, que estando en cualquier
puerto nicaragüense, incluyendolos ubicados en el citado rfa, se dirigen a otro
Estado.
SuExcelencia
Senor Roberto Rojas
Ministre de Relaciones Exteriores y Cuita
Repûblica de Costa RicaP~gio ao. 2
] deago~tdol 2001
Me honra informarle Selior Ministro, que en aras de fortalecer las fratemales
relaciones de amistad y cooperaci6n que existen entre nuestros pueblos y Gobiernos,
el Se!ïor Presidente de la Republica ha girado instrucciones de extender gratuitamente
a las embarcaciones costarricenses, coma una cortesîa, el derecho de zarpe en Boca
de Sarapiquf y el Delta del Rio San Juan, exceptuando aquellas dedicadas a
actividades turisticas o cuando utilicen el Puerto de San juan del Norte. las
embarcaciones que reciben el zarpe de cortesfa solamente deberân reportarse en los
Puestos de Control Militar que el Ejércitode Nicaragua mantiene en el curso inferior
del rio San juan.
En cuanto a la inconformidad del llustrado Gobiemo de Costa Rica sobre la
exigencia de las autoridades nicaragüenses de que las naves costarricenses han de
arriar la bandera de su pais camo requisito para la navegaci6n en el rfa SanJuan, me
permito manifestar a Vuestra Excelencia que en materia de navegaci6n marftima
intemacianal, toda barca, una vez que ingresa a las aguas soberanas de otro Estado,
por costumbre y cortesfa internacional, enarbola la bandera de ese Estado,
sabresaliendo éstapar encima del pabell6n nacional de la embarcaci6n. Esteacta es
considerado de respeto y reconocimiento al ejercicio de la soberania sobre dichas
aguas. Si la embarcaciôn no enarbola la bandera del Estado en cuyas aguas se
encuentra, no puede enarbolar su bandera nacional.
En la relativo a la limitaci6n de la navegaciôn en el rio SanJuan a las haras del
dia, conviene destacar que Nicaragua corna Estado soberano"estâ en el derecho y
obi igaci6n de adoptar las regu1aciones que sean necesarias para garantizar la
seguridad de las personas y embarcaciones que transitan en el rfoy evitar toda lipo de
actividades delictivas.
Finalmente, sobre el cobro que hacen autoridades migratorias de US$ 5.00
por cada persona que ingresa a territorîo nicaragüense, me permito informarle que
éstese aplica a toda persona de nacionalidad extranjera que ingresa al pals.Pagina No.J
3 deagostodel2001
Camo podra observar Vuestra Excelencia, el Gobierno de la Repûblica de
Nicaragua es fiel cumplidor de sus obligaciones internacionales y las acciones que
lleva a cabo se implementan con estricto apego al derecho y la costumbre
internacional y al Derecho Positivo nicaragüense.
Aprovecho la ocasi6n para reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia las muestrasde mi mas
alta y distinguida consideraci6n. ·
JCSII~p Annex 73
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Note No. DM-355-2001,
26 September 2001 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
26 September 2001
DM-355-2001
Your Excellency:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency on the matter ofyour letter
MRE/DM-IV0818/0l of3 August 2001.
Firstly, it is very satisfactory to read, on Your Excellency's part, of the
Illustrious Govemment of Nicaragua's willingness to comply with its
international obligations. This leads one to hope that the Illustrious Govemment
ofNicaragua shaH,at ali time, respect the international instruments that govem
the relations between the countries. Among these instruments is the Central
American Court of Justice judgement of 30 September 1916. In this respect, it
provides the following ruling:
"a) The Republic of Nicaragua bas exclusively the dominion and supreme
control over the San Juan River throughout the extent of its course; that is
to say, it exercises the rights of ownership over it and it forms a part of the
national territory subjecttoits sovereignty. b) That right is not absolute and
suffers the restrictions which the aforesaid Treaty points out: 1- San Juan
del Norte and Salinas. hays are common to the two Republics; and,
consequently, at both terminal points of a possible canal, the legal principle
ofjoint ownership endures; 2- Costa Rica, equally with Nicaragua, is obliged
to guard and defend the river in case of foreign aggression, this stipulation
demonstrating to what extent, in the mind of the negotiators, the moral and
material interests of both people were bound up together; 3- Costa Rica bas
in the San Juan, for purposes of commerce, the permanent rights of free
navigation from its mouth up to within three miles of Castillo Viejo; and she
may bring ber vessels to, on either shore indiscriminately, without its being
permissible to charge ber any dues in the part where the navigation is
common. It is therefore plain that the dominion which the Republic of
Nicaragua exercises over the San Juan River is not absolute or unlimited; it
is necessarily restricted by the rights offree navigation attached thereto and
so remarkably granted to Costa Rica, especially if we consider that such
rights, exercised for fiscal and defensive purposes,are confounded in their
development, in the opinion of treatise writers, with the sovereign faculties
of imperium. Such a concession is equivalent to a real right of use, perpetuai
and inalterable, which places the· Republic of Costa Rica in the full
enjoyment of the ownership for practical purposes of a large part of the San
Juan River, without prejudice to the full ownership which Nicaragua
preserves as Sovereign of the territory" (The boldface is not in the original).410
Secondly, the difference should be established between Costa Rican
vessels heading specifically for Nicaraguan territory and Costa Rican vessels that
have to cali at a Nicaraguan port in order to comply with the requirement
imposed by the Nicaraguan authorities of reporting to them. In the latter case,
the departure clearance certificate is illogical, since these vessels are travelling
between points in Costa Rican territory. In short, the Nicaraguan authorities
deliberately impose a condition to report, which represents an economie
advantage. Such measure totally violates the correspondîng provisions of the
Canas-Jerez Treaty.
Thirdly, it is pleasing to hear the Honourable Government of Nicaragua 's
declarations of good will. We hope that this good will shall contribute to
correctly interpreting the provisions of the Canas-Jerez Treaty, that, in its article
6, at the part that corresponds, estab1ishes: "...The vessels of bath countries shaH
have the power to land indiscriminately on either side of the river at the portion
thereof where the navigation is cornmon; and no charges of any kind, or duties,
shall be collected unless when levied by mutual consent of bath Governments."
This aspect is related to that of the previous point in the sense that one may pose
the question: "Which is the service rendered corresponding to the departure
clearance certificate?"
Fourthly: Neither does my Governrnent understand the explanations for
the motives by which the Government of Nicaragua lirnits the Costa Rican
vessels' navigation on the San Juan River. These acts openly contradict that
stipulated by the Central American Court: "Sncb a concession is equivalent to
a real right of use, perpetuai and inalterable, which places the Republic of
Costa Rica in the full enjoyment of the ownership for practical purposes of
a large part of the San Juan River, without prejudice to the full ownership
which Nicaragua preserves as sovereign of the territory." (The boldface is not
part of the original).
Fifth: This attitude reflects the effects the Government of Nicaragua 's
disregard for the Central American Court of Justicejudgement of 30 September
1919 (sic). It is worth remembering, once again, that the judgements of the
Central Arnerican Court of Justice have been taken into account by the
International Court of Justice. This statement îs supported by the judgement of
that High Court of Il September 1992 in the El Salvador/Honduras case, in
which Nicaragua intervened.
Sixth: Your Excellency states; "... as regards international manttme
navigation, every ship entering the sovereign waters of another State raises the
flag of that State, in keeping with international custom and courtesy, so that the
latter is hoisted higher than thatf the vessel's national flag." Your Excellency
add: "This act is considered one of respect and recognition of the exercising of
sov'ereigntyon the said waters. If the vessel does not hoist the flag ofthe State in
whose waters it finds itself, it may not raise its national flag": ln this regard, with ail due respect, Your Excellency, 1must point out that,
although there are rules of international courtesy-not binding, therefore - that
recommend the flag of the country being visited be hoisted next to the ship's flag,
this is only applicable in the case of State, police or military vessels. lt does not
apply to private vessels. Furtherrnore, the differences once more arise in regard
to the Central American Court of Justice judgement of 1916, which establishes
the "full enjoyment of the ownership for practical purposes of a large part of
the San Juan River... " lt should be taken into consideration that, due to that
legal statusof the river, since the circumstances are that of river and not maritime
navigation and due to the non-existence of intemationally binding regulations,
the Nicaraguan authorities cannat demand of Costa Rican vessels that they lower
their Costa Rican flag, nor that they raise the flag of that sister country, on
navigating the San Juan River.
Seventh: The fact that the Nicaraguan authorities have established a
schedule also contravenes the free navigation and, as a result, goes against what
is stipulated. Nicaragua cannat establish these limitations unilaterally since none
of the instruments currently in force between the two countries establishes that it
may do so.
Eighth: Asimilar situation arises in relation to the five dollar charge. This
infringes upon Costa Rica's right to free navigation. This regulation should not
be applied to the lower course of the San Juan River. The mention of the case of
vessels that are obliged to cali at Nicaraguan ports to comply with the
requirement of reporting is also valid here. Consequently, on charging this sum,
the Nicaraguan authorities do not respect the rights of Costa Rica and, once
again, the provisions of the instruments currently in force are violated.
As Your Excellency may gather from the above, we do have different
views on the fulfilment of the provisions of the instruments currently in force
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua as regards the navigation on the San Juan
River.
However, I trust that, despite the differences, we may dialogue in greater
depth in the search for adequate solutions.
1avail myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew once again
the assurances of my highest consideration.
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
HIS EXCELLENCY
FRANCISCO X. AGUIRRE SACASA
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA412
26 de setiembrc del 2001
DM 355-2001
Excclentisimo Seiior:
Tengo cl ogrado de diriginne a Vucstro Exceleucia, en ucasiùn de referirmc a su a
Nota ~RE/DM-11/08 1,d8l3 de 11gostodel 2001.
Primcm: Es muy satisfi1ctorio lcer de parte Je Su Excclencîa la vm.:acwn del
llustrndo Gobîcrno de Nicaragua pm cumplîr con sus obligacîoncs inl<!rnacionalcs.Esto
conducc a espcmr que el llustrndo Gobiemo de Nicaragua, rcspctc en todo 1nomcnto, los
instrumentas internacionalcsue rigen las rclacioncs entre los pnlscs. Entre csos
instmmentos, se ent·uentm la Sentencia de la Corte de Justida Ccntruamcricmm,dcltrcinla
de sctiembrc dmîi1Ùn~cc dîcinéis.sn loque corresponde, dispone esa scntencia:
..a) La Re]lûblicn de Nicamgun licne exclusinnnencl tluminiysumo impcriu sobre
cl rio San .Junn en todn ln extension de su cu1·so.Es decir, ejcrce sobre éllos derechos
de propicdad y formn parle del tcrritorionncional sujeto a su soi.Jeranin. b) Esc
tlerecho no cs absuluyosuf1·clas restrjccioncs del Jlrupiu Tmtndo sei\ula: 1- La Uahia
de San .Juan del Norte. y la de Snliuns son cumuncs a l:1s dos ll.e1llibliyaen
consecucncin, en am bos 1mnlos terminales de un )Josiblc c:mal, perdu ra el (lrÎ11CÎJlÎO
jnrldico de la CO(H"Upiellnd;2 - Costn ll.ica al<(UCNicaragua esta oblignda a la
gua1·da del riy11sn defensn eu cnso de ngresiun cxterior; eslipulncion que demueslrn
culin solidarizados cstnban ante cl critcrio de los ncgocindores los intercscy momies
materiales de ambos pueblos;y 3- Costn lticn ticnc en el San Juan, pnra los objetos
de comercio, los dcrechos Jlcrmancntes de !ibn· mwcgaciun, desdc sn descmbocadura
hasta tres millas11tes de llcgnr ni Cast illo VicyuJlOdrâ ntracn r sus bnrcos, en
cnahJuier orilln intiistint:m,J.~i<JUCsen licilÎIIIJIIIII~1·av11m ennaqsella
parte en que ln nnvcgaciù11 cs comim. Claro es1i1 1mes, 1111eel dom inio<Illela
Republica de Nicamgun ejcn:c en el rlu Snn .1nan, no c1hsolutn ni ilimihulticne
que estar rcslrip urgilos ldorechos de libl·c navcgacion y nnexos, lan
remarcnblcmcnlc ulorgndos n Costa lticn, sobre lutlo si se consideraque talcs
dercchos, ejcrcitlus (Ulra fines fiuayetlefe11. s~confms,lcn en su de..•mrrol1o,
scgûn cl sentir de tus tmlndislascon lns facultadcs subcranns del imperium. Tai
concesi{m cquivale a un dcreclm reni de usu, peqJclun c inalternbh!, que co1'la
Rcpublica de Costa lticn en cl gncc 11lenodel tlominio idil de gran parle del rio SnnJuan, pcrJmcm del domiuio 11leno que conserva Nicaragua como Soberana del
territorio ··(Las ncgritas no estân en el original)
Segundo: Debe tenerse presente la ùîfercncia entre embarcaciones costarriccnses
que se dirigen expresamente a territorio nicaragüense, y las cmbarcaciones costarricenscs
que deben tocar puerto nicarngücnse para cumplir con el requisito de reportarse que han
impueslo las autoridades nicaragilenses. En ese ùllimo caso, el derccho de zarpe no tiene
ninguna ra7..6nde ser, porque esas embarcaciones se desplazan entre puntos del territorio
costarricensc. En resumen, las auloridades nicaragiienscs imponen ex profeso una
condicion de reportarse, que les signilïca un beneficio econùmico. Tai medida viola
absolutamente las disposiciones correspondientes del Tratado Canas- Jerez.
Tercero: Es grato escuchar las manifestaciones de la buena voluntad del llustrado
Gobierno de Nicaragua. Abrigumos la esperanza de que csa bucna voluntaù coadyuve a
interpretar correctamente las disposicîones del Tn.ttadu Caîlns Jerez, quen su articulo 6),
en la parte que corresponde, establece: "... Las embarcacioncs de uno ü otro pais podn\.n
indistintamente atracaren las riberas del rio elaparte en que la navegaci6n es comun, sin
cobrarse ninguna clase de impuestos; â no ser que se establezcan de acuerdo entre ambos
Gobiernos". Este aspecto, tiene relacion con lo expuesto en el punto antcrior, en el senlido
de que cabe la prcgunta: ;_,cuâl es" la pres!aci6n delservicio del derecho de zarpe"?
Cuarto: Tampoco comprende mi Gobierno, las cxplicadones sobre los motivos por
los cuales el Gobierno de Nicaragua limita la navegaciùn en el rio San Juan a las
embarcaciones costarricenses. Esa forma de actuar, contraria abiertamcnte lo resuelto por la
Corte de Justicia Cenlroamericana: "Tai conccsion cquivnlc n un dcrccho real de uso,
pcrpctuo e innltcrablc, que coluca a la n.cpublic:s de Costa !tien en cl gocc (Jleno del
dominio ill til dc gran pa rte del rio San .Juan sin pcr"juicio del dom inio plcno que
conse1-va N icnr·agua como sobcnma de] 1e•·ritorio"(Las negrilas ""llose encuentnm en el
original).
Quinto: Esa"actitud; refleja los efectos del dcsconocimicnto por parte del Gobierno
del Nicaragua de la Sentencia cre la Corte de Justicia Centromnericana del JO de setiembre
de 1919. Es oportuno recordar una vez mas que las scntcncias de la Corte de Justicia
Centroamericana, han sido tomadas en consideracion por la Corte lntemaciônal de Just.icia.
Respalda esta alïnnaci{m, la Scntencia de ese Allo Tribunal del 1 de seticmbrc de 1992, en
el caso El Salvador/Honduras. en el que Nicaragua int.ervino. Sexto: Afirma Vuestra Exceleneia: "... en materia de navegacion marilima
internacional, todo barco, una vez que ingresa a las aguas sobemnas {le otro Estado, por
costumbre y cortesia intemacional, enarlmla la bandera de esc Estado, sobresalicndo ésta
por encima del pabellôn naciona! de la cmbarcnciôn". Agrcga Vuestra Excelencia: "Este
acta cs consîderado de rcspeto y reconocimientu al cjerciciu de la subcrania sobre clichas
aguas. Si la embarcaci6n no enarbola la bandera del Estado en cuyas aguas se encuentra, no
puede enarbolar su bandera nacional "
Al respcclo, con el dcbido respctu, manifiesto a Vucstra Excelcncia que si bien
cxisten las normas de curtesia intemaciunal - pur 1() lanlo, no vinculantes - que
recomiendan ermrbolar el pabellôn del pais visitado a la par del pabellôn de la nave, es sôlo
aplicable al caso de buques de Estado, policiales o militarcs. No cstàn comprendidas las
embarcaciones privadas. Aùemâs, vuelven a presentarsc de nuevo las ùiferencias sobre !a
Sentencîa de la C()r!e de Justici!l Cenlroamcricana de 1916, la cual establcceel "go ce pleno
del dominio ülil de gran parte del rio San Juan ... ". Sca opurtuno cousiderar que por el
hecho de ese slatus juridico del rio, pur la circunstancia de que cs navegaciôn lluvial y no
marilima y pur la inexistencia de normas internacionales vinculantes, no es exigible por
parte de las autoridades nicaragüenses a las cmbarcacimrcs custarricenses, arriar el pabe.llon
coslarricense, ni Î7.ad pabelh'm de esc hermano pais, aluavcgar cu cl rio San Juan.
Sétimo: Ef establccimiento de horarios por parte de las autoridades nicaragüenses,
atcnta también coutra la libre navegaciôn y en consecuencilt va en contra de lo establecido.
Nicaragua no puede detenninar esas limitaciones unilateralmente ninguno de los
instrumentos vigentes entre los dos paises establece esa facultad.
Oclavo: Otro tanlo sucede con el cobro de los cinco dolarês. Su exigencîa, atenta
C()n\rala libre navegacion, a la que tiene derecho Costa Rica. Esta disposicion no debe ser
aplicable en el curso infcrior del rio San Juan. Aqui es vâlido también lo expuesto en
reJaci6n COll el C8S() de hiS embarcacÎŒICS que SOllobligadas a (OCar pUCS{O nicaragüense
para cumplir con el requisitO>de reporlarse. En consecuencia, al realizar el cobra, las
autoridades nicaragi.ienses no respetan los derechos de C()sta Rica y se atcnta, una vez mâs,
contra las disposicim1es de los instnnnentos vigent.es.
Par lo expuesto, podn\ concluir Vuestra Excelencia, <JUC tenemos percepciones
diferentes sobre el ·cumplimiento de Jas disposiciones de los instrumentas vîgcntes entre
Costa Rica y Nicaragua, en relaciôn con la navegacion en el rio San Juan. Sin embargo, conllo que atm en las t.lifercncias,podamos profundizarel dialogo en
bl!squedade soluciones adecuadas.
Sen propicia la ocasion, una vez mi1s,para reitcrar a Vuestra Excelencia, las
manifestacionesde mi mas distinguidaconsidcraci6n.
SU EXCELENClA
FRANCISCO X. AGUIRRE SACASA
MINISTRO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES
REPUBLICA DE NICARAGUA Annex 74
Costa Rican Foreign Mînîster, Roberto Rojas Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-030-2002, Il March 2002 417
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
ll March 2002
DM-030-2002
Your Excellency:
1have the honour to address you to present the following initiative, with
the aim of following up on the conversation between His Excellency the
President ofNicaragua, Ing. Enrique Bolafios Geyer and the President of Costa
Rica, Dr. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Echeverria, on Wednesday 27 February
2002 in Managua, Nicaragua.
As you know, Minister, severa! meetings have been held, on Costa
Rica's initiative, with the aim offinding an adequate solution to the dispute that
arose due to the measure taken on 14 July 1998 by the Nicaraguan Arrny that
unilaterally prohibited the navigation of Costa Rican vessels transporting
members of the police force carrying their service arms. Between these
meetings, and previous to those subsequently held by the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs, one was held at the level of Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs in
Managua with the participation of the OAS official, Dr. Camilo Granada,
Assistant to Dr. Cesar Gaviria, Secretary General of the regional Organization.
Later on, other conversations were promoted at the level of Deputy Ministers,
which did not produce the expected results. For this reason, the established
plan to continue meetings at the level of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs was
followed up on. The first ofthese meetings was held in Managua on 15 March
2000, with the participation of the Secretary General of the OAS, Dr. Cesar
Gaviria. The second of these meetings, also including the presence of the
Secretary General of the OAS, was held in San Jose on 3 April 2000. The
differences were not overcome.
In these circumstances, and with the determinationto cornply with what
was agreed at that last meeting, in the sense to seek other procedures that may
allow the dispute to be settled, I sent a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lie. Eduardo Montealegre, on 10 April 2000 in which I formally proposed to
the Governrnent of Nicaragua that both countries request the "mediation of an
Illustrions Government of an American State to attempt to find an acceptable
solution to the dispute." The Minister of Foreign Affairs Montealegre declared
that his country would consider the proposai at length. This effort was not
successful either. In the "Declaration of the Central American Republics and Spain", of
24 November 2001 in Lima, Peru, "the Presidents of the Republic of Costa
Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of
Nicaragua, the Republic of Panama, the President of the Government of Spain
and the Vice-President of the Republic of Honduras, at a meeting in the
presence of H.M. the King of Spain," agreed: "To do everything necessary, in
accordance with the princîple of legality, to resolve any controversy and, in
particular, territorial disputes, by means of intense and discrete talks between
the Presidents of the countries concerned, with the support of Spain wbere
appropriate, and with special emphasis on social communications media."
Consequently, in a renewed effort that reflects the prevailing
conciliatory spirit of this moment in the relations between our two countries, I
wouid like to propose, Minister, that the Governments of Nicaragua and Costa
Rica, by mutual agreement and subject to the relevant consultation, request the
good offices of H.M. the King of Spain for finding an adequate solution to this
controversy regarding the navigation on the San Juan River of the Costa Rican
police force carrying their service arms.
The Government of Costa Rica sincerely hopes for a positive response
on the part of the Illustrious Government of Nicaragua.
I avail myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the
assurances of my highest consideration.
(signature)
Roberto Rojas
His Excellency
Norman Caldera
Minister.of Foreign Affairs
Managua, Nicaragua Il de maf7.odei2U02
OM-030-2002
Excelenlisimosefior:
Tengo el agrado de diriginnc a Ud. Jlam prcscn1arle la siguicn1e iniciativa, de
manera que se le pueda dar scguimienlo a lo conversado 110rel Excelentlsimo sefior
Presidenlede Nicaragua, lng. Enrique DolniiosGeyeycl sciior Prcsidenle de Costa Rien,
Dr. Miguel Angel Rodrfgue7.Echevcrrfa,elmiêrcolcs27 de rchrcrodel 2002CiManngun,
Nicaragua.
Como esdd conocimienlodel seiior MinistrIKlTinicialivude Costa Rien, sc lmn
realizadom(•ltiplesrcuniollcon cl ohjcto debuscartmnsulm:iùn ndccuadn ni difercndo
que origin6 la medida tomnda cl 14 de julio de 1998.pur cl~érc ietNicamgun, (JUe
prohibiounilalemlmcnte,la navcgaciônde embarcm.:ionccuslaiTiccnsestJUClransportnbnn
a miembros de la fucra.pitblica que Jmrtabnnsus nnum::de rcglmnento. U.tlrc esos
encueutros.,previo a los que poslerionnentc sostcmlrlan los Cnncisecconvoc6 uno a
nive! de Vicemini de R eWciones Extcriorcsen Managua, con ln J>al1icipacidel
ftmcionariode la OBA, Dr.Camilo Grnnaùa, Asislcnle del DrCésar Gavirfa, Secrelario
General de la Organiznciônregional. Poslerionnenle, se promovieron otras conversaciones
a nive! de ViceministrostJUeno rindieron los frutos espermlos. Pur tai motiva, sc le dio
seguimienlo ni plan eslnblccido.decontinuar con reunione.o;a; nive! de Ministros de
Relaciones Exteriores. BI primero de esos encut:utros sc cclclnu en Managel,1s de
marzo de 2000, con ln pnrticipaciodel scnorSccrctnrio General de la OBA, Dr. César
Gaviria. La seguÎ!dà deesilsreunioncs, sicmpre con la prcsencia del seoor Secretario
Generalde la OEA, tuvo lugnrCR SanJosé,el 3 de nbrilde 2011lnsdifërcncias no fi•cron
superad~s. '
En esas circunslancias, y con la c.lcte11116encumplir con Jo acordado en esa
(1ltimareunion, de buscnrglros procedilllicnlostJUcpcnniticrnn solucionar el diferendo,
con feçha 10de nbrilde 2000, diriglmm notaniscilor,.,.Jinistmde Rctaduncs Extcriorcs, Lie. Eduardo Monlcnlcgre,en la tJUcproJltlnln formalmcntc niGobicmo de
Ni~ara tneuaabos palses solicitala"la mcdiaci6n de algim llustmdo Gobiemo de 1111
Estado arilericano para tratnr demmmlsoluciôn accptablc del difcrcndo". El Caneiller
Montealegre manifesttJUesu pals considcrarl<1detcnidmucntc la propuesta. Esta gestion
lampoc tvo éxito.
lW. l:"tleclamciôn de lRcJ>liblicasCcnlromncricnny de Espaila", de 24 de
noviembre de 2001 en Lima Perti, "reunidosprc.~ le~:.ùM.~'it"·b.rt.~' {•!''li'·'!..
Presidentes de la Repilblica de Costa Rica, de la Rcpllblicn de El Salvador, de la Republica
de Guatemala, de la Repùblica de Nicnrngua, de ln Repi1b.licade l'nimma,cl Presidente del
Gobiemo de Espana y el Vicepresidcntc de la Rcpùblica de Honduras", acordaron : "Hacer
todo Jo necesario, confonnecm~ cl principio de lcgnlidad para rcsolvcr cunlcsquiera
controversiay, en particular, las disputas terrilminlcs. a m1Jdialogo intcnsy
discrelo entre lbs Presillentes de los palses conccrnidos, con el apoyo de Espai'iaen su caso,
y con espccial alcnci6n a los mcdios de comunicacion socin!".
En consecUencia, en un nuevo inlelJUC•·ecogccl esplritu conciliador imperantc
en este memento enli!relacioncs de nucstros dos Jlaiscs, me petmito proponcr al seiïor
Ministro que los Gobiemos de Nicaragua y de Costn Rica, de comt'lnncuerdo, y prcvias las
consullaspertinentes, soliciten los buenos oficios tReySde EspaOnpara encontrar
una soluciôn ndecuada a esta conlroversin sobreavcgacion en el rio San Juan de la
fuer1..apùblica coslarricense con sus annas de rcglnmcnto. 421
_ Sea valida la ocosion pam rcitcrar a Vucstm Ext"clcm:ia,eltestimonio mi distinguit.la
conseraci6n.
r;)Jr;l,
RoberRojas~
A Su Excelem::ia
Nom1anCaldera
Ministro de Relaciones Extcriores
Mânagua, Nicaragua Annex 75
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Roberto Rojas L6pez, Note No. MRE/DM-Jl/481/04/02,
23 April 2002 423
TRANSLATION
The Mînîster of Foreign Affairs
Managua, 23 April 2002
MRE/DM-JI/481/04/02
Excellency:
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your kind letter DM/030/2002 of
past 11 March regarding the interest of Costa Rica in relieving and
provisioning the personnel at their border posts along the San Juan River.
Firstly, Excellency, 1feel obliged to comment on the statement contained in this
letter to the effect that this situation arose due to the "measure taken on 14July
1998 by the Nicaraguan Army that unîlaterally prohibited the navigation of
Costa Rican vessels transporting members of the police force carrying their
service arms." In this respect, the tmth is that at no time either prior to or
following the abovementioned date bas the Republic of Nicaragua recognized
any rights of navigation other than those enunciated in the Jerez-Caiïas Treaty
and the Cleveland Award, the provisions of which we must strictly adhere to.
1 shaH not insist on this historical fact and shall, rather, refer to the fact that
Nicaragua is more than willing to explore resolution efforts, the most recent, as
Your Excellency mentioned, being the meeting between the Presidents of
Nicaragua and Costa Rica on 27 February of the current year in this city of
Managua.
It is an honour for me to inform Your Excellency that my Government, in the
interests of strengthening our ties of friendship and cooperation, believes in
promoting meetings with a broad agenda including matters that are of interest
to both countries and characteristicf our close relations as neighbours and the
will to reach higher levels of development and prosperity. In that sense, the
President of Nicaragua considers that by means of frank and direct dialogue
between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, with the advice of other State
institutions, we may find solutions to the matters that are of interest to our
peoples and Governments.
His Excellency
Roberto Rojas Lapez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worshîp
San Jose, Costa RicaPage 2
For my part, 1am pleased to inform Your Excellency that 1will do my best to
search for solutions and, to that effect, propose, as an initial step, we hold a
conversation in the terms wished for by President Bolafi.os,for which we may
tak:eadvantage of the forthcorning Ordinary Summit of Presidents.
1avail myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the assurances of
my highest consideration and persona} appreciation.
(signature)
Norman Caldera Cardenal
(seal)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Managua
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America c!t~~~~
Managua, 23 de abri1de 2002
MREIDM-J1/481/04102
Excelencia:
Teng eof-ànoT deavTsar reéloo de(sü atènta Nota DM-030-2002 de fecha 11 de
marzo pasado relacionada con el interés de Costa Rica de relevar y avituallar al
persona! de suspuestosfronterizos a travésdel rio SanJuan.
Ext:elencia,en primer término me siento en el deber de comentar la afirmad6n
contenida en esa Nota, de que el origen de esta situaci6n deviene de la "medida
tomada el 14 de julio de 1998 par el ejército de Nicaragua, que prohibi6
unilatermente, la navegaci6n de embarcaciones costarricenses que transportaban a
miembros de la Fuerza Publica que portaban armas de reglamentA"este respecta,
l<1verdad es que en ningun memento, antes de la fecha indicada ni después, la
Rep(lblica de Nicaragua ha reconocido otros derechos de navegaciôn que los
cnunciados en el Tratado Jerez-Canasy el lauda Cleveland, a cuyas disposiciones
debemos cenirnos estrictamente.
No insistiré sobre ese hecdecaracter historiyemas bien me referiré al hecho de
que de parte de Nicaragua existe la mejor buena voluntad de explorar tentativas de
solucion, la ultima de las cuales, camo lo menciona Vuestra Excelencia, fue la
n~uni de los senoresPresidentesde Nicaragu.ay Costa Rica el 27 de febrero del ano
en curso en estaciudad de Managua.
.'
ExcelentfsimoSenor
l~ober Rtos l6pez
Ministro de Relaciones ExteriyrCulto
S,mlosé,Costa RicaP.igin .. .!.
Mt> honra informar a Vuestra Excelencia que mi Gabierno, en aras de fortalecer la
o~nli: y c;op<rJdiôn que nos unen, es de la opinion de propiciar encuentros con
tllh.tgenda amplia en la que se encuentren ternas de interés para ambos paises,
propios de nuestrasestrechasrelaciones de vecindad y del deseo de alcanzar mejores
indices de desarrolyprosperidad. Entai sentido, el Selior Presidente de Nicaragua
consirlera que mediante el diâlogo franco y directe entre las Cancillerfas, asesoradas
de otras institudones del Estado,podremos encantrar respuestasa aquellos ternasque
mn dd interésde nuestraspuebloyGobiernos.
Pm mi parte, me es muy grata informar a Vuestra Excelencia que pondré toda
••mpe1ïoen la busqueda de solucionypara ella le propongo coma paso înicial que
l(~ngam uos conversaci6n en los términos deseados par el Senor Presidente
Bol;ll'1os, para la cual podemos apravechar la proxima Cumbre Ordinaria de
l~r cenies.
.\provecha la ocas1on para reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia las muestras mi mas alta
consideraci6nyaprecio persona!. Annex 76
Costa Rican Embassy in Nicaragua to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua-General Directorate for Latin America, Note Verbale No. ECR-
079-5-2002, 21 May 2002 TRANSLATION
Embassy of Costa Rica
Managua, Nicaragua
ECR-079-5-2002
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA has the honour to
address the Honourable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua -General
Directorate for Latin America- and kindly requests the following information:
How much are the Nicaraguan authorities chargil)g Costa Rican vessels and
citizens for navigating the Juan River in the sector where our country has
free navigation?
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the Honourable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua - General Directorate for Latin America- the assurances of its
distinguished consideration and esteem.
Managua, 21 May 2002
(seal)
EMBASSY OF COSTA RICA
NICARAGUA
To the Honourabie
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
-General Directorate for Latin America
City·uN-1!-200212:2~ PN EMU.COSTn. ~ICn
,,,
:..:;
• 'j. ·i
.·'f,~a4~~
~-~;·1 ' .:.
., Annex 77
Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister, Salvador Stadthagen Icaza, to Costa
Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Elayne Whyte Gomez, Note No. MRE/DV
Jl/0068/05/02, 27 May 2002 TRANSLATION
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, 27 May 2002
MRE/DV-11/0068/05/02
Excellency:
1have the honour of addressing you to follow up on our telephone conversation
ofWednesday the 22nd of the.current month in which ~e commented, among
ather things, on the information in the press made known by sorne of the
media.
In this respect, should like to inform you that 1personally took an interest in
obtaining information on this matter, the result being that in those cases where
Costa Ricans navigate the Jower course of the San Juan River with purposes ·
that differ from those stipulated in the Jerez- Canas Treaty, the provisions
currently in force for entering the country are applied to them, in the same
manner as they are ta any persan of foreign nationality entering the national
territory at any international migration post.
With regard ta the additional charge for migration services rendered outside
opening hours and that recently began to be applied at the border posts located
on the San Juan River, but that was in force at ali the other international border
·posts in the country, our authorities, in the interests of the fratemal ties of
friendship and cooperation that exist between our peoples and Govemments,
have considered it appropriate to suspendit.
You may rest assured, Madame Deputy Minister that 1 am at your disposai
should you or your Honourable Govemment have any query and that 1shall
support any initiative that intends to strengthen the relations of cooperation and
friendship that should exist between two sister and neighbouring nations.
1avail myself of this opportunity to renew the assurances of my highest
consideration and persona! appreciation.
(signature)
Salvador Stadthagen Icaza
Her Excellency
Elaine White Gomez
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republîc of Costa Rica .: ,_--~
rfft~tle~~
Managua, 27 de mayo de 2002
MREIDV-1/0068/05/02
Exn~lencia:
Tengo el agrado de dirigirmea Usted, en ocasron de dar continuidaa nuestra conversaci6n
telef6nica del dia miércol22 de los corrientes, en la que comentabamosentre otras cosas,
informaciôn periodistica dada a conocer por algunos medios de comunicaci6n.
Al respt:Cio, me permito hacer de su conocimienque personalmente me interesé en obtener
informaciônsobre ese particular, siendo el resultado que en aquellos casas donde costarricenses
navcgan en elcurso inferior del rio San juan con fines distintos del previsto en el Tratado jerez
C;uïa5~e les aplican las disposiciones vigentes para el ingreso al pais, al igual que a toda persona de
n;H;ionalirlextranjeraque ingresa al territornacionillpor cualquierpuesto de migraci6n
internaci onal.
En cuanto al cobra extraordinaripor servroos migratorios prestados fuera de los horarios de
<~lt: illublioiynque recientemente secomenzara a· aplicar en los puestos fronterizos ubicados
r:n r'l rio S<tnJuan, pero vigente en los demas puestos de frontera internacional que existèn en el pais,
nuestras autoridades, en aras de las fraternales relacionesycooperaci6n que existen entre
nuestros puebloyGobiernos, han considerado oportuno la suspensi6n del mismo.
Tr·~n gaseguridad Setîora Vicecancilleque estoy a su disposici6npara despejar cualquier
inquietudsuy< o ~de su llustrado Gobiemo y que contribuiré a toda iniciatique tienda al
fortillec:imiede las relaciones de cooperaciynamistad que deben existir entre dos naciones
hr-~rma yv_ecSas.
Exn~lrmti Senora
Elai nhite Gômez
Vicr:ministr<Jde Relaciones ExteyiCulto
Rept"1blide Costa Rica Annex 78
Nicaraguan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Sovereignty, Territory
and International Legal Affairs to Costa Rican Embassy in Managua, Note
Verbale No. MRE/DGSTAJI/335/05/02, 29 May 2002 TRANSLATION
(seal)
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Letter No.MRE/DGSTAJI/335/05/02
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS -Directorate of Sovereignty,
Territory and International Legal Affairs - has the honour to address the
Honourable Embassy of the Republic of Costa Rica on the occasion of
acknowledging receipt of its Letter No. ECR-079-5-2002 dated 21 May 2002.
With regard to the motive for your Honourable Embassy's inquiry, the
Ministry states that in those cases where Costa Ricans enter Nicaraguan territory
and navigate the lower course of the San Juan River with purposes that differ
from those stipulated in the Jerez-Canas Treaty, they must comply with the same
requirements applied to ali persans of foreign nationality who enter the country
via any international migration post, as stipulated in the provisions of the
Regulations for the Issuing, Format and Use of the Special Tourist Card
published in the official dailyGaceta Number 153 of 16 August 1993 and in
the Law that created the Nicaraguan Institute ofTourism published in the official
daily La Gaceta Number 149 of Il August 1998, and the Ministry ofGovemance
Agreement No. 001-94 of 15 March 1994 in which the Migration and
Immigration Duties are established.
The Ministry informs the Embassy that the Republic of Nicaragua
faithfully complies with its international obligations and, consequently, respects
the rights of navigation on the lower course of the San Juan River con objetos de
comercio grarited to Costa Rica under the Jerez-Canas Treaty and the Cleveland
Award.
THE MINISTRY OF .FOREIGN AFFAlRS -Directorate of Sovereignty,
Territory and International Legal Affairs -avails itself of this opportunity to
renew to the Honourable Embassy of the Republic of Costa Rica the assurances
of its highest consideration.
Managua, 29 May 2002
TO THE HONOURABLE
EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
CITY "~i$t e Riloones Exteriores
H MINISTlRIQ DE RELACIONl:S EXTER-OIIl!CCi6n de Soberanla,
Tmtilorio y A.o;untolnlefJlttdonales- saluda atentamerrte a la Honorable
[mhaj;tdelRèpûtlcdeCosta Ricil en ocasiredbodesu Nota N.o.
ECR-079-5-2cM~ 21 dll\1de2002.
~-
Co11 rt1laatmotivo dt! la consnlt., de esa Honoiàhle [mbajad••. el
Ministerio info11a1uellçasoen qucostMricemgres.a territorio
!licaragüen..c y·en c:tJinferdel rioJullc.on fines distintos del
previsen eTra.tJerez Candeben cumplir los mrequisque$e
<l\1licIodpeno denadonaUdaextranjeraingtcsa al pcualquier
pue~ miraoio int~nal sentlo f!stos los estable<-idosen el Reglamr.nto para
f.ICperlici(HillUtdela Tarbpecidefunsmo publken l.a Gaceta
OiariOfi(ial Nûm.153 d6 de agusto de 1993 y en la ley Creadora del
lniwtoNicaragOedituris·pub licen la GaŒmarioOfidaNiJnw.ro
149rld 11 agosto'1998 mnel Acue<Jetlni51:deGobcmaci6n No.
ool-'dd 15 de ~~ dP.199en el cual cs.ablecidokançdcsde· •
Migracion y ExL~:n)cr~
El Mini!litpermltlnfom1areS f . ~m uealaReubl<.de~
Nicaragllfiel èUI~~desusoblîgaciintemacionencunsecuenci•es
respetuoS<Idd~los. de navegad6n con objetos dconcedidos a
Cm;tRief<el.urs~fi der!S;ioun por el TrJenuûnayelliiifdo
Cleveland. '·' ·
H MINISTfRiiOf:RflACIONES F.XlF.R·Di~cS iGOnrl de
Suberanla Terr~tusio Jurfdicos lntern<llcionale<rhace oportuna la ocasi6n
!Mm reita:a~ra-~~,~~ad de la RcpùdeCosta R-ica,las IT!ueslrasde
~ ill~"QUS :.~d '.f"~":a·è l \"~· .
~·.i.~: ··'.~e\
"(,"::~' ·.~ ·
·"·:~~~>' 29 dma.yde2002
.·'',. ;":!~~:
A lA HONORABlE,
F.MBAIAOOftA Rr;iruBUCAD€ COSrA RICA
CIIJOAIJ .. Annex 79
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-202-2002, 5 August 2002 433
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
05 August 2002
DM 202-2002
Dear Minister:
I have the honour to address Your Excellency on the matter ofreasserting to the
Illustrious Govemment of the Republic of Nicaragua our belief that the
peaceful solution to conflicts is a fundamental princîple of international
relations, as it has been understood by our Governments. We are convinced
that diplomatie channels and procedures should always be open to the parties,
allowing them to fulfil this principle and contribute to strengthening the ties of
friendship and fratemity between our countries.
The Govemment of Costa Rica, motivated by this fratemal spirit and the
renewed bilateral relations, trusts that both nations may continue to develop the
process of a firm and definitive understanding of those aspects where there is
a difference of opinion, in particular those regarding the navigation on the San
Juan River. We are convinced the permanent solution to our differences will
allow us to boost the promotion of economie and cultural integration of Central
America, as weil as that of sustainable development of the trans-border region,
for the wellbeing of our peoples.
ln order for our countries to not stray from the path of fratemal dialogue, an
adequate relaxed atmosphere is required as is a sufficient period of time for
continuing with the calm and in-depth analysis that will allow us to conclude
this process successfully.
As Your Excellency will acknowledge, the Republic of Nicaragua 'sreservation
regarding the voluntary acceptance of the jurisdiction or competence of the
International Court of Justice, made by the Presidential Decree N° 335-2001 of
22 October 2001, leaves our Govemment in the very awkward position of
having to evaluate the effects of this reservation with respect to the rights of the
Republic of Costa Rica. ln this sense, the Government ofNicaragua's decision
constitutes a limitation on time with regard to our possibilities of bilateral
negotiation.In vîew of the above, the Govemment of the Republic of Costa Rica deems it
necessary to request that the Honourable Government of Nicaragua seriously
and urgently considers withdrawing the said reservation. The Government of
the Republic of Costa Rica, for its part, would immediately withdraw the
objections thatit made in response at the time.
Bearing in mind the highest aims that move us, allow me to urge Your
Excellency to grant this request the utmost importance, attention and a prompt
response.
1avait myself of this opportunity, Your Excellency, to renew the assurances of
my highest and distinguished consideration and esteem.
(signature)
Roberto Tovar Faja
Mr. Nonnan Caldera
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua •
"'
'
•
D;de agoalo de 2002
DM 202-2002
l!slimadoSclkMinistm,
Ten,goel nllfadr;de dirigifl1.r-I!KcelenciR.cun ut'&nerdle1aralllmllrado Gutriemo
dola Rept'thlieade-Nicora.t;tmnues!ra cnnviIJIla !1tlluci6npaclficade los conOictoacs
1mpriru:i1fimdamenlal de lrclneiuns intemaenmnlcml y con1lu han etnendido nuestros
Oobiemoa. HstonlO!l cmlwnc:itkM de· que lrit!tnpreexislirvfaR y proeedimientos
diplomt\liCAbiertiNI\aFtBr:S, qtt11"0\llcun1pliC~ ptilll:'iYque coadyuvencon e\
timrdecitnicnde lnvlncnlntle nmiRtodhemmno1ncl11t.o~llt Jn blus.
Mntivadnror este fn'ltc~J•I 'Jiotruennva r\aaiu"' biiRtcral.l (1cJh:cdeCosta
Ric.RcnnRn~·qu nmh:l!lnacitme!t J1C!dlieJlllir tiCM•I"l•1n.:ns~•lnulCitdimicnlo,
establc dcfinitivst!l>aquciiOflao;pcc1a1bteluscualell·cxidilè:ren·ca~rilcrioa. en
particulor to11velalivonavcgoollmen el rio San Jmm. l!ldar~~egu q~omlaaoluciûn
pennanentc de nue!ltra, diferencias permil~ljt eunhgrn dinanli:'llllOla inltpaciôn
econômit:y C\tlturalccnlroatner"1~1deaaJrulllll'l.ledelarcgiûn lnlllsrrunteri7.a.para
eJbicnestar numros pueblos.
Para quenuestru1mciMn Rf)~~te~lde e amrtkldd tlialllun fra1cn1n.se redeun elima
adecuadode dildensiim)'del plazo surlCienlpn~au'8 iorel anAii!ri!Jlllylprorundo
quenospermhaculminarcmt éx:itnCAlelllOl"tti.
Como Su r~uh:nçri faUI•Ced,la Tt'ICrvdt'laRcpublîen deNiearaguu a la aecptaci6n
volunlarillde la jurlooiccilln o competenciade 111Corte lnlcnmcituml~ Jumcia. hecha por
Aeuerdn PmlidcneialN. JJS-200del22 de oetubrede2001,culoca1nues'lroOobicmo en la
muyinc6modaposic:innde tener que wlorar ef'eel~scala reservareppeode lo9dc.ecbos
de laRe)mblicdt'CO&taRic t~calt'scnlidla decm!idel f'tubimmdeNictm~ egusauna
limitaci6nen elticmpo resp<ktnueslraa posihllidadneaudad/11bilateral.
En eonsickraci6n de:'loCliJlr,l OobimiO de la RcpûlllK:c:UilUIica estimtteeaario
solicitar alllu!JOubicrnode la RepûblicadeNicaragctm!lidc1J;e~·i: yrcnmecnctef
de uraencial'dinldiçharc~~na El Oobimao de laltepi"1hlde Costa Rica, por parte,
retitarle liediato lu ul1jeclquo en Al mnrncntu iult:JIJilie~1mcSte.
Con losaltoPR'Jx\sil~11 n1saniman, me pmnito rogar n V11cst1n·Ellcdencia OaOlaJIIT
pre!cnt501ieitulamitoli~ioj'lllftallfl'i1\ra1•cmbmt" esp1a::lla.
Hago proptcia la OCRSpam reil mV~r1e'lF..x~~ lncsr·g~i.a•lde mi mb allay
diatinguidcon~iùn y eetima,
il..Î ....,.._,
ltl.h'luoV11raja
sen~
Nnnnan C11ld9m.
MinilltdeRelacitmeRl~kicrinres
~1;.., .kHi.:nn•~ • Annex 80
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-462-05,
28 September 2005 TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
September 28, 2005
DM-462-05
Excellency,
With the actions resulting from the Agreement that we signed on 26
September, 2002, we have demonstrated through the mechanisms of dialogue
and cooperation how much can be achieved in benefit of our countries, both in
the bilateral sphere as weil as in the process of the Central American
integration.
At that time we agreed to promote the Central American Free Tracte
Treaty with the United States of America, the Central American Agreement of
Association with the European Union, the Puebla-Panama Plan and a
Programme of border development to strengthen the economie and social
conditions of the inhabitants of an area that should always be one of
cooperation and never one of confrontation.
Today, as a result of an atmosphere of respect, fratemity and mutual
trust, we have made those aspirations a reality of opportunities, that we must
continue increasing.
Notwithstanding, despite ali the achievements attained, it is also true
that, as the abovementioned Agreement expires, the only source of discord
between our nations still remains. The views our countries hold in relation to
Costa Ricas' rights of navigation on the San Juan River have still not been able
to be resolved by mutual understanding.
Costa Rica acknowledges that the ownership and sovereignty ofthe San
Juan River belong to Nicaragua. But Costa Rica has the right that her
navigation on the San Juan River be fully respected, in accordance to what is
established in the pertinent legal instruments. Costa Rica does not seek more
rights, or Jess rights, than those granted by said instruments.
Why not do away, once and for ali, with the only source of discord
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua? If our views diverge and have not been
able to be reconciled bilaterally, nor by mechanisms of either mediation orarbitration, how can we not accept that at least one of the parties present the
matter before the highest international judicial instance in order to overcome,
once and for ali, our only cause of disagreement?
Therefore, 1am fulfilling my duty to inform you, and through you to the
people of Nicaragua, that Costa Rica has decided to present the case before the
International Court of Justice in order that it may analyze the points of view of
our countries and establish the validity of each one of them.
To have recourse to the International Court of Justice could never
represent a rupture in the friendship between two nations. Both Costa Rica and
Nicaragua have accepted the Court as a means of assuring the peaceful
coexistence and mutual respect between nations. The resolution of the
differences should never be left to irrationality, but to the means of peaceful
solution of controversies offered by international law. For this reason, Costa
Rica cannot accept any threat as~ reprisai for exercising this legitimate right.
We approach the International Court of Justice with the sincere
intention that it's eventual decision will contribute to there never again be a
motive for disagreement between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
I sincerely hope that, by this means, we may leave behind, for future
generations, fratemal and friendly relations between our countries without any
causes that may affect them. This is our historie responsibility.
I take this opportunity to reiterate tor Excellency the assurances of
my highest and most distinguished consideration,
Roberto Tovar Faja
His Excellency
Norman Caldera Cardenal
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua 439
28 de septiembre de 2005
DM-462-05
Excelencia,
Con las acciones que se derivan del Acuerdo que suscribimos el dia 26 de
septiembre del af\o 2002, hemos demostrado a travésde los mecanismes del diâlogo y la
cooperaci6n, cuânto se puede alcan1..aren beneficie de nuestros paises, tanto en el lirnbito
bilateral como en el proceso de la integraci6n centroamericana.
Nos comprometimos en aquel memento a promover el Tratado de Libre Comerdo
de Centroamérica con los Estados Unidos de América, el Acuerdo de Asociaci6n de
Centroaméricacon la Union Europea, el.Plan Puebla-Panama, y un Programa de Desarrollo
Fronterizo para robustecer las comliciones econ6micas y sociales de los pobladores de una
zona que h~ de ser siempre de cooperaci6n y nunca de confrontaci6n.
!
Hoy, fmto de un ambiente de respeto, fratemidad y conlianza mutua, hemos hecho
de aquellas aspi01ciones una realidad de oportunidmles, que debemos continuar
acrecentaJJdo.
No obstante, a pesar de !odos los logros alcanzados, tambiénes una rea!idad que al
vencimiento del Acuerdo mencionado, a(m subsiste la \mica fuente de discordia entre
nuestras dos naciones. Las tesis de nues\ros paises rcferentes a los derechos costarriccnses
de navegaci6n sobre el Rio San Juan a(m no han podido ser resueltas en com(sn
entendimiento.
Costa Rica reconoce que la propiedad y la soberania sobre el Rio San Juan son de
Nicaragua. Pero Costa Rica tiene el derecho a que se le respete plenamenle su navegaci6n
en el Rio San Juan de acuerdo con lo que establecen los instrumentos legales pertinentes.
Costa Rica no pretende ni màs derechos, ni menos derechos, que los que dichos
instrumen!os le otorgan.
l,Por quéno liquidar para siempre la imica fuente de desacuerdo entre Costa Rica y
Nicaragua? Si nuestras tesis son divergentes y no han podido ser conciliadas bilateralmente,
ni mediante mecanismes de mcdiac16n o arbitraje, l,c6mo no aceptar que al menos una de
las partes presente la cuesti6n ante la rnlis alta instancia j udicial intemacional, con el fin de
supcrar,para siempre, nuestra imica causa de desacuerdo? -Pagina 2-
DM-462-05
En consecuencia, cumplocon el deber de anunciary por sntnnèdio al puebla
nicaragUense, que Costa Richa decid\do elevar el caso ante la Corte lntemacional de
Justicia para que analice los planteamientos de nuestros palses y establezca la validez de
cada uno de elias.
Acudir a la Corte lnternacional de Justicia jamâs podrla significar un quebranto de
la amistad entre dos pueblos. Tanta Costa Rica camo Nicaragua h.an aceptado a la Corte
camo un media para asegurar la convivencia pacyfel respeto mutuo entlasnaciones.
La resoluci6n dlasdiferencias se debe dejar nunca a la irracionalîdaa los medios
de soluci6n paclfica de controversias que ofrece el derecho internaPar esa raz6n,
Costa Rica no puede aceptar ninguna amenaza en represa.lia por ejercer ese legitima
derecho.
Aéudimos a la Corte lntemacional de Justicia con el sincero ânimo de que su
eventuald~is cinoibya a que entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua nunca mas exista motiva
para la discordia.
Abrigo la esperanza de que par esta via dejemos para futuras generaciones una
relaci6nde fraternidad y de amistad entre nuestros paises sin causas que las afecte. Es
nuestra responsabilidad hist6rica.
Hago propiciala ocasi6n para reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia el testimortio de mi mâs
alta y distinguida consideraci6n.
Excelentisimo seilor
Norman Caldera Cardenal
Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores
Republica de Nicaragua Annex 81
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Faja, to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister Norman Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-484-05, 20 October 2005 441
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
October 20 2005
DM-484-05
Excellency,
1am honoured to address Your Excellency on the matter of informing
you that Costa Rican citizens living in the San Juan River border zone have
expressed their concem before this Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding
certain new measures adopted in relation to navigation on the San Juan, of
which they have been verbally informed by rnernbers of the Nicaraguan
National Army.
As recent reports in the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan press have
indicated, the Costa Rican inhabitantsof the San Juan River border zone were
informed that, as a requirement to navigate the said river, they must carry the
Nicaraguan flag in their boats alongside that of Costa Rica. Likewise, the
residents were inforrned that they would also have to present their
identification documents each time they need to enter or exit the river.
The Costa Rican residents of the area have informed us that these
measures would hinder the daily navigation on the San Juan River to which
they have always been accustomed, and in sorne cases impede it altogether.
By virtue of the above, Your Excellency, the Govemrnent of Costa Rica
respectfully and fratemally, and without entering into legal considerations,
urges the Illustrious Government of Nicaragua not to impose these rneasures,
in the interestsf the tradition of good neighbours and cordiality that exists in
the area, and in order to avoid aggravating the current situation.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again express the testimony
of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
Roberto Tovar Faja
His Excellency
Norman Caldera Cardenal
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofNicaragua 2o de octubre ùe 2005
DM-484-05
·Excelencia,
Me es grato saludar a Su Excelencia en ocasion· de hacer de su conocimiento que
cîudadanos costarricenses vecinos de la zona fi-onterîza del do San Juan han expresado,
ante esta Canciller!a, su angustia pm algunas nuevas medidas adoptadas en relacion con la
navegaci6n eit el rio San Juan, que les han sido informadas de m1111erv aerbal por miembros
del Ejército Nacional de Nicaragua.
·Tai como ha sido recogido recientemente por la prensa costarricense ynicaragilense,
se habria indicado a los habitantes costarricenses de la zona fronte-riz.adel rio San Jmm que
camo requisito para poder navegur por dicho rio deben portar en sus botes la bandera
nicarngüense a la par de la costarricense. Asimismo, se habria indicado a los vecinos que
también deberân presentar documentas de identificaci6n cada vez que .necesiten enlrar o
salirdel ri~
;
Los habitantes costarricenses de la zona nos indican que estas medidas vienen a -
dificultarles, y en algunos casas a impedirles, la navegaci6n cotidiana por el rio San Juan,
tai como Ùçnen acostumbrado a hacer desde siempre. ·
. En virtud de Jo anterior, Exce!encia, el G.obiemo de Costa Rica, de manera ·
respetuosa y fratemal, y sin entrar en consideraciones juridicas, exhorta al Ilustrado
Gobiemo de Nicaragua a no aplicar dichas medidas, en ams de la buena vecindad y .la
tradicional cordialidad existente en la zona, y a fm de no agravar la situaci6n actualmente
existente.
Hago propicia la ocasi6n 'parn reiterar a Vuestrn Excelencia el testimonio de nü mas
alta y disti_nguidaconsideraci6n.
Excelentlsimo seiior
Nonnan Caldera Cardenal
Mjnistro de Relaciones Exterior(ls
RepubliCa de Nicaragua
-_, Annex 82
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, to Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Faja, NMRE/DM~JI/1284/11/0,.
9 November 2005 TRANSLATION
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, 9 November 2005
MRE/DM-JI/1284/11/05
Excellency:
J am honoured to address Your Excellency on the matter of acknowledging
receipt ofyour kind letter DM-484-05 of20 October 2005.
In this respect, allow me once more to stress, Your Excellency, that, in
accordance with the Jerez-Canas Treaty of Limits between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica of 15 April 1858, and the President Grover Cleveland Award of 22
March 1888, Nicaragua has exclusive sovereignty over the San Juan River with
the jurisdiction, duties, powers and rights inherent to the same.
Likewise, 1state once again, Your Excellency, that the Republic of Nicaragua
is respectful oflntemational Law and, with respect to the current situation, has
always strictly adhered to the provisions of the abovementioned international
instruments.
In this sense, the Republic of Costa Rica may rest assured that the rights of
navigation "con objetos de comercio" in a sector of the San Juan River that
were granted by Nicaragua to Costa Rica at that time, have always been
respected within the limits establishedin the aforementioned legal documents.
Those rights refer specifically to this type of navigation "con objetos de
comercio", and they do not extend, in any way, to other types of navigation, be
they, for example, the transport of passengers, fishing, tourism or armed
pmposes.
In compliance with the rights established in the Treaty and the Award, it is the
duty of the State of Nicaragua, as Sovereign, to regulate and provide the ru!es
and provisions she deems necessary to exercise the vesting of these powers
over her territory.
His Excellency
Roberto Tovar Faja
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republi.c of Costa RicaPage No. 2
9 November 2005
Allow me to remind Your Excellency that, in the interests of the good relations
that have existed and continue to do so between both Peoples and
Govemments, Nicaragua and Costa Rica have granted border courtesies to
facilitate local traffic (such as vicinal permits), whîch cannat ever - according
to International Law - be referred to as Law or as precedents, since they are
merely local manifestations favouring the coexistence of neighbours that do
not, in any way whatsoever, create obligations that may be demanded.
1feel it is my obligation to, likewise, remind Your Excellency that respect for
Territorial Sovereignty between Independent States, which necessarily implies
respect for the powers and rights inherent in it, forms the comerstone of
international relations.
1 would like to take this opportunity to express the testimony of my highest
consideration and esteern.
(signature)
Norman Caldera Cardenal
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua
Republic ofNicaragua
Central America 445
Managua, 9 de noviembre de 2005
MREIDM-JI/1284/11/05
Excelencia:
Tengo el honor de dirigirme a Vuestra Excelencia, en ocasi6n de avisar recibo de su
·atentacomunicaci6n DM~484-;. e)ha 2d ee actubre del ano errcurso.
Al respecta, me permita reiterar a Vuestra Excelencia que, de confarmidad con el
Tratada de Limites entre Nicaragua y Costa RicaJerez-Canasdel 15 de abri! de 1858 y
el lauda del Presidente Graver Cleveland del 22 de marza de 1888, Nicaragua tiene
la soberania exclusiva sobre el rfo San Juan, con las competencias, funciones,
poderes y derechos inherentes a la misma.
lguàlmente, reitera a Vuestra Excelencia que la Republica de Nicaragua es respetuasa
del Derecho lnternacionaly, en relaci6n a la presentesituaci6n, siempre se ha cenido
estrictamente a lo dispuesto en los instrumentas internacionales referidos.
Entai sentido, la Repûblica de Costa Rica puede tener las seguridadesque siempre se
han respetado los derechos de navegaci6n "con objetos de comercio", en un sector
del rfoSanJuan, que Nicaragua le concedi6 a Costa Rica en su oportunidad, dentro
de los limites establecidos en los citados documentas jurfdicos. Tales derechos se
refieren espedficamente a ese tipo de navegaci6n 1COn objetos de comercio" y no
son extensivos, en modo alguno, a otro tipo de navegaci6n ya sea, por ejemplo, de
transporte de pasajeros,pesca,turismo o bien de naturaleza armada.
Respetando los derechos establecidos en el Tratado y el lauda, coma Soberano que
es, corresponde al Estado de Nicaragua regular y disponer las normativas y
disposicianes que considere necesarias en ejercicio de sus atribuciones sobre su
territorio.
Excelentfsimo Senor
Roberto Tavar Faja
Ministro de RelacionesExterioresy Culto
Repûblica de Costa RicaPaginaNo.2
9 de noviembrcde 2005
Debo recordar a Vuestra Excelencia que, en aras de las buenas relaciones que han
existido y existen entre ambos Pueblos y Gobiernos, Nicaragua y Costa Rica hemos
otorgado cortesfas de frontera para la facilitad6n del trafico veci!lal (tales camo los
permisos vecinales}, las cuales -a la fuz del Derecho lnternacional- no pueden ser
invocadas jamas camo Derecho ni como precedentes, siendo simples manifestaciones
locales para favorecer la convivencia vecinal fronteriza que no generan, ni
remotamente, obi igad ones exigibles.
Me siento obligado, asimismo, a recordar a Vuestra Excelencia que entre Estados
lndependientes, el respeto a la Soberanfa Territorial, que implica forzosamente el
respeto a los poderes y derechos que le son inherentes, es el fundamento esencial de
las relaciones internacionales.
Aprovecho la ocasi6n para reiterarle las muestras de mi mas alta consideraci6n y
estima.
volume III