INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING
NAVIGATIONAL AND RELATEDRIGHTS
COSTARICA v.NICARAGUA
mPLY OFCOSTAIUCA
VOLUME 1
15January2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction
A . Introductory Comments ..........................................1...............
B. Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial .................................2...........
C . Key Issues ....................:..........................................8
D . The Issues for the Court .......................................12...............
Chapter 2 General International Law Relevant to the Dispute
A . Introduction .....................................................15
................
B . The San Juanas an International River .........................15......
(1) Nicaragua's Position ...................................15.............
(2) TheApplicable Law .....................................17............
(3) The San Juan asa Boundary River .....................21.....
The nature of the boundary inthe Lower
(a)
San JuanArea .....................................21.............
(b) The practice of establishing boundaries on
riverbanks .........................................23...............
(4) The San Juan as an International River .................28...
(a) Elements traditionally associated with
International Watercourses ........................28..
(b) Consequences of the San JuanRiver's
characterisation as an international
boundary river ....................................29.............
(c) Conclusions .......................................29...............
C . TheApplicable Principles of Interpretation.......................... 30
(1) All principles of interpretation confirm Costa Rica's
. views .......................................................
...........3
(2) Nicaragua's focuson sovereignty and its invocation
of a restrictive interpretation of the rightof free
navigation ...............................................35.................
(3) Costa Rica's right of navigation on the San Juan was
simultaneous withthe establishment of Nicaraguan .
sovereignty over the waters of the River...................8
D. Conclusions ....................................................41 ..................Chapter3 The Scope of Costa Rica's Substantive Rights
A. Introduction ...............................................................
........
B. APerpetual Right of Free Navigation ...................................
(1) Costa Rica'sright isperpetual ...................................
(2) Costa Rica'sperpetual right of navigation isfree ......
(3) CostaRica'srightofnavigationisnot"imperfect" ........
C. "Con objetos de comercio" ..;...............................................
(1) "Con objetosde comercio"means "for
purposes of commerce" ..............................................
The scopeof the term "comercio"in the
(2) Treaty of Limits .........................................................
(3) Navigation "con objetos de comercio"includes
transport of persons ....................................................
D. Public Rights of Protection. Custody and Defence ...............
(1) Applicable Law ..........................................................
(2) Nicaragua's position. ...................................................
(3) CostaRica's position ...................................................
(4) Conclusion .................................................................
E . Related Rights .......................................................................
(1) Flags .............................................................
..........
(a) Flag issues as "related rights". ...........................
(b) Nicaragua's position ..........................................
. .
. (c) Costa Rica'sposition .........................................
(d) Analysis .............................................................
(2) Fisheries .....................................................................
(a) Fisheries as a "related right'' .............................
(b) The existing practice and its character ..............
(c) Conclusion ........................................................
(3) Landing Rights ...........................................................
(4) Facilitation of traffic ..................................................
F. The issueof "Border Courtesy" ............................................
(I) What is meant by "Border Courtesy"? ........:..........
(2) Nicaragua's strategy of denial .................................... (3) Analysis of some arrangements and practices ..........91
(a) The right of navigating public armed vessels... 91
(b) The Cuadra-CastroJoint Communiqukof
8 September 1995 ..................................2...
(c) The Cuadra-LizanoJoint Communiquk
of 30 July 1998..................................................93
(d) Presidential Letters exchanged on
28 and 29 June 2000 ........................................94
(e) The requests for permission to navigate
made in 2006.........................................6..........9
G. Conclusions ..............................................................
..
Table1 Use of the term "objetos"as meaning"purposes"
in 19thCentury documents ..................................99............
Table2 Termsused to referto articles of trade. goods. things.
etc. in 19thCentury documents ...........................12....
Chapter4 Nicaragua'sBreaches
A. Introduction ...................................................15........
..
B. Breaches of Costa Rica's perpetual right of free navigation.
The obligation to land at the Nicaraguan bank and
(1) payment for a "departure clearance certificate" .........
(2) Other charges.............................................................
(3) Visas andpassports ....................................................
(4) Timetables ..................................................................
(5) Searches .....................................................................
C . ' Breaches of Costa Rica'sright of navigation
"for purposes of commerce" .................................................
D. Breaches of Costa Rica'sright of protection
of commerce. safeguard. defence and re-supply
of police posts........................................................................
E. Breaches of Costa Rica'srelated rights.................................
(1) Flags ...........................................................
............
(2) Fisheries .....................................................................
(3) Landingrights............................................................
(4) Facilitation of trafficon the River .............................. F. Nicaragua's plea of acquiescence ..............................184.........
(1) Measuresrelating to tourism arising from the
Memorandum of Understanding of 5 June 1994 .......184
(2) . Navigation of Costa Rican police on the River ........185
(3) . Allegations that CostaRica recognises the need
to obtainpermission to navigate on the San Juan ...... 187
G . Conclusions ...................................................189.
................
Chapter 5 Remedies
A . CostaRica'sEntitlements .............................................3...1
(1) Nicaragua's claim that Costa Rica seeksto
exercise diplomaticprotection .........................193.......
(2) Assurances and guaranteesof non-repetition ..........196
(3) Compensation .........................................199................
B. Nicaragua's request for a declaration............................203...
Summary .........................................................
.........2............
Submissions ........................................................
.......211............
Appendix: SomeHistorical Issues
A. The lower SanJuan River and its mouths .............................
B. The issue ofNicoya ...........................................217.................
C. The 1825and 1841Constitutions.....................................2.0
D . Negotiations for an inter-oceaniccanal.............................222
E. Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan River after 1888 ....223
F . Conclusions.........................................................
.........2
List ofAnnexes ........................................................
...233...........
Volume2:Annexes
Agreements.Awardsand Judicial Decisions: Annexes 1-27.................. 1
Correspondence:Annexes 28-49 ...........................................235................
Affidavits:Annexes 50-57 ..................................................279.
..................
Press Reports: Annexes 58-62 ..............................................9..........
Other Documents:Annexes 63-72 .........................................313................ Chapter 1
Introduction
A. Introductory Comments
1.01 This Reply is filed in accordance with the Court's Order of
9 October 2007.
1.02 These proceedings concern breaches by Nicaragua of Costa Rica's
perpetual right of free navigation and related rights in respect of the San Juan
River. These rights are setout in a seriesof treaties and decisions commencing
with the Treaty of Limits of 15April 1858 ("the Treaty of Limits") and also
result from customary international law.' Since the 1990s Nicaragua has
imposed and maintained severe restrictions on the navigation of Costa Rican
vessels and their passengers on the San Juan. Since CostaRica commenced
these proceedings, Nicaragua has tightened existing restrictions and imposed
new restrictions which in combination tend to deny the substance of Costa
Rica's rights entirely.
1.03 In contrast to Nicaragua's breaches, Costa Rica has scrupulously met
its obligations in respect of the San Juan, and in particular has continued to
fulfilits obligation to allow Nicaraguan boats to freely land onthe Costa Rican
bank of the Ri~er.~ In addition, and contrary to Nicaragua's unsubstantiated
assertions that Costa Rica has refusedto engage in dialogue with Nicaraguaon
certain issues, Costa Rica has actively soughtto settle this dispute in a manner
consistent with respect for the rights clearly accorded to Costa Rica underthe
relevant instruments and decisions. These proceedings were brought as a last
resort in order to have an authoritative and lasting settlement of Costa Rica's
rights under the relevant instrument^.^
1 CRM, Annexes,Vol.2,Annex 7.
2 This is acknowledgedin evidence presented by Nicaragua itself: see NCM,Vol.,lI,Annex 91,Af-
fidavit Colonel Ricardo Sanchez, Point Five.
3 CRM, Chapter3,para. 3.49. B. Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial
1.04 In its Counter-Memorial presented to the Court on 29 May 2007,
Nicaragua assertsthat"the issuesraisedby CostaRicahave alreadybeen settled
by the 1858Treatyandthe 1888Cleveland A~ard".~It istrue thatCostasRica's
rights overthe SanJuan are settledbythe 1858Treaty,the ClevelandAwardand
the other decisions, agreements andrules which Costa Rica has invoked in its
Memorial; But unfortunately those rightsare not being respectedby Nicaragua
- either because it denies their existence (as with the right of free navigation
for purposes of commerce) orit denies the facts - of which, nonetheless, there
is ample evidence. The issuesraised by Costa Rica arise through this strategy
of denial by Nicaragua, of which its Counter-Memorialis only the most recent
instance.
1.05 Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial contains a range of contradictions,
misrepresentations and mistranslationsof documents.
1.06 Forexample,Nicaragua arguesthatthephrase "conobjetosdecomercio"
in Article VI of the 1858 Treaty ought to be interpreted as "with articles of
trade."5 However it later implies that "con objetos de comercio" means "for
purposes of commerce": it states that "the right of freenavigation [inArticleVI
ofthe 1858Treaty]isarticulatedinthe formof a careful statement ofpurposesw6
andciteswith approvalPresident Cleveland'sAwardwhich stipulatesthat Costa
Rica has a right of "free navigation ...for thepurposes of comrner~e."~
1.07 Other contradictions emerge from consideration of the arguments
presented in the Counter-Memorial as a whole. For example,on the applicable.
law Nicaragua states that Costa Rica's arguments "stand or ,fall with the
interpretation of [the 1858Treaty] and the subsequent Cleveland AwarP8 and
that the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 ClevelandAward "make up the Applicable
Legal Regime on the San.J~an."~ It criticises Costa Rica for seeking to rely
-
4 NCM, Introduction, para.4.
5 See, for example, NCM, para. 1.3.24;NCM, Introduct20., para.
6 SeeNCM, para. 2.1.5
7 SeeNCM, para.2.1.62.
8 NCM, Introduction, para.19.
9 NCM, para. 1.3.46.on legal principles which go beyond or are independent of those bilateral
instmments.1° However, Nicaragua also claims that principles of general
internationallaw apply "so far as they do not contradictthe relevant provisions
contained in the 1858 Treatyas interpreted by the 1888 Cleveland Award.""
Nicaragua relies on many other treaties for different purposes, includingas an
aid to interpret the 1858 Treaty.'* It argues that treaties signed between 1858
and 1888clarifythe meaning of "objetosde comercio"as"articles oftrade" and
not "purposes of ~ommerce."'~In some instances Nicaragua relies onthe text
ofunratifiedtreaties without drawing the Court's attention tothe fact that those
treaties are unratified: for example, it states that the Alvarez-Zambrana Treaty
of 5 February 1883"establishes the obligation'tofly,in addition to one'sown,
the national flag of the State that exercises sovereignty"' without noting that it
was not ratified.14
1.08 In some instances Nicaragua misrepresents the contentof documents
produced in theAnnexes to Costa Rica'sMemorial. For example,when it cites
the Carazo-SotoTreatyof26July 1887,NCM quotesfromArticle6.3asfollows
"[tlhe right granted to Costa Rica to navigate with articles of tradeon the San
Juan River.. ." It references CRM Annex 15. l5 The English translation there
produced by Costa Rica states"[tlhe right, granted to Costa Rica, of navigation
for purposes of commerce [objetosde comercio] inthe San Juan River.. ."I6
1.09 Nicaragua misrepresents the language usedby President Cleveland in
the 1888Award. It states:
"ForPresident Cleveland, tho enlynavigationby Costa Ricanvesselsof the revenue
servicethatwaspermittedby thetreatywasthatwhichis 'relatedto andconnected
with' the rightto navigate with articlesof trade.""
NCM, Reservations,p. 1.
NCM, para. 3.3.10.
For example, it relies on the unratified 1857afias Treaty to establish the purpose of the
1858 TreatyNCM, paras. 1.2.39-1.2.40) and on various agreementravaux prkparatoirto
the 1858TreatyNCM,paras. 1.3.1-1.3.3).
NCM, para. 1.3.32-1.3.35.
NCM, para. 1.3.33(NCMAnnex 9). On the relevance of general international lawto this dispute,
see Chapter2 of this Reply.
NCM, para. 3.1.43.
SeeCRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 15.
NCM, para.3.1.54.The original English version of the relevant part of Cleveland'sAwardclearly
provides for a right of navigation for vessels of the revenue service "as may
be related to and connected with [Costa Rica's] enjoyment of the 'purposes of
commerce'. .."I8 No doubtNicaragua wants President Cleveland to have uskd
the term "articles of trade" but that is not whatPresident Cleveland wrote.19
1.10 Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial also contains inaccurate statements
about the meaning of the term "objetos" in Spanish. For example, Nicaragua
states that it is "entirely beyond the normal and usual use of the Spanish
language to speak of the [plural] objetos ... when referring to its purposes,
aims or objective^."^^ In fact several contemporary treaties, including treaties
to which Nicaragua was a signatory, use the plural "objetos" when referring
to purposes. Two examples include the US-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship,
Commerce and Navigation (Lamar-Zeledon) of 16March 1859 and the US-
Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Ayon-Dickinson)
of 21June 1867. Article I1of the Lamar-ZeledonTreatyuses the phrase "para
10sobjetosdesucomercio,"theEnglishversionofwhich states"forthepurposes
of their ~ornrnerce."~~Similarly,Article I1of the Ayon-DickinsonTreaty uses
the phrase in Spanish "para objetos de su comercio" which is reflected in the
English "for the purpose of their commerce."22The use of the plural "objetos"
tomeanpurposespre-datesthe 1858Treaty. Forexample,Article 11ofthe Costa
Rica-US TreatyofFriendship, CommerceandNavigation (Molina-Webster)of
10July 1851uses thephrase "para 10sobjetos desu comercio"tomean "for the
purposes of their
18 See CRM, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16. A similar misquotation is madeof the Carazo-Soto Treaty
(CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 15)inNCM, para. 3.1.43.
19 As to the meaningof "con objetos de comercio",see below, paragraphs3.39-3.78.
20 NCM, para.4.1.27.
21 United States-Nicaragua, Treatyof Friendship,CommerceandNavigation (Lamar-Zeledon),Man-
agua, 16March 1859.The Spanish version is fromUSNational Archives, WashingtonDC,
fected Treaty Series X-2; the English version is fromCLWiktor,UnpevfectedTreatiesof the USA,
Volume 11,1856-1882, pp. 157-166:CRRAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 13.
22 United States-Nicaragua, Treatyof Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Ayon-Dickinson),
Managua, 21 June 1867. Both the Englishand Spanish official versionsare reproduced in
Sander, The Statutes at Large, Treatiesand Proclamationsof the United States of Americafrom
December 1867 toMarch 1869, VolumXV,pp. 549-562:CRRAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 17.
23 Costa Rica-United States, Treatyof Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Molina-Webster),
Washington, 10July 1851. The Spanish version is fromColeccldnde 10sTratadosInternacionales
Celebradospor lapublicade CostaRica, Vol.I,pp. 65-72;andthe English version is reproduced
inReport oftheIsthmian CanalCommission1899-1901,pp. 417-410:CRR,Annexes,Vol2,Annex
9.1.11 Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial contains inaccurate translationsof key
documents. For example, Nicaragua presents an English translation of Article .
I1of the US-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship, Commerce andNavigation (Cass-
Irisarri) of 16November 1857,which provides in part for reciprocal rights"to
hire and occupyhouses andwarehouses for commerce".24The Spanish version
produced by Nicaragua, for which no source is listed but which appearsto be
from a Gaceta from El Salvador, reads "asi como alquilar y ocupar casas y
almacenespara objeto de su comerci~."~~The'originalSpanish text reads "asi
comoalquilar y ocupar casas y almacenespara objetos de c~mercio"~~ and the
original English text refersto reciprocal rights"also, to hire and occupy houses
and warehouses for the purpose of their c~mmerce."~' Nicaragua's omission
of the full phrase"for the purpose of their commerce" in its English translation
renders its translation inaccurate and misleading. This example shows again
that the plural "objetos" can be used to mean "purpose" in English.
1.12 Nicaragua presents an inaccurate translation ofArticle XX of the Cass-
Irisarri Treaty which misrepresents the way in which both Nicaragua and the
United States understoodthe scope of Costa Rica's navigational rights on the
River. Nicaragua's translationofArticle XX reads as follows:
"ArticleXX. Itisunderstoodthatnothinginthistreatyshalladverselyaffectthe desires
of the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica and its people to free navigation in
the San Juan River of its persons and goods to the Atlantic Ocean and vice versa." 28
(Emphasisadded.)
The authentic English text of~rticle XXprovides:
"Article XX:It isunderstoodthat nothing containedin this treaty shallbe construedto
affectthe claim of the governmentand citizens of the Republic of Costa Rica to a free
passageby the San JuanRiver for theirpersons andproperty to and from the ocean."29
(Emphasis added.)
24 SeeNCM,Vol 11Annex 5.
25 SeeNCM, Original Documents Deposited Within the Registry, Part5
26 United States-Nicaragua Treatyof Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Cass-Irisarri), 16No-
vember 1857. The original Spanishis reproduced fromUS National Archives, WashingtonDC,
Unperfected TreatySeriesW-2: CRR, Annexes,, Annex 10.
27 TheEnglish version is reproduced in CLWiktor,ctedTreatiesofthe USA,Volum111856-
1882,pp. 135-143:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 10.
28 NCM, Vol 11,Annex 5.
29 CRR,Vol2, Annexes, Annex 10.TheauthenticEnglishtext,usingtheterm"claim", isconsistentwiththeoriginal
Spanishwhich refers to ''pretension." By substitutingthe English "desires" for
"claim" Nicaragua evidently seeks to provide a weaker representation of Costa
Rica's navigational rights. It is also clear from the authentic English version
that itwasunderstoodbybothNicaragua andtheUnited Statesthat CostaRica's
navigational rights included navigation by the Costa Rican Government (with
public vessels) and by its citizens and was inclusive of the right to transport
persons as well asproperty.
1.13 Nicaragua presents an inaccurate translation of a 2001 Judgment of the
Costa Rican ConstitutionalChamber in order to give the impression that Costa
Rica's own court denied that Costa Rica holds a right to navigate on the San
Juan for the purpose of re-supplying border posts. It represents the Court as
having stated that "Costa Rica holds the perpetual right to use its lower banks
for commercial, revenue and security purposes,"30but a correct translation of
the Spanish used in the judgment is: "Costa Rica holds the perpetual right to
use its lower course for commercial, revenue and security purpose^."^'The
Costa Rican ConstitutionalChamber did not deny that Costa Rica holds a right
to navigation on the River.
1.14 Nicaragua accuses Costa Rica of producing inaccurate translations of
certain documents.32 This allegation is not specified and it is not supported.
Costa Rica expressly denies that it has misrepresented documents to the Court
and it standsby the accuracy of the translations of documents it has presented.
1.15 Nicaragua'smisrepresentationsgobeyondthemistranslationofimportant
documents and evenincludethe misrepresentationofhistoricalevents,the facts
of which were explained in Costa Rica's Memorial. For example, Costa Rica
described the occasion on which the Costa Rican steamer Adela, on ajourney
to install the Guards at the fiscalpost at TerronColorado, Los Chiles, stopped
before it entered that part of the San Juan in which Costa Rica has no treaty
right ofnavigation. It hadnavigated on the SanJuan fromthe mouth ofthe San
Carlos River to three miles below Castillo Viejo before it stopped and left its
arms and ammunitiononthe CostaRicanbank. The Commanderthen travelled
30 NCM, Vol 11Annex 66.
31 See discussion in this Reply, paragraphs3.151-3.154.
32 NCM, Introduction, para. 20.to the Nicaraguan post at Castillo Viejo to request permission to continue
navigating with arms in that part of the San Juan in which CostaRica had no
treaty right of navigation, on itswayto Los Chiles, which is on the Costa Rican
side of the border near the source of the San Juanin the Lake of Nicaragua.
That permission having been denied, the CostaRican Commander was obliged
to transport the arms and ammunition by land.33Nicaragua argues this incident
shows that Costa Rica did not have a right to navigate on the San Juan with
arms.34The materials citedby Costa Rica clearly indicate that theAdela had
alreadynavigated with armson the River to thepoint three miles below Castillo
Viejowithout any need to obtain permission from Nicaragua. Permission was
soughtto navigate in the upper SanJuan, outside of that partof the watercourse
in which Costa Rica has a treaty right of navigation. SketchMap 1 opposite
clearly marks the journey of the Adela and demonstrates that Nicaragua has
misrepresented this incident.
1.16 Nicaragua purports to make two "reservations." First, if the Court
determines Costa Rica's claims on legal principles beyond those foundin the
relevant bilateral agreements, Nicaragua reserves its right to claim thatthe
ColoradoRiver is aninternationalwaterway subjecttothe provisions of general
international law for international watercourses not subject to a special treaty
regime.3s Second,Nicaragua "makes express reservation of her rights to bring
claims against CostaRica" for ecological damage done tothe waters of the San
Juan and the diversion of its traditional water flow into "agricultural, industrial
and other uses in Costa Rican territory and into the water flowof the Colorado
River".36
1.17 These "reservations" are of course not counter-claims. Nicaragua's
right to bring a counter-claim expired with the filingof NCM.37.Nor do these
"reservations" relate to or arise from any relief sought by Costa Rica. The
33 CRM,paras. 4.85-4.87.
34 NCM,paras.4.2.19-4.2.21.
35 SeeNCM, Reservations, p. 251, para.2.
36 SeeNCM, Reservations, p. 251,para.3.
37 See Rules, Article 80(2).te apart from the requirementof timeliness, Article 80 requires a
counter-claim tobe "directly connected with thesubject-matter of the claim of the other party":
see Article(1). Nicaragua's "reservations", even ifbeen timely presented as counter-
claims,would not have satisfied this requirement."reservations," apart from being devoid of merit, are without incidence for the
present case.
C. Key Issues
1.18 On the one hand, a few points of agreement between the parties can be
identified. For example, the parties agree that Costa Rica's navigational rights
are definedby the 1858Treaty of Limits and the 1888Cleveland Award.38
1.19 On the other hand, clear points of disagreement-emerge from the
Counter-Memorial. For example, Nicaragua argues that its sovereignty over
waters of the River is a reason for a narrow interpretation of Costa Rica's
navigational and related rights.39On the contrary, the 1858Treaty conditions
Nicaragua's dominion and sovereignjurisdiction over the watersof the River
uponCostaRica's perpetualrightsoffree na~igation.~~ Thegrantofsovereignty
to Nicaragua in Article VI of the Treaty of Limits is immediately qualified by
Costa Rica's perpetual rightof free na~igation.~'
1.20 The parties also disagree as to the relevance of other instruments and
documents, including the 1916 Judgment of the Central American Court of
Justice,aswellastotherelevanceofgeneralinternationallaw. Nicaraguaargues
that the 1916Judgment is "of limited relevance in the present case" and that it
did not"'furtherspecifythe rights recognizedby the relevant instrument^."^I^n
Costa Rica's view, itsrights of use of the River "were further specified (with
the force ofyesjudicata) by the CentralAmerican Court of Justice in its 1916
J~dgrnent.~~The Central American Court necessarily had to pronounce on
Costa Rica's rights of navigation on the San Juan since these were affected
by the Bryan-Chamorro Convention. The Court there found that Costa Rica
possess "for purposes of commerce,permanent rights of freenavigation ...and
the right for her vessels to moor at all points along either bank, exempt from
the imposition of any charges, in that part of the stream in which navigation
38 SeeNCM, Introduction,paras. 18-19. Seealso CRM,para.4.01.
39 NCM, paras. 2.1.9, 2.1.48-2.1.50,2.1.52.
40 CRM, para.4.06.
41 SeeCRM,para.4.06.
42 NCM,para. 3.2.6.
43 CRM,para. 1.04. Seealso CRM,paras. 2.42-2.49. is common."44 Costa Rica's position on the relevance of the 19 16 Judgment
is clearly stated in its Memorial and is addressed further in Chapter 2 of this
Reply.45
-1.21 A significantpoint of disagreementresults fromNicaragua's attempt to
relitigate in these proceedings issues which have been decided by Cleveland's
Award of 1888. In particular, Nicaragua seeks to limit President Cleveland's
decisionto the extent that it affirmsCosta Rica's right to navigate with vessels
of the revenue service.46 Consistently with the terms of Cleveland's Award,
CostaRica'spositionisthat ithasarightofnavigationforvesselsoftherevenue
service:(1) whenrelated to and connectedwith the enjoyment of the "purposes
of commerce" and (2)as necessary for the protection of its enjoyment of that
right ofna~igation.~"
1.22 Various points of disagreement about the historical background have
also emerged: these points are addressed in detail in the Appendix to this
Reply. Nicaragua claimsthat the mouths of the SanJuan River belonged to the
province of Nicaragua from 1573 to 1821 .48However, as is demonstrated in
this Reply,the 1573Charterrelied uponby Nicaragua is internally inconsistent
and in any event does not support the contention that the River belonged to
Nicaraguaexclusively. Insteadthe evidencesupportsCostaRica's position that
the SanJuanRiverdidnot exclusivelybelong to any oftheprovinces duringthe
colonial period.49In addition,Nicaragua's suggestionthat Costa Rica annexed
"Partido deNicoya" unilaterally iswithoutbasis:by plebiscite on 25July 1824,
the people ofNicoya decidedtojoin CostaRica, a decision later acknowledged
by the Federal Congress of Central America,50and affirmed by the people of
Nicoya no less than seventimes between 1826and 1854.
1.23 'Nicaragua also argues that Costa Rica disregarded the principle of uti
possidetis iuris, particularly on account of the incorporation of Nicoya into
44 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex2.
45 CRM, para. 1.04. See also CRM, paras. 2.42-49; this Reply, paragraphs 2.08-2.18, esp. para-
graph 2.10.
46 SeeNCM,paras.3.1.1-3.1.10and3.1.19-3.1.24.
47 SeeCRM,paras. 4.78-4.79; see below, para3.79-3.95.
48 NCM,paras.1.2.2-1.2.3,1.2.11. SeealsoNCM,para.1.2.38.
Seebelow,Appendix,paragraphsA.02-A.14.
49
50 Seebelow,Appendix, paragraphs A.15-A.22.its territ~ry.~'This is a misrepresentation. Nicoya was an administrative unit
whose inhabitants decided through a plebiscite their incorporation into Costa
Rica after the independenceof CentralAmerica. This was nothing exceptional
inHispanicAmerica. Severalsubordinateadministrativedependenciesdecided
to leave the administrativedivisions they belonged to, these moves resulting in
the dismembermentofsomeofthe latter. Therewere,both inCentraland South
America, situations of merger of a former colonial subdivision with a State
having constituted a different colonial unit in the past, as well as situations of
creationofanew StatefromsubdivisionswithinaVice-Royaltyora Captaincy-
General, leading to the latter's fragmentation. Chiapas, Ecuador, Paraguay and
Uruguay are some examples. What is essential when applying the principle
of uti possidetis is the respect of the territorial limits existing at the time of
independence: it was out of the question to alter the territorial limits of Nicoya
when incorporating it into Costa Rica. Equally, the principle of utipossidetis
iuris does not mean that the situationexisting at the time of independencemust
be considered as immutable. Territorialchanges are alwayspossible, provided
that they occur in conformitywith international law. As mentioned above, the
incorporation of Nicoya into Costa Rica was recognised by the Congress of
the newly independent Federal Republic of Central America, which included
both Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and it was affirmed by the people of Nicoya
on seven separate occasions.52For all these reasons,Nicaragua's allegation of
an illegal annexation ofNicoya by Costa Rica is groundless. The same can be
said of Nicaragua's assertion that the Constitutions of Costa Rica of 1825and
1841 are contradictory, the former recognising the boundaries in accordance
with the principle of uti possidetis iuris and the latter disregarding it.53 The
reference to the borders set in the 1825and 1841Constitutions are consistent,
as is demonstrated in theAppendix to this Reply.54
1.24 Nicaragua contends that there is no historical or documentary support
for Costa Rica's claim that it participated solely or jointly with Nicaragua in
canalization or transit contracts in respect of the San Juan.55 But Costa Rica
51 NCM,para. 1.2.4.
Seebelow,Appendix, paragraphs A.15-A.22.
52
53 NCM,paras.1.2.19-1.2.23.
54 Seebelow, Appendix, paragraphs A.23-A.28.Seealso CRM,paras. 2.12-2.14.
55 NCM, para. 1.2.38.was involved in various canal contracts and treaties, an assertionsupported
by documents presented by Costa Rica and even by documents presented
by Nicaragua itself.56For example, Costa Rica was party to the Costa Rica-
Nicaragua-F Belly Convention relative to the Concession ofan Inter-Oceanic
Canal on 1May 1858.57Costa Rica's participation in various canal contracts
and treaties is discussed in the Appendix to thisReply.58
1.25 A further point of disagreement canbe identified in relation to Costa
Rica's righttonavigatewithrevenueservicevessels asaffirmedinthe Cleveland
Award. Nicaragua argues that there is no right of free navigation for Costa
Rican public vessels and that Costa Rica's rightto navigate with vessels of the
revenue serviceis "only to the extent necessaryto the exercise of [theright] to
navigate with articles of trade (con objetosde c~rnercio)."~~It claims that the
practice of the United States in the 19th century with regard tothe "revenue
cutters" is of "no present rele~ance."~~On the contrary, Costa Rica's position,
in accordance with the terms of the ClevelandAward, is that it has a right of
navigation for public vessels. The ClevelandAwardprovided that CostaRica
has a right of navigation for "such vessels of the Revenue Service as may
be related to and connected with [Costa Rica's] enjoymentof the 'purposes
of commerce' accorded to her in said article,or as may be necessary to the
protection of said enj~yment."~'Costa Rica's rightto navigate with vessels of
the revenue serviceis addressed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this Reply.62In
particular the practice relating to revenue cutters is relevant. Contemporary
practice regarding revenue cuttersin the mid-to-late 19th century would have
been very familiarto President Clevelandandhisadvisors, andilluminateswhat
they must be takento have intended in drawing a distinction between men-of-
war and revenue cutters.67
Seebelow,Appendix,paragraphsA.23-A.28
See CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 8.
Seebelow,Appendix, paragraphs A.29-A.32.
NCM, Subsection 3, p. 110.See alsoNCM, paras. 3.1.27-3.1.31and paras. 4.2.4-4.2.6.
NCM, para. 4.2.12.
Cleveland Award,secondpoint: CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16,cited inCRM, para. 4.83. See
generallyCRM,paras. 4.73-4.96.
This Reply, paragraphs3.79-3.95.
CRM, paras. 4.81-82. Nicaragua in fact uses thesame practice in the same way: see NCM,
para. 4.2.12.1.26 Nicaragua contends that there is .no support for a Costa Rican right
to safeguard and defend the lower San Juan. It argues that any Costa Rican
obligation to safeguard the San Juan would only arise in the event of external
aggression, would have .tobe carried out together with Nicaragua and would
havetobe performed fromthe CostaRicanbank ofthe River,not fromboats on
the water.64Costa Rica's position,in accordance with the text ofArticle IV of
the 1858Treaty,is that Costa Rica has three sets of rights and obligations: (1)
defence of the common bay;.(2) safeguarding of the San Juan; and (3)'defence
ofthe River in case of aggression. As the language ofArticle IV demonstrates,
onlythethirdoftheserightsandobligationsisconditionedonaggression. ~hese
rights and obligations arepermanent.65CostaRica's public rightsof protection
and defence are addressed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this Reply.66
D. The Issues for the Court
1.27 Theissuebeforethe Courtisthe scopeofCostaRica's perpetual rightof
freenavigation and related rights in respect ofthe SanJuan River and violation
ofthoserightsbyNicaragua. As was emphasisedin itsMemorial, CostaRica is
seekingthe cessationofallNicaraguan conductwhichpreventsthe free and full
exercise and enjoymentofthe rights that CostaRica possesses on the SanJuan,
or which prevents Costa Rica from fulfilling its responsibilities to safeguard
and protect the River underArticle IV of the Treaty of Limits,Article 2 of the
1956Agreement and otherwise.67
1.28 This Reply consists of fivehrther Chapters as follows:
Chapter2setsoutthegeneralinternationalrulesrelevanttothisdispute,
in particular those relating to international waterways and concerning
the interpretationof treaties.
Chapter 3 addresses the scope of Costa Rica's substantive rights,
rebutting Nicaragua's interpretation of them. Two tables appended
to Chapter 3 demonstrates that Costa Rica's interpretation is correct.
Table 1 shows the use of the term "objetos" as meaning "purposes" in
19th century documents and Table 2 sets out the terms used to refer
64 NCM,para. 4.2.35.
65 CRM, para. 4.99.
66 This Reply,paragraphs 3.79-3.95.
67 See CRM,para. 1.08. to "articles of trade", "goods", "things" and similar concepts in 19th
century documents.
Chapter4respondstoNicaragua's claimsthat ithasnot breached Costa
Rica's navigational andrelated rights anddemonstrates that Nicaragua's
breaches of those rights are continuing.
Chapter 5 responds to NCM's arguments in respect of remedies,
demonstrating first that Costa Rica is entitled to the remedies it has
claimed and second that Nicaragua's request for a declarationas to the
scope of Costa Rica's rights is unfounded, asis Nicaragua's request for
a declaration that itis entitled to dredge the San Juan.
1.29 AnAppendixto this Reply addresses relevant historical issues disputed
by Nicaragua.
1.30 AnnexedtothisReply isonevolume of documentary annexes (Annexes
1-72). A list of annexesis provided at the end of thisvolume.68
68 For reasons of space, the English translationsof certain documents only are included in the An-
nexes; the Spanish versionsare included ine Copies of CertainAnnexes submitted to the
Court. Chapter 2
General International Law Relevantto the Dispute
A. Introduction
2.01 In order to place the particular rules related to Costa Rica navigational
andrelatedrights inthecontextof generalinternationallaw,thepresentChapter
will deal with thegeneralinternationalrules related to internationalwaterways
andthoseconcerningthe interpretationoftreaties. Itconsistsoftwosubstantive
sections. Section B explains why, contrary to the position of Nicaragua in its
Counter-Memorial,the SanJuan is a boundary and international river. Section
Caddressestheapplicableprinciplesofinterpretation. In particular,this Section
demonstratesthat Nicaragua's focus on its sovereignty over the waters of the
River and its underestimation of Costa Rica's rights of navigation, protection
and defence of the River are without foundation. Conclusions on the general
internationallaw relevantto this disputeare drawn in SectionD.
B. The San Juanas an International River
(1) Nicaragua's Position
2.02 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua asserts that "[tlhe San Juan is of
course not aninternationalRiver since it flowsentirelywithin one countryand
besidesissubjecttoaspecial Trea~Regime."~~Underthatregime,therespondent
Statehas "granted" certain rights to Costa Rica in matters of navigation and of
defence. These rights are limited, however, as sovereignty over the waters of
the River,lies with Nicaragua. The latter retains the exclusive right to carry
passengers on the River and Costa Rica must exerciseits navigationrights "by
reference to the legitimateinterests of [Ni~aragua]";~~as to the defence of the
watercourse, Costa Rica's rights (and obligations) are confined to its bank of
the River.
69 NCM, para4.1.29.
70 NCM, para.2.1.50.2.03 The instrument effecting the "grant" referred to in the preceding
paragraph isthe Cafias-JerezTreatyof 15April 1858.ForNicaragua, thatTreaty
is a territorial settlement; it does not establish a watercourse regime. This is
why general international law cannot be relied on (although even Nicaragua
actually does so7').
2.04 Nicaragua asserts that CostaRica, by \itsactions, claims and arguments,
seeks to turn a simple territorial settlement into an international regime
amounting to shared jurisdiction.over the waterc~urse.~~
2.05 Nicaragua admits that the subject-matter of the dispute is governed
by the Cafias-Jerez Treaty of 1858 andthe 1888 Cleveland Award.73But for
NicaraguatherelevanceoftheClevelandAward isdiminishedas"withrespectto
navigation with articles oftrade Costa Rica can haveno greater rights under the
Awardthan shehasunder the Treaty itself."74Nicaragua contends that the 1916
Judgment of the CentralAmerican Courtof J~stice'~and the 1956Agreement76
areofminimalrelevance. Italsoseekstounderminetherelevance oftheCuadra-
Lizano Joint Communique of 30 July 199877by emphasising that Nicaragua
unilaterally declared it null andvoid78 - a declaration Costa Rica rejected.
2.06 Nicaraguathenattemptstogivetherelevantinstrumentsameaningwhich
restricts the scope of Costa Rica's rightsin navigation and defence matters,
in accordance with Nicaragua's own arguments about the limited character of
Costa Rica's rights and the unlimited character of its rightsof sovereignty.
2.07 In this Chapter Costa Rica analyses these assertions, examining the
following points in turn: applicable law; the San Juan as a boundary river, and
the San Juan as a river endowed with an international regime. Specific issues
of interpretation are dealt within Chapter 3.
NCM, paras. 2.1.54-2.1.57; 2.1.59-2.1.61and2.1.63-2.1.64.
NCM, para.3.1.28.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16.
NCM, para. 4.2.1.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 21.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 24.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 28.
NCM, paras. 3.2.4-3.2.14.(2) The Applicable Law
2.08 Theparties agreethat the case is primarily governed by the 1858Treaty
and the 1888ClevelandAward,thatAwardconfirmingcosta Rica's right to sail
vesselsinthelowerpartofthe SanJuan"forpurposesofcommerce"anditsright
to sailpublicvesselsin connexionwith suchnavigation. However,Nicaragua's
acceptance of the ClevelandAwardappears to be conditioned on that Award's
conformitywith Nicaragua's own interpretationof the 1858 Treaty.79
2.09 This view cannot be accepted. The 1888Award interprets the relevant
provisions ofthe 1858Treaty. It has the force ofresjudicata. It authoritatively
determines the meaning of Articles IV and VI of the Caiias-Jerez Treaty. By
its agreement, given in advance, to accept the Award, Nicaragua accepted
PresidentCleveland's interpretationoftheTreaty:itsattemptnow toundermine
itby referenceto anundulyrestrictive interpretationofthe 1858Treatymustbe
rejected.
2.10 Nicaragua also argues that the 1916Judgment of the CentralAmerican
Court of Justice is without incidence for the present dispute. It views the
Judgment as a ruling limited to the issue of whether the Bryan-Chamorro
Convention for the construction of an inter-oceanic canal, concluded between
the United States and Nicaragua on 5August 1914 without consulting
Costa Ri~a,~~was in contravention of Article VIII of the Caiias-JQez Treaty.
According to Nicaragua it merely restated what was said by the 1858 Treaty
as interpreted by the Cleveland Award.x1That is not correct, as is shown by
the passages of the 1916Judgment cited in Costa Rica's Memorial.x2 To the
CentralAmerican Court,the "ownership" exercised by Nicaragua over the San
Juan "is neither absolute or unlimited: Costa Rica is established "in the full
enjoyment ofpractical ownership of a largepart of the San Juan River without
prejudice to the full ownership reserved to Nicaragua as sovereign over the
territory". Further,"the limitationofthepresence ofCostaRica's shipsdevoted
to revenue and defensive purposes" in no way detracts from Costa Rica's
79 NCM, para.4.2.1.
80 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 20.
81 NCM,para. 3.2.6.
82 CRM, paras..46-2.48."practical" ownership;Costa Rica possesses "the contractualright ofperpetual
navigation ... accompanied by the full privilege of transit and commerce,"
whereas "Nicaragua is impressedwith the'dutynot tointerferewith navigation,
but, onthe contrary,to keepthe course ofthe river open."83How can one assert
that these findings are irrelevant, especially given the stark contrast between
the actual situationtoday and that which ought to prevail as determined by the
CentralAmerican Court?
2.11 TheFournier-SevillaAgreementconcludedon9January 1 95684 pursuant
to Article IV of the 1949Pact of Amitys5is dismissed by Nicaragua as a mere
repetitionofthetermsofthe 1858Treatyandthe 1888 Award.86Againthis isnot
correct. In Article 1 of the 1956Agreement the parties undertake to facilitate
and expedite transit through the River; inArticle 2, they agree to cooperate to
safeguardtheir common border. This could only be done, on the part of Costa
Rica, by allowing its police to navigate on the River with normal arms and on
thebasisofan abilitytore-supplyCostaRica'sborderposts: PerhapsNicaragua
does not wish to be reminded of this Agreement and the events preceding its
concl~sion?~~
2.12 Another relevant text is the Cuadra-Castro Joint Comrnuniqut! of
8 September 1995 which refers to far-reaching cooperation for the joint .. or
parallel surveillanceofthe common border.88That such cooperationwould not
be possible withoutthe assistanceof CostaRican public vessels is evident; that
suchpatrolling effectivelytookplace isdemonstratedbythe evidenceproduced
by Costa Ri~a.~~
2.13 Finallythere isthe Cuadra-LizanoJoint Communiqueof30July 1998,90
which confirmsthe right of Costa Rican police officersto navigate on the San
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 21,atpp. 219,220 and 222.
CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex24.
CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 23.
NCM, para.3.2.5.
CRM, para.2.52.
CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 27.
CRM,para. 4.105& note 246. Seealsothis Reply,Appendix, paragraphs A.33-A.44.
CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 28.Juan,without,asNicaraguanMinisterCuadrasaid,91 detractingfromNicaragua's
sovereignty. Nicaragua objectsthat this agreement was made by authorities not
vested with treaty-making power and that it couldbe ''harmhl to the national
sovereignty of [Nicaragua] clearly established in the Jerez-CaiiasTreaty, the
Cleveland Award and consecrated in [Nicaragua's] Political Constit~tion."~~
For these reasons,Nicaragua unilaterally declaredthe instrument null and void,
an act rejectedby Costa Ri~a.~~
2.14 There are, in conclusion, a series of texts relevant tothe issue at hand:
the 1858Treaty,the 1888Award, the 1916 Judgment and various instruments
such as the Sevilla-FournierAgreement (1956), the Cuadra-Castro (1995) and
Cuadra-Lizano (1998) Joint Communiques. All these texts are connected with
the San Juanas a boundaryriver.
2.15 In addition, customary internationallaw is also relevant to adjudication
of the present dispute and tothe interpretationof the relevant treaty provisions.
Regarding navigation - and contrary to what applies to Costa Rica's related
rights, as will be explainedg4 - any recourse to customary law is contingent
on the lex specialisresulting from the 1858Treaty,as interpreted by the 1888
Cleveland Award and the 1916 Judgment of the Central American Court of
Justice.
2.16 The reference made in the Nicaraguan Counter-Memorial to the
Faber case and to a doctrinal commentg5therefore isof little relevance. Two
observations may nevertheless be made. The first is that Faber pertains to
navigation under the flag of a non-riparian State. The second relates to a
comment madeby a writer on that case, invokedby Nicaragua. In its original
text, that passage reads:
"La sentence arbitraleen l'affairFaber met en reliefl'oppositionentrela doctrine
de la librenavigation,crdationde 1'Europedu XIXesiecle,et laconceptionlatino-
americaine,quifaitdependre lanavigationde la volontede1'Etatriverainoudes Etats
riverains.Cetteconception semble du reste I'emporter sur la th2sesubsidiaire quifut
91 CRM, para.4.116; CRM, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 28.
92 NCM, para.3.2.12.
93 CRM, para.3.31. Cf. also CRM,Annexes,Vol.3,Annex 50
94 Seebelow,paragraphs 3.109-31.2
95 NCM, para.4.1.14.dkveloppLe par 1e.surabiti-Dufleld et qui consistaita limiterla librenavigationaux
trajetssanstransbordementverslamerou enprovenancede celle-ci.
La doctrine, quanta elle, semblea peu pres unanime:enArnQiquelatine,il n'existe
pas delibertede pavigationen l'absencede concessionunilatkraleou de disposition
conventionnelle ..."9(WordsomittedbyNicaragua initalics.)
2.17 In NCM, that passage runs as follows:
"La sentence arbitraleen l'affaireFaber met enrelief l'opposition entrela doctrine
de la libre navigation,crCationde 1'Europedu XIXe siecle, etla conceptionlatino-
americaine,quifaitdCpendrelanavigationdelavolontede1'Etatriverainoudes Etats
riverain[s]. Cetteconception...'consistaita limiterla librenavigationauxtrajetssans
transbordementversla merouenprovenancede celle-ci.
La doctrine,quanta elle, semblea peu pres unanime:enAmCriquelatine,il n'existe
pas de libertCde navigationen l'absencede concession unilateraleou de disposition
con~entionnelle."~'
2.18 The way in which this text ispresented in NCM istypical of Nicaragua's
method of "editing" quotations. The truncatedversion suggests'thatthe Gerrnan-
Venezuelan Claims Commission headed by Umpire Duffield had asserted,
in Faber, that the Latin-American conception of navigation on international
watercourses was that such navigation depended on the will of the riparian
States,but also that that conceptiontended towards limitingnavigation by other
States to transit to and from the seawithout transhipment. According to its own
version of the text, Nicaragua comments (i) that there is not in Latin America,
onthe international level, any right of navigation for foreign ships, but also (ii)
that such a right does exist, but only in respect of navigation to and from the
sea without tran~hipment.~~These two assertions are contradictory. The full
citation shows that what theUmpire had in mind was an alternative: eitherthere
was, internationally, no right to navigate at all; or, if there was such a right, it
was limited to access to and from the sea without transhipment. Thus Duffield
left the question of the existence of a right of navigation open. In any event,
the Faber case cannot serve as a precedent as it concerned a successive rather
than a contiguous watercourse. What is more, the watercourse system in issue
96 L. Caflisch,Rkgles genirales du droit des cours d'eau internationaux", (1989)219 Recueil des
coursde I'Academicde droit internationaldeLa Haye 9, 125.
97 NCM, para. 4.1.14.
98 NCM, paras.4.1.14-4.1.15.- the Catatumbo/Zulia - was not an international river with aboundary running
along the bank of oneof the riparian States.
(3) The San Juan as a Boundary River
The nature of the boundaryin the Lower San Juan Area
(a)
2.19 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua contends that"[tlhe San Juan is not
a border river but an integral and indivisible part of the Republic of Nicaragua
and thus runs along its whole course within Nicaraguan territory."99Pursuing
the argument, it points out that the upper part of the watercourse lies entirelyin
Nicaraguanterritorywhile,regardingthelowercoursebetween PuntadeCastilla
andapoint three milesbelow CastilloViejo,the boundary separatingNicaragua
from Costa Rica runs on the right - Costa Rican - bank of the River. loo
2.20 From the geographical viewpoint this descriptionis correct. From Lake
Nicaragua downto apoint three miles below Castillo .Viejo,the SanJuan ispart
of Nicaraguan territory, the border consisting of straight lines roughly parallel
to the southbank of the San Juan. Below that point the limit followsthe Costa
Rican bank of the watercourse. From a macro-geographical viewpoint, the
San Juan, on its upper course, forms a successive river; from the point below
CastilloViejoto Punta de Castilla, it is a contiguousriver forming the boundary
between the two States.
2.21 Thus the boundary runs along the right bank of the River belongingto
Costa Rica. This is what causes Nicaragua to speak of a watercourse which
"is not a border river" but an "integral" and "indivisible" part of Nicaragua's
territory.'"' But its position is untenable. The banks are part and parcel of the
River. Without banks defining it, there would be no watercourse. This is why
those who have studied the subject consider borders running on riverbanks to
be river boundaries, as they also do in the cases of condominial rivers and
waterways divided by thalweg or median or other lines, running onwater.'02
99 NCM, para. 1.1.4.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid. I
102 See, among others, L. Bouchez, "The Fixing of Boundaries in International River Boundary Riv-
ers", (1963) 12Internationaland Comparative Law Quarterly789;F.Schroter,"Les systemes de
delimitation dans les fleuves internationaux"; Annuairefranqais de droit internationalAll these types of limits, including those placed on riverbanks, are river
boundaries. They must be distinguished from boundaries drawn by reference
to waterways, which remain land boundaries. A good example is provided by
the boundary separating Senegal from The Gambia which, according to the
Agreement between Great Britain and France of 10August 1889,runs parallel
to the GambiaRiver at a distance of ten kilo metre^.'^T^he same technique had
previously been used, according to one author, in a 1555 arbitration between
the Swiss cantons of Schaffhouse and Zurich in relation to the Rhine and its
bridges,Io4as it wasinthe 1858Caiias-JQezTreatyfor the upperpart ofthe San
Juan.
2.22 It may not always be easy to distinguish between boundaries on a
riverbank(riverboundaries)andboundariesdrawnbyreferencetorivers. There
is the old andwell-known instanceof the TreatyofAndrinoplebetween Turkey
and Russia of 14September 1829,Article I11of which placed the border on
the Turkishbank of the Danube but also prescribed that the Turkish shore was
to remain uninhabited "for a distance of two hours from the river" - whatever
that may mean.lo5At first glance, this border may appear to be one drawn by
referenceto ariver. Thisisnotthe case,however:theborderwas establishedon
theTurkishbankandthereforewasariverboundary. Theprohibitiontosettlethe
Turkishterritorywithin a certaindistance fromthat bank was based on security
-
reasons and had no impact on the boundary itself, nor on its characterisation as
ariver boundary. Otherdifficultiesarisewhen the boundaryruns, not alongthe
water-markbut at a specifieddistancefromit, forinstancelandwardofatowing
path along the waterco~rse.'~~
2.23 There canbeno doubtasto the present situationhowever: theboundary
drawnbythe Cafias-JQezTreatyfollowstheaveragewater-lineoftherightbank
of the San Juan and is therefore, unquestionably, a river boundary. Nothing
948; C. Riihland, "Grenzgewasser", in H.J. Schlochauer(ed.), Worterbuchdes Volkerrechts,Vol.
1 (Berlin: Deyter, 1960),705, 705-6. See also K.H.Kaikobad, The Shatt-al-Arab Boundary
Question: Legal Reappraisal(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).
103 172CTS185.
104 Schrijter,954 n.185.
105 80 CTS 83.
106 On this question see Guggenheim (ed.), Rkpertoire suisse de droit international 1914-1939,
(Bble:Helbin& Lichtenhahn, 1975),Vol11No. 5-24.couldbe clearer toeverybody - excepttoNicaragua, which blithely asserts that
"the river does not, of course, constitute the border, which lies on the right, or
Costa Rican, bank in this sector."lo7Why does the respondent State insist that
that border is a land boundary and that, consequently,the whole San Juan is a
domestic watercourse? One can only surmise that this is meant to stress the
absolute character of Nicaragua's sovereignty over all the River's waters, the
limited scope of the rights of navigation attributed to Costa Rica in 1858,the
"grant" of certainnavigationprivileges to Costa Rica exgratia, and the virtual
dependenceofthoserightsandthe attendantprivilegesonNicaragua's will. All
this is not very relevant, however, since the lower San Juan has been shown to
be a boundary river.
(b) The practice of establishing boundaries onriverbanks
2.24 In earlier times treaties fixingboundaries on riverbanks were relatively
frequent.lo8They occurred mainly inAfrica,lo9but also in Europe1l0and in the
Americas.ll1 The best known shoreline limits inAsia are that drawn along the
Amur river separating Russia from China, and the line dividing Iran from Iraq
on the Shatt-el-Arab.l12Oftenthese instruments offered "compensation" tothe
107 NCM,para. 4.2.20.
108 See inparticular Bouchez, 791-2; Schroter,7:
109 Articles 1(2)and III(1) of the Anglo-French Protocol,10August 1889 (San Pedro, Tendo, Gam-
bialsenegal): I. Brownlie, African Boundaries, (London: C. Hurst, 1979), 215; Article 1 of the
Agreement on British and French Possessionsto the North and the East of Sierra Leone, 21Janu-
ary 1895:G.F.De Martens, 23Nouveau Recueil General deTvaites,2nd Series, 3(Great Skarcies
or Kolente); Delimitation Agreement between Franceand Liberia, 13January 1911, 213 CTS 2
(for a seriesof rivers on the boundary between Liberiaand CBted'tvoire), confirmedin 1961:see
Brownlie, 369;Articles 7and 8 of the Protocol ofly 1912 between Great Britainand France
on the Definitive Demarcationof the Frontier between FrenchGuinea and SierraLeone, 216CTS
217.
110 In Europe, this techniqueseems to have been a Franco-Swiss specialty: Arof the Treatyof
Cession and Boundaries between Switzerlandand France, 16 March816: 65 CTS 447 (Foron);
Convention between Switzerlandand France for the Definitionof the Frontier betweenMont Do-
lent and LacCman,10June 1891 :175CTS 169(Morge,Eau Noire, Barberine);Articles I, I1and
V of the Convention between Franceand the Bishopof%e,20 June 1780:47 CTS 331(Doubs).
See also F.Schroter,sj?onti&resde la Suisse: questions choisies(Geneva: Schultbess Medias
Juridiques,2007),208-223. Another Europeancaseto bementioned is theRiverNetze, seeArticle
I1of the Treaty between Polandand Russia, 18September 1773:45 CTS 243; Bouchez, 801.
111 SeeArticle 8 of the Treatyof Peace, 10August 1797betweenFrance andPortugal,which concerns
the South-American river VincentPinson: 54 CTS 141; the ArbitralAward of 23 January 1933,
following the Arbitration Treaty between Hondurasand Guatemala, 16July 1930, 137LNTS 258
(Tinto,Motagua); and, naturally, the Cafias-JerezTreatyof 1858:CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7.
112 Article 2 of the Treaty between Afghanistan and Britainfor the Establishment of Neighbourly
Relations,22November 1921: 14LNTS 67 (Kabul river); Article 2of the Frontier Treaty between
the Netherlands and Britain, 26 March 1928:LNTS 33 1(theOdong river in Borneo). Regard-States on whose banks the boundariesran.'13Generally speakingsuchborders,
in view of their "inequality", do not last very long, provoke quarrels andare
-
replaced by boundarieson the watercourse.
2.25 An author has identified several reasons that have prompted States to
draw boundaries on riverbanks.lI4 In the case of the Foron, for instance, the
boundary dividing France from Switzerland was drawnon the Swiss shore
because many of the concessions for the operation of mills in the area were
localised on the French side.l15Another motivation could bethe instability of
the river-bed, as was the caseof the Morge, also located atthe French-Swiss
border, a torrent that brusquely swells or decreases, without warning, often
changing course but staying within its banks; a shoreline limit was thought to
offerthe most practical solution. Finally,there is the political inequalityof the
parties which may make it possible forone of them to appropriate the whole
watenvay'I6 - a situation which prompted Paul de Lapradelle to describe the
shoreline border as "the imperialists' river boundary par excellence"("limite
ing the Amur river, see ArticleI of the Treaty of Peking, 2/14November 1860 between Russia
and China (123 CTS 125),to which a map had been annexedshowing the boundary to be on the
Chinesebank. In 1992the issue was apparently been settledin favour of thelweg: see Schroter
(1992) 956 n.54. The Shatt-el-Arab separatesIran from Iraq. The Treaty of Erzerum, 19 May
1847,101 CTS 85fixedthe boundaryon the Persianbank. Article2 of the Boundary Treaty,4 July
1937, 190LNTS 241 moved it to the thalweg. The 1937Treatywas denounced by Iran in 1969.
On 3 June 1975, the TreatyConcerning the State Frontier was concluded between Iranand Iraq:
1017UNTS 55. This instrument wasin turn denounced when Iran invaded Iraq. At theend of the
war, which lastedfor eight years, the peace negotiations stalled precisely on this point.The issue
was finally settled on the basisof a letter addressedby Tarekto the Secretary-Generalof the
United Nations on 14August 1990.SeeC.R. Symmons,"L'Echangede lettresde 1990entre 1'Irak
et 1'Iran:un reglement definitifdu differend et du conflit?",(199Annuairefran~ais de droit
international229,244-6.
113 See the following previously cited agreements: Conventionof 20 June 1780 regarding theDoubs
(right for theBishopofBdletofloatwood);Treatyof22 November 1921regarding the Kabul river
(right to navigate andto draw water for domestic and irrigation purposes); Treatyof Erzerum of
19May 1847on the Shatt-el-Arab("fullness ofrightsofnavigation" from the mouthto the pointof
encounterof the boundariesofTurkeyandPersia"); and theAgreementof 1July 191 2 onthe Sierra
Leone boundary referred to inRM, para. 4.127.
114 See, e.g.Article 8 of the Treatyof Cession and Boundaries, 16March 1816,between Switzerland
and Sardinia, which places in the middleoftheBneriver a limit whichhad hitherto followedthe
Swiss bank: see Schroter (1992) 956. Another example cited by Schroter is thecks-verbal of
25 June 1903onthe Boundary Rivers Separating Liberia from SierLeone(Brownlie,383);by the
Convention of 21 January 1911 (ibid386), the boundaries on the three watercourses were moved
from their shores to thealweg. ~nd by the Boundary Treaty of4 July 1937the boundaryon the
Shatt-el-Arabwas transposedfiom the Persian bank to ththalweg.
115 Schroter(2007), 210(citing Ch. Rousseau).
116 Bouchez, 79 1.J-luvialeimpkrialistepar e~cellence")."~ Limits on the shore are not simply
relics of the colonial past, however, since the technique was used by European
nations, notably France and Switzerland.
2.26 In the instant case, political reasons were involved, as were the
circumstancesprevailinginandaround1858.ThetwoStatescouldbeconsidered
as partly dependent on two competing major powers: Nicaragua on the United
States, Costa Rica on the British Empire. It was the wish of these powers to
be able to negotiate and build the planned canal with the permission of one
rather than two "local countries"; and this could be achieved by attributing
the existing waterway to one of them. Some quidpro quo had, however, to -
be offeredto the other - Costa Rica - which was accorded free navigation and
a share in the River's managementand protection; moreover Nicaragua was
obliged at leastto inform and consult CostaRica regarding canal project^"^ - a
duty it neglected when, on 5August 1914, it concluded the Bryan-Chamorro
Treatywith the United States.'19
2.27 The shared interest of Costa Rica and Nicaragua in the building of an
inter-oceaniccanal canbe seen fromother contemporaneousdocuments,which
indicate that the 18'58Treatywas entered into with both States having in mind
that a better arrangement would be put in place once the canal was built, Bn
arrangementforjoint sovereignty in the waters of the River and equal rights of
navigation. It also indicatesthat CostaRica'sperpetual right of freenavigation
was an important factor in the bargain eventually.agreed in the 1858 Treaty
and not, asNicaragua suggests,'20 merely incidentalto the determination of the
boundary. The successful conclusion of the 1858Treaty,which was signed in
San Jose on 15April 1858 with ratifications exchanged in Rivas on 26April
1858, was intimately connected with the canalization Convention between
Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Felix Belly, signed on 1May 1858 in Rivas.I2'
117 Lafrontidr(Paris, Editionsintemationales, 1928), 187.
118 Article VIIIof the Caiias-JerezTreaty:CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7.
119 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 20.
120 SeeNCM, para. 1.2.6.
121 Nicaragua-Costaica-FBelly, Convention relativeto the ConcessionforanInter-oceanic Canalby
the RiverSan Juan and the Lake of Nicaragua, (Mora-Martinez-Belly),Rivas,:CRM,
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 8. Additional articlesare included in CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 12. The
complete Conventionis produced in CRM, Complete Copies ofCertain Annexes,Vol 1,Annex 8.Article 4 of the Nicaragua-Costa Rica-Belly Convention expressly provided
that the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua would be the canal. It
stated:
"Dans le cas ou le trackpartant de l'embouchure dela Sapoa sur le lac de Nicaragua,
et aboutissant a la baie de Salinas sur le Pacifique, serait reconnu praticable par les
ingknieurs,ce trace sera choisi de prefkrencepar la Compagniepour aboutir du lac de
Nicaragua au Pacifique,et par le fait meme, le canal deviendra dans toute sa longueur
lalimitedkfinitivedes tat seNicaragua et de Costa-Rica. Dans lecascontraire,cette
limite restera ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui, saufrkglement~ltkrieur."'~~
Although this Convention never came into force, and the canal has never
materialised, it goes some way to explaining the quid pro quo of the 1858
Treaty and explains that CostaRica7sperpetual right of free navigationwas an
important factorinthe negotiation oftheboundary betweenthetwo States.'23It
also gives an indication of the context and considerations which ledthe parties
to indicatethe boundary on the bankof the River.
2.28 It remains to examine the medium- and long-term consequencesof
drawing internationalriver boundaries onthe shoreof oneofthe riparian States.
As pointed outby Bouchez:
"[tlhe great injustice of this type of boundary in comparison with the first-mentioned
one [theriver as a condominium]is that one of the border States is excluded from the
use andexploitationofthe river;for thisreason, the delimitationof one ofthe banks as
the boundary line for rivers has not often been applied in thisntury."124
2.29 The establishment of a boundary on the shoreline maybe accompanied
by the concession of "compensatory" rights. In the case of non-navigable
watercourses, theymay consistof fishingprivileges, as for instance inArticle8
of the Agreement of 1July 1912on the Boundary between Guinea and Sierra
Leone.125Such rights can also result, as is the case here, from local customs
based on long-established practice.
122 CRR, Annexes,Vol2,Annex 12,Article4. See also Article 25 and discussion inthis Reply, Ap-
pendix, paragraphs A.15-A.22.
123 This is consistent with the accountofFelix Belly,whowas presentfornegotiationsofboth the 1858
Treaty andthecanalization Convention: seeF.Belly,ersL'AmdriqueCentrule:leNicaragua
etle CanalInterocdaniqz, ome Second (Paris: Librairiede la SuisseRomande, 1867), 150-165,
esp. 152-5. Pages 150-165are includedasAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 66. Seefurtherdiscussion
in this Reply,Appendix, paragraphs A.15-A.22.
124 Bouchez, 792.
125 Protocol of 1July 1912 between Great Britain andFrance on the DefinitiveDemarcation of the
Frontier between French Guineaand Sierra Leone.216CTS 217.2.30 The effect of placing an international boundary on the shore of a
navigable river may be particularly dramatic, and it may prove necessary
- unless there is a clear customary rule allowing for free navigationby all
countries, or at least all riparian States to grant the co-riparian a right of free
navigation for ships flying their own flag, especially ifthe watercourse is an
important means of communication, as is the case here. This is even truerif,
as in the present instance, the State on whose shore the boundary is located
participatesinthe protection ofthe River and of itsnavigation. Alargelyformal
right of navigation suchas that advocated by Nicaragua is, in practice,no right
at all. On the contrary, the "perpetual right of free navigation" enjoyed by
Costa Rica must be interpreted so as to be meaningful, and not be appreciated
exclusively by, and in the interests of, the neighbour exercising sovereignty
over the River's waters. This must be accomplishedin a way which renders
the other State's rights effective and allowsitto discharge its obligations:ut res
magis valeatquampereat. The reference to"free" navigation provides support
for this ~0sition.l~~
2.31 Limits on the shore cannot be considered "good" boundaries because
they tend to generate conflictrather thanto promote peaceful coexistence. The
fates of the Shatt-el-Arab and of the Amur River bear out this point. Sooner or
later shorelineborders are apt to be replaced bythalwegormedian lines.'27The
changes in the borders of the two rivers have been describedalready.128
2.32 Despite these drawbacks, Costa Rica, mindful of the importance of
maintaining peacehl relations with all countries, especially its neighbours,
has never sought a revision of the Cafias-JerezTreaty but has limited itself to
asking for what it was entitled to under thatTreaty, nomore and no less. Costa
Rica can make do with the Treaty as it is, provided it is interpreted fairly and
objectively. What it cannot accept is Nicaragua's insistence on being allowed
to give the "perpetual right of free navigation" stipulated bythe Treaty the
meaning that best serves Nicaragua'sown interest, subordinating Costa Rica's
126 Seebelow, paragraphs 3.08-3.35.
127 Seethis Reply, paragraphs4-2.25above.
128 See this Reply,paragraphs 2.25above. right to Nicaragua's sovereigntyover the waters oftheRiver. "Sovereignty" is
not boundless, especiallyif it is limitedby treaty.
2.33 To conclude, since the border on the San Juan is placed on the Costa
Rican shore of the watercourse, the latter is a bounday river. By way of
compensationfor its disadvantagedposition, CostaRica is granted a "perpetual
right of free navigation" on the lower course of the San Juan on the basis of
Article VI of the Cafias-Jerez Treaty. To be of any use to Costa Rica, the
scope of that right must be determined fairly and objectively - as was done
by President Cleveland himself and by the CentralAmerican Court of Justice.
That determination must take account of the handicap suffered by Costa Rica
on account of the boundary's locationon its bank of the River.
(4) The San Juan as an International River
(a) Elements traditionally associated with International Watercourses
2.34 "The San Juan is of course not an international River since it flows
entirelywithinonecountryandbesides issubjecttoa specialTreaty Regime."129
This passage, cited earlier, runs through the Nicaraguan argumentation like a
Leitmotiv. That, on account of the boundary being located on the Costa Rican
bank, the San Juan is a boundary river has alreadybeen demonstrated. But the
proposition that the River is not an international watercourse because it is the
object of a special (international)treaty regime is entirely novel. By the same
token - because they are governed by treaties - the Nile, the Parana and the
Mekong, too, would not be internationalrivers.
2.35 According to Costa Rica,130 three elements are traditionally associated
with the existence of ~nternationalwatercourses: (i) the presence of different
riparians; (ii) the fact that the watercourse, if navigable, offers access to and
from the sea to more than one State; and (iii) the existence of a treaty regime.
2.36 To qualify as an international watercourse, a river does not invariably
havetofulfilallthreeconditions. Butthe SanJuanfulfilsthemall. Itistherefore,
unquestionably,an international as well as a boundary river.
129 NCM, para. 4.1.29.
' 130 CRM,AppendixA,paras.A.8, A.18. (b) Consequences of the San Juan River's characterisation as an
international boundary river
2.37 The characterisation of the San Juan as an international boundary
watercourse entails that the rules of general international law apply to it unless
they are pre-empted by treaty rules or binding decisions (here the Cleveland
Award and the Judgment of the Central American Court of Justice). It also
entails the applicability of the general rules on territorial sovereignty pursuant
to which the respondent State exercises sovereigntyover the waters of the San
Juan, always subjectto its international obligations.
2.38 The Treaty and the pertinent arbitral and judicial rulings must be
appreciated in the light ofthe rules of interpretation laid downby Articles 31
and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.13'
The interpretation of the provisions of the 1858Treatymust take account ofthe
rules ofgeneralinternationallawrelatingtowatercourses andthe circumstances
surrounding that Treaty,including the fact thatthe boundary runs on the Costa
Rican bank. The rules of interpretation in question do not in all respects
correspondto those invokedby Nicaragua in the present controversy.
2.39 This is truefor the assertion thatthe 1858Treaty and theperpetual right
of free navigation stipulated by its Article VI must be interpreted bearing in
mind the "legitimate interests" of Ni~aragua.'~~This argument is premised on
~
the assumptionthat theCaiias-JkrezTreatyemphasises Nicaragua's sovereignty
over the waters ofthe SanJuan, CostaRica's right to navigate being but aminor
i
elementthe definitionandexercise ofwhich mustbe subservient toNicaragua's
I
I sovereignty. This lineofargumentwould reduce CostaRica'sperpetual right of
I freenavigationto littlemorethan anempty shell. Thetruth is,ofcourse,that the
I provisions of the 1858Treatyaretobe interpretedinthe interests not ofonebut
both parties. This is what is meantby "fair" and "objective" interpretation.
(c) Conclusions
2.40 Contrarytothe views ofthe respondent State,theSanJuan isaboundary
river subject to an international treaty regime attributing a "perpetual right of
131 Onthispointcf. alsoNCM,para. 2.1.12.
132 NCM, para.2.1.SO.free navigation" to Costa Rica. Consequently the rules of generalinternational
law apply,especiallythose governingthe interpretationof treaties.
C. TheApplicable Principles of Interpretation
2.41 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua makes a considerable effort to
show that the object andpurpose of the Treatyof Limits "was to settle a long-
standing dispute concerning title to territory".'33 For Nicaragua, "[tlhe main
focuswas thus thedeterminationofboundariesand not the creationof a regime
of fluvialnavigation for the Statesof the region."'34The purpose of this effort
is to minimise the scope of the right of navigation over the San Juan, a right
recognised to Costa Rica at the same time of the grant of sovereigntyover the
River's waters and as a conditionor limitationto that grant of sovereignty.
2.42 This section will rebut the Nicaraguan presentation, as well as its
misuse of the generalprinciples of interpretation. It will show thatNicaragua's
interpretation of the object and purpose of the Treaty of Limits does not
correspond to reality, that the way in which Nicaragua portrays the relevant
rules of interpretation and application of treaties is not accurate and that, even
if Nicaragua's position was correct, the result would be the same, i.e. Article
VI of the Treaty of Limits refers to "purposes of commerce," not "articles of
trade," and the SecondArticleof the Cleveland AwardclearlyrecognisesCosta
Rica's right to navigate with public armed vessels (provided that they are not
vessels of war) for the exercise or the protection of navigation for purposes of
commerce.
(1) All principlesof interpretationconfirmCostaRica'sviews
2.43 Nicaragua refers to the relevance of intertemporal law in the present
case,mixingupthisconceptwiththatofcontemporaryinterpretationoftreaties,
i.e.that atreatymustbe interpretedtakingintoaccount therulesand the context
prevailing at the time ofitsconclusion.135
133 NCM, para.2.1.1.
134 NCM, para. 2.1.9.
135 NCM, para. 2.1.13 2.44 The notion of intertemporal law was authoritatively explained byMax
I
I Huber as sole arbitrator in theIsle ofPalmas case. In the terms of the arbitral
1 award:
"Asregards thequestionwhichofdifferentlegalsystemsprevailinatsuccessiveperiods
is tobeappliedin aparticular case (the so-calledintertemporal wd)i,stinctionmust
bemadebetweenthe creationofrightsandtheexistenceofrights. Thesameprinciple
whichsubjectsthe actcreativeofarightto the lawinforceatthe time therightarises,
demands that the existenceof the right,in otherwordsits.continued manifestation,
shallfollow theconditionsrequireby theevolutionof
2.45 Therelevanceofthe secondruleofthe intertemporal law("the existence
oftheright,inotherwordsitscontinuedmanifestation, shallfollowtheconditions
required by the evolution of law") must be stressed here. There is no doubt
that the"continued manifestation" of the perpetual right of free navigation for
purposes of commerce attributed to Costa Ricain 1858 is in conformity with
the conditions of contemporary internationallaw. This right, conventionally
recognised to Costa Rica in 1858,is not in contradiction with the evolutionof
general international law regarding the right of navigation of riparian States in
international waterways; in addition thissame general international law must
be taken into account when interpretingthe "continued manifestation"of Costa
Rica'sright.
2.46 To the extent of the interpretation of the relevant clause of the Treaty
of Limits through time, Nicaragua admitted that what is "objetosde comercio"
today is included in the rights conferredon Costa Rica by the Treaty ofLimits
in 1858. Certainly,Nicaragua contends that "objetosde comercio" only means
merchandise or goods, but the fact remains that Nicaragua has accepted the
interpretation of this phrase as not being limited to what were "objetos de
comercio" exclusively at'thetime of the conclusion of the Treaty.'37Hence,
the parties agree that all "objetosde comercio" as they exist today, are included
within Costa Rica'sperpetual right of free navigation.
2.47 As a matter of logic as well as law, the same criteria that Nicaragua
applies to Article VI of the Treaty of Limits must be applied to the Second
136 Isle of Palmas Case,ArbitralAwardof 4April 1928,Vol.I1 UNRIAA,p. 845.
137 "It would be unreasonableto seek a limitation to only the products c":CM,ned in 1858.N
para. 4.3.24; see alsoNCM,para..Article of the ClevelandAward. Consequently, what are considered todayas
vessels of the Revenue Service enjoy thesameright as it was recognised by the
interpretation givenby President Clevelandto the Treaty of Limits in 1888.
2.48 Formally, Nicaragua acknowledges that the provisionsof Article.31of
the Vienna Convention ofthe Law of Treaties reflect customary international
law andmustbe appliedin thepresent case.138 However, someparagraphs later,
Nicaragua tries tofocus on the need to "discover the thoughts ofthe author" in
ordertointerpretpurported "obscurepassages"oftreaties.'39Clearly,Nicaragua
is inviting the Courtto depart fromthe main means of interpretation depictedin
the firstparagraph of thatArticle:"A treaty shallbe interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in
their context andin the lightof its object and purpose."
2.49 The extraordinary emphasis put by Nicaragua on what is considered
as "supplementary means of interpretation" in Article 32 of the Vienna
Conventionof the Law of Treaties,as though they were ratherthe main means
of interpretation, indicates-thatNicaragua is well aware that the generalrule of
interpretation containedinArticle 31inexorably leads tothe recognition of the
Costa Rican rights that are being violated by Nicaragua. Furthermore,as will
be demonstratedbelow,the application ofArticle 32 confirmsthe interpretation
given to the Treaty of Limitsby Co'sta Rica.
2.50 The firstprinciple of interpretation is that of good faith. In viewof the
fact that Nicaragua itself explicitly interpreted for more than a century "con
objetos de comercio" as meaning "for purposes of commerce", it is clear that
pretending today, asNicaragua does,that the phrase refers onlyto the transport
of merchandise does not correspond to a good faith interpretation.
2.5 1 Secondly, the interpretation must correspondto the ordinary meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of the
treaty's object and purpose. As this Court stated even before the adoptionof
138 NCM, para. 2.1.12, .
139 See thequotations at NCM, paras. 2.1.2.1.17.the 1969 ViennaConvention,"thewords aretobe interpretedaccordingto their
natural and ordinarymeaning in the context in which they occur."140
2.52 The ordinary meaning of the phrase "con objetos de comercio" in its
context (both "internal" and "external") is the one the parties have explicitly
admitted for more than a century: "for purposes of commerce." Nicaragua's
interpretation of this phrase as meaning "with articles of trade" does not
correspond to the ordinary way to refer to merchandise. The internal context
(other articles of the same treaty) indisputably shows that "objetos" was used
as "purposes".141 So does the external context, i.e. other relevant treaties
concluded by the parties referring to Costa Rica's navigation, such as the
TreatiesconcludedbyNicaragua with the United Statesin 1857,with France in
1859and with Great Britain in 1860,all of them clearly stipulating that Costa
Rica's Governmentandcitizens enjoyfreepassagethroughthe SanJuan,which
passage included both "persons and property", not exclusively "articles of
trade."142
2.53 Nicaraguapresents the severaldiplomaticattemptsto settlethe disputes
between the two countries after 1821 as being travaux prkparatoires of the
Treaty of Limits of 1858.143Some of these attempts ended up in the signature
of treaties, although they were not ratifiedand consequently never entered into
force.144But they arenot travauxprkparatoires. In any event, contraryto what
Nicaragua now claims, the previous unratified treaties and other diplomatic
exchanges do not support an interpretation of the phrase "con objetos de
comercio" as meaning exclusivelytransport of goods or as excluding transport
of passengers, as will be shown below.
140 Case Concerning the Temple of PreVihear(Cambodiav Thailand), PreliminaryObjections,
Judgmentof26 May 1961,ICJ Reports 1961p. 17atp.32.
141 SeeArticleVIII of the Treatyof Limits: CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7.
142 United States-Nicaragua Treatyof Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Cass-Irisani), 16No-
vember 1857,ArticleXX(CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 10);France-Nicaragua Treaty of Friend-
ship, CommerceandNavigation (Sartiges-Maximo Jerez),11April 1859,Article (CRR,
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 14);Great Britain-Nicaragua, TreatyofFriendship,CommerceandNaviga-
tion (Lennox Wyke-Zeledon),February 1860,Article XXVI(CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 15).
143 NCM, para.1.3.1.
144 Wrongly, Nicaragua affirmed that "None [ofthese treaties] were valid' (emphasis added, NCM,
para. 1.3.1).2.54 This may be illustrated by the reliance placed by Nicaragua on Article
V of the Cafias-JuarezTreatyof 6 July 1 857145whichpreceded the 1858Caiias-
Jerez Treaty and was not ratified by Costa Ri~a.'~~The 1857 Treaty referred
to "articulos de comercio", whereas Article VI of the 1858 Treaty uses the
expression "objetos de comercio". To Nicaragua this supports the thesis that
"objetos", liketheterm"articulos" used in 1857,refersto "commodities" rather
than "p~rposes".'~~This can be turned around to establish the exact opposite:
"articulos" was replaced by "objetos" because Costa Rica, dissatisfied with a
narrowright inmattersoftrade,insistedonthebroaderterm. Thisdemonstrates
that reliance onthe text ofprior andunratifiedtreaties ishazardous. If anything
can be said at all, it is that if one party fails to ratify a treaty,one may presume
that it was dissatisfiedand wanted a new text having a meaning different from
that of the previous unratified one. Moreover,Article V of the Treaty of 1857
contained both a reference to navigation (without any particular qualification)
and areferencetotransportof"articulos decomercio." Thisdistinctionbetween
navigation and transport of "articulos de comercio" showsthat navigation was
not confined to the transport of commodities; rather Costa Rica had a general
right of navigationplus the right to transport articles of trade. This invalidates
Nicaragua equation of transport of "articulos de comercio" (1857) with
navigation "con objetos de comercio" (1858).
2.55 Subsequent practice and agreements between the parties also confirm
that the phrase "con objetos de comercio" means "for purposes of commerce".
During the arbitral proceedings leading to the Cleveland Award, there was
agreementbythepartiesintranslatingthatphraseas"forpurposesofcommerce".
This amountsto a subsequentagreementwithinthe meaning ofArticle 31(3)(a)
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As recalled in this Reply,
the transport of persons, mail and goods in general from the Atlantic to the
interior of CostaRica during the period largelyused the San Juan.148The 1956
Agreement, while referring to the facilitation and expedition of traffic in the
San Juan, also confirmsthe natural interpretation ofArticle VI of the Treaty of
Limits as being "for the purposes of commerce".
145 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 5.
146 NCM, para. 4.3.9.
147 NCM, para.4.3.19.
148 CRM,paras. 4.58-4.72; see also this Reply,paragraphs 3.76-3.78.2.56 Takentogether,theprinciple ofgoodfaithinterpretation,the antecedents
of the 1858Treatyof Limits and subsequentpractice allshowthat "con objetos
de comercio" must be interpreted as "for purposes of commerce" and hence
cannot be read as being confined to navigation "with articles of trade." As
will be seenbelow,the ordinary meaning ofthe relevant words in their context
yields thisre~u1t.l~~
(2) Nicaragua's focus on sovereignty and its invocation of a restrictive '
interpretationof the right of free navigation
2.57 Nicaragua acknowledges that Costa Rica's rightof free navigation is a
qualification of Nicaragua's"dominio y sumo imperio" over the waters of the
San Juan River.lsoNicaragua states:
"Therightoffreenavigation appeara ssaqualiJicationof thesovereigntyofNicaragua
andis introducedby theterm 'pero' (but).Thusa particular rightof CostaRicais
presentedasaqualification ofthe general granotfrights (inthe formoftitle (dominio)
andsovereignty('sumo imperio't)o Nicarag~a."'~( 'Emphasis added.)
2.58 This admission is revealing, since it confirms that it is Nicaragua's
"dominio y sumo imperio" which is limited by Costa Rica's perpetual right
of free navigation, and not the opposite, as Nicaragua later attempts to argue
by claiming a regulatory power over Costa Rican navigationon the San Juan
River. Nicaragua tries to justify such purported regulatory powersover Costa
Rican navigation by reference to (a) political and legal considerations and (b)
safety of navigation.Is2 None of these arguments, however, follow from the
1858Treatyof Limits or the ClevelandAwardthat interprets it. As Nicaragua
acknowledges, the rights and obligationsof the parties in the present case are
governed, first and foremost, by the 1858 Treaty ofLimits.153
2.59 Nicaragua argues that since the perpetual right of free navigation for
purposes of commerce is a limitation tothe sovereignty of Nicaragua over the
waters ofthe SanJuan,the CostaRican right mustbe interpreted restrictively.Is4
149 ThisReply,paragraphs3.39-3.78.
150 SeeNCM,para. 2.1.48.
151 NCM, para.2.1.48.
152 NCM, para.2.1.50.
153 SeeNCM, para.3.1.1.
154 See,for example, NCM, para. 2.1.51.But such a "restrictive interpretation" does not correspond to any existing rule
of treaty interpretation. Case-law cited by Nicaragua itself insists that a so-
called restrictive interpretation can only be invoked in cases of doubt. There
is no such doubt here. Since Nicaragua produced accommodating truncated
quotations, it is worth recalling them in full.
2.60 Nicaragua cites The Wimbledon but unavailingly. For the Permanent
Court:
"Whether theGerman Government isbound by virtue of a servitude or by virtue of a
contractual obligation undertakentowards the Powers entitledto benefit by theterms
of the Treaty of Versailles,to allow free access to the Kiel Canal in time of war as
in time of peace to the vessels of all nations,efact remains that Germany has to
submit to an important limitation of the exercise of the sovereign rights which no
one disputes thatshepossesses over the Kiel Canal. This fact constitutes a sufficient
reason for restrictive interpretation, in caseof doubt, of the clause which produces
such a-limitation. Butthe Courtfeels obliged to stop at thepoint wherethe so-called
restrictiveinterpretationwould becontrary to theplain terms of the article and would
destroy what has been clearlygranted."'55(Emphasis added. Nicaragua omitted the
finalsentenceof this quotation.)
2.61 In thepresent caseNicaragua presents itself as in a situationakin to that
of Germany in the Wimbledon case. No one disputes its sovereignty over the
waters of the SanJuan. But the factremains thatNicaragua agreedto submitto
an importantlimitationofthe exercise of its sovereignrights over those waters.
The "so-called restrictiveinterpretation" (as the Permanent Courtreferred to it)
Nicaragua invokestoday is "contrary tothe plain terms of the article [VIof the
Treaty of Limits] and would destroy what has been clearly granted" to Costa
Rica by it as a condition on and concomitantlyto the attribution ofNicaragua's
sovereigntyover the River.
2.62 Nicaragua's positionon"restrictiveinterpretation"canalsobecompared
to that adopted by Turkeyin the Mosul case:
"This argument[oftheTurkishGovernment]appearstorestonthe followingprinciple:
ifthe wordingof a treaty provisionisnot clear,inchoosingbetween several admissible
interpretations, the one which involves the minimum of obligations for the Parties
should be adopted. This principle maybe admitted to be sound. In the present case,
155 The S.S. "Wimbledon",PCIJReports, SeriesANo. 1, 17August 1923,pp. 24-25, partially quoted
in NCM, para. 3.3.8.however, the ar-ument is valueless, because,in the Court's opinion, the wording of
Article 3 is clear."156
2.63 The situation depicted by the Permanent Court in the Mosul case is
transposable here. The argument of the restrictive interpretationof the rights
and obligationsofthe parties has no value, becausethe wording ofArticle VI of
the Treaty of Limits is clear: it attributesto Costa Rica a perpetual right to free
navigation forpurposes of commerce.
2.64 The Permanent Court also shed light on the issue of "restrictive
interpretatiori" in the River Oder case in a manner relevant to the present
dispute:
"Nor can the Court, on the other hand, accept the Polish Government's contention
that, the text being doubtful, the solution shouldbe adopted'which imposes the least
restriction on the freedom of States. This argument,though sound in itself, must be
employed only with the greatest caution. To rely upon it, it is not sufficient that the
purely grammatical analysisof a text should not leadto definiteresults; thereare many
other methodsof interpretation,inparticular, reference isproperlyadto theprinciples
underlying themattertowhichthetextrefers;itwillbeonlywhen, inspiteofallpertinent
considerations, the intentionof the Parties still remains doubtful, that interpretation
should be adoptedwhich is mostfavourableto the freedom of state^."'^^
2.65 Hencethe"so-calledrestrictiveinterpretation",assumingsuchaprinciple
to exist, would only be applied if "in spite of all pertinent considerations",
i.e. the application of the other relevant methods of interpretation depicted in
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention of 1969, the result would still
remain doubtful. Nicaragua has not demonstrated that this isthe case.
2.66 In truth, there'is no room for any principl ef restrictive interpretation:
the issue is one of context. The present Court has clearly indicatedthe way
in which a word must be interpreted either'in a wide of in a restrictive way,
by stating that "[tlhe word obtains its meaning from the context in which is
used. If the context requires a meaning which connotes a wide choice, itmust
be construed accordingly,just as it must be given a restrictive meaning if the
InterpretationofArticle 3,Paragraph 2, of the Treatyoflausanne, PCIJ Reports, SeriesB No. 12,
156 21November 1925,p. 25.'
157 Case Relating to the TerritorialJurisdiction of the International Commissionof the River Oder,
PCIJ Reports, SeriesAN23,10September 1929,p. 26.context inwhich it isusedsorequires."158Inthepresent case,the contextpleads
for an interpretation giving effect to the ordinary meaning of"con objetos de
comercio", that is an interpretation including transport of both persons and
goods.
(3) CostaRica's right of navigationon the San Juan was simultaneous
with the establishmentof Nicaraguan sovereigntyover the waters of the
River
2.67 Nicaragua's attempttopresent itselfastheloserinthebargaining leading
to the Treaty of Limits of 1858has no historical basis. Its presentation of the
quidpro quo leading to the 1858Treatyunjustifiablyminimizes the importance
of Costa Rica's perpetual rightof free navigation, as explained intheAppendix
to thisReply.159Despite the fact that Nicaragua attached importance toRives'
Report, it ignores the fact that Rives himself declaredinthat Report:
"thatCostaRicahad for nearlythe same periodof twentyyearslaid claimto more
territorythansheobtainedunder the Treaty oL fimits, fully appearsrom herdecree
of 'BasisandGuaranties'ofthe 8"March,1841 - whichasserts as the boundarieo sf
Costa Rica the linoefthe RiverLaFlor, theshoreof LakeNicaragua,andthe River
SanJuan."160
2.68 Nicaragua mentions previous bilateral treaties signed in orderto settle
unresolved questions but never ratified. These unratifiedtreaties are partof the
historyleadingtothe conclusionoftheTreatyofLimitsin 1858,butNicaragua's
presentation of them is misleading. Nicaragua mentions the Marcoleta-Molina
Treaty of 1854, which "clearly recognizes that the River San Juan is entirely
within Nicaragua."I6' But that Treaty contained a provisionstating that "both
parties agree that the bordershould be" the San Juan. This is no way to declare
a purported pre-existing sovereignty over the River,as Nicaragua claims. The
Treaty contained another provisionby which "Costa Rican citizens shall have
the power to freelycomeinand outthroughtheport ofSanJuanwith theirships
and goods and navigate, exceptby steamboat, on the river bearing the same
158 Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committeeof the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization,visoiy Opinion,I.C.J.Reports 1960,p.p.158.
159 Seediscussion above, this Reply, pa2.27 andbelow,Appendix, paragraphs A.15-A.22
160 NCM,Vol 11,Annex 70; alsoseeNCM,para. 2.1.24.
161 NCM,para. 2.1.27.name.. .""j2Clearly,the 1854 Treatyacknowledgedaright ofnavigation on the
SanJuan includingboth personsand goods: Nicaragua failsto mention it. The
unratified Marcoleta-Molina Treaty is consistent with Costa Rica's claim that
the quidpro quo of the 1858Treaty balanced Nicaragua's sovereigntyin the
waters of the River against CostaRica'sperpetual right of free na~igati0n.l~~
2.69 The present case isnot one in which one or more riparian States decide
to set up a particular fluvial regime, granting rights to other riparians or even
to non-riparians. On the contrary, this case concerns a treaty which settled a
dispute with regard to sovereignty over the frontier areas of both countries,
including overthe SanJuan River, recognising the sovereignty overthe waters
and onebankto oneof the riparian States,and granting aperpetual rightof free
navigation forpurposesof commerceto the other. One attribution (Nicaraguan
sovereignty) is inseparable from the other (Costa Rican navigation): the
conditionforthe acceptanceofthe firstwas the acceptanceby the otherparty of
the second.
2.70 Nicaragua'spicture of a sovereign State granting a limited right to its
neighbour is contradictedby the clear wording of Article VI of the Treaty of
Limits, which uses the future form of the verbs dealing both with sovereignty
and navigation:
"TheRepublicofNicaragua shallhave[tendra] exclusively thedominionandsovereign
jurisdictionoverthewatersoftheSanJuanriverfromitsoriginintheLake toitsmouth
intheAtlantic;but theRepublicof Costa Rica shall have [tendra]theperpetual rightof
freenavigation onthesaidwaters,between the said mouth and tp heint, three English
milesdistantfromCastillo Viejo,said navigation beingforthepurposesofcommerce
eitherwith Nicaragua orwith theinterior ofCosta Rica,throughtheSanCarlos river,
the Sarapiqui,or anyotherwayproceeding fiomtheportionof the bank of the San
Juanriver, whichis herebydeclaredto belongto Costa Rica. Thevesselsof both
countriesshall have the power to landindiscriminatelyoneither sideofthe riverat the
portion thereof where th navigationiscommon; and no chargesof anykind,orduties,
shall be collected unlesswhen leviedby mutualconsentof both government^."'^^
(Emphasisadded.)
2.71 Nicaragua's insistenceon the Treaty as being one "of Limits" adds
nothing to the interpretation of Article VI. The fact that a boundary treaty
~ -
162 Article 4 of the 1854Treaty: seeNCM,Vol11,Annex4.
163 Seediscussionabove,paragraph2.27 and below,Appendix,paragraphsA.15-A.22.
164 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7(b).also contains a particular territorial regime, in this case with regard to fluvial
navigation, is normal and in no way means that preference must be given to
one interpretation or another. The Kasikili/SeduduIsland case is illustrative.
While discussing"to what extentthe object andpurposeofthe treaty can clarify
the meaning to be givento its terms", the Court noted that theTreaty,although
delimiting spheres of influence, was consideredby the parties as determining
the boundary between them:"The Court notes that navigation appearsto have
been a factor in the choiceof the contracting powers in delimiting their spheres
of influence."165The point here is notto compare the situation inAfrica andin
CentralAmerica inthe 19thcentury,nor to distinguish between delimitationsof
colonies by European countries and delimitations of territories madeby newly
independent States such as Costa Rica and Ni~aragua.'~~ What is relevant here
is the fact that navigation is an important element of delimitation when the
delimitation concerns navigational waterways.
2.72 Moreover, Nicaragua completely overlooks the fact thatthe San Juan
delNorte Bay is, accordingtoArticle IVofthe TreatyofLimits, acommonbay,
that isto say,acondominium - orrather acoimperi~rn'~ -~andthatthe SanJuan
River isthe only means of accessto itby Costa Rica. This element ispartofthe
internal context that must be taken into consideration when interpretingArticle
VI with regard tothe scope of Costa Rica'snavigationalrights."j8
2.73 . TheconcomitantgrantingofbothNicaraguan sovereigntyoverthewaters
and Costa Rica's rightof navigation in the area where Costa Rica is riparian,
as well as the internal context ofthe Treaty of Limits, preclude Nicaragua from
privileging its own sovereignty to the detriment of Costa Rican rights.
165 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Narnibia),Judgment, ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1045, at p. 1073
(para.44).
166 Cf. NCM,para. 5.1.9.
167 Cf. Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime FrontierDispute (ElSalvador/Honduras:Ni-
caragua intervening),JReports 1992,p. 351, at pp. 597-598(para.399).
168 San Juanel Norte Bay is shown in CRM, Sketch Map 5, after p. 8. D. Conclusions
For these reasons, it maybe concluded that:
The San Juan is a boundary river governed by an international treaty
regime attributing to Costa Rica a perpetual right of free navigation for
purposes of commerce.
Nicaraguan sovereignty over the watersof the River is limited by that
treaty regime. /
Nicaragua's entire case rests upon its novel interpretationof the phrase
"con objetos de comercio" in Article VI of the 1858 Treaty of Limits
as meaning "with articles of trade." If this interpretation is wrong, as
indeed it is, the entire Nicaraguan case fails.
Theparties agreethat whatare "objetos de comercio"todayare included
within Costa Rica'sperpetual right of free navigation.
The same criterionapplies to the SecondArticleofthe ClevelandAward
of 1888:what mustbe considered asvessels performing revenue service
activities today are entitledto navigate the San Juan as established by
thatAward.
Nicaragua's sovereignty over the waters of the San Juan cannot be
used to restrict or limit the scope and exercise ofthe perpetual right of
free navigation recognised by the Treatyof Limits at the same time as
sovereignty overthe river was granted to Nicaragua.
In the interpretation of the relevant articles whichare at the core of the
present case, there is no basis for departing froni.the\customary rules
of the interpretation of treaties,as codified in Articles 31 and 32of the
ViennaConventionon the Law of Treaties. Chapter3
The Scope of CostaRica's Substantive Rights
A. Introduction
3.01 Nicaragua accuses Costa Rica of coming to the Court "seeking to obtain
by adjudicationwhat she has been unable to achieve through negotiations, that
is, a revision of the 1858Cafias-JerezTreaty and of the ClevelandAward.169
This is not the case. Costa Rica is simply seeking strict respect forits rights
as establishedby the 1858Treaty and declaredby the ClevelandAward. It has
never sought, nor even suggested, the revisionof the Treaty of Limits or the
Cleveland Award through negotiation. Quite the contrary: it was Nicaragua
who firstchallengedthe validity ofthe Treatyandthen tried to modifyits scope,
either through the adoption of anew treaty or by way of its breaches based on
fanciful interpretations.
3.02 A key element for the settlement of the present dispute is the scope of
the expression "con objetos de comercio" embodied inArticle VI ofthe Treaty
ofLimits. In itsMemorial, CostaRica demonstratedthat this expression means
"for purposes of commerce".170In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua persistsin
its novel interpretation of this formulaas encompassing navigation only "with
articles of trade", a view advanced for the first time in 1994 and contradicted
by Nicaragua's own previous translations, interpretations, understanding and
practice - as well as by the ordinary meaning ofthe phrase in its context.17'
3.03 Asecond crucial element forthis dispute isthe scopeofthe navigational
rights recognised to Costa Rica by the ClevelandAward in its SecondArticle,
interpreting Article VI of the Treaty of Limits. TheAward recognises the
right to navigate with revenue service vessels - i.e. public armed vessels other
than warships - navigating in connection with the enjoyment of purposesof
commerce and as necessary for the protection ofthe exercise of that right of
navigation. In its Memorial, Costa Rica also demonstrated that this right was
169 NCM, para.4.1.4.
170 CRM,paras.4.17-4.72.
171 See CRM,para. 3.17. Seealso above,paragraphs1.14.-exercisedby public vessels - and that its exercise isnow wrongfully prevented
by Ni~aragua."~ Contrary to the unequivocal text of the ClevelandAwardand
to what Nicaragua itself contended inthe arbitration proceedings, Nicaragua
pretends today that President Cleveland recognised navigation by vesselsof
the Costa Rican revenue service only in conjunction with navigation "with
articles of trade", the right in question not involving, in any event, "armed
navigation". 173
3.04 The present Chapter will focus on the extent of Costa Rica's rights
under the applicable law, rebutting Nicaragua's interpretation ofthose rights.
The following sections deal specifically with the scopeof the perpetual right
of fiee navigation (SectionB), the key issue of the interpretation of the phrase
"con objetos de comercio" (SectionC) and the rights of navigation related
to protection, custody and defence stemming from the Treaty of Limitsas
recognised by the ClevelandAward (Section D). Section E analyses Costa
Rica's related rights, showing that the Nicaraguan requirementof flags for
navigation, the denial to the residents ofthe Costa Rican bank of a customary
right to fish for subsistence purposes, as well as denial of the right to land
on the Nicaraguan bank where navigation is common,are unfounded; it also
deals with the existenceof an autonomous obligationto expedite and facilitate
traffic in the San Juan, as established by the 1956Agreement andnow denied
by Nicaragua. The Chapter ends with a rebuttal of the Nicaraguan argument
of a purported "border courtesy" practice (SectionF). Conclusions are drawn
in SectionG. Twotables are appendedto this Chapter which show thatCosta
Rica's interpretation ofthe relevant instrument is correct: atable withthe use of
the term "objetos" as meaning "purposes" in 19thcentury documents (Table 1)
andatable oftermsusedtoreferto"articles oftrade"in 19thcentury documents
(Table2).
B. APerpetual Rightof Free Navigation
3.05 In its Memorial, CostaRica asserted that "[tlhe adjective 'free'implies
that navigati. . i.e. movement of persons or goods along.the River, shall be
172 CRM,paras. 4.73-4.96. See also CRM,paras. 5.109-5.136and CRM,Appendix B.
173 NCM,sections3.1. an4.2.unqualified and un~onditional."'~~ A subsection of Nicaragua's Counter-
Memorial is entitled "A right of free navigation, yes, but with articles of
trade".175Nicaragua's purpose is to present CostaRica's rightsas "a narrowly-
defined right of navigation by Costa Rica with articles of trade."176Again
notwithstandingthe term or the matter under discussion, in this particular case
theterm "free", Nicaragua's entirecaserests upon itsnovel interpretationofthe
phrase "con objetos de comercio" as meaning "with articles of trade".
3.06 This Section will rebut Nicaragua's narrow interpretation of what is
clearly establishedby treaty as aperpetual right offree navigation. Section C
addressesthe meaning and scope of "objetos de comercio".
(I) costa Rica'sright isperpetual
3.07 InitsMemorial,CostaRicashowedthattheadjective"perpetual" refers
to the temporal dimension of its right of navigation and entails a permanent,
continuous, uninterrupted and enduring right.177 Nicaragua's Counter-
Memorial does not respond to this analysis. Nicaragua's silence suggests
that it accepts the scope given to the term by Costa Rica. Indeed, the only
occasionwhereNicaragua refers to the term "perpetual" is in'thecontext of its
analysisoftheunratified 1857Caiias-JuarezTreaty,when itstates - incorrectly
- that this Treaty"was a reaffirmationthat CostaRica accepted to be excluded
perpetually, fromthe right to transport passengers" (emphasis added).'78
Costa Rica's perpetual rightof navigationisfree
(2).
3.08 Nicaragua does not challenge the definitions of "free" given in Costa
Rica's Memorial and the fact that "any limitation imposed upon navigation
that by right is 'free' constitutes a denial of that What Nicaragua
arguesisthatthis shouldonlybe true with regardto navigationwith "articles of
trade". lgO
-- -
174 CRM, para. 4.08.
175 NCM, sub-sectionof section 4.1, paras. 4.1.8-4.1.15.
176 NCM, para. 4.1.5, a).
177 CRM,para. 4.07.
178 NCM, para. 1.2.40.
179 CRM,para. 4.08;NCM, para. 4.1.10.
180 NCM, para.4.1.10.3.09 In the course of its argument, quoting out of context a decision of the
CostaRican SupremeCourtrelating to the meaning of "freedom of commerce"
in the Constitution, Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial argues that "the word
'free' does not necessarily connotean absolute and unrestricted right."181The
comparison is futile: the Supreme Court was analysing the right of individuals
to freedom oftrade and notCosta Rica'sright to freenavigationpursuant to the
1858Treaty and other relevant decisions and instruments. Any constitutional
right conferred on an individual is exercised within the realm of internal law
and is subject to any limitations and regulations stipulated by that law. Costa
Rica's rightof freenavigation is exercised on the basis of international law and
does not permit Nicaragua to establish any kind of "limitation or regulation"
on Costa Rica7sright, particularly in a context where Costa Rica7sright of free
navigation is a condition for Nicaraguan sovereignty over the waters of the
River.ls2Thesituationisverydifferentfromthatofaconstitutionalrightgranted
to an individual,which is inevitably subject to limitation and regulation, as the
Costa Rican Supreme Court stated.lg3In the context of the present case, there
aretwo simultaneousrightsorcompetenceswhoseholdersareboth independent
States. To use Nicaraguan own words, sovereignty is not "absolute" in this
context - it is "subject tolimitations" established by treaty: the perpetual right
of freedom of navigationby Costa Rica for purposes of commerce.
3.10 Nicaragua makes great efforts to deny the relevance of the concept of
"freedom of navigation" as discussed by the Permanent Court in the Oscar
Chinn case, and the treatment of the same concept in the ILA'sHelsinki Rules
onthe Uses ofthe WatersofInternational Rivers.ls4This is again areplay of its
argumentthat the only kind of navigation recognised by the Treaty of Limits is
navigation"witharticlesof trade".la5Thedefinitionsof"freedomofnavigation"
in Oscar Chinnand the Helsinki Rules are, accordingto Nicaragua, "subject to
derogation by a lexspecialis, in this case, the 1858Treaty".lS6The fact is that
instrumentsand case law describingwhat is "freedom ofnavigation" according
181 NCM, fn 271,referringto NCM, V11Annex 64.
182 Seeabove,paragraphs 2.67.2.73.
183 NCM,Vol 11Annex64.
184 NCM,paras.4.1.11,4.1.15.
185 "Costa Ricaenjoysthe rightsof 'freenavigation' identified, but only atsoboatscarryingarticlesof
trade": NCM, para.1.12.
186 NCM,para. 4.1.12.to general international law can provide a useful tool for the interpretation of
the terms "free" and "navigation" usedinArticle VI.
3.11 Nicaragua accepts that Costa Rica's right of navigation is "unqualified
andunconditional" to the full extent ofthat rightasestablished inArticle VI: on
itsownnovel interpretationasnavigationwith "articles oftrade". Itisimportant
to emphasise that Nicaragua accepts that Costa Rica has freedom of navigation
to the full extent of that right what it disputes is only the scopeof the phrase
"objetos de corner~io".'~~
3.12 Despite this acceptance, ~icara~ua's Counter-Memorial requests a
declarationby the Court that Costa Rica hasto comply with the regulations for
navigation,topay any"special services"providedbyNicaragua onthe SanJuan
and to comply with "all reasonable charges for modern improvements in the
navigation of the river with respectto its situation in 158."ls8In this instance,
Nicaragua does not even make its classical distinctionof navigation of vessels
carrying "articles oftrade" and other kinds of navigation. In Nicaragua'sview,
all these requirements are compatible with a right of navigation that is"free"
and "perpetual". As has been shown and is also developed inChapter 4, which
addresses Nicaragua's breaches, this claim has no foundation.ls9
3.13 Onthebasis ofitssovereigntyoverthewaters ofthe SanJuan,Nicaragua
claims that it is permitted to regulate navigationon the River; including Costa
Rican navigation in accordance with Article VI of the Treaty of Limits.
Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial argues: "Nicaragua must have the power to
regulate Costa Rican traffic for the purpose of ensuring thatthe conditions of
the right of navigation laid down in the Treaty are being observed."'90
3.14 ButNicaragua hasnoright to interferewith Costa Rica's perpetual right
of free navigation and in practice its attempt to impose regulations on Costa
Rican navigation amounts to an effective denialof Costa Rica's right. This
right asgranted isnot subjecttoanyother condition than the geographical scope
187 ThisReply,paragraphs 2.43-2.56; see also paragraphs8.
188 NCM, para. 7.2.6.
189 ThisReply,paragraphs4.05-4.49.
190 NCM,para. 2.1.52. specifiedin Article VI of the Treaty of Liniits, which is not disputed by either
party.
3.15 International practice and .case law abundantly demonstrate the
impermissibilityofderogationofrightsstemmingfromtreatiesthroughnational
legislation. As acknowledged by the Permanent Court, a national regulation
which is intended to be applied on an equal basis to all persons concerned
cannot derogate fromparticular rights recognised at the international level to a
particular cornm~nity.'~~
3.16 EvenNicaragua's quotationoftheGeneralClaimsCommissiondecision
in JamesH. McMahon (U.S.A.)v.UnitedMexicanStates,which contains some
debatable assertions as to the state of general international law, affirms what
Nicaragua seemsto deny today:
"What extension'thisrightofexerciseofthe policepowermayhave,asconfrontedwith
the principle of free navigation, is a matterasyet not definedbytheory orprecedent. It
isreasonabletothink, however, that the rightof localjurisdiction shall notbe exercised
in such a manneras to render nugatory the innocentpassage through the watersof the
river, particularly ifit be established byeaty."'92
3.17 NicaraguaalsoreferredtotheAwardoftheTribunal ofArbitration inthe
Questionrelating to the North Atlantic Coast Fisheriesof 7 September 1910.
However, its reference to thisAward is not clear.lg3Again it is worth quoting
the relevant paragraph of this arbitral award in its entirety:
"The exercise of that right by Great Britainis, however, limited bythe said Treaty
in respect of the said liberties therein granted to the inhabitants of theUnited States
in that such regulations must be made bonafide and must not be in violation of the
said Treaty. Regulations which are (1)appropriateor necessary for the protection and
preservation of suchfisheries,or (2) desirable or necessary on grounds ofpublic order
and morals without unnecessarily interfering with the fishery itself,nd in both cases
equitable and fair as between localand ~merican fishermen, and notso framed as to
give unfairly an advantage to theformer over the latterclass, are not inconsistentwith
the obligation to execute the Treatyin good faith, are therefore reasonableand not in
violation of theTreaty."'94(Emphasis added.)
191 See.Minority Schools in Albania, Advisoiy Opinion of 6 April 1935, PCIJ Reports, SeriesA/B
No. 64, p.3.
192 NCM, para. 2.1.60.
. . 193 NCM,para. 2.1.63.
194 Award of the Tribunalof Arbitration in Question Relating to the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries,
The Hague,7 September 1910,11UNRIAA 172, 189.3.18 ThisAwardcarefullyinsistsontheneednottoviolatetherightsofprivate
citizens establishedby the relevant treaty. But there are important differences ,
between the situation dealt with in the 1910Arbitral Award and the present
case. First, in the present case what is at stake is right vecognisedto a State,
since the holder of the perpetual right of free navigation is Costa Rica itself.
Second,in the 1910ArbitralAwardthe object of the dispute was fisheries,thus
it involved a limited resource subject to exhaustion. In the present case, what
is at stake is navigation, an activity which is not destructive of any natural
resource. No regulation is necessary with regard to Costa Rica's rightof free
navigation.
3.19 The 1858 Treaty of ~imits does not establish any limitations on the
exercise of Costa Rica's rights, nor was it stipulated that Nicaragua would
exercise jurisdictional powers over Costa Rican navigation. The Cleveland
Award confirmed the point that any powers of jurisdiction over Costa Rican
navigationwouldbeexercisedbyCostaRica,byexpresslyprovidingthatArticle
VI of the Treaty of Limits permitted vessels of the revenue service to protect
Costa Rica's enjoyment of its right of navigation for purposesof commerce.lg5
PresidentClevelandclearlyunderstoodthatthe objectandpurpose ofthe Treaty
was that Nicaragua would be entitled to the waters of the River,but CostaRica
would have an autonomous,undisturbed, perpetual right of free navigation on
the River, a right that Nicaragua could not interfere with. This view was also
endorsedby the 1916Judgment of the CentralAmerican Court of Justice. 196
3.20 Nicaragua's currentpositionisevenmoreremarkablewhenitiscompared
with its own assertions presented to President Cleveland in its pleadings. In
particular when referring to Point Eight of Nicaragua's "Points of Doubtful
Interpretation", Nicaragua then acknowledged the character and scope of the
Costa Rican rights. When Nicaragua presented the reasons why Costa Rica
shouldnot be allowedto navigate with vessels of war or the revenue service, it
statedthat:
"The navigation of a riverfor commercialpurposes does not draw with it the menace
that the appearanceon its waters of vessels of war must necessarily imply. Whatneed
has Costa Rica of war vessels in the light of Article of the Treaty? Even Ifwar
195 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16.
196 CRM,~nnexes,Vol2, Annex21; see also below,paragraphs3.33-3.34.isflagrant, her commerce an this river could not be interfered (Emphasis
added.)
3.21 Nicaragua further stated:
"Itis claimed such navigationn ieeded toprotectcommerce. Againsw t hom issuch
protectionneeded? Certainly not against Nicaragua,for that cannot be interfered
with, even in'caseof actualostilitie~."~E~mphasisadded.)
3.22 President Cleveland held that while Costa Rica could not navigate the
Riverwithwar vessels,whichit has now notpossessedformanydecades,itwas
entitled to navigate with vessels of the revenue service, since it was clear that
CostaRican navigation on the River needed to be supervised; such supervision
would be exercisedby CostaRica alone, and not by Nicaragua.
3.23 Asisthe casewithNicaragua's otherargumentsintheseproceedings, no
evidence has been produced by Nicaragua demonstratinghow and when, after
the 1858Treaty of Limits came into force, it exercised regulatory powers with
respect to Costa Rican navigation. Nicaragua has only relied on the breaches
it has committed after the dispute erupted in 1998 to support its arguments;
but these breaches bear no relation to the regulatory powers it now argues it
possesses.
3.24 Nicaragua argues that it must have the power to regulate Costa Rican
trafficin order to ensure that the conditions set forth inthe Treaty of Limits are
observed.199It is curious that this is the first time such an argument has been
advancedby Nicaragua.200Suchregulatorypowers soughtby Nicaragua do not
stem from any of the applicable instruments:not from the Treaty of Limits nor
the Cleveland Awardand not from the 19 16 Judgment of the Central America
Court of Justice or the 1956Agreement.
3.25 Some of the writers cited by Nicaragua in support of its views on the
purported right of regulation only address the issue of regulatory rights in
197 CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex208.
198 Ibid.
199 NCM,para. 2.1.52.
200 NCM,para. 2.1.53.relation to innocent passage or innocent use,201situations which clearly fall
outside a conventionalright of free navigation such as that in the present case.
But even in the case of an innocent use, the writers generally agree that a State
cannot establishregulations that limitnavigation.
3.26 Nicaragua cites three types of regulations that it claims would be
compatible with the principle of free navigation: (a) the right to monitor the
characterofthevesselexercisingthe rightoffreenavigation; (b)the application
of regulations for themaintenance of conditions of safe navigation; and (c) the
implementationofmeasuresreasonablynecessary forthe securityofNicaragua
and the safety of riparian~.~O*In fact the evidence presented by Costa Rica
demonstrates that Nicaragua's breaches bear no relation whatever to any
regulationsofthis kind. But in any event,the legal frameworkgoverning Costa
Rican navigation on the San Juan does not entitle Nicaragua to impose such
regulationsupon CostaRica.
3.27 WithregardtothesafetyrequirementsCostaRicanvesselsareapparently
obligedto comply with, Nicaragua does not refer to any specificrequirements.
The affidavits of two Costa Rican boatmen, who until recently navigated the
San Juan for decades, reveal that they have never been informed or notified of
any suchrequirements of "safe navigation".203
3.28 As to the implementation of measures reasonably necessary for the
security of Nicaragua and the safety of riparians, such measures need to be
implementedinawaythat doesnot hinderCosta Rica'sright offreenavigation.
As has been stated by Colonel Ricardo Sanchez, Nicaragua has many army
posts along the San Juan River,posts fully armed with personnel who are able
to safeguardNicaragua's security.20It is not reasonablethat such safeguarding
isaccomplishedby forcingallCostaRicanvesselsto stopateverymilitarypost,
to be searchedforno apparentreason and to be required to obtain authorisation
201 SeeNCM,paras.2.1.54,2.1.56.
202 SeeNCM,para.2.1.58.
203 See Affidavitof Carlos Lao Jarquin,28 July 2007: CRR Annexes,Vol2, Annex 51;Affidavitby
Jorge Manuel Lao Jarquin,28 July 2007:CRRAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 52.
204 NCM,Vol 11Annex91.in advance to navigate, in addition to the payment of the various charges and
compliance with other requirements established by Nicaragua.
3.29 Furthermore, as recalled by Nicaragua before President Cleveland,
Article IX of the Treaty of Limits places a limitationon both countries not to
use the River for hostilities againstthe other. Costa Rica has shownhll respect
for this obligation. Nicaragua's plea that it must impose security measures on
Costa Rica's navigationis a mere pretext.
3.30 It shouldbe noted that Nicaragua does not citeany of its domestic laws
which impose requirements on vessels transiting internal waters, nor has it
ever officially informed Costa Rica ofany such requirements. Furthermore, it
acknowledgesthat suchrequirements are imposed only on CostaRican vessels.
The affidavitby ColonelRicardo Sanchez indicates someofthe regulations itis
saidNicaragua now imposes on Costa Rican vessels.20sThrough this affidavit,
Nicaragua acceptedthatNicaraguan vessels are freeto mooronthe CostaRican
banks and carry out their business without any impediments.206The rights to
land on the bank of the River and for commercethat Costa Rica recognises
that Nicaragua holds, in accordance with the 1858Treaty of Limits, are rights
which are reciprocal. While Costa Rica fulfils its obligations underthe 1858
and 1956Treaties, allowingfull liberty to Nicaraguan vesselsto carry on their
commerce on the Costa Rican bank, as is acknowledged by Nicaragua,on the
other hand Nicaragua has imposed illegal restrictions on Costa Rica's rights
with the purpose of malung Costa Rican navigation and the enjoyment of other
related rightsimpra~ticable.~~'
3.31 Byway ofthese "regulatorypowers", Nicaragua seeksto impose itsown
interpretation, on a case by case basis, of whether a Costa Rican vessel may or
may not navigate on the River, a policy that Nicaragua does not even apply
to vessels navigating in innocent passage as recognised by international law.
This policy results in illegal searches, paymentof illegal taxes, the harassment
of passengers including children travelling to school, requirements of illegal
205 Ibid.
206 Ibid.
207 Cf. NCM, para. 7.2.5.permits for transit and other restrictions detailed in Costa Rica's Memorial and
further in this Reply.
3.32 As Costa Rica's rights of navigation are established in categorical terms
by treaty, any restrictions placedupon such rights canonly be agreedby treaty.
In this context it is pertinent to recall a paragraph from the General Claims
Commission cited by Nicaragua. The Commission stated:
"What extension this right of exercise of police power may have, as confronted with
the principle offreenavigation,isa matter asyet not defined bytheoryorprecedent. It
isreasonabletothink,however,thattheright of localjurisdiction shallnot beexercised
in such a manner as torender nugatory the innocentpassage through thewaters of the
river, if it be establishedby treaty."208
Thus, even in the event of innocent passage, local jurisdiction cannot be
exercised in such a way asto render nugatory that innocent passage.
3.33 The 1916 Judgment of the Central AmericanCourt of Justice reaffirmed
Costa Rican rights and addressed the jurisdictional issue in the following
terms:
"...Costa Rica possesses in the San Juan River, for purposes of commerce, permanent
rights of free navigation from its outlet as far up as three miles below Castillo Viejo,
and the right for her vessels to moor at all points along either bank, exempt from the
imposition of any charges,in that part of the stream in which navigation is common.
It is clear, 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 of free navigation, and their attendant rights, so clearly adjudicated to
Costa Rica - the more soif it is consideredthat suchrights, exercised for revenue and
defensive purposes, are, accordingto the opinion of statesmen, usually confounded in
their development with the sovereign powers of the imperium; such a concession is
equivalentto arealright ofuse,perpetual andunalterable,thatestablishesthe 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 toNicaragua as sovereign
over the territory.
By virtue of the decisions contained in the ClevelandAward,and what is held therein
relating to the territorial boundaries,the following points are evident:
... The proposition that the rights of navigation on the San Juan River that were
confirmedin Costa Rica do not extendto 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, aside
208 NCM, para. 2.1.60from constitutinga cause for disquiet,would implya function appropriate to territorial
sovereignty.0209
3.34 The Court went on to state:
"Costa Rica possesses undisputed titletothe right bank of the river,to the land situated
within her jurisdictional limits;she has joint ownership in the ports of San Juan del
Norte and in Salinas Bay; she po.ssessesthe contractual right of perpetual navigation
in the river, beginning ata point threemiles below Castillo Viejo,accompaniedby the
full privilege of transit and commerce, and Nicaragua is impressed withthe duty not
to interfere with navigation, but,on the contrary, tokeep the course of the river open;
Costa Rica enjoys also the right to moor her.vessels on both banks throughout the
entire zone in which navigation iscommon, and the rights involved inguarding and
defense 'withall means within her reach."'210
3.35 To summarise, the alleged "regulatory rights" asserted by Nicaragua
havenobasisinthe instrumentsandseekto interferewith CostaRica's perpetual
right to free navigation, and ultimately to render it nugatory. The instruments
citedby CostaRica,includingthe 1916Judgmentofthe'central~merican Court
of Justice, reaffirmthat Costa Ricais not subjecttoNicaragua's authorisations,
limitations or regulations imposed as a precondition to the exercise of the
perpetual right of free navigation. Further,the actions carriedoutby Nicaragua
against Costa Rica's navigation bear no relation to the exercise.of any alleged
right of regulation.
(3)' Costa Rica's rightof navigation is not "imperfect"
3.36 Nicaragua gives the impression that Costa Rica's right established in
Article VI of the Treatyof Limits is an "imperfectright". Itquotes Wheaton's
Elements of International Law, published just eight years after the conclusion
of the 1858Treaty of Limits. Wheaton wrote that:
"The right of navigating, for commercial purposes,a river which flows through the
territories of different States, iscommonto all the nations inhabiting the different parts
of its banks; but this right of innocentpassage being what the text-writers call an
imperfect right, its exercise is necessarily modified by thesafety and convenience
of the State affected by it, and can only be effectually securedby mutual convention
regulating the mode of itsexercise."211(Emphasisadded.)
209 SeeCRM, Annexes, Vol2, Annex 21pp.219-220.
210 CRM, Annexes, Vol2, Annex 2p.222.
211 Quoted iNCM, para.2.1.54.3.37 Nicaragua comments:
"It is not suggested that this reasoning is directlyapplicable to the present case,
especially in viewof the fact that the rightof navigation presently in issuearises from
a bilateral Treaty. However, the significant point is presented inthe final sentence
of the passage which clearlyassumes that, when it exists, a right of navigationfor
commercialpurposes issubject to certain conditions as.to the mode of its exerci~e."~'~
(Emphasis added.)
Nicaragua's embarrassment about this quotation is understandable. Wheaton
mentioned the need of a conventionto securethe mode of exercise inregards to
such"right of navigation for commercialpurposes", which isprecisely thecase
of the San JuanRiver.
3.38 The terminology employed in the Treaty is not thatof an "imperfect
right". The Treaty does not contain anything granting to Nicaraguaanypower
of limitation or regulation'of Costa- Rica7sright. Nor is Costa Rica's right
subject to any limitation,as was the case in other treaties relatedto freedom of
navigation.213This is a "perfect" right vested by treaty.
.C. "Conobjetos de comercio"
3.39 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua claims that:
"...in some cases, these documentsfiledby Costa Rica areaccompanied by inaccurate
translations of the textor certain parts of the text that had previously not been disputed
andhence littleinterestwasplacedonitscorrecttranslation....Themostsalientofthese
inaccuraciesof translation is thatof the phrase used to describe the type ofnavigation
rights granted to Costa Rica in the San Juan River. Thus the phrase 'con objetos
de comercio' containedin the Treaty of Limitsof 1858 is loosely translated as 'with
purposes ofcommerce' andnot its accurate meaning of'with objectsof commerce' or
'with articles of
3.40 This same argument, i.e. that "con objetos de comercio" should be
correctly understood as "with articles of trade", is repeated again and again
throughout Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial in an attempt to exclude the
transportation of passengers and to justify the unlawful restrictions on Costa
Rican navigation implementedby Nicaragua.
212 NCM, para. 2.1.55.
213 SeeCRM,para. 4.09.
214 NCM, Introduction, para. 20. As to Nicaragua's unsubstantiated assertion that Costa Rica haspre-
sented inaccurate translations,see above, paragraph 1.14.(1) "Conobjetos de comercio" means"forpurposes of commerce"
3.41 Nicaragua's argument notonly contradicts the natural interpretation of
the text but it is also contrary to its own translation and its previous public
position for almost 150years. The English version ofthe 1858Treaty of Limits
presented by Nicaragua to President Clevelandin 1887translated "con objetos
de comercio" as "for the purposes of commerce". Nicaragua's English version
ofArticleVI of the 1858Treaty of Limits states:
"...but 'theRepublic of Costa Rica shall have perpetual rights, in the said waters, of
free navigation from the river's mouthto three Englishmiles below Castillo Vifor
thepurposesofcommerce, whether with Nicaragua or the interior of Costa Rica, by
way of the riversSan Carlos or Sarapiquior any other routeproceeding from the tract
on the shores of San Juan that maybe established as belonging to this Republic."215
(Emphasisadded.)
3.42 This English version ofArticle VI of the 1858Treaty of Limits is very
similar to the English version presentedby Costa Rica:
"...but the Republic of CostaRica shall have the perpetual right offree navigation
on the said waters, between thesaid mouth and the point, three Englishmiles distant
from Castillo Viejo, said navigation beifor thepurposesofcommerce either with
Nicaraguaorwiththe interior ofCostaRica,through theSanCarlosriver,the Sarapiqui,
or any other way proceeding from the portionof the bank of the San Juan river, which
is hereby declaredto belong toCostaRi~a."~~( ~Emphasis added.)
3.43 Not only did Nicaragua translate"con objetos de comercio" as "for the
purposes of commerce" in the English version of the 1858 Treaty of Limits it
presentedtoPresidentCleveland,butNicaragua onlysubmittedEnglishversions
of its documents to Cleveland. In a Note dated 31 October 1887 addressed to
Nicaragua's Minister Horacio Guzman,the US Secretary of StateT.F.Bayard
acknowledged receipt of Nicaragua's arguments and documents and inquired
if these were to be considered as originals. Bayard'snote was in the following
terms:
"I havethe honor to acknowledgethe receipt of the original and duplicatecopies ofthe
case of the Republic of Nicaraguaunder the Arbitration Treaty ofDecember24,1886,
which were leftby you at this Department on the 27thinstant, unaccompanied byany
formal note of transmission... As the case of Nicaragua is presented in theEnglish
language, I have the honor to inquire whether, in that form, it is regarded by your
Government as the original,or whether it is intended to be accompaniedby a Spanish
215 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex7(c).
216 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex7(b).original andtobe regarded as atranslationand of collateralforce and effecttherewith.
In the latter alternative, it would be requisite for you to admit the correctness and
authenticityof the Englishtext, upon which the arbitrator must necessarily depend for
his understanding of the issuesbefore him."217
3.44 Minister Guzmanresponded by Note of 1November 1887, stating:
"I have the honorto acknowledgethe receiptofyour communicationof the 31"ultimo,
acknowledging, on behalf of the President, the receipt of the original and duplicate
copiesof the Case of the RepublicofNicaragua,and inquiring, as it ispresented inthe
Englishlanguage,whether intheform itisregardedby my Governmentas theoriginal,
or whether it is intended to be accompanied by a Spanish original and to be regarded
as a translation and of collateralforce and effecttherewith.
I have the honorto reply that the copy marked'original' was intendedto be andis the
original copy of the presentation of the Case of Nicaragua, and the English language
was adopted as being the language of the Arbitrator, the purpose being to relieve the
Arbitrator from the responsibility of a translation from the Spanish to the English
language; and, therefore, all papers and communicationsrelating to this Case, that it
may be necessary forme topresent for the consideration anduse of theArbitrator,will
be in the English
3.45 It is clear then Nicaragua had always understood that the term "con
objetos de comercio" in the 1858 Treaty of Limits meant "for purposes of
commerce".
3.46 The factthat'costa Rica'snavigationonthe SanJuan Riverwas "for the
purposes of commerce" was also quite clearto theAssistant Secretary of State,
George L. Rives, to whom President Cleveland delegated the task of studying
thepleadings of CostaRica andNicaragua and ofpreparing the draftAward. In
the first part of his Report Rives stated as follows:
"The Treaty further provides that.. .Nicaragua shall have, exclusively,dominion and
supreme control of the waters of the San Juan, --Costa fica having the right of free
navigationfor the purposes of commerce in that part of the River on which she is
bounded."219(Emphasisadded.)
3.47 In the second part of Rives' Report the same understandingof the true
extent of Costa Rica'scommercialnavigational rights was clearly stated:
217 Secretary ofStateof the United States,T.F.Bayard, to Nicaraguan Envoy Extraordinary andMin-
ister Plenipotentiary, HoracioGuzman,ober 1887:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 29.
218 Nicaraguan Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Horacio Guzmant,o Secretary of
Stateof the United States,T.F.Bayard,ber 1887:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 30.
219 NCM, Vol 11Annex 70. This Report is also quotedinNCM, para. 2.1.22."Leaving out of sight, for the present, the fact that Costa fica owns one bank.of the
San Juan, and regarding it solely as a Nicaraguan river, we mayfirst enquire whether
the right offree commercialnavigation granted to Costa Rica necessarily involvesthe
right of navigation by her vessels ofwar."220(Emphasis added.)
3.48 Other extracts fromRives' Report reinforce the correctunderstanding of
Costa Rica's navigational rights:
"4. Nicaragua consented, by Article IV, that the Bay of San Juan, which always
belongedtoherandoverwhichsheexercisedexclusivejurisdiction, shouldbe common
to both Republics; and by Article VI she consented also that Costa Rica should have,
in the waters of the River, from its mouth on the Atlantic up to three English miles
before reaching Castillo Viejo, the perpetual right office navigationfor purposes of
commerce. Is Costa Rica bound to concur with Nicaragua in the expense necessary
to prevent the Bay from beingobstructed, to keep the navigation of the River and port
free and unembarrassed, and to improve it for the common benefit?"221
The Report continues:
"The River lies wholly within the borders of Nicaragua. Costa Rica, possessing one
bank for a portion of its course, has only what may be described as an easement or
servitudeinitswaters. UndertheTreaty,shehas therightofnavigationforpurposes of
commerce,and, by implication, such other ordinary riparian rights as may be enjoyed
without affecting the sovereignrights of Ni~aragua."~~~ (Emphasis added.)
3.49 In the first paragraph quoted above, Rives transcribed the English
version submitted by Nicaragua of "Point 4 of Doubtful Interpretation" which
it had presented to costa Rica and which constituted the basis for Cleveland's
Award.223Nicaragua itselfreferred once again to CostaRica's "perpetual right
of free navigation for purposes of commerce".
3.50 In thesecond paragraph quotedabove,Rives proceeded to analysein his
own words the situation as he understood it. Rives clearly referred once again
to Costa Rica's "right of navigation forpurposes of commerce". Furthermore,
Rives referred to Costa Rica's "easement or servitude" in the waters of the San
Juan River to describe the legal status of Costa Rica's perpetual right of free
commercial navigation on the San Juan River. Indeed, Costa Rica's right of
-
220 NCM, Original Documents deposited within the Registryt1, nnex 71, pp. 212-213.
221 NCM, Original Documents deposited within the Registr111,annex 71,p. 21.
222 NCM, Original Documents deposited within the Registr111, nnex 71, p.233.
223 TheEnglish versionofthis Note fromFernandoGuzmanto Costa Rica's Foreign Ministerdated22
June 1887was presentedy Costa Rica:CRM,Annexes,Vol3,Annex 36.free navigation for purposes of commercedoes in fact constitute a limitation to
Nicaragua's sovereignty overtheSanJuanakin tothat of a perpetual "servitude"
in domestic law.
3.51 Nicaragua always understood that the term,"con objetos de comercio"
meant "for purposes of commerce". It should also be rememberedthat the 1858
Treaty of Limits uses the term "objetos" as purposes not only in itsArticle VI,
which establishes Costa Rica's navigational rights, but also in Article VIII:
"Si 10scontratos de canaliiacion 6 de transit0 celebrados antes de tener el Gobierno
de Nicaragua conocimiento de este convenio, llegasen a quedar insubsistentes por
cualquier causa, Nicaragua se compromete a no concluir otro sobre 10sexpresados
objetos...."224(Emphasis added.)
3.52 Costa Rica's English version ofArticle VIII of the 1858 Treaty of Limits
presented to Cleveland is as follows:
"If the contracts of canalization or for transit entered into by the Government of
Nicaraguaprevious to itsbeing informedofthe conclusionof this treaty shouldhappen
tobe invalidatedforanyreason whatever,Nicaragua binds herselfnot toenter into any
other arrangementfor the aforesaidpurposes.. ."225 (Emphasis added.)
3.53 ,Nicaragua's English version of the same Article submitted to Cleveland
reads as follows:
"If the contracts for a canal or a transit made before Nicaragua's knowledge of this
agreement should become incapable of duration through whatever cause, Nicaragua
binds herselfnot to conclude any other for the said objects..."226 (Emphasis added.)
3.54 Clearly "objects" is used by Nicaragua as meaning "purposes," not
"articles". This contradicts Nicaragua's present interpretation as developed in
its Counter-Memorial:
"If the tern1objeto is appropriate for referring to a matter, good or thing, and also to
a purpose or aim, the same cannot be said of the plural form of the word, namely:
objetos. Although the Royal SpanishAcademy Dictionary does not offer a direct and
express definition of this usage, it is entirely beyond the normal and usual use of the
Spanish language to speak of the objetos of a treaty or science when referring to its
purposes, aims or objectives. On the other hand, the term objetos is used to identify
224 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex7.
225 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7(b).
226 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex7(c).things, goods, merchandise and matters dealt with by a science or treaties, if used in
the
In other words, Nicaragua is claiming today that anytime the word "objetos"
appears in the plural it should always be interpreted as meaning "things" and
never as bbpurposes",whereas in its official translation of the 1858 Treaty of
Limits it interpreted "objetos" exactly in that manner - and correctly so.228
3.55 . The fallacy ofNicaragua's arguments canbe demonstrated by reference
to instruments contemporary to the 1858 Treaty of Limits. For example, the
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between United Statesand
Nicaragua (Cass-Irisarri) of 16 November 1857, presented by Nicaragua in its
Counter-Memorial, states in itsArticle11:
"Habra reciproca libertad de comercio entre todos 10sterritorios de la Republics de
Nicaragua, y 10sterritorios de 10sEstados Unidos. Los ciudadanos de 10sdos paises,
respectivamente, tendranplena libertadde llegar francay seguramente,con susbuques
y cargamentos,a todos 10slugares,puertos y rios en 10sterritorios mencionados, a 10s
cuales se permita, 6 se permitiere llegar a otros extranjeros, entrar en 10smismos, y
permanecer y residir en cualquiera parte de ellos, respectivamente, asiomo alquilar
y ocupar casas y almacenespara objetos de comercio;en general, 10scomerciantes y
traficantesde cada nacion, respectivamente, gozaran de la mas completaproteccion y
seguridad para su comercio, sujetos siempre a las leyes y estatutos de10sdos paises
respectivamente.. ."229(Emphasis added.)
In this unratified Treatythe phrase "objetos de comercio" was presented in the
plural, ina similarmanner asthe 1858 TreatyofLimits. Sinceboth Spanishand
English were the authentic languagesof the 1857 Treaty,the English version
is of interest. The official English version of this Articleof the Cass-Irisarri
Treatyreads as follows:
"There shallbe, between allthe territories ofthe United Statesandthe territories of the
Republic of Nicaragua, a reciprocal freedom of commerce. The subjects and citizens
of the two countries, respectively,shall have full liberty,freely and securely,to come,
with their ships and cargoes,to all places, ports, and rivers, inthe territories aforesaid,
to which other foreigners are, or may be, permitted to come, to enter into the same,
and to remain and reside in any part thereof, respectively; also, to hire and occupy
housesandwarehousesfor thepurpose oftheircommerce;andgenerallythe merchants
and traders of each nation, respectively, shall enjoy the most complete protection and
227 NCM,para. 4:1.27.
228 See above, paragraphs 1.09-1.12.
229 NCM,Vol 11Annex 5.security fortheir commerce, subjectalwaystothe lawsandstatutesofthetwocountries
respectively..."230(Emphasisadded.)
3.56 Thus forboth the United States andNicaraguathe term "con objetos de
comercio" was understood as meaning "for the purpose of their commerce".
Surprisingly, instead of presenting the original authentic English versionof
the Cass-IrisarriTreaty,Nicaragua produced its own translation which simply
refers to "...houses and warehouses for commerce", expediently modifying
the official English wording of "...houses and warehouses for the purpose of
their Nicaragua preferred to "summarise" this phrase instead of
engaging in a translation of '>para objetos de comercio". This is effectivelyan
unannounced alterationof adocument.
3.57 The United States-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
Navigation (Lamar-Zeledon) was signed on 16 March 1859 and replaced the
Cass-IrisarriTreaty. Using similarwording to the Cass-IrisarriTreaty,the 1859
Lamar-ZeledonTreatyprovided initsArticle I1ofthe original authenticSpanish
version:
"Habra reciproca libertad decomercio entre todos 10sterritorios de la Republica de
Nicaragua y 10sterritorios de 10sEstados Unidos. Los ciudadanos de 10sdos paises,
respectivamente, tendranplena libertaddellegarfrancay seguramente,con susbuques
y cargamentos a todos 10slugares, puertos y riosen 10sterritories mencionados, a10s
cuales sepermita, 6 sepermitiere llegar aotros extranjeros; de entrar en 10smismos,y
permanecer y residiren cualquier partede ellos, respectivamente; asi como alquilar y
ocuparcasasyalmacenespara 10sobjetosdesucomercio;yen general10scomerciantes
y traficantesdecadaNacibn, respectivamente, gozarande la mas completaprotecci6n
y seguridad para su comercio, sujetossiempre a las leyes y estatutosde 10sdos paises
respectivamente.. "232 (Emphasisadded.)
3.58 The original authentic English versionof thisArticle reads as follows:
"There shallbe between all the territories of theUnited Statesandthe territories of the
Republic of Nicaragua a reciprocalfreedom of commerce. The subjects and citizens
of the two countries, respectively, shallhave full liberty freelyand securely to come
with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports,and rivers in the territories aforesaid
to whichother foreignersare or may be permitted to come, to enter into the same, and
to remain and reside in any part thereof, respectively;also to hire and occupy houses
and warehousesfor thepurposes of their commerce; and generally themerchants and
230 CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 10.
231 NCM, Vol 11Annex 5.
232 CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 13.tradersof each nation, respectively, shalelnjoy the most complete protectionand
securityfortheircommerce, subjectalwaystothe lawsand statutesofthetwocountries
respectively.."233(Emphasisadded.)
3.59 As canbe seen, the wording of the Lamar-Zeledon Treaty is practically
the same as that of the Cass-IrisarriTreaty. In the authentic English versionthe
phrase ''para10sobjetos de comercio" was expressed as "for the purposes of
theircommerce". Nicaragua arguesthat "objetos" intheplural wasnotrendered
as "purposes"; but the fact is that in the wording of other treaties contemporary
to the 1858Treaty of Limits it was a common practice - indeed, a Nicaraguan
practice - to employ the word "objetos" as meaning "purposes", both in the
singular as well as in the plural. These contemporary treaties deal with matters
closely related to Costa Rica'sright of navigation as establishedby the Treaty
of Limits.
3.60 Table 1, appended to this Chapter, provides an impressive numberof
relevant treaties, contracts and other instruments contemporary with the Treaty
of Limits in which the term "objetos" was overwhelmingly used as meaning
"purposes". Table 2, also appended, shows how contemporary treaties,
contracts and other instruments refer to goods, merchandiseor commodities.
Takentogether theTablesshowthatNicaragua's novel interpretationof"objetos
de comercio" as meaning "articlesof trade" is devoid of anyju~tification.~~~
3.61 Further, it is so clear that "objetos de comevcio" means "purposes
of commerce" that on different occasions Nicaragua statedit this way in its
own Counter-Memorial, thereby contradicting the most important argument
presented by it. For example, Nicaragua wrote:
"There is afirther important consideration arisinrom thefact thatArticle VI does
notprovidefor 'freenavigation' touctourt,but only'forthepurposesof commerce
eitherwith Nicaraguaor withthe interiorofCostaRica,through the SanCarlosRiver,
the Sarapiqui,or anyotherway,proceedingfrom thebank ofthe SanJuanRiver'.
Thus the rightof free navigation is articulaten the formof a carefulstatementof
purposes. Indeed, the conteno tftheClevelandAwardof 1888,initssecond finding,
underlinesthespecialpurposeoftherightofnavigation recognized inArticleVI."235
(Emphasisadded.)
233 CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 13.
234 Seebelow, paragraph 3.71 for further discussionof the Tables.
235 NCM, para. 2.1.51.Not only did Nicaragua correctly translate "objetos de comercio" as "purposes
of commerce", but it clearly and expressly acknowledged that Costa Rica's
"right of free navigation is articulated in the form of a careful statement of
These purposes are no other than "commercial" and "fiscal,"
as Nicaragua described them in two official reports signed by its Minister of
Foreign Affairs and published in 1954 and 1974 under the title "Situacibn
juvidica del Rio San Juan".237
3.62 Elsewhere in its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua writes:
"In the present case, in the absence of a median line boundary, it is clear that Costa
Rica cannot be accorded a general police power over th,eRio San Juan. In theAward
of President Cleveland, asArbitrator,the question of the right of navigation of vessels
of war was resolved not by recourse to a generalized 'right of free navigation' but to
the conditions of navigation specified in the Treaty: that is to say the right of 'free
navigation...for thepurposes of commerce.'(ArticleVI). .."238 (Emphasis added.)
3.63 At leastNicaragua is consistent in itspractice of "improving" the original
wording and meaning of Spanish documents and of "correcting" documents
submittedto theCourt by CostaRica. Itsdistortions are not accidental. Another
example is the quotation of the Carazo-Soto Treaty signed by Costa Rica and
,
Nicaragua on 26 July 1887. Nicaragua wrote the following:
"Article 6.3 of this agreement provided that '[tlhe right granted to Costa Rica to
navigate with articles of trade on the San Juan River, from its mouth up to 3 English
miles below Castillo Viejo,does not comprise the right tonavigate with vessels of war
or vessels of the revenue service exercisingj~risdiction'."~~~(Emphasis added.)
The passage quoted is referenced to "CRM, Vol 2, Annex '15, Carazo-Soto
Treaty". Thus Nicaragua represents that the English version Costa Rica
submitted to theCourtusedthe term "with articles of trade". In facttheEnglish
version submitted by CostaRica reads as follows:
"3" Theright,grantedtoCostaRica,ofnavigationforpurposes ofcommerce[objetosde
comercio] in the San JuanRiver, from its mouth to three English milesbefore Castillo
Viejo,doesnot includenavigationwithwar orfiscalvessels exercising jurisdiction."240
(Emphasis added.)
236 NCM, para. 2.11.
237 CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annexes 219 and 222.
238 NCM, para.2.1.62.
239 NCM, para.3.1.43.
240 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 15.3.64 As if these instances were not enough, Nicaragua alters the wording of
yet another significant document. Its Counter-Memorial states:
"The language in paragraph Second of the ClevelandAwardis especially worthy of
close attention since the arbitrator substituted it entirely for the proposal made by
GeorgeRivesfor thatpart oftheAward. For President Cleveland, theonlynavigation
by CostaRicanvessels of the revenue servicethatwaspermittedby the treatywasthat
whichis 'relatedto and connectedwith'the rightto navigatewitharticles of trade. As
if to avoidanypossible misunderstanding, the arbitrator requires that navigation with
revenuevesselsbeboth(a)'relatedto'and (b) 'connectedwith'navigationwitharticles
of trade. He thus underscores the inextricable connectionbetween public revenue
vesselsand private boats carryingarticles of trade:the twogo together,butonly ifthe
formerare 'related toandconnectedwith'the latter."241(Emphasisadded.)
In the paragraph transcribed above, Nicaragua modified the original English
wording of the 1888 Cleveland Award, which reads as follows:
"The Republic of Costa Rica under said treaty and thestipulationscontained in the
sixtharticlethereof,hasnotthe right ofnavigation of theriverSanJuanwith vesselsof
war; but shemaynavigate said river with suchvessels of the RevenueServiceas may
berelatedto andconnectedwith herenjoymentofthe purposes ofcommerce'accorded
to her in said article,or as may be necessaryto the protection of saidenjoyment."242
(Emphasis added.)
The Cleveland Award unmistakably uses the correct phrase "purposes of
commerce". In fact, Nicaragua stopped the quotation of this Article of the
Cleveland Award just before the reference to the purposes of commerce, in
order to replace it by "articles of trade". This is disingenuous.
3.65 Nicaragua argues that the meaning of navigation "con objetos de
comercio" was not submitted to President Cleveland as one of the matters of
"dubious interpretation" of the Treaty of Limits andhence was not addressed in
his This is true. The reason isthat both parties agreed on the content
of the phrase, as shownby their identical translations. Nicaragua only began to
advance a narrower meaning - "with articles of trade" - a century later.
3166 Both parties and the Arbitrator, while dealing with Article VI of the
Treaty of Limits, treated the expression "con objetos de comercio" as meaning
241 .NCM,para.3.1.54. .
242 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex16.
243 NCM, para.3.1.1."for the purposes of commerce".244 The way Nicaragua presents the situation
deserves to be recalled in full:
"Thus the ClevelandAwardshedsno direct lighton the meaning ofthe phrase, 'con
objetosdecomercio'. Indeedi,fthecontentandscopeofCostaRica's right to navigate
'conobjetos decomercio'had been atissue,itseemscertain thatthepartieswould have
paid more attentionto the translationofthe original Spanish wordsin their pleadings,
as would President Clevelandin his Award. Yetfrom allthat appears, they paidno
attentionat all to this phrase. Indeed, the translatisf the 1858Treatypreparedby
bothparties forthe ClevelandArbitrationwere identico anthispoint('for thepurposes
of commerce'). President Cleveland f,or his part, was carefulnot to prejudicein any
waythe meaningofthe Spanishtext,asshownbyhis enclosing the English translation
of the phrasein quotation marksin the Secondparagraph ofhis ward: It is thus the
1858Treaty, notthe ClevelandAward,that is controllingonthe question of the nature
and scope of CostaRica'sright tonavigatein Nicaraguan territory,on the San Juan
River,'con objetosde c~mercio."~~(~ Emphasisadded;referencesomitted.)
3.67 Nicaragua acknowledges that it raised all the "points of dubious
interpretation" to be clarified by the Arbitrator andthat it did not raise the issue
that formsone ofthe questions ofthe present disputebeforethe Court. Nicaragua
also recognises its own translation of "con objetos de comercio" in Article VI
was unambiguous: "for the purposes of commerce".246 It is not possible to
claim that Nicaragua considered that "with the purposes of commerce" meant
"with articles of trade".
3.68 Nicaragua suggests that President Cleveland enclosed the expression
"for purposes of commerce" in inverted commas in order not to prejudice the
meaning of the phrase.247 This imaginative essay is not substantiated by any
evidence. President Cleveland used the inverted commas simply because he
was quoting the words of Article VI, as translated by the parties.
3.69 Nicaragua also claims that the fact that Rives did not put the Spanish
text after "for the purposes of commerce" in his Report is of significance.
Nicaragua concludes that "Mr. Rives did not believe that this phrase was in
any way germane to the dispute before the arbitrator."248 It is true that the
-
244 CRM,para.4.22.
245 NCM,para.3.1.7.
246 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex7(c)
247 Also inNCM, para.3.1.24.
248 NCM,para.3.1.26.meaning of "con objetos de comercio" was not in dispute. But this does not
help Nicaragua. If its present interpretationhad been conceived of at the time,
eitherby itselforby Rives,this would have carrieddecisiveweight in favour of
excluding Costa Rican navigation with vessels of war or with armed vessels of
its Revenue Service.
3.70 Untilthepresent disputebroke out,Nicaraguahad consistentlyaccepted
that "con objetos de comercio" means "for purposes of commerce". In its
Memorial CostaRicapresented copies of three importantofficialstatementsby
Nicaragua to show this:
(i) A letter dated 27 July 1897from the ~ecreta$ to the Diet of the Mayor
Republic of Central America, of which Nicaragua was part, to the
Minister of ForeignAffairs of Costa Rica, in which it is stated that:
"Costa Rica [tiene] unicamente elderecho de libre navegacion para$nes de
comercio desde su desembocadura en el Atlantico hasta tresmillas inglesas
antes de llegar1Castillo Viejo."
Translationby Costa Rica: "Costa Ricaonlyhas the rightto freenavigationfor
purposes of commerce[para$nes decomercio] from the mouthintheAtlantic
up to three English miles before reaching Castillo Viej~."~~~(Emphasis
added.)
(ii) An officialpublication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
of 1954under the signature of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Oscar
Sevilla ~acasa,which stated that:
"Costa Rica, solo tiene derecho de navegacion, exclusivamenteconfines de
comercio yjscales, en la parte del rio comprendida entre la desembocadura
en el Atlanticoy punto situado tres millas inglesas antes de llegar a1Castillo
Viejo."
Translation by Costa Rica: "Costa Rica only has the rightof navigation,
exclusively,for commercial and fiscal purposes [con jines de comercio y
$scales], atthe part of the riverbetween the mouthof theAtlantic up to within
three English miles of Castilloiej~."~~O(Emphasis added.)
(iii) Another official publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
NicaraguaunderthesignatureoftheMinisterofForeignAffairspresented
in 1974,whichrepeatedthe sametext asthe 1954edition,qualifyingthe
249 CRM,Annexes,Vol3, ~nnex 37.
250 Republicsde Nicaragua, Ministeriode Relaciones Exteriores,SituacibnJuridicadelRioSanJuan
(Managua, 1954):CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 219. navigational rights of Costa Rica as being "for commercial and fiscal
purpose~".~~'
Nicaragua doesnot respond to any ofthese documents.
, 3.71 Finally, it should be noted that whenever the intentionwas to refer to
merchandiseor "articles oftrade", theterm "objetos" was not oftenused. Table
2 appended to this Chapter demonstrates that in an overwhelming number of
cases,terms such as"articulos", "rnercancias","productos", "cosas", "efectos"
and "bienes" were used to refer to "articles", "merchandise", "products"etc.
In the exceptional case where "objetos" is used to mean "objects" or "things",
it is quite clear from the contextthat the word has that meaning. For example,
in item 2 of Table 2 (a canal contract), the term "objetos" is used to refer to
"objects" inthe following context:
"...paraelestablecimient6 olaerecciondecasas,almacenes,diques,nuelles,estaciones,
6cualesquieraotros objetos utile que tenganrelacionconlasobrasdelcanal."
This is translated as:
"...forestablishingorbuildinghouses,warehouses,dikes, docks s,tationsoranyother
useful objects thatmayhaverelationwith thecanal
Another example is the use of "objetos" in an extradition treaty to mean
"objects":
"Cuandohaya lugar a la extradicion,todos 10sobjetos aprehendidos, que tengan
relacionconeldelito..."
translated as:
"When the extradition proceeds, all objects seized thathave anyrelation to the
crime.. ."253
3.72 Another element of the internal context of the 1858 Treaty of Limits
which is relevant to the interpretation of "con objetos de cornercio" is found
in the same Article VI. The fact that this Article refers a few words later to
the area as being that "where the navigation is common" is also significant.
The adjectiveemployedto qualifybothNicaraguanandCostaRican navigation ,
251 RepublicadeNicaragua, Ministeriode Relaciones Exteriores,SituacidnJuridica delRio SunJuan
(Managua, 1974):CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 222.
252 See item 2 of Table 2, below. This is similar to the uses of "objetos" in items 13 and 17of Ta-
ble 2.
, 253 See item 21 of Table 2, below;and see item 22 fora similaruse of.is "common". This is not a wording that corresponds to a navigation which,
for Costa Rican vessels, is limited to merchandise ("articles of trade"). The
wording suggeststhat navigation by both countries is similar in scope.
3.73 To summarise, despite the extraordinary efforts of Nicaragua to create
confusion,the inescapableconclusionisthat thisphrase was alwaysunderstood
to mean "for purposes of commerce".
(2) The scopeof the term"comercio"in the Treatyof Limits
3.74 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua focuses exclusively in the term
"objetos". It isjust enpassant that Nicaragua contendsthat:
"the referenceto commerceinArticleVI of the Jerez-CaiiasTreatycomprised in 1858,
and still comprises today, traffic in commodities and not services unrelated to said
traffic. This is particularly the case when the words 'with articlesof' are added to
'commerce. '"254
NicaraguaseemstoagreewithCostaRicathattheterm"commerce"encompasses
more than merely "trade", but Nicaragua does not attempt either to justify its
assertionthat "commerce" is limitedto "trafficincommodities"norto rebut the
meaning of the word "commerce" as encompassing transportation of persons
and goods as well as comm~nication.~~~
3.75 Without any explanation, Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial states that
if the parties would have wished to establish a broad right of navigation "for
purposes of commerce", they would have used the phrase "sous le rapport de
commerce"employedin the Congressof Vienna.256 This is disingenuous."Con
objetos de comercio" is an equivalent form in Spanish of the quoted phrase in
French, as explained in Costa Rica'sMemorial.257
(3) Navigation"conobjetos de comercio"includestransportof persons
3.76 In its effort to deprive the notion of "freedom of navigation" described
by the PermanentCourtinthe Oscar Chinncase of anyrelevance to the present
254 NCM, para. 4.3.19.
255 CRM,paras.4.42-4.72.
256 NCM, para.4.1.29.
257 CRM, para. 4.43. dispute,Nicaragua contends that the Treatyof Limits excluded the transportof
passengers:
"Further evidenceofthe latteristhe Permanent Court's inclusion in itsbroad definition
of 'freedom of navigation'the freedom 'totransport... passengers' - something that
wouldnever havebeenagreedto byaNicaraguan Governmentwellawarethat themost
lucrativeuse of the RiverforNicaragua was the transportof passengers, as attested by
the contracts for this purpose detailed in Chapterection 3 above, and ever mindful
of theneedtohave exclusive authority overthe transportofpassengers onthe SanJuan
-
in order to conclude agreements relatingto the prospective inter-oceanicroute."258
Nicaragua's argument that the transport of passengers was"carehlly excluded
from the right of navigation with articles of trade recognised by Article VI
of the Jerez-Cafias Treaty''does not resist serious analysis. If the intention
of the parties had been to exclude the transport of passengers, they would
certainly have used express languageto achieve that result - and not a phrase
such as "con objetos de comercio", which is a positive ,not a negative, phrase,
containing words of extension not limitation. The normal way to "carefully
exclude" transport of passengers would have been to state exactly this: "with
the exception of transport of passengers" or to precisely identify which of the
purposes of commerce were allowed, to the exclusion ofthe other. Another
way would have been to exclude a particular method or modeof transport, as
in the unratified~arcoleta-~olina Treaty of 1854, which expressly excluded
navigation by steamboat.259There is nothing in the record that supports the
notion that this was the intention of the parties, or even that of the Nicaraguan
negotiator. Nicaragua's assertionis not sustained by any evidence.260
3.77 The argument advanced by Nicaragua is that transport of passengers
was "by far" "[tlhe most lucrative business at the time of the signingof the
Treaty of 1858",261 that Nicaragua had the right to grant concessionsfor the
transit and the construction of a canal and that it did so, in a way that was
recognisedby Costa Rica inArticlesVII andVIII ofthe TreatyofLimits.262But
none of these assertions showthat Costa Rica'sright offi-eenavigation - which
normally includestransport ofpersons and goods-was limitedso asto exclude
258 NCM, para. 4.1.11.
259 NCM, Vol11,Annex 4.
260 SeeNCM, para.4.1.37.
261 NCM, para.4.1.37
262 NCM, para.4.1.38.transport of persons. Nicaragua itself was careful not to appear to deny Costa
Rica'sright to transport "persons andproperty" inthe treaties it concluded with
the countriesto whose companiesit granted or envisaged granting concessionk
- the United Statesin 1857,France in 1859and Great Britain in 1860.263
3.78 Furthermore all the examples of concessions mentioned by Nicaragua
concerned inter-oceanic transit of passengers as well as "articles of trade"
in Obviously, this inter-oceanic transit bears no relation to Costa
Rica's right of free navigation as established by Article VI of the Treaty of
Limits. Hence, Nicaragua's suggestionof the "careful exclusion"of the right
to transportpassengersinArticleVI of the 1858TreatyofLimits iswithout any
basis.
D. Public Rightsof Protection, Custody andDefence
(1) Applicable Law
3.79 Costa Rica's public rights of protection, custody and defence are
establishedinArticleIVofthe TreatyofLimits. Theserights have implications
for Costa Rica'snavigation on the San Juan. Moreover,Article VI establishes
a perpetual right of free navigation for Costa Rica, which of course includes
navigation with public vessels. This was recognisedby the SecondArticle of
the ClevelandAward, wh'ichprovides:
"TheRepublicof Costa Rica undes raid treatyand thestipulations contained in the
sixtharticle thereof,as nottherightofnavigationoftheriverSanJuan with vesselsof
war;butshemaynavigatesaidrivew r ith suchvesselsofthe revenue serviceas aybe
relatedtoandconnectedwithherenjoymentof the'purposesofcommerce' accorded
toherinsaid article,or asmay benecessarytotheprotectionofsaidenjoyment."265
3.80 In its decision of 30 September 1916, the Central American Courtof
Justice found that:
"CostaRica, for example, cannotply thatstreamwith war vessels as,of course,
Nicaragua cando;but,onthe other hand, those rightsare greater than thosof amere
co-owner (copropietario)becausethe CostaRicavessels,as well merchantmen as
revenuecuttersi,nthe zone inwhichnavigationiscommon,have a freecourseovet rhe
263 CRR,Annexes, Annexes10, 14and 15. Seediscussionin this Reply, paragraph 2.52 above.
264 NCM, paras..1.42-4.1.45.
265 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16.whole river,throughout itlengthandbreadth,andfree access,exempt fromimposts,
to anypointonthe Nicaraguan shore.77266
Other relevant conventional rules are Articles 1 and 2of the Fournier-
3.81
Sevilla Agreement of 9 January 1956,267 which is based on Article IV of the
Pact of Amity of 21 February 1949(Sevilla-Esq~ivel),~~t~ he Cuadra-Castro
CommuniquCof8 September199526a 9ndtheCuadra-LizanoJointC,ommunique
of 30 July 1998,which provides for navigation by Costa Rican public vessels
subjecttonoticeandconditions:CostaRicanagentsmayonlycarrytheirnormal
arms, and the Nicaraguan authorities may accompany these vessels which,
during theirjourney, must reportto the Nicaraguan border posts.270
(2) Nicaragua's position
3.82 According to Nicaragua, the duty (and right) to contribute to the
safeguarding (guarda) of the San Juan River, stipulated in Article IV of the
1858Treaty,can only be exercised by Costa Rica from its shores. It relies on
the manner in which G.L. Rives prepared the draft of the ClevelandAward.
According to Rives, the expression "within their reach" had to be interpreted
in its geographical sense (which would have limited Costa Rica's duties).271
Nicaragua further argues that whenhe amended Rives's draft award, President
Cleveland limited Costa Rica's right of navigation with public vessels to
navigation connected to purposes ofcommerce.272
3.83 Nicaragua points out that Costa Rica also bases its rightto re-supply
its border posts on its shore via the San JuanRiver on the duty (and right) laid
down in~Licle IV of the 1858Treaty. For Nicaragua, the performance of that
duty cannot, however, go beyond theRiver's right bank becausethe Cleveland
Award did not recognise a Costa Rican right to sail warships inthe sector of
266 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 21.
267 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 24.
268 CRM,Annexes,Vo12,Annex 23.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 27.
269
270 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 28.. See, in particular, points3(1) and 3(2).
271 NCM, para.4.2.31.
272 NCM, para. 4.2.15.common navigation of the San Juan, and because Nicaragua has sovereignty
over the waters of the River.273
3.84 Nicaragua stresses that even according to the Cuadra-Lizano Joint
Communique, the right claimed by Costa Rica was ~onditional.~'~Moreover,
when in June and August 2000 the two Presidents exchanged views about a
possible revival of the Joint Communique,the President of Costa Rica referred
tothe latterasestablishingamodus operandi ratherthan a"right" orrecognition
of a "general practice".275This shows, according to Nicaragua, that there was
neither binding practice nor established custom, but only "pure tolerance".276
In the presidential correspondence of 2000, Nicaragua advocated a mechanism
of authorisation whereas Costa Rica proposed a system of notification - both
positions showingthat no right existed.277
3.85 Moreover, according to Nicaragua, there is no need to use the river for
resupplyofborderposts: CostaRicadisposesofthenecessaryinfrastructureand
means (roads, tracks, airstrips, helicopters) to do so without using the River.278
Nicaragua notes that Costa Rica seems to have succeeded in re-supplying its
border posts until the end of the three-year moratorium established in Point 3
of the Alajuela Declaration of 26 September 2002.279During that time, Costa
Rica abstained from raising the re-supply issue, which shows: (i) that Costa
Rica itself is not convinced of the existence of a right to re-supply; and (ii) that
there were other ways of re-supplying the border posts.280The mere fact that
resupply may have become more onerous is irrelevant.281
NCM, para.5.2.2.
NCM, para. 5.2.4.
NCM, para.5.2.6.
NCM, para. 5.2.7.
NCM, para. 5.2.8.
NCM, para.5.2.9.
CRM,Annexes,Vol2,Annex29.
CRM,para. 5.2.10.
CRM, para.5.2.12.(3) Costa Rica'sposition
3.86 As explainedinCostaRica' fourreasons militatein favour
of a right of navigation on the San Juanby Costa Rican public vessels carrying
police with normal arms. The first is that the re-supply of posts is covered
by the right of free navigation for purposes of commerce in ArticleVI of the
1858Treaty. The second is that navigation under ArticleVI of the 1858Treaty
cannotbe effectivelyprotected without the use ofsuchboats. Thesameobtains
forthe defence ofthe common border andthe commonbays underArticleIV of
the Treaty.283Fourthly, it would be impossible, without adequate re-supplying
of the border posts, to prevent or deter unlawful activities inthe (land) border
area (smuggling, trafficking in persons). It would also be impossible to fulfil
officialacts suchas police investigations in a timely manner.
3.87 The re-supplying of border posts via the San Juan was prohibited by
Nicaragua on 14 July 1998. It was re-established briefly two weeks lateron
the basis of the Cuadra-Lizano Joint Communiqud, which was subsequently
unilaterally repudiated by Nicaragua.284The situation has been aggravated by
Nicaragua's firingorder reported on 1October 2005, two days after the filing of
Costa Rica'sApplication before this Court on 29 September2005.285
3.88 This "firing order" was confirmed in a Nicaraguan Presidential
Decree entitled "The Government of Nicaragua will not allow Armed
Navigation of Foreign Forces in Nicaraguan TerritorialWaters", approved on
28 September 2005 and published the followingday. It states:
"Article 1. - The Governmentof the Republicof Nicaragua will not allow armed
navigationofforeign forcesinnational watersa ,sit isa flagrant violatioofnational
sovereigntyt ,hePolitical Constitutiona,ndthelaw.
Article2. - TheNicaraguanArmy isorderedtoimmediately increase itspresenceand
permanentsurveillanceat theSanJuanRiverin orderto prevent, with allthemeans
providedto itbynational legislation he transitofarmedpersonnel, thereliefandthe
transportationofweapons, ammunitioa nndsupplies,byforeignforces,aswellasany
other activity relatetotheillicittraffickingofarms in allofits aspects.
282 CRM,paras.4.93,4.100,4.109,5.114,5.121and5.122.
283 As the "common" Bay of San Juan has been silted up, it is practically inaccessible from the sea.
Tocontributeto its defence,Costa Rica has noother choicebut to proceeder SanJuan
River.
284 CRM, paras. 5.130-5.134. Seealso above,paragraph 2.12.
285 CRM,paras.5.136.Article 3. - The Ministry of the Interior, through the National Police Department, is
ordered to proceed immediately to confiscateall the arms that are seized and take the
offenders before the Nicaraguan Courts of Justice so they can be tried with the full
severity of the law for the crimes they may have
This order also amounts to a violationofArticle IX of the Caiias-Jerez Treaty,
according to which neither Costa Rica nor Nicaragua
"shall be allowedto commitanyact ofhostility againstthe other,whether inthe port of
San Juan delNorte, or on the San Juan river, or the Lake ofNicaragua."
3.89 It maybe recalled that under the SecondArticleof the ClevelandAward
navigation by vessels of the Revenue Serviceis explicitly permitted:
"as may be related to andconnectedwith [CostaRica's] enjoymentof the 'purposes of
commerce' accordedto her in [ArticleVI of the 1858Treaty], or as may be necessary
to theprotection ofsaid enjoyment." (Emphasis added.)
The last part of the phrase clearly points to defence matters. The Central
American Court of Justice supported thisreading when itpointedout that in the
zone of common navigation, merchantmenas well as public revenue vessels
have a free course over theRiver and free accessto both banks.287
3.90 Nicaragua argues that when modifying Rives' draft award, President
Cleveland restricted Costa Rica's right to navigate with public vessels to
navigation connected with the purposes of commerce.288A careful perusal
of the Rives draft289 shows, however, that the President correctly gauged the
scope of Costa Rica's right. In its original version, Rives' draft had pointed
out that Costa Rica's privileges were the same as those of any other nation in
time of peace. In his Second Report of 2 March 1888,Rives explained those
"privileges" as follows:
"Except in the case of the Dardanelles, it is understood that civilized nations, at the
present day, impose no restrictions upon the friendly visits of foreign men of war in
time of peace; and this general usage may be said to constitute an imperfect right
entitling suchvessels to claim hospitality."290
286 Nicaraguan Presidential Decree No. 65-2005 of 28 September 2005, Nicaraguan Official Gazette
No. 188of29 September 1995:RR,Annexes,Vol.2,Annex 69. f
287 Forthe precise wording, see above paragraph 3.80.
288 NCM, para.4.1.15.
289 NCM, Vol 11Annex 72,pp. 258-259.
290 NCM, Original Documents deposited within the Registry11Annex 71,p. 217.Thus Rives' proposal was simply that Costa Rica's public vessels should
receive the treatment extended to those of any other nation - no more, no less.
Accordingly,he suggestedthe followingtext to the President:
"Second. The Republic ofCosta Rica has thesameprivileges of navigating theRiver
San Juan with vessels of war or of the revenue service as civilized nations usually
accord in their territorial waters to the public vessels offriendly powers in time of
peace; but no otheror greater privilege^."^^'
President Cleveland disagreed, considering that Costa Rica held more than
simply a "privilege" enjoyed by everybody. This is why he ruled that Costa
Rica's public vesselswere entitledto their own,specifictreaty right to navigate
on the River. His decision was couched in the followingterms:
"Second. The Republic ofCosta Rica under said treaty and the stipulations contained
in the sixth article thereof, has not the rightof navigation of the river San Juan with
vessels of war; but she may navigate said riverwith such vessels of the Revenue
Service as may be related to and connected with her enjoyment of the purposes of
commerce accorded toher in said article, or as may be necessary to theprotection of
said enjoyment."292
3.91 This would by itself be sufficient to prove a right of revenue vessels
to navigate on the San Juan, a right which Nicaragua, after a long period of
uncontested and peaceful exercise, suddenly prohibited in 1998.293The solid
practice supporting Costa Rica's claim is attested toin a number of affidavits
annexedto the Memorial.294 There arealso lettersaddressedby the CostaRican
Border Police of Sarapiqui to the Minister of Public Security in 1991,by the
Costa Rican Atlantic Border Police, Sarapiqui, to the Director of the Costa
RicanCivilGuardin 1992,andby theBorderPolice, Sarapiqui,tothatDirector,
also in 1992.295These letters offer an insight into the daily lives, worries and
difficultiesof forces entrustedwith guarding the border. One of the complaints
291 NCM, Vol 11Annex 72.
292 CRM, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16; see also NCM,Vo11Annex 72.
293 Nicaraguan Presidential Decree No. 65of2995of 28 September2005,Nicaraguan Official Gazette
No. 188 of 29 September 2005: CRR, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 69;"Neighbours from the San Juan
plea for help",Dia,San Jose, 14May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 59.
294 CRM, Annexes,~014,Annexes 88,90,94 and 103.
295
Costa Rican Police Major,FranciscoCordoba Cordoba,to CostaRican MinisterofPublic Security,
LuisFishmanZ.,Note No.C.D.0666-91, 19August 1991:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 36; Costa
Rican Police Major andChief of Post, Francisco CordobaCordoba,to Costa Rican Directorof the
Civil Guard, Lieutenant Colonel Guillermo Saenz, NoteNo. C.D.O. 81-92,29 April 1992:
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 37; Costa RicanChiefof Post,Major Francisco CordobaCordoba,to Costa
Rican Directorof the CivilGuard,Lieutenant ColonelGuillermo Saenz,Note No. C.A.5
May 1992:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 38.voiced related to the need for more boats and fuel. It would certainly not have
been made if, at that time, the boats in question had been unable to circulate on
the San Juan River. Indeed, as shown in Sketch Map 3 opposite page 177 of
this Reply, manyof the communities covered by the area ofjurisdiction of the
Costa Rican Atlantic Border Police in Sarapiqui, such as Palo Seco, Curefia,
Isla Morgan, Curefiita, Remolino Grande, Remolinito, Cafio Tambor, Cafio
Copalchi, Boca Las Marias, Boca La Tigra, etc., lie on the Costa Rican bank
of the San Juan River. In the years covered by the above correspondencethere
was a steady presence of Costa Rican public vessels on the San Juan.296The
evidence summarised above reveals a uniform and clear pattern based on texts
that are equally clear.
3.92 Nicaragua suggests that Costa Rica's own conduct is to the contrary.
According to Nicaragua, Costa Rica accepted in the 1998Cuadra-LizanoJoint
Communiqukthat passage by public vessels would be subjected to conditions
and to a regime of notification. But a State endowed with a right is entitled to
negotiatethemodalitiesofitsexercisewithouttherebyjeopardising itsexistence.
Moreover Costa Rica was prepared to accept a mechanism of notification, as
opposedto one of authorisation,which would have destroyedthe right. In fact,
Nicaragua's argument demonstrates the opposite of what was intended. By
proposing a system of notification and rejecting one of authorisation, Costa
Rica indicatedthat it had a right, which it was unwilling to forego.
3.93 According to another Nicaraguan argument, Costa Rica's rights in the
area covered by Article IV of the Cafias-Jerez Treaty can only be exercised
"from its shore".297This isnot borne outby the relevanttexts. Article IV ofthe
1858 Treatyspeaksofthe obligationofcustody(guarda) "with allthe efficiency
within [the Contracting States'] reach". Concerning Costa Rica, "within its
reach" does not necessarily correspond to "from its shore". It could equally
well mean that each State shall act with maximum efficiency.
3.94 AfinalNicaraguanargumentaboutre-supplyofCostaRicanborderposts
is that there is not only no right for Costa Rica but also no need. In the face of
296 See discussion in this Reply,Appendix, pA.33-A.44andCRR, Annexes,Vol2,Annexes
36,37 and38.
297 NCM, paras4.2.31-4.2.32.all evidence,Nicaragua contends that Costa Rica hasall the necessary facilities
to re-supply its border posts along the San Juan River. In fact those posts were
supplied from 1998-2005, when the moratorium set by the Declaration of
Alajuela of 2002 expired.298This calls for the following observations:
It is simplynottrue - and constant repetitiondoes not make it any more
(i)
true - that Costa Rica disposes of the necessary facilities to re-supply
its border posts by land and by air. For the lack of such facilities the
station of La Cureiiahad to be closed,299 while other posts, deprived of
local navigation, are now operating at a lower level of efficiency.
If Costa Rica has not actively pursued the matterof the re-supplying of
(ii)
the boundary posts between 2002 and 2005, this is not because it did
not believe in its claim or because re-supplying via the river was not
necessary oruseful. Itwas because itwishedtominimise the-very real
- risk of confrontation and escalation.
(iii) In anyevent, the rights grantedto Costa Rica by the Treatyof Limitsare
unconditional andperpetual. Theyarenot dependentonneed,use orthe
non-availability of alternative means.
(4) Conclusion
3.95 Undertherelevanttreaty andothertextsCostaRicaisentitledtonavigate
with public vessels manned with police agents carrying normal arms onthe part
of the San Juan open to common navigation, in order to protect its freedom of
navigation and to enable it to safeguard the River andto defend the boundary
areas as well as the common bay of San Juan del Norte, locatedin the east of
the common boundary. This right is confirmed by a practice the consistency
of which was broken by Nicaragua as recently as 1998. Its existence is not
dependent on the needto exercise it,although that need does exist in the present
case.
E. Related Rights
3.96 Although Nicaragua assumes that Costa Rica can have no rights except
thoseexpressedinthe 1858Treaty,infactPresidentClevelandrefersinhisAward
298 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 29.
299 Thepost ofLaCureiiawas located on the topof a hill surroundedby tropical rain forest.It is diffi-
cult or impossible to land any helicopters there.Accessby land is also most difficult in the absence
of good roads.to related rightsinstatingthat navigation"maybe relatedto andconnected with
[Costa Rica's] enjoyment of the 'purposes ofc~rnmerce"'.~~~ Costa Rica has
identified four related rights thatare being breachedby Nicaragua.
(1) Flags
(a) Flag issues as "relatedrights"
3.97 Article VI ofthe 1858Treaty grants Costa Rica the "perpetual right of
free navigation". Acorollary is the rightof Costa Rican vessels to flytheirown
flag. This is a right"related to the right of free navigation.
3.98 Another "related" right is that of not having to fly the Nicaraguan flag.
As will be shown, even a failureto comply with domestic legislation calling for
the display of the Nicaraguan flag - if it exist- will not allow the territorial
State to suspend the right of navigation granted to a foreign State.
(b) Nicaragua's position
3.99 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua pointsout that in the territorial sea
foreign vessels authorised to navigate in it "should" carry the flag ofthe host
State and that "such is the case of the San Juan River". This, it adds, derives
"not only from international courtesy,but from internationalpractice". It refers
to its own diplomatic correspondence,.citedby Costa Ri~a.~Ol Indeed, in a
Note of 3August 2001,the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister wrotethat, in the area
of maritime navigation, foreignships entering sovereign waters (territorial sea,
archipelagic waters, internal waters and, possibly, straits)fly the flag of the
host State, which has to be placed at a higher level than the flag of their own
State.302This is characterised as "international custom andcourtesy".303If the
host State's flag is not raisedby a vessel, Nicaragua continues, passage will
be refused as a consequence of Nicaragua's sovereignty overthe waters of the
River.304
300 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex16.
301 NCM, para.5.3.2.
302 CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex72.
303 NCM, para.5.3.3.
304 NCM, paras.5.3.3and5.3.4.(c) CostaRica's position
3.100 Thehoisting of theNicaraguan flagwas never requiredinthepast. That
requirementwas suddenlyimposedinAugustISeptember1998;atthe sametime,
Costa Rican flags were banned. Costa Rica protested and the practice ceased.
After the present Application was filedin October 2005, it re-appeared in the
form of a requirement that every Costa Rican boat had tofly the Nicaraguan
flag305This occasioned considerable dismayon the Costa Rican bank of the
River.306Statements by the Mayor of San Carlos and byJose Moreno Rojas
report that the inhabitants of the border region were unsettled over the new
measure and that they were not able "to acquire flags from the neighboring
country in the area where they live."307
3.101 In a letter of 20 October 2005 the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica
requested the withdrawal of themeasure.308On 9November of the same year,
the Nicaraguan Minister of ForeignAffairs refused to comply.309
3.102 The requirement of flying the Nicaraguan flag, formulated in 1998 and
re-introducedin2005,has survivedtothisday,asisshownbywitness statements
joined toCosta Rica'sMemoria131a 0swellasbytwoaffidavitsaccompanyingthe
present Reply. On 29 July 2007, Victor JulioVargasHernandez, a CostaRican
official,testifiednot only that Nicaragua maintainsthe requirement of flying its
flagwhen navigating onthe San Juan but that it requires"the flying onlyof the
Nicaraguan flagon Costa Rican vessels." In thesame affidavitLeonel Morales
Chacon confirmedthat the flagrequirementpersi~ts.~"The currentNicaraguan
position is in contrastto a note addressed in 1868 by the Nicaraguan Minister
to the United Statesto Secretary of State Seward and related tothe vessels of
the CentralAmerican Transit Company. In that note it was explained that only
Nicaragua and Costa Rica couldflytheir flags onthe San Juan
305 CRM,para. 5.87.
306 CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 72.
307 CRM,Annexes, Vol4, Annex 108;CRM,Annexes,Vol6, ~nnex 235.
308 CRM, Annexes,Vol3, Annex 81.
309 CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 82.
310 CRM,Vol.4,Annexes 84-87,91,95, 101 and 108.
311 AffidavitofVictor JulioVargasHernandez, MarlenyRoyasVargas,Mario SalaJimtnez and Leonel
Morales Chacon,28 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,, Annex 54.
312 CRM,para. 4.10 and CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 207,p. 108.(d) Analysis
3.103 Considering the timing of their introduction and re-introduction, it
seems that the measures described above are retaliatoryin character and are
meant to irritate and discourage the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bankof the
San Juan. They seekto make apoor and defenceless population bear the brunt
of disagreements between the two Governments.
3.104 Nicaragua's main contention isthat shipsnavigating in foreign maritime
waters are required to fly their own flag as well as, on a higher level, that of
the receiving State. According to Nicaragua, the same rule applies to river
navigation, especially in situations such as the present. These arguments are
fragile. Aquickperusal oftwo classictexts onthelawofthe seashowsthatthere
is no rule of international law in the sense advocatedby Nicaragua.313Possibly
such rules could be found in some of the "laws and regulations" enacted by
coastal States under Article 21of the 1982United Nations Convention onthe
Law of the Sea to govern innocent passage. But contraventionsof such rules
do not authorise refusal of innocent passageby the coastal State. Indeed, what
matters for that State is not so much the display of the flag of the receiving
State,but the identity and therefore the national flagof the vessel.
3.105 That much also applies to river navigation. The State exercising
sovereignty over the river's waters will mainlybe interested in which foreign
ships are actually sailing on the river and, therefore, their nationality.and flag,
rather than in making these ships carry the localflag.314 If the analogy between
maritime and fluvial navigation suggested by Nicaragua were to be pursued,
one might say that in both these areas it is the foreign ship's national flag that
must be shown and not that of the receiving State, although there may be local
legislation providing for the latter. So far no Nicaraguan legislation on this
issue has been shownto exist. Even if it did exist, non-compliance withsuch.
legislation cannot possibly entail the refusal of rightsof navigation securedby
treaty and described as perpetual. Indeed perhaps the leading monograph on
river navigation fails evento mention the issue, which is merely ceremonial.315
313 C.J. Colombos, TheInternational Lawof tlierev. ed.(London:LongmansGreen, 1967);L.
Lucchini& M.Voelckel,Droit de la mer, Vol.I1:Pedone, 1996).
314 Colombos, 166-7(170).
315 B. Vitanyi, The International Regimeof River Navigation, (Alphen a.&.Noordhoff,ff3.106 WhatNicaragua hasto sayaboutflagsis,in fact, a simple assertionwith
no supporting evidence, based on an amalgamation of precepts of fluvial and
maritime navigation which isjustified by nothing and alternately characterised
as custom or courtesy. It cannotbe both.
3.107 Prior to the recent measures taken by Nicaragua, Costa Rican vessels
had for over a century freely used the area of common navigation of the
San Juan. But Nicaragua sees no inconsistency between its former attitude
and the present one. The more than secular tolerance shown by Nicaragua
is not, in its view, relevant in international law; at the same time, '~icara~ua
extravagantly assimilates the rules of the law of the sea with those governing
river navigation.
3.108 By contrast in 1868, in diplomatic correspondence with a third party
- the United States-Nicaragua refused to the latterthe right to sail shipsunder
theAmericanflaginthe areaofcommonnavigationofthe SanJuan, explaining
that Costa Rica, as a riparian, was the only State having the right to do so,
besides Nicaragua. Nothing was said, at that time about any obligation to fly
the Nicaraguan flag aswell, nor about any hierarchy among flags.316
(2) Fisheries
(a) Fisheries as a "relatedright"
3.109 CostaRica'sApplicationto the Courtrefers tobreaches of the perpetual
rightoffreenavigationand"related rights".317Thecustomaryrighttosubsistence
fishing in the San Juan River isa "related right".318In its Counter-Memorial
Nicaraguapoints outthat the allegedright doesnot derive fromthe Cafias-Jkrez
Treatyof 1858,from the 1888Awardor the 1916judgment.319
3.110 Nicaragua suggests that the only rights Costa Rica claims are those
related to the 1858Treaty or to texts connected with it and nothing beyond.320
1979).
316 CRM,para. 4.10 and CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 207.
317 CRM,para.l.Ol.
318 CRM,para. 5.187.
319 NCM,paras.5.1.2-5.1.4.
320 NCM, para.5.1.4.Rights to fish are not, however, alleged to derive from the Treaty but from
customary law the roots of which are found in the Royal Ordinance of 29
November 1540.321This leads Nicaragua to argue that Costa Rica contradicts
itself.
3.111 The answer to be given is twofold. First it is up to Costa Rica, and not
to Nicaragua, to formulateits claims. Secondthe right of the inhabitants of the
Costa Rican shoreto engage in subsistencefishingon the San Juan is "related
to the 1858Treaty in that Nicaragua contends that that Treaty,by attributing to
it the sovereignty over the waters of the River and granting Costa Rica only a
perpetual right of free navigation, superseded other pre-existing rights such as
any right to fish.322The latter issue is clearly connectedwith the Treaty.
(b) The existing practiceand its character
3.112 Regarding the substance of the fisheries claim, Nicaragua asserts that
it has never prevented, does not prevent and never will prevent subsistence
fishing by residents of the Costa Rican shore.323Costa Rica takes note of this
commitment. Unfortunately the affidavitspresented in Costa Rica'sMemorial
show that Nicaragua did and does in factprevent persons residing on the Costa
Rican bank from engaging in subsistencefishing, and evidence annexed to this
Reply confirmthat the prohibition is ongoing.324
3.113 Nicaraguacharacterisesthesestatementsas"ahandful"of testimonial^,^^^
but they are supported by further statements annexed to thisReply.326 The
collection of further statements is both difficult and unnecessary: difficult
because potential witnesses are reluctant to come forth for fear of reprisals
on the part of Nicaraguan authorities; unnecessary because Costa Rica is not
required to duplicate testimonies that are clear, consistent and uncontradicted,
321 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 1.
322 NCM,para. 5.1.13.
323 NCM,para.5.1.15.
324 CRM, Annexes, Vol4, Annexes 106, 107,108and 109; Victor Julio VargasHernandez, Marleny
RojasVargas,Mario SalasJimenezand Leonel Morales Chacon,29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,
2,Annex 54.
325 NCM,para. 5.1.8.
326 Victor JulioVargasHernandez, Marleny RojasVargas,Mario Salasezand Leonel Morales
Chacon, 29 July 2007:R,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 54.all the more since Nicaragua has admitted that, albeit "as a matter of courtesy
andconvenience"it has "usuallytolerateda limiteduse ofthe SanJuan fornon-
commercialfishingby CostaRican ri~arians".~~~
3.114 Taken together, the evidence yields the following conclusions: (i)
riparians have been fishing in the San Juan without problems for many years;
(ii) they have done so for subsistence purposes; and (iii) despite its emphatic
denials,328Nicaragua has, since the filing of the Application by Costa Rica,
prevented subsistence fishing by Costa Rican riparians. This is why, though
appreciating Nicaragua's promise not to obstruct such fishing in the future,
Costa Rica respectfully asks the Court to declare that there exists a right of
subsistencefishingin the SanJuan River.
3.115 Nicaragua contends that its tolerance of fishing fiom the Costa Rican
bank must notbe viewed as a right but as a token of courtesy and tolerance and
that Costa Rica has not succeeded in establishing the existence of a uniform
practicehavinglegal effect.329Moreover,whatevermay havebeen the situation
in the distant past has been erased by the 1858Treaty's silence on the matter
of fishing coupled with the attribution to Nicaragua of sovereignty over the
waters of the San Juan. In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua makes light of
the arguments of Costa Rica which had, in its Memorial, drawn attention to
similar issues in Finally, much is made33'of a Charter of 1573332
which allegedly ended whatever fishingrights may have been conceded in the
preceding Charter of 29 November 1 540.333
3.116 The first argument is over-familiar: a practice which may have been
followed from time immemorial - an important trace of which is found in the
1540Charter - is said by Nicaragua to be based on nothing but goodwill and
327 NCM, para.5.1.6.
328 NCM,paras.5.1.14-5.1.16.
329 NCM, para.5.1.6.
330 NCM,para.5.1.9;cfCRM,paras.4.124-4.127.
331 NCM,para.5.1.12.
332 NCM,Vol. 11Annex86.
333 CRM,Annexes,Vol.2,Annex 1.tolerance. As toNicaragua's argument that the 1573Charter superseded that of
1540,the former said nothingat all about fishing.334
3.117 Thepattern ofpractice describedabovehavingbeen followed forsolong
one may safely assume that, unlessthe opposite can be shown conclusively, it
has taken on apatina of custom. In situations such as the present, had it wished
to prevent the formation of a local custom, Nicaragua could and should have
made it clear 1ong.agothat it accepted Costa Rican subsistence fishing only as a
matter of tolerance. Instead Nicaragua continued its practice of tolerance after
the conclusionof the Caiias-JCrezTreaty in 1858anduntil very recent times. It
did soquite independently ofthat Treatyand ofthe sovereignty over the River's
waters conferred on it.
3.118 Nicaragua contends that the fisheries practice invoked by CostaRica
lacks uniformity. The testimonies submitted by Costa Rica are, however,
consistent. Withoneexception,they emanate frompersons who have long lived
in the area and who until recently have fished in the River without Nicaraguan
interference.
3.119 The way in,whichNicaragua brushes off CostaRica's arguments about
the subsistencefishingrights of Africanborder populations335 shows athorough
misunderstanding of Costa Rica's position: the idea is not to establish the
existence of a general customary right to subsistence fishing forthe population
ofaStatewhosebank formsaboundarybut to demonstratethat it oftenhappens,
in such situations,that localpopulations are given access to theriver'sfisheries
either on a conventional or a customary basis.336
(c) Conclusion
3.120 There has been, from time immemorial, a practice allowing the
inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank ofthe San Juan to fish in that River for
subsistence purposes. This practice survived the Treaty of 1858.
334 Seethis Reply, paragraph3.110and Appendix, paragraph A.09.
335 NCM,paras. 5.1.9-5.1.11.
336 CRM,paras. 4.124-4.127.3.121 The disagreement between the parties may be summarised in two
points:
(i) NicaraguaclaimsnottobepreventingCostaRicanripariansfromfishing,
but in fact there have been instances where they have been prevented
from subsistence fishing; it promises to continueto allow the riparians
to do so and while Costa Rica takes note of that Costa Rica
maintains that Nicaragua has recently preventedsuch fishing.337'
(ii) According to Costa Rica, its riparian population enjoys a customary
right to engage in subsistence fishing, a claim resisted by Nicaragua
which argues that no such custom has emerged and that the existing
practice is one based on goodwill and toleration.
'(3) Landing Rights
3.122 In addition to attributing the sovereignty over the waters of theSanJuan
to Nicaragua anda perpetual right of free navigation to Costa Rica, Article VI
of the 1858Treatyprovides:
"[tlhe vessels of both countriesshallhave the power to land indiscriminatelyon either
sideofthe river,atthe portion thereof where the navigationiscommon;andno charges
of anykind, or duties, shallbe collected unlesswhen levied by mutualconsent of both
governments."
3.123 CostaRica'sright was confirmedby the 1916Judgment of the Central
American Court of Justice:
"CostaRicapossessesintheSanJuanRiver,forpurposesofcommerce,permanentrights
of free navigation from its outletas far up as three miles belowastilloViejo, andthe
right forher vesselstomoor atallpoints alongeither bank,exemptfrom the imposition
of any charges,in that part ofthe stream in which navigation iscommon."338
3.124 Nicaragua does not contest the existence of CostaRica's right to land
on the Nicaraguan bank339 which is clearly "related" tothe rights of navigation .
on the River. Its main comments are:(i) that the right in question entails the
correlativedutyto conformtothe localState's regulationsonhealth andsecurity
matters;340 (ii) that it only operates in the framework of what Nicaragua means
337 This Reply,paragraphs4.56-4.61.
338 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex2 1,p. 219.
339 NCM, para.4.1.47.
340 NCM, para. 4.1.48.by navigation for "purposes of commerce", namely, "articlesof trade";341 and
(iii) that mooring on the oppositeriver bank doesnot include a right of trading:
"The Treaty of 1858was not a free trade agreement."342
3.125 The main problem here lies not with the right to land on the opposite
bankassuchbutwiththereducedscopeattributedtoitonaccount ofNicaragua7s
interpretation of Costa Rica's rightof navigation (navigation "with articles of
trade" instead of "for purposes of commerce"), an interpretationrefuted earlier
in this Chapter.343
3.126 Regarding the purported obligation to conform to local regulations in
health and securitymatters,all depends onthe scopeof suchregulations and on
their application. They must be conceived and applied reasonably,so as not to
erode the right to land nor the right to navigate "for purposes of commerce".
3.127 Itistruethatthe 1858Treatywasnotintendedtobeafreetradeagreement.
Assuming, however - quod non - that the right of navigation enjoyedby Costa
Ricaisindeedlimitedto "a&cles oftrade" andassumingalsothat landingonthe
opposite shore does not encompass a right to engage in trade on that shore,the
result would be that the "perpetual right to free navigation" attributed to Costa
Rica isreducedto "navigation forpurposes oftradingwith other CostaRicans."
This, in itself, showsthat Nicaragua's position is completelyunreasonable.
3.128 It may be concluded that, as a "related" matter, the right to land on the
Nicaraguan bank must be appreciated in the framework of the interpretation
giveninthis ChapterofCostaRica's perpetualrightoffreenavigation:itcannot
be viewed as a purely technical right excluding activities related to commerce.
Furthermore, the health and securityregulations enactedby Nicaragua mustbe
reasonable, so as not to deprive Costa Rica's rightsof all meaning.
341 NCM,para. 4.1.47.
342 NCM,para.4.1.48.
343 Seeabove,paragraphs3.39-3:78(4) Facilitation of traffic
3.129 In December 1948,withthe support of Nicaragua, CostaRican rebels
stirred up a civil war and attemptedto overthrowthe CostaRican Government.
Costa Rica solicited the assistanceof the Inter-American system, under whose
auspices the Pact of Amity of 21 February 1949 was concluded.344In that
instrument, the two States agreedto settletheir disputes peacefully by applying
the Pact of Bogota.
3.130. A second attempt'to overthrow the Costa Rican Government was
undertaken in 1955 by the same rebel faction, supported once more by
Nicaragua. Again, the parties endedup before the Council of the Organization
ofAmerican States which brokered the Agreement of 9 January 1956.345That
Agreementwas intendedto "maintain the close friendshipasbefitstwo fraternal
andneighbouringpeoples, andto avoid in futureanydispute which may disrupt
their fraternal relations."346
3.131 PursuanttoArticle I - signifying the importance given to this matter in
the 1956Agreement - the parties "shall collaborate to the best of their ability
in orderto carry out those undertakings and activitieswhich require acommon
effortbyboth Statesandareofmutualbenefit". One ofthese activities issingled
out by Article I, namely, that of facilitating and expediting traffic on the Pan-
American Highway and onthe San Juan River, "within the terms of the Treaty
of 15April 1858and its interpretation given by arbitration on 22 March 1888".
In particular, the parties undertake to "facilitate those transport services which
may be providedto the territory ofoneParty by enterprises which are nationals
of the other."
3.132 Article I1 of the Agreement calls for border surveillance and the
prevention of the illegal entry of weapons or armed groupsfrom the territory
of one Party into that of the other. Articles I11and IV require each Party to
prevent, on its territory, participation in subversive undertakings against the
other Party,whileArticle IV deals with the applicationofArticles Ito I11andV
344 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 24.
345 CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 24. For a short historical description,see CRM,paras. 2.51-2.52.
346 SeeCRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 24, Preamble.to X of the Havana ConventionConcerning the Duties and Rights of States in
the Event of Civil Strife of20 February 1928.347
3.133 Nicaragua expressesthe viewthatthe 1956Agreement isnot germaneto
the issueasitfocusedonendingcivilstrifeandpreventing hture insurrectionary
activities, and that it containedno obligations beyond those resulting from the
1858 Treaty and the ClevelandAward. As the latter texts only provide for a
rightofnavigation"con objetosdecomercio" meaning, accordingtoNicaragua,
"with articles oftrade", the dutyto facilitate and expeditetrafficonthe SanJuan
River, stipulated in ArticleI of the 1956Agreement, only operated within that
framework. This being so there is nothing to facilitate orexpedite.348
3.134 If this were trueArticleI, placed at the head of the operative provisions
oftheAgreement,wouldbebereft ofmeaning, whichcannotbepresumed, given
the importance of the 1956Agreement and the circumstancesof its conclusion.
Costa Rica has always interpreted "con objetos de comercio" as meaning "for
purposesofcommerce".349 Thisinterpretation,whichwasacceptedbyNicaragua
for a long time, gives full meaning to ArticleI of the 1956Agreement: thereis
a perpetual rightofpee navigation which the parties, in ArticleI, undertake to
render more effective. This is an obligation, squarely placed inthe centre of
the Agreement rather than in its preamble or somewhere on its periphery. By
practically nullifying CostaRica's perpetual rightoffree navigationas from the
mid- 1990s,Nicaragua has disregarded the dutyto facilitate and expedite traffic
on the San JuanRiver.
3.135 To this one may add that, under Article I of the 1956Agreement, the
parties have also accepted to facilitate transport services offeredby enterprises
belonging tonationals ofone Statethrough theterritoryofthe other. On account
of the conditions prevailing in the borderarea, this effectivelymeans transport
services offered by Costa Rican operators on the San Juan, which Nicaragua
considers its territory. Accordingly, by entering into the 1956 Agreement
Nicaragua recognised what it now contests: that Costa Rica's perpetual right
347 134LNTS45.
348 NCM,paras.6.2.1-6.2.10.
349 See above,paragraphs 3.39-3.78.of free navigation encompasses the transportation of persons, including
F. Theissue of "BorderCourtesy"
(1) What is meant by "BorderCourtesy"?
3.136 In its Counter-Memorial, in relation to the practice followed in matters
of navigation and defence, Nicaragua devotes some attention towhat it calls
"border courtesy",that is, behaviour motivated not bythe idea of fulfilling a
legal duty but by the wish to be a good neighbour. Other expressions usedby
Nicaragua, such as "toleration" and "ex gvatia concessions", carry a similar
meaning. When making reference to such behaviour on its part, Nicaragua
seeks to convey that this behaviour was not inspiredby any sense of legal duty
andwas not, therefore, legally relevant for the interpretation ofthe 1858Treaty
and of the 1888Award. Avariation of this line of argumentis the assertion that
certain agreements entered into by the two States, such as the Cuadra-Lizano
Joint Cornrnuniqu6of 8 September 1995,have no normative value,or that they
are null andvoid.351
(2) Nicaragua's strategyof denial
3.137 Nicaragua's strategy, as outlined in its Counter-Memorial,is to profess
a wish to cooperate with its neighbours, particularly Costa Rica, to extend
courtesies to them, and to apply principles of good neighbourlines~.~~~ It
claims to follow these policies, "because she is convinced they are principled
and right, not out of any sense of legal obligation",353 and regrets that Costa
Rica has repaid these kindnessesby "engaging in patterns of conduct designed
to enlarge her existing rights or even to establish new ones". In addition,
speaking of matters such as sports, tourism, defence, customs, migration and
illegal trafficking,Nicaragua points out:
"it is possible to establish mechanisms of border cooperation through an agreement..
Nicaragua has always been and continues to be willing to negotiate and implement
these types of agreementsas has already been done in thepast."354
350 NCM, paras. 4.1.37-4.1.43.
351 NCM,paras.3.2.8and3.2.12.
352 NCM,paras. 6.1.l-6.1.2.
353 NCM, para.6.1.1.
354 NCM, para.4.3.7.This passage may, incidentally, reveal a contradictory attitude: on the one
hand, Nicaragua advocates the conclusion of agreements to organise border
cooperationwhile, on the other, itdenies relevance or validity to most existing
agreements. It may be observed that if Nicaragua's attitude really existed,
the present dispute would not have arisen, or would have been resolved by
agreement.
3.138 In factNicaragua aims at establishing avirtual monopoly of navigation
for its ownbenefit,reducing Costa Rica'sperpetual right of freenavigation to a
privilege the content of which would be determined, essentially,by Nicaragua
itself. This is to be achieved partly by a narrow interpretation of the right of
navigation, partly by asserting that activities and situations acquiesced in over
timebyNicaraguahadresultedfromforbearanceonthepart ofacountrywhich,
being the territorial sovereign,can do whatever itpleases, and partly by issuing
threats.
3.139 ~icara~ua accuses Costa Rica of behaving as if the boundary between
them were located, not on the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan but in the
middle of the River.355What Costa Rica is attempting is a "crude revision" of
the 1858Treaty356 through claims characterised as TONicaragua,
Costa Rica has constantly claimed new navigation rights:
"through a practice ofabusing permission to navigate ...or establishing apattern of
requesting and receiving permission to navigate, then doing so without permission,
claimingjustification in the 1858Treatyand Cleveland
Nicaragua has responded to this by "enforcing her laws," whereupon Costa
Rica has accused Nicaragua of violating the Treaty and the 1888 Award.359
According to Nicaragua, this is the way in which Costa Rica has proceeded
regarding the alleged right of public vessels to re-supply border posts and also
in relation to sporting activities andtourism.360
355 NCM, para.4.1.5.
356 NCM, para.4.3.8.
357 NCM, para.4.3.20.
358 NCM, para. 6.2.17.
359 NCM,paras. 6.1.3,6.2.and 6.1.28.
360 NCM, para. 4.3.27.3.140 This description misrepresents the CostaRican claim. Nicaragua has
a long tradition of eroding Costa Rica's rights of navigation and protection
by incessantly narrowing their scope and by attempting to make these rights
subservient to its own discretion. Practices relatingto the rights attributedto
Costa Rica by the 1858Treaty,as supplementedby the 1888Award,are given
no status astreaty or customarylaw,or aspracticesubsequentto the 1858Treaty
and the ClevelandAward.
(3) Analysis of some arrangementsand practices
(a) The rightof navigating public armed vessels
3.141 As pointed out in Costa Rica's Memorial,361 Costa Rican armed
revenue vessels navigated in the lower partof the river without anyobjection
from Nicaragua, as isshown by the "Adela" incident and by other subsequent
practice.362This state of affairs, which continued until 1998, is characterised
as apure "border courtesy"by Nicaragua, after a practice stretchingover more
than one hundred years basedon the Treatyof Limits, the 1888Awardand the
1916judgment. In the latter the Central American Courtof Justice referred to:
"[tlhepropositionthattherigho tfnavigation on the SanJuan Riverthatwereconfirmed
inCostaRicadonotextendtovesselsofwar,butsimplytovesselsdevotedtorevenue
anddefensive purposes - aninterpretation thatinno waydetractsfrom thedoctrineset
forth concerning thepracticalownershippertaining ingreat parttoCosta Rica over the
361 CRM,para. 4.85.
362 CRM,paras.4.85-4.86. Seealso this Reply, paragraphs 1.15andAppendix,paragraphsA.33-A.44.
See also Note from Commandantof the Rosalia Revenue Guardto the Deputy Inspector of the
Treasury, 20 October 1915:CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 31; Note fromCommandant of the Ro-
salia RevenueGuard to the Deputy Inspectorof the Treasury,18December 1915:CRR,Annexes,
Vol2, Annex 32; Notefrom SubInspectorof the RevenueGuard inBoca de San Carlosto Lieuten-
ant Lopezof the General Inspectorateof the Treasury, 26July 1968:CRR,Annexes,nnex
33; Note fromSub Inspector of the Revenue Guard in Bocade San Carlos to Lieutenant Lopez of
the General Inspectorate of the T, 9 July 1968:CRR,Annexes,ol2, Annex 34; Note from
the Revenue Guard of Bocade SanCarlosto Chief of Personnel of the GeneralInspectorateof the
Treasury,5 August 1968: CRR, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 35; Costa Rican Police Major, Francisco
Cordoba Cordoba, to Costa Rican Ministerof Public Security, Luisn Z., Note No. C.D.
0666-91, 19August 1991:CRR,Annexes,Vol2,Annex 36; Costa RicanPoliceMajor and Chiefof
Post, Francisco CordobaCordoba,to CostaRican Director of the CivilGuard, Lieutenant Colonel
Guillermo Saenz, NoteNo. C.D.O. 81-92,29 April 1992:CRR, Annexes, Vol 2, Annex 37; and
Costa Rican ChiefofPost,Major Francisco CordobaCordoba,to Costa Rican Directorof the Civil
Guard, Lieutenant Colonel Guillermo Saenz, No. .A.C2-92,25 May 1992:CRR,Annexes,
Vol2,Annex38. Further evidenceof CostaRicanofficialnavigation is annexedtothis Reply inthe
form ofa "departure clearance certificate" issuedby Costa Rican authorities,as explained inCRM,
para. 5.07:epartureClearance Certificate" issuedby the Costa RicanRevenueGuard inBoca del
rio Sarapiquito a Costa Rican Park Ranger,15June 1968:nexes,Vol2, Annex 679b).SanJuanRiverbecausenavigationwithvesselsofwar,asidefrom constitutina gcause
fordisquiet,wouldimplyafunction appropriatt eoterritorialsovereignty."363
3.142 The interpretation yieldedby that practice and confirmedby a decision
of an international tribunal is dismissedby Nicaragua, which sees itas a mere
"courtesy" within a frameworkof cooperation and neighbo~rliness.~~~ In 1998
Nicaragua banned armed public vessels from the SanJuan, arguing that their
presence was not authorised under the 1858Treaty and conveniently forgetting
that the SecondArticleof the ClevelandAward,which has force of yesjudicata
for the two States, confirmsCostaRica'sright to:
"navigate [theSanJuan] with suchve'sseloftherevenueserviceasmayberelatedto
andconnected with herenjoymentof the 'purposesof commerce' accordet doherin
[ArticleVI],orasmaybenecessarytotheprotectionofsaidenjoyment."365
3.143 Nicaragua subsequently advocated a solutionby proposing a system
of permits granted on a temporary basis. Costa Rica proposed a system of
notification which would have left intact Costa Rica's rightto navigate while
dealingwithNicaragua's securityconcerns. Thiscompromisewasnot,however,
acceptable to Nicaragua, which insisted on a systemof auth~risation.~~~
3.144 EvidentlyNicaragua wasno longerwillingtoconformtothe instruments
and texts of 1858, 1888 and 1916. But Nicaragua's attemptto modify the
interpretation previously given to those instruments and texts cannot have
ended more than a century of concordant practice, transforming rights regularly
exercised to privileges on mere goodwill.
(b) The Cuadra-Castro Joint CommuniquCof 8 September 1995
3.145 The 1995 Cuadra-Castro Joint CommuniquCis an agreement between
the Nicaraguan Army and the Ministry of Public Security of Costa Rica to
coordinate operations in the border areas of the two States "thereby joining
forcesinthebattle againstthe illegaltraffickingofpersons,vehicles, contraband
363 CRM, para. 4.92; CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 21.
364 NCM, paras..1.5-6.1.23.
365 CRM,,Annexes,Val2,Annex 16,p. 98.
366 NCM, paras. 6.1.16-6.1.20. See CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annexes 64, 65and 66.of any nature andjoint operation^..."^^^ As Nicaragua notes, the Communique
is not specificallyrelated to the borderat the SanJuan.368But one can scarcely
say, as Nicaragua does, that the Communique lacked normative content since
it provided for cooperation in the border regions ofthe two States; nor can it
be asserted that it did not applyto the common navigation area ofthe San Juan
River.
The Cuadra-Lizano JointCommuniquCof 30 July 1998
(c)
3.146 In the Cuadra-Lizano Joint Communique of30 July 1998 the Minister
of Defence ofNicaragua and Costa Rica's Minister of Government; Police and
Public SecurityexpresstheirrespectforNicaraguan sovereigntyoverthe waters
of the SanJuan and for Costa Rica's rights of navigation.The text allows Costa
Rican armed public vessels to navigate on theRiver to relieve and re-supply
boundary posts on the Costa Rican side, provided that .noticehas been given
and that the Costa Rican agents in those vessels only carry their normal arms.
Nicaraguan authoritiesmay accompany themon theirjourney, and movements
must be reported to the Nicaraguan border posts along theway.
3.147 This Communique has the characteristicsof a legally binding text.369
Moreover,ittakes into account.theinterests ofboth sides: CostaRica is allowed
tore-supply boundary posts which are difficultto accessor inaccessible on land
orbyair,whileNicaraguaisfullyinformedofsuchactivities. Nicaragua's excuse
for jettisoning this instrument is that it is "certainly not ...self-exe~uting";~~~
the other is that it was "legally null and void and non-existent", in particular
because it was signedby persons lacking treaty-making power and because it
was found,"after due analysis, ... that itcould infringethe national sovereignty
of Ni~aragua."~~'The declaration of nullity made by the Foreign Minister of
Nicaragua was rejected by the Costa Rican Foreign Minister on 12August
1998.372
367 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 27,Point 1. .
368 NCM, para.6.1.8.
369 NCM, para.3.2.11.
370 NCM, para.3.2.11.
371 NCM,para. 3.2.12.
372 CRM,para. 3.31andCRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 50.3.148 This recital shows the inflexibilityofNicaragua's views on sovereignty.
Nothing can grow next to it: Costa Rica's perpetual right of free navigation is
regarded as nothing but an empty shell. Wherever an agreement supporting
Costa Rica's claims appears,Nicaragua either declares it voidor considers it as
being deprivedof normative content.
(d) Presidential Letters exchangedon 28 and29 June 2000
3.149 On28June2000,thePresidentofCostaRicasuggestedtohisNicaraguan
counterpart the revival of the regime applied priorto 1998 to the navigation
of Costa Rican public vessels on the San Juan, namely, that Costa Rican
vessels would inform the Nicaraguan authorities. The President of Nicaragua
indicated his willingness to resume cooperation, provided that authorisation
would have to be sought for every voyage and that navigation bysuch vessels
would neither implythe exerciseofjurisdiction onthe river nor adversely affect
Nicaragua's territorial sovereignty. This exchange was nugatory - but it now
prompts Nicaragua to conclude:(i) that its President had made it clear that the
arrangement prior to 1998 applied as only a modus operandi; (ii) that it had
been assentedto exgvatia; and (iii) that the President's Costa Rican colleague
had accepted this This cannot,of course, be true since the President
of Costa Rica, who would have agreedto a system of information, refused to
accept one of authorisation.
3.150 While referring to the exchange of notes between the Presidents of
Costa Rica and Nicaragua that took place in June 2000, Nicaragua's Counter-
Memorial quotes part of the Conclusion of Resolution 2001-08239 dated 14
August 2001, of Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber.Nicaragua first suggests
that:
"...thePresidentofCosta Ricaaccepted in hinoteof 28 June2000thatCostaRicadid
not havea rightto navigateontheSan Juan with'policeandtheirpolice equipment'
without informing 'Nicaragua authorities...eachtime theypatrol theSanJuan.'....it
isclearfrom the 29 June2000noteofthe PresidentofNicaraguathatCostaRicahad
norighttonavigateontheSan Juanfor thepurposeofprovisioningborderpostsbut
thatNicaraguawaswillingtoconsiderallowing Costa Ricanpolice authoritiesotravel
onthelowerSanJuan forpurposeofprovisioning the posto snthatpartoftheriverso
longastheyweregivenpermission ineach case by the Nicaraguanauthorities."374
373 NCM, paras. 6.1.18-6.1.19. Seealso CRM,paras. 3.38-3.39.
374 NCM,para 6.1.193.151 Nicaragua'sCounter-Memorial goeson to explain that the exchangeof
notes between the two Presidents was submitted to the "Fourth Constitutional
which indicated that it found nothing in President Rodriguez's note
of28 June which "ran counterto CostaRica's position." Nicaragua's Counter-
Memorial quotes thejudgment as follows:
"VIII - Conclusion.Onthebasisof theforegoingarguments,thiC sourtconcludesthat
thediplomaticnotesentbythePresidentof theRepublicofCostaRicaon 28June2000
to the PresidentofNicaragua,is notunconstitutional,andconsequently declaretshe
presentaction[ofunconstitutionality]without basis, dismissiitnfgrom the
3.152 Nicaragua seeksto represent that Costa Rica's own courts have denied
thatCostaRicahasaright tonavigateontheSanJuanforthepurposeofsupplying
borderposts. Of course this isnot true. A carefulreading ofResolution 2001-
08239of 14August 2001showsthe opposite:that CostaRicahas a right to free
navigation on the San Juan. The Courtheld:
"It is notcontradictory,nasmuchasthesaid instruments providtehatNicaragua has
completesovereignta yndauthorityover theSan JuanRiver, while CostaRica holds the
perpetual right to use its lower banksfor commercial,revenue and securitypurposes.
Thereferencednotestatesonly that the Government of CoR stiaca shallinformitspeer
inNicaragua each timiets police forcemustnavigateonthe SanJuan Riverwithlaw
enforcementequipmentI.tisworthnotingthatinthe note atissue, thesaid navigation
is not subject to obtaining apermit, but to-as was stated-simple communication,
whichis entirelyinkeepingwiththetermsof the instruments governing thm e atter.
Thepossibilityfornavigationbyother typesofCosta Rican boatissnotlimitedinany
waywhatsoevereither,andthereisnowaiver of any otherrightsheldbyCostaRicain
respectof the lower banko sfthe San JuanRiver."37(7emphasis added)
3.153 It was afterthis considerationthat CostaRica's Constitutional Chamber
declaredthatthenotewasnotunconstitutional. Thus,itcanbe clearly observed
that the Chamber correctly understood the contentsof President Rodriguez's
note of 28 June 2000 vis-a-vis the extentof Costa Rica's navigational rights.
3.154 ItmaybenotedthatonceagainNicaraguapresentsaninaccurateEnglish
translation, in this case of Resolution 2001-08239of 14August 200 1of Costa
Rica's Constitutional Chamber which distorts the true extentof Costa Rica's
375 Although Nicaragua referredto this as the "Fourth Constitutional Court",it is formally referred
to as the "Constitutional Chamber" and informally referred taos the "Fourth Chamber" or
Cuarta."
376 NCM, para. 6.1.19.
377 NCM,Vol11,Annex66,p. 236.rights on the San Juan. Nicaragua's English version ofthe Resolution stated
that "Costa Rica holdstheperpetual right to use its lower banks forcommercial,
revenue and security purposes" (emphasis added).378However, the original
Spanish text uses the following wording: "Costa Rica detenta sobre el cauce
bajo de aquel, un derechoperpetuo de usoparafines comerciales,$scales y de
seguvidad" (emphasis added).379"Cauce" isto be translated as "course," not
as "bank". Thus the correct English translation provides: "Costa Rica holds
the perpetual right touse its lowercourse for commercial, revenue and security
purposes."
(e) The requests for permission to navigate made in 2006
3.155 On 19June 2006, the Costa Rican Institute of Social Security requested
permission to navigate on the San Juanin order to provide health care services
to local communities. So did a Christian association which intendedto carry
outmissionarywork in someofthose communities. Therequests were accepted
by way of "special" authorisations grantedby the Nicaraguan authorities. In
the event of breaches of Nicaraguan laws, the permits couldbe cancelled; and
the Nicaraguan authorities could carry out routine inspections onthe vessels.
The grant of these authorisations was explained as a "gesture of friendship,
good neighbourhood and courtesy of good faith [sic]" T.his explanation is
indicativeofNicaragua's attitudeinthe matter,namely that, when the use ofthe
waters of the San Juan is not specificallyauthorisedby the 1858Treaty and the
Cleveland Award, there must be an authorisation. Nicaragua adds that Costa
Rica accepted that state ofaffairs.380
3.156 These arguments are easily dismissed. First, the requests in question
were made in June 2006, that is, nine months after the filing of the Costa
Rican Application on 29 September 2005; they cannot, therefore, be taken into
account. Second,oneofthe requesting entitieswas aprivate entitywhose views
or actions cannot be imputed to the State of Costa Rica. Third, regardingthe
first entity and its preoccupation with public health, there was simply no other
way to perform its vital duties, as is explained in Dr. Thais Ching'sAffidavit
I
378 NCM, Vol 11Annex 66.
379 NCM, Original Documents deposited within the Reg111,nnex 66.
380 NCM,paras.6.2.12-6.2.16.annexed to the present Re~ly.~''This is discussed in more detail in Chapter
4.382
G. Conclusions
3.157 The following conclusions may be drawn as to the substance of the
rights relied on by CostaRica:
(1) A good faith interpretation, the ordinary meaning of the terms in their
context-both internal and external - taking into account the object and
purpose of the Treaty of Limits leads to the inexorable conclusion that
thephrase "con objetosde comercio" means"forpurposesofcommerce"
and not "with objects of trade".
(2) Subsequent agreements, subsequent practice and relevant rules of
international law applicable to the dispute confirm this interpretation,
as do the antecedents of the 1858Treaty and the circumstances of its
conclusion. The expressed and real intention of the parties - to which
Nicaragua claims to attribute significance - was to include transport of
"persons and property" and not exclusivelymerchandise.
(3) Costa Rica is entitled to navigate with public vessels manned by Costa
Rican officialscarrying their normal arms on that part of the San Juan
where navigation is common, in exercise of its right of communication
through the San Juan and in order to protect its freedom of navigation,
to safeguard the River, to defend the boundary areas as well as the
common Bay of San Juan delNorte.
381 Affidavit of Thais Ching Zamora, 8 August2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex5. In her testi-
mony, Dr.Ching declares that"herjob is not tomake considerations of a legal characterand that,
given the imperative need to provide urgent servthe populations in order to safeguard the
health andthe lives of people, particularlyof children and other socialgroups in risk inthe area of
the SanJuanriver, shewroteunderthetermsdemandedbytheAmbassador[ofNicaragua], alldone
asa resultofthe urgentstateofnecessity, giv...imminent sanitaryrisks". In this connection,
onenotes with interestthat, in a letter addressedtoelomar,ConsulofNicaragua in Ciudad
Quesada,Dr.Ching statesthat 50per centofthe people taken care of by her Instituteea of
Puerto Viejode Sarapiqui are from Nicaragua. This means that to provide healthcare to Nicara-
guans in Costa Rican territory, the CostaRican authorities have to requestNicaragua'spermission.
See Director, Costa Rican Social Security Fund, HealthArea Puerto Viejode Sarapiqui, Dr.Thais
Ching Zamora,to First Consul, Nicaraguan Consulate, CiudadQuesada, Licenciado Marios
Baldelomar, Note No. 346-2006, 14June 2006: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 44.
382 Seebelow,paragraphs4.26-4.30.(4) Costa Rican vessels exercising the right of navigation are entitled to
hoist the CostaRicanflagand cannotbe obligedto hoist theNicaraguan
flag as a condition for that exercise.
(5) There is a consistent practice - recognised by Nicaragua - allowing
the inhabitants of the right bank of the San Juan to fish for subsistence
purposes, which has created a customary right to fish for these
purposes.
(6) The conventional right to land on the Nicaraguan bank cannot be
restrictedbyregulationswhicheffectivelydenytherightofanypractical
effect.
(7) The 1956Agreement imposes an autonomous obligation on Nicaragua
to facilitate and to expeditetrafficon the SanJuan River.
(8) Any attempt by Nicaragua to deny Costa Rica's rights by considering
themassubjectto asimple"border courtesy" dependentonthe goodwill
ofNicaragua has no basis and must be rejected. Table1
Use of the term"objetos"as meaning "purposes"in 19th Century documents
Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Costa Rica-LeonTreaty NCMAnnex 2 Articulo 2: "Que siendo el principal Article 2: "That the main obiect of
(Montealegre-Solis),Leon,
Englishtranslation by Nicaragua obieto de estos tratados la alianza y these treaties being an alliance and
9 September 1823 justa correspondencia...". reciprocity.."
2 Decree of the Central CRRAnnex 4 "Que por varias casas y compafiiasde "That several foreign trade houses
American Federation Congress comercio extranjeras, se han hecho and companies have made different
regarding an inter Oceanic Canal Soui-ce:Compilacidnde Leyes no diferentes propuestas a1 Gobierno proposalstothe SupremeGovernment
insevtasen las Colecciones OJiciales,
through Nicaragua, Guatemala, 16 formada pov elLic Don Cleto Supremo con el obieto de abrir un with the purpose of opening a
June 1825 Gonzalez Viquez,Tomo 1(San Jose), canal de navegacion entre 10s dos navigational channel between both
mares PacificoyAtlantico.. ." the Pacific andAtlantic oceans.."
pp. 411-413
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica Articulo 4: "El Gobierno debera Article 4: "The Government shallalso
tambien contribuir a su mas pronta contribute to its fastest and easiest
y facil ejecucion; permitiendo el execution, allowing the felling of
corte de maderas necesarias para la the woods necessary for the task;
obra; auxiliando 10sreconocimientos, facilitating the surveys, levelling
nivelaciones y demas operaciones and other operations that should be
que hayan de practicarse, haciendo practiced; clearing the plans and
franquear10splanos y mapasrelativos maps relating to this purpose; and
a1obieto;y cooperando a su logropor cooperating for its achievement
todos 10smedios que no se opongan through any means that are not
a lajusticia ni a1interis general, o a1opposed to thejustice nor the general
particular de 10sciudadanos." interest, or that particular of the
citizens." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
3 ContractBetweenNicaragua NCM Annex 14 Preamble: "El Director Supremo Preamble: "The Supreme Director
and theAmericanAtlantic and Pacific (Preamble, Articles18,27 and del Estado de Nicaragua y la of the State of Nicaragua and
Ship-Canal Company (Zepeda-Juarez- Concluding Provision) "Compaiiia AMERICANA DEL the Atlantic-Pacific Maritime
White), Leon, 27August 1849 CANAL MA~TIMO ATLANTIC0 Canalization American Company.. .
English translation by Nicaragua PAC~FICO". .. deseando arreglar beingdesirousofconcludingtheterms
CRRAnnex 6 10s tCrminos de un contrato que of a contract that facilitates transit
facilite el transit0 por el istmo de through the isthmus of Nicaragua,
(Article 37)
No translation ofArticle37 having Nicaragua, desde el Oceano Atlantic0 from theAtlantic to the PacificOcean,
been providedbyNicaragua, English a1 Pacifico, por medio de un canal through a maritime canal or railroad,
maritimo, 6 por un ferro-carril; han have resolved for that purpose to
translationofArticle 37 by Costa nombrado comisionados, por parte appoint Commissioners, towit: The
Rica. Source:NCM Annex14. del Director Supremo del Estado de Supreme Director of the State of
Nicaragua, a 10sSeiioresLicenciados Nicaragua, Licentiates Hermenejildo
Hermenegildo Zepeda y Gregorio Zepeda and Gregorio Juarez, and the
Juarez, y por parte de la expresada .aforementioned Company,Mr. David.
Compaiiiaa1Sr.L. White, con plenos L. White, conferring upon them full
poderes para formar y concluir un powers toconcludeandsignacontract
contrato para 10s referidos objetos, for the aforesaid purpose, who, after
cuyos comisionados, habiendo exchanging their power, have agreed
canjeado sus poderes, han ajustado y upon thefollowingarticles.. ."
firmado 10sarticulos siguientes.
Articulo 18: "...Y a1propio tiempo, Article 18:"...At the same time, with
con el objeto de llamar por esta nita the ob_iectiveof drawing the broadest
la mas extensa concurrencia de 10s business to this route."
negocios. .."
Article 27: "The State of Nicaragua,
Articulo 27: "El Estado deNicaragua, with the obiective of facilitating the
con el obieto de facilitar la colonization of the landnext to the
colonizacion de las tierras contiguas San Juan River..."
a1rio de SanJuan.. ."Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Articulo 37: "Queda finalmente Article 37: "It is finally
estipulado que este contrato, y 10s stipulated that this contract, as
derechos y privilegios que confiere well as the rights and privileges
se tendran por inajenables por 10s it confers, will be considered as
individuosquecomponenlaCompaiiia inalienable by the individuals that
nominada enel presente y sus socios; comprise the Company mentioned
y que en ningun tiempo deberan herewith and their partners, and that
transferirse 6 asignarse en el todo 6 at no time shall they be transferred or
en parte a cualquiera otra Compaiiia, assigned wholly orinpart to anyother
y de ningun mod0 depender, ni tener Company,andinno way depend orbe
coherencia con ninguna,sean 10sque connectedto any, whatever might be
fuesen sus obietos." their purposes."
Concluding provision:"El precedente Concluding provision: "The present
contrato habiendo sido debidamente contract having been duly ratified
ratificadopor laLejislaturadelEstado by the Legislature of the State of
Nicaragua, now, for this reason, I,
de Nicaragua;ahorapor estarazon yo
David L. White como Comisionado David L. White, Commissioner on
por parte de la Compaiiia americana behalf of theU.S. company Atlantic
del canal maritimo Atlantico Pacifico, Pacific Maritime Canal Company,
investidodeplenospoderesque seme vestedwithfullpowersconferredupon
confirieroncon esteobjeto.. . me by the partiesfor this pumose.. ." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
4 United States-Nicaragua, CRRAnnex 7 (ArticlesXXVI, Articulo XXVI: "Siempre que una Article XXVI: "Whenever one of the
GeneralTreaty of Amity, Navigation, XXXIII, XXXIVandXXXV) de las partes contratantes estuviere contracting parties shallbe engagedin
and Commerce, (Squier-Zepeda), Source: UnperfectedTreatiesof the empeiiada en guerra con otro estado, war with another state,no citizen of
Leon, 3 September 1849 ningun ciudadano de la otra parte theothercontractingparty shall accept
States 776-19767 contratante aceptara cornision o a commissionor letter marque for the
V0l1 1776-1855,pp. 280-302 patente de corso para el obieto de purpose of assisting or co-operating
Both the Spanish and English auciliar 6 cooperar hostilmente conel hostilely with thesaid enemy against
documents are authentic. dicho enemigo contra la mencionada the said parties so at war, under the
parte que este en guerra, bajola pena pain of being treatedas a pirate."
de ser tratadocomopirata."
Articulo XXXIII: "Los dichos Article XXXIII: "The said consuls
consulestendranfacultadpararequerir shall have power to require the
el ancilio de las autoridades locales assistance of the authorities of the
para la prision, detencion, y custodia country for the arrest, detention,and
de 10sdesertores de buques, publicos custody of deserters from the public
o particulares, de su respectivo and private vessels of their country;
pais; y con este obieto se dirijirin a andforthat purpose they shall address
10s tribunales, jueces y empleados themselves to the courts, judges, and
competentes.. ." officerscompetent..."
ArticuloXXXIV: "...Con el obletode Article XXXIV: "For the purpose
proteger mas eficazmentesucomercio of more effectually protecting their
y navegacion.. .." commerce andnavigation.. ." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Articulo XXXV: "...y se estipula Article XXXV: "...And it is also
tambien que todo producto, stipulated, that all lawful produce,
manufacturas, mercancias u otras manufactures, merchandise, or other
propiedades de licito comercio, property belonging tocitizens of the
pertenecientes a ciudadanos de 10s United States passing from one ocean
estados Unidos, que pasen de un to the other, in either direction, for
ocean0 a1otro en ambas direcciones, the purpose of exportation to foreign
con obleto de exportacion a paises countries, shall not be subjectto any
extranjeros,noseransujetosaderechos import or export duties whatsoever;
de importacion o exportacion; 6 or if any citizens of the United States,
que si ciudadanos de dichos estados having introduced such produce,
habiendo introducido a1 estado de manufactures, or merchandise into
Nicaragua productos, manufacturasy the State of Nicaragua, forsale or
mercancias conel obieto de venderlas exchange..."
6 cambiarlas"
5 United States-GreatBritain, CRRAnnex 8 Preamble: "SU MAJESTAD Preamble: "The United States of
Convention Concerninga Ship (Preamble,ArticlesI11and VIII) BRITANICA y 10s Estados Unidos America and HER BRITANNIC
Canal Connecting theAtlantic and de America deseando consolidar MAJESTY, being desirous of
Pacific Oceans (Clayton-Bulwer), Sources: las relaciones de amistad que tan consolidating the relations of amity
Washington, 19April 1850(in force Spanishversion:MM Peralta, El felizmente subsisten entre ellos, which so happily subsist between
4 July 1850) CanalInteroceanicode Nicaragua estableciendoy fijandoenun convenio them, by setting forth and fixing ina
y CostaRica en 1620y en 1887 sus miras e intenciones referentes a Convention,theirviewsandintentions
(Bruselas: Imprenta deAd. Mertens, cualesquiera mediosdecomunicacion which reference to any means of
1887),pp. 68-71 por canal navegable que pueda communication by Ship Canal, which
construirseentre10soceanosAtlantic0 may be constructed between the
English version: 104CTS 41
y Pacifico por la via del rio San Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, by theDocument Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Juan de Nicaragua y cualquiera 6 way of the River San Juan de
ambos de 10s lagos de Nicaragua Nicaragua and either or both of the
6 Managua, a un puerto 6 lugar Lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to
del oceano Pacifico; Su Majestad anyportorplaceonthePacificOcean,-
Britanicaha conferidoplenos poderes -The President of the United States
a1Muy Honorable Sir Henry Lytton has conferred full powers on John
Bulwer.. . y el Presidente de 10s M. Clayton, Secretary of State of the
Estados Unidos a John M. Clayton, UnitedStates;andHER BRITANNIC
Secretario de Estado de 10sEstados MAJESTY on the Right Honourable
Unidos, con el objeto expresado..." Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer....for the
aforesaid purpose. .."
Articulo 111: "...las personas Article 111:"...the persons employed
empleadas en construirlo y su in making the said Canal and their
propiedad usada o que se use con tal property used, or to be used, for that
obleto seranprotegidas..." obiect, shall be protected."
Articulo VIII: "Los Gobiernos de Article VIII: "The Governments of
la Gran Bretafia y de 10s Estados the United States and Great Britain
Unidos, queriendo a1 celebrar esta having not only desired in entering
convencion, no solamente realizar un into this Convention,to accomplish a
obieto particular.." particular obiect.. Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
6 CostaRica-United States CRRAnnex 9 (Preamble,Articles I1 Preamble:"Habiendotraficocomercial Preamble: "Commercial intercourse
andXII)
Treaty ofFriendship, Commerce establecido,hacealguntiempo,entrela havingbeen forsometime established
and Navigation (Molina-Webster), Spanish version: Coleccidnde 10s Republics deCostaRicay 10sEstados between the United States and the
Washington, 10July 1851 TvatadosInternacionales Celebrados Unidos, ha parecido convenientepara Republic of Costarica, it seems
laseguridadcomotambienel foment0 good for the security as well as the
por laRepublica de CostaRica(San de sus mutuos intereses, y para la encouragement of such commercial
Jos6:TipografiaNacional), 1893, conservation de la buena inteligencia intercourse, and for the maintenance
Vol.I, pp. 65-72
entre la mencionada Republica y 10s of good understanding between the
Englishversion: Report of the Estados Unidos, que las relaciones United States and the said republic,
Isthmian Canal Commission1899- que ahora existen entre ambas Partes, that the relations now subsisting
1901(Washington: Government sean reconocidas y confirmadas between them, should be regularly
Printing Office,1904)pp. 417-420 formalmentepor medio de un tratado acknowledged and confirmed by
de amistad, comercio y navegacion. the signature of a Treaty of Amity,
Con este objeto han sido nombrados Commerce and Navigation. For
10srespectivosPlenipotenciarios..." this pumose they have named their
respective Plenipotentiaries..
Articulo 11: ". .Los ciudadanos Article 11: "...The subjects and
y subditos de 10s dos paises, citizens of the two countries shall
respectivamente, tendran libertad have libertyfreely and securely to...
para... alquilar y ocupar casas y hire and occupy and occupy houses
almacenes para 10s obietos de su and ware houses for the purpose of
comercio.. ." their commerce.. ."
ArticuloXII: "..Noseraninquietados, Article XII: "..They shall not be
molestados ni perturbados enmanera disturbed, molested or annoyedin any
alguna, en razon de su creencia manner on account of their religious
religiosa, ni en10sejercicios propios belief, nor in the proper exercise of
de su religion ya dentrode sus casas their religion, either within their own
particulares, en 10s lugares de culto private houses or in the places of
destinados para aquelobjeto..." worship destinedfor thatpurpose.. ." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Description in English
7 Chamorro-Mayorga-White NCM Annex3 Articulo 1: "...con el unico obieto Article 1: "...for the sole purpose
Convention,Granada, 14August 1851 de facilitar la construction del canal of facilitating the construction of a
English translation byNicaragua
maritimo.. ." maritime canal..."
Articulo3:"Lacompafiianueva Artinee 3: "The newly created
creadaprocederaaejecutaryacumplir Companywill proceedto execute and
aquellos obietos de su competencia comply with those obiectives under
(...)Todos aquellos actos u objetos its competence (...)All those actsor
que puedan constituir unainfraccion obiects that may infringe the rights
de 10sderechos.. ." of.."
Articulo 5: "...proceder a todo Article 5: "...carry out whatever
aquello que seamas conveniente para is more convenient for the strict
el estricto cumplimiento del obieto compliance of the company obiective
de su instituto en la parte que le asindicated..."
corresponda.. ."
Articulo 6: "...y adoptara todas Article 6: "...will determine and
las providencias necesarias para el approve all the necessary resolutions
cumplimiento del obieto expresado leading to the achievement of the
en...." obiective set forth in."
Articulo 7: "Todas las propiedades, Article 7: "All properties, objects,
cosas, acciones, derechos, creditosy shares, rights, credits and effects
electos de la nueva compaiiia sesan of the new Company will be freeof
libres de cualquiera especiede carga, all charges or duties for the duration
6 impuesto durante el tiempo de la of the concession ...regarding the
concesion ...para la construccion del building of the maritime canal and
canal maritimoy demas obietos." other obiects." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
8 Irisarri-Stebbins Contract, NCMAnnex 15
Articulo 2: ". .Y con el obieto de Article 2:"...And for the purpose of
New York, 19June 1857 Englishtranslation by Nicaragua averiguar... accurately ascertaining.."
Articulo 3: "...Como el obieto Y la Article 3: "..Given that the purpose
intencionde este articulo..." and intent of this articl.".
9 United States-Nicaragua NCMAnnex 5 (inaccurate English Articulo 11:"Habra reciproca libertad Article 11:"There shall be, between
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce version) de comercio entre todos 10sterritorios
all the territories of the United States
andNavigation (Cass-Irisarri), lo (A*ic1esI1andXV1) de la Republica de Nicaragua, y 10s and the territories of the Republic of
Washington DC, 16November 1857 territorios de 10s Estados Unidos. Nicaragua, a reciprocal freedom of
Sources: Los ciudadanos de 10s dos paises, commerce. The subjects and citizens
respectivamente,tendranplenalibertad ofthetwocountries,respectively,shall
Englishversion: CLWiktor, de llegar franca y seguramente, con have full liberty, freely and securely,
UnperfectedTreatiesof the USA,
VolumeI11856-1882,pp. 135-143 susbuques y cargamentos, iitodos 10s to come, with their ships and cargoes,
lugares,puertosyriosen 10sterritorios to all places, ports, and rivers, in the
Spanishversion: US National mencionados, 10scualessepermita, 6 territories aforesaid, to which other
Archives,WashingtonDC, sepermitierellegaraotrosextranjeros, foreigners are, or may be, permitted
UnperfectedTreaty Series W-2 entrar en 10smismos, y permanecer y to come, to enter into the same, andto
residir en cualquiera parte de ellos, remain and reside in any part thereof,
respectivamente, asi como alquilar respectively; also, to hire and occupy
y ocupar casas y almacenes housesandwarehousesforthepurpose
obietos de comercio; en general, 10s of their commerce; and generally the
comerciantes y traficantes de cada merchants and traders of each nation,
nacion,respectivamente,gozarande la respectively, shall enjoy the most
mas completa proteccion y seguridad complete protection and security for
para su comercio, sujetos siempre a their commerce, subject always to the
las leyes y estatutos de 10sdos paises laws and statutes of the two countries
respectivamente.. .." respectively...." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo XVI: "...si fuese necesario Article XVI: "...should it become
en cualquier tiempo emplear fuerza necessary at any time to employ
militar para la seguridad y proteccion military force for the security and
de las personas y propiedades que protection of persons and property
pasen por cualquiera de las vias passing over any of the routes
mencionadas, empleara la fuerza aforesaid, it willemploy the requisite
necesaria con tal objeto.. .puede force for that purpose.. .employ
emplear tal fuerza para este objeto, such force, for this and for no other
con exclusion de cualquier otro.." purpose..."
10 Costa Rica-Nicaragua,Treaty CRMAnnex7 Articulo 6 (Original Spanish Article VI (Costa Rican translation
of Limits (Caiias-Jhrez),San Jose, version): / submittedto Cleveland):
15April 1858
"...per0 la Republica de Costa Rica "...but the Republic of Costa Rica
tendra en dichas aguas, 10sderechos shall have the perpetual right of
perpetuos de libre navegacion, desde free navigation on the said waters,
la espresada desembocadura hasta between the saidmouth and the point,
tres millas inglesas antes de llegar three English miles distant from
a1 Castillo Viejo, con obietos de Castillo Viejo, said navigation being
comercio, ya sea con Nicaragua 6 a1 for the purposes of commerce either
interior de Costa Rica,por 10srios de with Nicaragua or with the interior of
San Carlos 6 Sarapiqui, 6 cualquiera Costa Rica, throughthe San Carlos
otra via procedente de la parte que river, the Sarapiqui, or any other way
en la ribera del San Juan se establece proceeding from the portion of the
correspondera esta Republica.. ." bank of the San Juan river, which is
hereby declared to belong to Costa
Rica..."Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Article VI (Nicaraguan translation
submittedto Cleveland):
"...but the Republic of Costa Rica
shall have perpetual rights,in the said
waters, of free navigation from the
river's mouth to three English miles
beldw Castillo Viejo for the purposes
ofcommerce,whetherwith Nicaragua
oi the interior of Costa Rica, by way
of the rivers San Carlos or Sarapiqui
or any other route proceeding from
the tract on the shores of San Juan
that may be established as belonging
to this Republic..."-
Articulo VIII (original Spanish Article VIII (Costa Rican translation
version): submittedto Cleveland):
"Si 10scontratos de canalizacion o de "If the contracts of canalization or
transit0 celebrados antes de tener el transit enteredintoby the Government
GobiernodeNicaragua, conocimiento of Nicaragua previous to its being
de este convenio, llegasen a quedar informed of the conclusion of this
insubsistentes por cualquier causa, treaty should happen to be invalidated
Nicaragua se compromete a no for any reason whatever, Nicaragua
concluir otro sobre 10s expresados binds herself not to enter into any
obietos...." other arrangement for the aforesaid
purposes.. ." I
Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Article VIII (Nicaraguan translation
submittedto Cleveland):
"If the contracts for a canal or a
transit made before Nicaragua's
knowledge of thisagreement should
become incapableofdurationthrough
whatever cause, Nicaragua binds
herself not toconclude any other for
the saidobiects.."
11 Costa Rica-NicaraguaTreaty CRRAnnex 11 Preamble: "Nos, JuanRafael Mora, Preamble: "We, Juan Rafael Mora,
of Peace, ~riendshi~,Alliance and (Preamble) Presidente de la Rep6blica de Costa President of the Republic of Costa
Commerce(Mora-Martinez), Rivas, Rica, y Tomas Martinez, Presidente Rica, and Tomas Martinez, President
Source:JMBonilla,Coleccionde
30April 1858 TratadosInternacionales(Managua: de la Republica de Nicaragua.. . of the Republic of Nicaragua.. .
TipografiaInternacional,1909) deseosos de cimentar, bajo bases willingto establish, over solid bases
solidas de justicia y reciprocidad, ofjustice and reciprocity, relations of
English translation by Costaica relacionesdevecindad,deamistad,de neighbourliness, friendship, alliance
alianzay de comercio,queconsoliden and commerce, that consolidate
10s sentimientos de fraternidad.. . the sentiments of fraternity...have
hemos creido muy provechoso a consideredofbenefitto ourrespective
10s respectivos pueblos concluirun peoples to conclude a Treaty that
Tratado que asegureel logro de tan assures the achievement of such
importantes obietos..." importantpurposes.. ." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
12 United States-Nicaragua CRR,Annex 13(Preamble,Article Preamble: "Los infraescritos Pedro Preamble: "The undersigned,
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce 11) Zeledon , Secretario de Relaciones Mirabeau B. Lamar, minister resident
and Navigation (Lamar-Zeledon), Englishversion: CLWiktor, Exteriores de la Republica de of the United Status of America
Managua, 16March 1859 Nicaraga y Mirabeau B. Lamar, to the republic of Nicaragua, and
unpe'ected Treaties oflhe (ISA' Ministro Residente de 10s Estados Pedro Zeledon, secretary of foreign
''1856-1882'pp' 157-166 Unidos deAmerica cerca de la misma relations of saidrepublic, in orderthat
Spanishversion: USNational Republics, con el ob_ietode que sean the most friendly relations may be
Archives,Washington DC, mantenidas las amistosas relaciones maintained between their respective
UnperfectedTreaty Series X-2 entre sus respectivospaises." countries...."
Articulo 11:"Habra reciproca libertadArticle 11:"There shall be between
de comercioentre todos 10sterritoriosall the territories of the United States
de la Republica de Nicaragua y 10s and the territories of the Republic of
territorios de 10s Estados Unidos. Nicaragua a reciprocal freedom of
Los ciudadanos de 10s dos paises, commerce. The subjects and citizens
respectivamente,tendr~nplen oflthbeetwtoacountries, respectively,
de llegar franca y seguramente, con shall have full liberty freely and
sus buques y cargamentos 6 todos 10s securely to come with their ships
lugares,puertosyriosen10sterritorios and cargoes to all places, ports, and
mencionados,a10scualessepermita,6 rivers in the territories aforesaid to
sepermitierellegaraotrosextranjeros; which other foreigners are or may be
deentraren10smismos,y permanecer permitted to come, to enter into the
y residir en cualquier parte de ellos,same, and to remain and reside in any
respectivamente; asi como alquilar part thereof, respectively; also to hire
y ocupar casas y almacenes para 10s andoccupyhousesandwarehouses for
objetos de su comercio; y en general the purposes of their commerce; and
10scomerciantesy traficantes de cada generallythe merchants andtradersof
Nacion, respectivamente, gozaran each nation, respectively, shall enjoy
de la mas completa proteccion y the most complete protection and
seguridad para su comercio, sujetos security for their commerce, subject
siempre a las leyes y estatutos de 10s always to the laws and statutes of the
dos paises respectivamente..." two countries respectivel..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
13 Great Britain-Nicaragua, CRRAnnex 15(Preamble, Article Preamble: "Su Majestad la Reina Preamble: "Her Majesty the Queen
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and XVII) del Reino Unidos de la Gran of the United Kingdom of Great
Navigation (LennoxWyke-Zeledon), Source: 121CTS 364 bretaiiat Irlanda, y la Republica de Britain and Ireland, and the Republic
Managua, 11February 1860 Nicaragua, deseosas de mantener of Nicaragua, being desirous to
Both the Spanish and English y mejorar las relaciones de buena maintain and improve the relations
versions are authentic. inteligencia que felizmente existen of good understandingwhich happily
entre ellas, y de promover el subsist between then,and to promote
comercio entre sus respectivos the commercial intercourse between
subditos y ciudadanos, han juzgado their respective subjects and citizens,
conveniente concluir un Tratado de have deemedit expedient to conclude
Amistad, Comercio y Navegacion, y a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce,
con ese objeto nombrado comos sus and Navigation, and have for that
Plenipotenciarios, a saber..." purpose named as their respective
Plenipotentiaries, that is tosa.".
Articulo XVII: "...o en las capilla 6 Article XVII: "...or in the chapels or
lugares de adoracion designados con places of worship appointed for that
ese obieto,.. purpose, ...
14 Zeledon-Rosa Contract, NCM Annex17 ArticuloI:"...llevenacumplidoefecto Article I:"...they may carry out the
Managua, 30 December 1860 10sobjetosdelpresente contrato.. ." objectives of the present contract."
Articles I andV English translation
byNicaragua.
ArticuloV:"Siendo,comoes,elobieto Article V:"The essential object of the
As no English translationof esencial del presentecontrato..." present contract beingas it is.."
Articles VII and XVIIwas provided
by Nicaragua,English translationby Articulo VII: "...durante la ArticleVII: "...duringthecontinuation
CostaRica.
continuacion del presente contrato, y of this contract and for itsect ..."
para 10sobietos del mismo.. ."
Articulo XVII: "Con el obieto de Article XVII: "With the purpose of
favorecer la ejecuciony el buen Cxito favouring the execution and good
de..." success of..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
15 Nicaragua-Central American NCM Annex 18 Articulo VII: "...limitandose Article VII:". .being said exclusive
Transit Company Inter-Oceanic CRRAnnex 16(Articles VII and espresamente dicho privilegio privilege of navigation expressly
Transit Contract (Molina-Morris), XIX) esclusivo de navegaciona 10sobietos limited to the sole inter-oceanic
Washington, 10November 1863 delasolaviadeTransitoInteroceanico transit route granted hereunder.. ."
An inaccurate English translationof por el presente concedida.." [TranslationbyNicaragua]
Article VII having beenprovided by
Nicaragua, Costa Rica has provided Article VII:"...being said exclusive
privilege of navigation expressly
an English translation. Source:NCM limited to the purposes of the sole
Annex 18 inter-oceanic transit route granted
hereunder..." [Translation by Costa
Rica]
Articulo XIX: "El Gobiernogarantiza Article XIX: "The Government
a la Compaiiia que en la ejecucion guarantees the Company that in the
de las obras que por el presente executionoftheworks that itherewith
toma sobre si, cuyas obias son uno accepts, which works are one of the
de 10s principales obietos de este main purposes ofthis contract.."
contrato.."
16 United States-Nicaragua CRR,Annex 17(Preamble,Articles Preamble:"LaRepublicadeNicaragua Preamble: "The United States of
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce 11,IXandXVI) y 10s Estados Unidos de America, America andtherepublicofNicaragua
and Navigation (Ayon-Dickinson), deseandoconservarymejorarlabuena desiring to maintain and to improve
Managua, 21June 1867 inteligenciay amigablesrelaciones the good understanding and theDocument Reference Descriptionin Spanish Description in English
Source:GP Sanger,The Statutes at que ahora felismente existen entre friendly relations which now happily
Large, TreatiesandProclamations
ellos, promover el comercio de sus exist between them, topromote the
of the UnitedStates ofAmerica from ciudadanos y hacer algunos arreglos commerce of their citizens, and to
December 1867,to March 1869, Vol reciprocosrespectodelacomunicacion make some mutual arrangement with
W(Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., entre 10soceanosAtlantic0 y Pacifico respect to a communication between
1869),pp. 549-562 por el Rio San Juan, y cada uno 6 the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, by
ambos, 10sLagos de Nicaragua o de the river San Juan, andeither or both
Both the Spanishand English Managua, 6por cualquiera otraruta al
versions are authentic. the lakes of Nicaragua andManagua,
traves del territoriodeNicaragua; con or by any other route through the
tal obieto han convenido en concluir territories of Nicaragua, have agreed
un tratado de...." for this purpose to conclude a treaty
of...."
Articulo 11:"Los ciudadanos de 10s Article 11: "...The subjects and
dos paises.. .tendr6nplena libertad de citizens of the two countries...are, or
....alquilaryocuparcasasyalmacenes may be, permitted to ...to hire and
para obletos de su comercio.. ." occupyhouses and warehousesforthe
purpose of theircommerce.. "
Articulo IX: ". .Ni sera tomada la Article IX: "...Nor shall the property
propiedad de ninguno de ellos, de of either, ofanykind, betaken forany
cualquieraespecie, para ningunobieto public obiect..."
publico..." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo XVI: "La republica de Article XVI: "The republic of
Nicaragua conviene en que si en Nicaragua agrees that, should it
cualquier tiempo fuese necesario become necessary at any time to
emplear fuerzas militares para la employ military forces for the
seguridadyproteccionde laspersonas security andprotectionofpersons and
y propiedades que pasan sobre propertypassingoveranyoftheroutes
cualquiera de las antedichas rutas, aforesaid, it will employ the requisite
empleara la fuerza requerida para tal force forthatpurpose; butupon failure
proposito; per0 si dejase de hacerlo to do this from any cause whatever,
por cualquiera delas antedichasrutas, the government of the United States
empleara la fuerza requerida para tal may.. .employ such force for this and
proposito, per0 si dejase de hacerlo no otherpurpose..."
por cualquier causa, el gobierno de
10s Estados Unidos puede.. .emplear
tal fuerza, para este, y no para otro
obleto..."
17 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, CRMAnnex 9 Articulo 1: "Se practicari un Costa Rican translation:
Preliminary Conventionon a Scientific NCMAnnex 6 reconocimiento cientifico del rio Article 1:"A scientific analysisof the
Survey (Volio-Zelaya), SanJose, Colorado y del San Juan ..con el Colorado and San Juan rivers shall
13July 1868 Article 1English translation by both objeto de examinar.. ."
CostaRica and Nicaragua. be performed.. .for the purpose of
examining. .."
Article 2 English translation by
Nicaragua. Nicaraguan translation:
Article I: "A scientific survey will be
carried out in the Colorado and San
Juan rivers ..with the obiective of
determining.. ." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo2: "La comision levantara10s Article2: "The Commissionwill draw
planos y presupuestos necesarios, y up the necessary plans and budgets
hara extensivo su informe a todos 10s and will extend its report toany other
demaspuntosquejuzgue convenientes points itmaydeemconvenientso asto
a1obieto de su importantemision.. ." accomplish its importantmission.. ."
18 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, Treaty CRRAnnex 18 Preamble: "La Republica de Preamble:"TheRepublicofNicaragua
of Peace and Friendship (Volio- (Preamble) Nicaragua,por una parte,y ladeCosta on the one side and the Republic of
Zelaya), San Jose, 30 July 1868 Rica por otra, animadas del deseo de Costa Rica on the other, animated
Spanish version:JM Bonilla, estrechar y perpetuar las relaciones by the desire to render close and
Coleccion de Tratados de amistad en que felizmente se permanent the friendly relations at
Internacionales(Managua: encuentran, han resuelto celebrar un present existing between them, have
TipografiaIntemacional, 1909)
Tratado que produzca tales efectos. resolved to conclude a Treaty to that
English version: 137CTS 478-482 Con este obieto..." effect. For thispurpose.."
19 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, Treaty CRMAnnex 10 "Creyendo conveniente10sGobiemos "The Governments of the Republics
delasRepublicasdeNicaraguayCosta ofCosta RicaandNicaragua,deeming
of Commerce (Volio-Zelaya), San English translation byCosta Rica.
Jose, 14August 1868 Rica, para el foment0 de sus mutuos it convenient for theimpulse of their
intereses, destruir 10s obstaculos mutualintereststodestroy theobstacles
que impiden el ensanche y progreso thatimpedethewideningandprogress
del comercio de ambas Naciones; of the tradeof both nations,and being
y convencidos de que un Tratado convinced that a commercial treaty
mercantil, que asegure ventajas that assures reciprocal advantages is
reciprocas, es el medio de hacer mas the way to tighten and to make even
estrechas 6 intimas las relaciones more intimate the fraternal relations
fraternales entre ambos pueblos, han betweenboth peoples, have withthis
conferido con este obieto sus Plenos obiective granted fullpowers..."
Poderes..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
20 Costa Rica-Nicaragua,Treaty CRMAnnex 13 Articulo 12:". .LaRepublicade Costa Article XII: "...The Republic of
for the excavation of an Inter-oceanic (Article 1) Rica podra abrir esos caminos aun en Costa Rica may open such roads even
Canal (Jimenez-Montealegre) San territorio de Nicaragua y navegar 10s in Nicaraguan territory and navigate
Jose, 18June 1869 NCMAnnex 8 rios pertenecientesa1mismoterritorio on the rivers in that territory, for the
(Articles I, 2, 3, 12,43,44 and 45)
con elobieto de dar salida..." purpose of transporting..."
CRRAnnex 19
(Articles 15,19and 23) Articulo 15: "Se prohibe a1 Article XV: "The contractor is
concesionario introducir a1 territorio prohibited from importing into
Article 12English translation by de la Republics, cualquiera the territory of the Republic, any
Nicaragua mercancia, con el obieto de venderla merchandiseforthepurpose ofsaleor
Articles 15,19and 23:As Nicaragua 6 cambiarla...." barter..."
didnot provide an English
translation,English translation from Article XIX: "...one or more ships
870-1871)LX1BFSP 44-1l5 Articulo 19: "...uno 6 mis buques de
-uerraa1puertoenqueSeannecesarios of war to the port where theymay be
con el obieto de proteger las personas required for the Purposeof protecting
y propiedades..." the persons andproperty.. ."
Articulo 23: "El concesionario podra Article XXIII: "The contractor may
establecer carreteras, caminos de lay down roads, railways for service,
hierr0 de servicio, y canales de la and canals of the same nature,for the
misma naturaleza, con el objeto special lE!!PES of constructing the
especial de la constmccion del canal maritime canal.. ."
maritimo. .." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
21 CostaRica-Nicaragua,Treaty NCM Annex10 ArticuloVII:"Engeneral,10sderechos Article VII: "In general, the rights
of Limits (Navas-Castro), SanJose, que Costa Rica adquiera por este acquired by Costa Rica by virtue of
English translation by Nicaragua
19January 1884 Tratado, no embarazan de ninguna this Treaty do not restrictin any way
manera la libre accidn de Nicaragua, the freedom of Nicaragua to enter
para celebrar nuevas contratas con el into new contracts for the purpose of
obietode canalizar elIstmo.." buildingthe Isthmus canal.."
22 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, CRRAnnex 21 Preamble: "CONSIDERANDO: Preamble: "CONSIDERING: That
CanalizationConvention (Navas- (Preamble) Que la construction del Canal the construction of the Inter-oceanic
Castro), SanJose, 19January 1884 Interoceinico por Nicaragua es de Canalthrough Nicaraguais of general
Source: JM Bonilla,Coleccibn de interis general para Centro America interest for Central America, and in
TratadosInteinacionales (Managua: y especialmente para ambos paises, particular for both countries, moved
TipografiaIntemacional, 1909),
pp. 403-405 animadas del deseo de facilitar la by the desire to facilitate theprompt
pronta realizacidn de la obra, han accomplishment of the task, have
English translation byCostaRica resueltocelebraruna Convencioncon decidedto celebrate a Conventionfor
tal obieto." suchpurpose."
23 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, Treaty CRRAnnex 22 Preamble: "El Presidente de la Preamble: "The President of the
of Peace, Friendship,Commerce and (Preamble) Republica de Nicaragua y el Republic of Nicaragua and the
Extradition(Navas-Castro), SanJose, Source:JM Bonilla,Coleccibn de Presidente de la Republica de Costa PresidentoftheRepublicofCostaRica,
19January 1884 Rica, deseosos de estrechar tanto desirous of strengthening as muchas
TratadosInternacionales(Managua: como es posible las relaciones de possible the relations between both
TipografiaIntemacional, 1909), ambos paises, y de servir a sus countriesandtoservetotheircommon
pp. 455-466
comunes intereses,por medio de un interests by means of a Friendship,
English translation by CostaRica Tratado de Paz, Amistad, Comercio Trade, and Extradition Treaty, have
y Extradicion,han convenidoen abrir agreed to start negotiations towards
negociacionespara este objeto.." thispumose.. ." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English;
24 United States ofAmerica- CRRAnnex 23 (Preamble,Articles Preamble: "Los Estados Unidos Preamble: "The United States
Nicaragua, Treaty providing for the IV,V,VIII and XIII) de America y la Republica de of America and the Republic of
construction ofan Inter-Oceanic Nicaragua.. .han decidido construir Nicaragua...have agreed for this
Canal across the territory of Nicaragua Sources: un canal con esteobieto..." purpose to build a canal.."
(Frelinghuysen-Zavala), Washington, Englishversion:Report of the
1December 1884 Isthmian Canal Commission,1899- Articulo IV: "Con el obieto de llevar ArticleIV:"Forthepurposeofcarrying
1901,Appendix L,pp. 359-363 a cab0 este convenio..."(...)para 10s out this agreement.. .for reservoirs,
depositos de aguas, diques, muelles, dykes, piers, docks, spaces about
Spanishversion:Memoria de la arsenales, accesorios de las esclusas, locks,for lights,beacons, storehouses,
Secretariade Relaciones Exteriores faros, seiiales, almacenes, talleres, machine shops, buildings, and for
y CarterasAnexas de laRepublica
de CostaRica (San Jose: Imprenta edificios y para cualesquiera otros whatever other thing necessary.. ."
Nacional, 1884-1885) objetosnecesarios..."
Articulo V: "La obra sera declarada ArticleV:"The work shallbe declared
de utilidad publica y para el obieto deone of public utility, and for the
construiry llevar a cab0 el canal." purposes of building and operating
the canal..."
Articulo VIII:"...siendo el obieto de Article VIII: "...being the inte onft
este convenio que dichos buques, sus this agreement that vessels, their
cargamentos.. ." cargoes..."
Articulo XIII:". .por cuanto el obleto Article XIII:"...it being thinte ofnt
de este convenioes...." this agreement..." Document Reference Description in Spanish Descriptionin English
25 Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty CRRAnnex 24 Preamble: "El Presidente de la Preamble: "The President of the
of Peace, Commerce and Extradition (Preamble) RepdblicadeNicaraguayelPresidente Republic of Nicaragua and the
(Esquivel-Chamorro), SanJose, Source: JM Bonilla, Coleccionde de la Republics de Costa Rica, President of the Republic of Costa
9 October 1885 deseosos de estrechar tanto como sea Rica, desirous of strengthening
TratadosInternacionales (Managua: posible las relacionesde ambospaises as much as possible the relations
TipografiaInternacional, 1909) y de servir a sus comunes intereses between both countries and to serve
EnglisLtranslation byCosta Rica por medio de un Tratado, de Paz, to their common interests by means '
Amistad, Comercio y Extradicion, of a Peace, Friendship, Commerce,
han convenidoen abrir negociaciones and Extradition Treaty, have agreed
para esteobjeto.." to start negotiations towards this
purpose. .."
26 Contract betweenthe NCM Annex20 (Articles 6 and 46) Articulo 6: "...Nicaragua procurara Article VI: "...Nicaragua will
Government of the Republic of obtener de la Potencias que endeavors (sic) to obtain from the
Nicaragua and the Nicaragua Canal CRRAnnex25(A*ic1es 7y 13'l6 garanticen la neutralidad, que en las powers that are to guarantee the
Association of New Yorkfor the and 30) convenciones que se celebren contal neutrally (sic) thatin the treaties that
opening ofan inter-oceaniccanal
Articles 6 and46: English translation objeto, se comprometan a garantizar shall be made for that purpose they
(Cardenas-Menocal),Managua, byNicaragua tambien una zona de tierraparalela a1 shall agree also to guarantee zone of
23 March 1887 Articles 7, 13, 16and 30: English Canal..." lands parallel tothe canal..."
translation fromReport of the
Isthmian CanalCommission 1899-
1901(Washington:Government
PrintingOffice,1904),pp. 389-400Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo 7: "La presente convencion, Article VII: "This present agreement,
con todas sus cargas y ventajas, sera with all its charges and advantages,
obietodeuna Compaiiiade ejecucion, shall be the obiect of a company of
conforme a 10s articulos 1 " y 10 y executioninagreementwithArticles I,
siguientes...."
X and those following thereafter.. .."
Articulo 13: ". .Bien entendido que Article XIII: "...It is understood that
esta obligacion no compromete de this duty does not in any manner
ningun mod0 a la Compaiiia a poner compel the company to place or
ni a conservar en estado navegable maintain, in navigable condition for
parapequeiiasembarcaciones,laparte small craft, the lower part of the river
baja del rio que esas exclusas tengan which these locks may be intended
por obietoponer encomunicacioncon place in communication with the
el Canal." canal.
Articulo 16: "...Podra escoger con Article XVI: "...It may, for this
tal obieto, en las costas de 10s dos purpose, select on the coasts of the
oceanos, dentro del territorio de two oceans, within the territory of
Nicaragua, las localidades que 10s Nicaragua, the localities which the
estudioshechos hayan seiialadocomo surveysmade indicate as preferable.
preferibles." Document Reference Description inSpanish Description inEnglish
Articulo 30: "La Compafiiano podra Article XXX:"The company shall not
introduciralterritoriodelaRepublica, import merchandise intothe territory
mercancias con el obieto de traficar of the Republic, for the purpose of
con ellas, si no here pagando 10s trafficking, without payingthe import
derechos de aduana establecidos por duties established by la...."
ley...."
Articulo 46: "...Y se estipula Article XLVI: "It is also stipulated
igualmente que la Compafiiase obliga that the company binds itself to pay
a pagar al Gobierno de la Republica government (sic)of the republic all it
todo cuanto de aqui en adelante may from nowon expend in any way
invierta, en cualquier concepto, con for the improvementof the navigation
el obieto de mejorar la navegacion of the river and theport of San Juan
del Rio y puerto de San Juan del delNorte ..."
Norte...."
27 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, CRMAnnex 15 Articulo 11:"Para hacer navegable el Article 11:"In order to make the San
Convention (Soto-Carazo),Managua, rio San Juan en toda estacion delafio, Juan River navigable all year round,
26 July 1887 English translation byCosta Rica el Gobiemo de Costa Rica consiente the Governmentof Costa Rica agrees
en que se tomen del rio Colorado las that the waters required for this be
aguas que se nedesiten,para echarlas taken from the Colorado River, in
enaquelrio,yen quesepractiquencon order to deposit them in the former
tal obieto las obras convenientes." and that the appropriate works be
carried out for thispurpose. Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
28 ClevelandAwardupon CRMAnnex 16 Segundo: "La Republica de Costa "Second. The Republic of Costa Rica
the validity of the Treatyof Limits CRRAnnex 26 (SecondArticle and Rica, no tiene segun dicho Tratado, under said Treaty and the stipulations
of 1858between Costa Rica ThirdArticle point5) y conforme a las estipulacionesde su contained in the sixth article thereof,
and Nicaragua, Washington DC, articulo sexto, el derecho de navegar has not the rightof navigation of the
22 March 1888 Original awardis inEnglish; Spanish el rio San Juan con buquesde guerra; river San Juan with vesselsof war;
version : Memoria Anual de la
per0puedehacerloconembarcaciones but she may navigate said river with
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores del servicio fiscal, seguncorresponda such vessels of the Revenue Service
y CarterasAnexas 1888 (San Jos6: y tenga que ver con el goce de 10s as may be related to and connected
Imprenta Nacional, 1888) "obietos de comercio", que se le with her enjoyment of the "purposes
reconoce por dicho articulo, o como of commerce" accorded to her in said
senecesitepara laproteccion dedicho article, or as may be necessary to the
goce." protection of said enjoyment."
"V.- La Republica de Costa Rica "5. The Republic of Costa Rica is not
no esta obligada a contribuir en boundto contribute any proportion of
proporcion alguna a 10s gastos que the expenses thatmay be incurredby
la Republica de Nicaragua tenga que theRepublic of Nicaragua for anyof
hacer para cualquiera de 10sobietos the purposesabove mentioned."
arriba mencionados." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
29 Contractbetween the CRRAnnex 27 (Preamble, Articles Preamble: "...autorizado Preamble: "..especially authorized
Government of the Republic of VI, VII,XXVI and XLV) especialmentepor ..paracelebrarad- by ...to celebrate ad referendum the
Costa Rica and theNicaragua Canal Spanish version:ArchivoNacional referendum el presente contrato.. y present contract...and ..with full
Association for the opening of an de Costa Rica ....autorizado tambien parael dicho powers from it, and also authorized
inter-oceanic canal (Perez-Menocal), objeto, .." forthis purpose ..."
San Jod, 31July 1888 English version: AR Colquhoun,The
Key of thePacific:TheNicaragua ~ ~ i ~ ~lI:a,..costa ~i~~ procurar a rticle VI: "...Costa Rica shall
Canal(Westminster:Archibald obtener de las potencias que endeavour to obtain from the powers
Constable & Co., 1895),pp. 386-407 garanticen la neutralidad, el que en that are to guarantee the neutrality,
las convencionesque se celebren con that in the treaties be made for
tal obieto, se comprometantambiin a that PJQQ% they bind
garantizar con el mismo caricter una to guarantee the same
zonade tierraparalela al canal....- conditions to a zone of land parallel
to the canal.."
Articulo VII: "La presente concesi6n Article VII: "The present concession
solo sera transmisible a la Compaiiia shall be transferable only to such
6 Compaiiias que se organicen con company or companies as may
el objeto de construir 6 explotar be organized for the purpose of
el Canal.. Se invitara a todas las constructing or operating thecanal...
naciones para laformaciondel capital The people of all nations shall be
necesario a esta Empresa, y con tal invited to contribute the necessary
obieto sera bastante la publicacion capital to the enterprise,and it shall
de un anuncio durante veinte dias be sufficient for the fulfillment
con~ecutivo~. .." of this reauirement to publish an
advertisementfor twenty consecutive
days ..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Articulo XXVI: "La Asociacion no Article XXVI: "The association
podra introducir en el territoriode la cannot import merchandise into
Republicamercancias conelobietode the territory of the Republic for the
traficar con ellas, sino here pagando pumoses of traffickingwith it without
10sderechos de aduana establecidos paying the custom duties established
por ley..." by law ..."
Articulo XLV: "..Las acciones a que Article XLV: "...The shares to which
se refiere este articulo se entregaran this Article refersshall be delivered
a1Agente que nombre el Gobiemos to the agent appointed by the
con este objeto, tanpronto como la government for this purpose as soon
compafiia este lista para emitir 10s as the company may be readyto issue
certificados de su capital." certificatesof its capital."
30 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, Treaty NCM Annex12 ArticuloVI: "...El expresadoderecho Article VI: "...The purpose of
of Limits (Guerra-Castro), Managua, English translationby Nicaragua de uso tiene por objeto el transporte, the aforesaid right of use is to
23 December 1890 embarque y desembarque de toda transport, loadand unload all kinds
clase de mercaderias, sin restriction of merchandise, without restriction,
ninguna, la construction de build railways and wharves;
ferrocarriles y muelles; la fundacion establish offices, commercial stores
de oficinas, establecimientos and residential houses,which shall
comerciales y casas de habitacion, be subject, as well as the persons
las cuales, asi como las personas que who inhabit this tract of land, to the
habiten dicha faja de terreno, estaran jurisdiction and lawsof Costa Rica.
sometidos a lajurisdiccion y leyes de ..."
Costa Rica. ..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
31 Costa Rica-Nicaragua, CRMAnnex 17 , Articulo 1: "Los Gobiernos Article I: "The contracting
Delimitation Convention(Pacheco- contratantes se obligan a nombrar Governments bind themselves toeach
Matus), San Salvador,27 March 1896 182CTS359 cada uno una Comisi6n compuesta name a commission composedof two
Spanishversion: National Archive, de dos ingenieros o agrimensores engineersor surveyorsforthepurpose
San Jose con el obieto de trazar y amojonar of properly tracing and marking the
debidamente la linea divisoria entre boundary line between the Republics
las Republicas de Nicaragua y Costa of Costa Rica andNicaragua.. ."
Rica...." Table2
Termsused to refer to articlesof trade, goods, things, etc. in 19th Century documents
Document Reference Description in Spanish Descriptionin English
1 Instructions for NCMAnnex 87 Articulo 17: "Estipulara la libertad de Costa Rica Article 17:"He will set down Costa Rica'sfreedom
Francisco Oreamuno to de navegar por el rio de San Juan y la libertad de to navigate on the San Juan River and its freedom
negotiate a treaty with Englishtranslationby 10sderechosdeexportacionpor elmismoriodesus from export duties on its fruits leaving through
Nicaragua, San Jose, Nicaragua frutos, puesto que tiene habilitado en su territoriohe same river, since its territory contains the
26 July 1838 el riode Sarapiqui,cuyas aguasaumentanelcaudal Sarapiqui River, the water of which increases the
del rio San Juan. Si fuese necesario comprendera San Juan River flow. If necessary, this covenant
en esta estipulacion la prohibicion de introducir shall include the prohibition of introducing foreign
efectos o mercancias extranjeras a Costa Rica goods or merchandise to Costa Rica through the
por aquella via, en caso de no poderse conseguir same waterway, in case entered goods could not be
que las introducciones se hagan registradas para registered to pay duties at this State customs: and
pagar 10sderechos en las aduanas de este Estado: fifth, fourth, or third of the annual liquid returns in
y puede convenirse en una quinta, cuarta y tercera favor of Nicaragua may be agreed upon, provided
parte del rendimiento liquid0 anual a favor de exports are done freely"
Nicaragua, siempre que las exportaciones sehagan
libremente."
2 Contract NCMAnnex 14 Articulo 12:"...el Estado ,por el presente, da a laArticle 12: "..the State,through the present, grants
Between Nicaragua and CRRAnnex 6 Compafiiael derecho de tomar y hacer uso de las the Company the right to take and use the portions
theAmerican Atlantic (Articles 12, 14and21) porciones de terrenos baldios que necesite para el ofthe empty lotsthat itmayneedfor establishing or
and Pacific Ship-Canal establecimiento6 la ereccion de casas, almacenes, building houses, warehouses, dikes, docks, stations
Company (Zepeda- Englishtranslationof diques, muelles, estaciones, 6 cualesquiera otros or any other useful objects that may have relation
Juarez-White), Leon, Articles 17, 18and 36 obietosutiles que tengan relacion con las obras delwith the canal works"
27August 1849 by Nicaragua. canal."
AsNicaragua didnot Articulo 14:"Todos 10sarticulos que la Compafiia Article 14:"All the articles that the Company may
provide an English necesite, tanto para 10s reconocimientos, need, for the surveys, exploration and construction,
translationofArticles exploracion y construccion, como para el uso de as well as for the use of the canal works such as
12, 14and21, English las obras del canal, como maquinas, instrumentos, machinery, instruments, tools, etc. and any other
translationby Costa herramientas etc. y cualesquiera otros materiales materials needed...But the Company will not have
Rica. Source:NCM necesarios...Per0 la Compafiiano tendra derecho
Annex 14Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
de introducir dentro del territorio del Estado the right tointroducewithin the State's territoryany
ningunos jeneros, mercancias 6 cualesquiera ~QO&, merchandise or any other articles to sell or
otros articulos para vender 6 cambiar, sin pagar trade without paying the taxes establishedby law,
10sderechos establecidos por la ley;y asimismo, and likewise,it is forbidden to import any articles
les es prohibido importar cualesquiera articulos,6 or materials which may be the State's monopolyor
materiales que estuvieren estancados 6 prohibidos forbidden by theState.. ."
por elEstado.. ."
Articulo 17:"La Compafiiaconvieneentransportar Article 17: "The Company agrees to transport
por elcanal 10spasajeros,y 10sefectos,mercancias throughtheCanalallpassengers, stock,merchandise
y materiales de toda descripcion que se le and materialsof anydescriptionthat are entrusted to
confien..." it.."
Articulo 18: "La Compaiiia establecera una tarifa Article 18:"TheCompanyshallestablishfeesortolls
de derechos 6 impuestos (fees or tolls) para el for the transport ofpassengers, goods, merchandise
transporte de todo pasajero, jeneros, mercancias y andprouerty of any description.. ."
propiedad de toda descripcion.. ."
Articulo21 :"Por elpresente, elEstadoestipula,que Article 21:"By the present, the State stipulates that
todos 10sbuques y vapores de la Compaiiia,como all the Company's vessels andsteamers, as well as
tambien todos 10sjeneros, mercancias, articulos the goods, merchandise, manufactured articles or
manufacturados,6 otra propiedad cualquiera.. ." any other property.. ."
Articulo 36: "Queda expresamente estipulado por Article 36:"It is expressly stipulatedby the State of
el Estado de Nicaragua que sera permitido a 10s Nicaragua that all vessels, products, manufactured
buques, productos, articulosmanufacturados, y a goods and citizens of all nationalities.."
10sciudadanos de todas las naciones.. ." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
3 United CRR,Annex 7 ArticuloIV:"Igualmenteconvieneunayotraenque ArticleIV:"They likewise agree,that whateverkind
States-Nicaragua, (ArticlesIV,V,VI,VII, cualquiera especie de producciones. manufacturas of produce, manufacture, or merchandise of any
General Treaty of VIIIand XXXV) 6 mercaderias estrangeras que puedan ser en foreign country can be, from time to time, lawfully
Amity,Navigation, cualquier tiempo legalmente importadas en la importedintothe United Statesintheir ownvessels,
Source:CL Wiktor,
and Commerce UnperfectedTreaties republica de Nicaragua en sus propios buques, may also be imported in vessels of the republic of
(Squier-Zepeda),Leon, of the UnitedStatesof puedan ser tambien importadas en buques de 10s Nicaragua.. ."
3 September 1849 America 1776-1976, Estados Unidos.. ."
Vol1 1776-1855,pp. Articulo V: No se impondran otros 6 mas altos ArticleV: "No higher other duties shallbe imposed
280-302 derechos sobre la importacion en la republics de on the importation into the United States of any
Nicaragua de cualquiera articulos del product0 articles the produce or manufacture of the republic
Both the Spanishand natural 6 manufacturado de 10sestados ~nidos, y of Nicaragua, and no higher or other duties shall
Englishversionsare no se impondraotros 6 mas altosderechos sobre la be imposed on the importation into the republic
authentic.
importaci6nen 10sEstadosUnidos de cualesquiera of Nicaragua of any articles the produce or
articulos del producto natural 6 manufacturado de manufactures of the United States, than are or shall
la republica de Nicaragua, que 10sque se exijan 6 by payable on the like articles being the produce
exijieren por iguales articulos del producto naturalor manufactures on any other foreign country;
o manufacturado de cualquierotropais estrangero; nor shall any higher or other duties or charges
ni se impendran otros 6 mas altos derechos 6 be imposed, in either of the two countries, on the
gravamenes en ninguno de 10s dos paises sobre exportationof any articles tothe United States,orto
la esportacion de cualesquiera articulos para la the republic ofNicaragua, respectively,than suchas
republica de nicaragua, 6 para 10sEstados Unidos are payable on the exportation of the like articles to
respectivamente, que 10sque deban exijirse por la any other foreign country; nor shall anyprohibition'
exportacion de iguales articulos para cualquiera be imposedonthe exportation orimportationof any
otro pais estrangero; ni se establecera prohibition articles the produce or manufactures of the United
alguna respecto a la importaci6n exportacion States, or of the republic of Nicaragua.."
de cualesquiera articulos del producto natural 6 '
manufacturado de 10sterritories de la republica de
Nicaragua para 10sde 10sEstados Unidos.. ..."r
Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo VI: "... las estipulaciones contenidas Article VI: ". ..the stipulations contained in the
en ellos son aplicables en toda su estencion a three preceding articles are, to their full extent,
10sbuques de Nicaragua y sus carrramentosque applicable to the vessels of the United States and
arriben a 10s puertos de 10s Estados Unidos, y their cargoesarriving in the ports of Nicaragua, and
reciprocamentea 10sbuquesde 10sEstadosUnidos 'reciprocally to the vessels of the said republic of
y sus car~amentos que arriben a 10s puertos de Nicaragua and their cargoesarriving in the ports of
Nicaragua;. ...." the United States...."
ArticuloVII: "....conrespectoalas consignaciones, ArticleVII: ". .withrespecttotheconsignmentsand.
y ventas por mayor 6 menor de sus efectos y sale of their goods and merchandise, by wholesale
mercaderias,comoconrespectoalacarga,descarga or retail, as with respect to the loading, unloading,
y despacho de sus buque, u otro negocios.. . and sending off their ships; .."
Articulo VIII: "Los ciudadanos de una y otra de Article VIII: "The citizens of neither of the
las partes contratantes no podran ser embargados contracting parties shall beliable to any embargo
o detenidos con sus embarcaciones, tripulaciones, nor be detained with their vessels, cargoes,
mercaderias y efectos comerciales de su merchandise,or effects,for any military expedition,
pertenencia, para ninguna expedicion militar, ni nor for any public or private .purpose whatever,
para usos publicos 6 particulares, cualesquieraque without allowing to those interested anequitable
Sean, sin conceder a 10s interesados una justa y and sufficient indemnification."
suficiente indemnizacion."
Articulo XXXV: "...y se estipula tambien que ArticleXXXV: ". .alllawfulproduce,manufactures,
todo producto. manufacturas. mercancias 6 otras
merchandise, orother proDertvbelongingto citizens
propiedades de licito comercio, pertenecientes a of the United States passing from one ocean to
ciudadanosde 10sEstados Unidosque pasen de un the other, in either direction, for the purpose of
oceano al otro en ambas direcciones, con objeto exportation to foreigncountries, shall not be subject
de exportacion a paises estrangeros, no estaran to any import or export duties.. .having introduced
sujetosaderechosde importacion6exportacion.. . suchproduce, manufacture,or merchandise into the
habiendo introducido a1 estado de Nicaragua state of Nicaragua, forsale or exchange.."
productos, manufacturas y mercancias con el
objeto de venderlas.. . Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
4 United CRMAnnex4 ArticuloV: "..yaimponiendoexaccionesopresivas Article V: "..or by imposing oppressive exactions
States-GreatBritain, o peajes inmoderados sobre pasajeros, buques, or unreasonable tolls upon passengers, vessels,
CRRAnnex 8
ConventionConcerning (ArticleV) generos, mercanciasuotros articulos." goods,merchandise or other articles."
a Ship Canal Connecting
theAtlantic and Pacific Spanish version:MM
Oceans (Clayton- Peralta,El Canal
Bulwer), Washington Interocednicode
DC, 19April 1850(in Nicaragua y Costa
force 4 July 1850) Rica en 1620y en 1887
(Bruselas: Imprentade
Ad. Mertens, 1887)
English version:
104CTS 41
5 Costa Rica- CRRAnnex 9 Articulo IV: "No se impondrhn otros 6 mas altos Article IV: "No higher nor other duties shall be
United States Treaty of (ArticlesIV,VI,VII derechos a la irnportacion en10sterritorios de la imposedonthe importation into the territoriesofthe
Friendship, Commerce VII andXI) Republica de CostaRica, de cualesquiera articulos United States, of any article being of the growth,
and Navigation (Molina- del product0 natural,producciones 6 manufacturas produce ormanufacture ofthe RepublicofCostarica
Spanish version: de 10s territorios de 10s Estados Unidos, ni andnohigheror other duties shallbe imposedonthe
Webster), Washington, Colecccionde
10July 1851 10sTratados se impondran otros o mas altos derechos a la importation into the territories of the Republicof
importacionen10sterritoriosde10sEstadosUnidos Costarica of any articles being the growth,produce
Internacionales de cualesquiera articulos del product0 natural, ormanufactureoftheterritoriesofthe United States
Celebradospor la roducciones 6 manufacturas de la RepGblicade then areorshallbepayableonthe likearticles, being
Repubzicade Costa costa Rica que 10sque se pagan 6 pagaren por the growth, produce or manufacture of any other
Rica (San Jose:
semejantes articulos cuandoseanproduct0 natural, foreign country; nor shall any otheror higher duties
TipografiaNacional), producciones 6 manufacturas de cualesquiera or charges be imposedin the territories of either of
'7pp. 65-72 otro pais extranjero, ni se pondran otros 6 mas the High Contracting Parties, on the exportation of
Englishversion:Report altos derechos 6 impuestos en 10s territorios de any articlesto the territories of the other, than such
of the]sthmian Canal cualquierade las dosAltasPartes Contratantes a as are or may be payable on the exportationof the
like articles to any other foreign country, nor shall
Commission 1899-
1901(Washington: any prohibition be imposed upon the exportationor
Government Printing importation of any articles the growth,produce or
Office, 1904)pp. 417- manufacture of the territoriesof the United States,
420 or of theRepublic ofCostarica..."Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish ' Descriptionin English
la exportacion de cualesquiera articulos para
10sterritorios de la otra, que 10sque se pagan 6
pagaren por la exportacion de iguales articulos
para cualquieraotropaisextranjero,ni se impondra
prohibicion alguna a la exportacion6 importacion
de cualesquiera articulos del product0 natural,
producciones 6 manufacturas.de 10sterritorios de
la Republica de Costa Rica.. ."
Articulo VI: "Se pagaran 10s mismos derechos .Article VI: "The same duties shall be paid on the
de importacion en 10sterritorios de 10sEstados importation into the territoriesof the Republic of
Unidos por las articulos de productos naturales, Costarica,ofanyarticlebeingofthegrowth,produce
producciones y manufacturas, en buque de 10s or manufacture of the territories of the United
Estados Unidos o Costarricenses; y 10s mismos States whether such importation shallbe made in
derechos se pagaran por la importaci6n en 10s Costaricanor invesselsofthe United States; andthe
territorios de la Republica de Costa Rica,de las same duties shall be paidon the importation into the
manufacturas, efectos, y producciones de 10s territories of the United Statesof any article, being
territorios.. Los mismos derechos pagaran, y thegrowth,vroduce ormanufacture of the Republic
gozaran las mismas franquicias y descuentos
of Costarica ...The same duties shall be paid, and
concedidos a la exportacion para 10s territorios the same bounties anddrawbacks allowed, on the
de 10sEstados Unidos de cualesquiera articulos, exportation on the Republic of Costarica, of any
de 10s productos naturales, producciones 6 articles being the growth, produce or manufacture
manufacturas de la Repiblica de Costa Rica ....y of the territories of the United State ...and the
. pagaran 10smismos derechosy se concederan las same duties shall bepaid, and the same bounties
mismas franquiciasy descuentos a la exportacidn and drawbacks allowed, on the exportation of any
para la Republica de Costa Rica, de cualesquiera articles, beingthe growth, vroduce or manufacture
articulos de productos naturales, producciones on the Republic of Costa Rica to the territories on
6 manufacturas de 10sterritorios de 10sEstados the United States.. .
Unidos.. ." . --
Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
Articulo VII: "..ni estaran obligados 6 pagarles Article VII: ". .nor to pay them any other salary
mas salario 6 remuneracibn que la que en or remuneration than suchas is paid ig like cases
semejantes casos se paga por ciudadanos de 10s by Costarican citizens;and absolute freedom shall
Estados Unidos; y se concedera libertad absoluta be allowed in all cases to the buyer and seller to
en todos 10scasos a1comprador y vendedor para bargain and fix the price of any goods, wares, or
ajustar y fijar el precio de cualesquiera efectos, merchandise imported into or exported from the
mercaderias y generos importadosy exportadosde Republic of Costarica.. ."
la Republica de CostaRica.. ."
Articulo VIII: "Por lo que toca a la policia de 10s ArticleVIII:"In whateverrelates tothe policeofthe
puertos 6lacargaydescargadebuques,laseguridad ports, the ladingand unlading of ships,the safetyof
de las mercancias, bienesy efectos, la sucesion de merchandise, goods and effects, the succession to
las propiedades personales por testamento 6 de personal estates by willor otherwise..."
otro modo.. ."
Articulo XI: "...mientras se conduzcan Article XI:"... in the full enjoymentof their liberty
pacificamente y no cometan ofensa alguna contra and property as long as the behave peaceable,
lasleyes,y susbienes yefectos,de cualquiera clase and commitno offence against the laws;and their
que Sean,bien que estenbajo su propia custodia, goods and effects if whatever, description they
o confiados a individuos,,~ a1Estado, no estaran may be, whether in their own custody or intrusted
sujetos a embargo o secuestro, ni a ninguna carga to individualsor to the State,.shallnot be liable to
6 imposici6n que la que se haga conrespecto a 10s seizure or sequestration, norto any other charges
efectos 6 bienes pertenecientes a 10sciudadanos or demands than those which may be made upon
del pais..." the like effectsor prouertv belonging to the native
citizens of the countryin which such citizens may
reside..."
6 Chamorro- NCM Annex3 Articulo 7: "Todas las propiedades, m, Article 7: "All propertiei, obiects, shares, rights,
Mayorga-White acciones, derechos, creditos y efectos de la nueva credits, and effectsof the new Company.. ."
Convention, Granada, English translationby compafiia.. .
14August 1851 Nicaragua Document Reference Description in Spanish Descriptionin English
7 Molina- NCM, Annex4 Articulo 4: "..Los Ciudadanos de Costa Rica Article 4:" ...Costa Rican citizens shall have the
Marcoleta, Preliminary tendran la facultad de entrar y salir libremente power to freely come inand out through the port of
Treaty,28January 1854 English translationby
Nicaragua por el puerto de San Juan con sus buques y SanJuan withtheir ships andgoods andtonavigate,
(unratified) mercaderias y de navegar except0 por vapor por except by steamboat,on the river bearing the same
el rio del mismo nombre y por 10stributarios que name and on its tributaries flowing from the South,
se le unen por la parte del Sur y por el Lago de and on Lake Nicaragua in all directions, without
Nicaragua en todas direcciones, sin que pueda being subject to any Nicaraguan taxes or levies,
cobrarseles nin~n impuesto b derecho por parte except when they drop anchor in coves, ports, or
de Nicaragua, salvo cuando fondeen en las calas, places currentlyinpossessionbyNicaraguaor when
puertos 6 parajes de que Nicaragua esta en actual they introduce products or goods for consumption
posesion, 6 cuando introduzcan productos 6 in Nicaragua, in which case they shallbe subject to
mercaderiaspara el consumodeNicaraguaencuyo the provisions of laws of thelatter."
caso se sujetaran a lo que dispongan las leyes de
esta ultima Republica."
8 CostaRica- CRMAnnex 5 Articulo 5: "La Republica de Costa Rica lo Article5:"TheRepublicofCostaRica,aswellasthe
Nicaragua Treatyof mismo que la de Nicaragua, usaran libremente de oneofNicaragua, willhave freeuseofthe watersof
Limits (Caiias-Jukez), English translationby las aguas del Rio San Juan para la navegaci6n y the SanJuanRiver,fornavigationandtransportation
Managua, 6 July 1857, Costa Rica
transportede articulos de comerciode importaci6n of articles of trade of im~ortand export, observing
unratified y exportacion, respetando las leyes de aduana, y customs legislation, and complying with thefiscal
satisfaciendo10sderechos fiscales de cada una de duties of each Republic, as well as thosethat will
dichasRepublicas tiene impuestoso impongaenlo be taxed over the articles that will be brought in
sucesivosobre 10sarticulos que se introduzcanpor through their respective customs."
susrespectivasaduanas.".
Articulo 7: "Los productos y manufacturas Article7: "The originalproducts and manufactured
naturalesdeambasRepublicas,puedenintroducirse articlesofbothrepublics,maybemutuallyimported,
reciprocamente libres de todo impuesto fiscal, free of tax, and will only be subjected to the own
sugetos solamente 6 10s de propios y advitrios and local municipal taxes, but the import of those
municipales,per0noserapermitidalaintroduccion articlesthathave been monopolizedor stagnatedby
de articulos monopolisados o estancados por 10s both governments in their own republics, shallnot
dosGobiernosen sus respectivasRepublicas be authorized." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
9 United States- NCM Annex 5 Articulo IV: "No se impondran otros o mas altos Article IV: "No higher nor other duties shall be
Nicaragua Treaty of CRRAnnex 10 derechossobre la importacidnen 10sterritorios de imposed on the importation into the territories of
Friendship, Commerce la Republica de Nicaragua de cualquier articulo the United Statesof any article being the growth,
and Navigation(Cass- IV7'I1' V1ll' quesea fruto,product0natural6manufacturado de produce, or manufacture of the Republic of
Irisarri), Washington, XV and XVII) 10sEstados Unidos, y no se impondranotros, o mas Nicaragua, and no higher or other duties shall be
16November 1857, English version:CL altosderechossobrelaimportaci6nen10sterritorios imposed on the importation into the territories of
unratified Wiktor, Unperfected de 10sEstados Unidos, de cualquier articuloque the Republic of Nicaragua of any articles being the
Treatiesof theUSA, sea fmto, producto natural o manufacturado de growth, produce, or manufacture of the territories
VolumeI11856-1882, la Republica de Nicaragua, que 10sque se exijan of the United States than are,or shall be, payable
pp. 135-143 6 exijieren por iguales articulos que sean frutos, upon the like article beingthe growth, produce,or
productos naturales6 manufacturadosdecualquier manufacture of any other foreigncountry.. .."
Spanishversion:US
National Archives, otropais extranjero..."
Washington DC, TCrminossimilaresen elArticulo VI Similar wordinginArticle VI
Unperfected Treaty Articulo VII: "...en todos 10scasos se concederi Article VII:"...absolute freedom shall be allowed
SeriesW-2 absoluta libertada1comprador ya1vendedor,para in all cases to the buyer and sellerto bargain and
fix the price of any goods, wares. or merchandise
contratary fijar el precio del cualquiera jeneros.
efectos 6 mercancias importadasa 10s Estados imported into, or exported from, the Republicof
Unidos, 6 esportadas deellos..." Nicaragua. ."
Articulo VIII:"En todo lo quehace relacion a.. .la **icle ~111:cynwhatever relates to.. .the safety of
seguridad de las mercancias,leneros v efectos, a la the merchandise goods and effects;the succession
sucesionde bienesmuebles.. ." to personalstates.."
Articulo XV: ". .En estos puertos no se Article XV: "...At these ports no tonnage or other
impondran...ningunos derechos de tonelada.. . duties shallbe imposedorlevied by the Government
sobre efectos 6 mercancias pertenecientesa..." of Nicaragua...or on any effects or merchandise
belongingto. .." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Articulo XVII: "..6 porque impongan exacciones Article XVII: "...or by imposing oppressive
opresivas, 6 impuestos excesivos sobre las malas, exactions or unreasonable tolls upon mails,
pasajeros, buques, efectos. productos, mercaderias, passengers, vessels, goods. wares, erchandise, or
u otros articulos" other articles."
10 Costa Rica- CRR,Annex 11 Articulo 18: "El comercio fronterizo por la via de Article 18: "Land border commerce will have
Nicaragua Treatyof (Articles 18, 19and20) tierra sera de libre trafico, y ni 10scostarricensesree traffic; and neither CostaRicans in Nicaragua
Peace, Friendship, en Nicaragua ni 10snicaragiienses en Costa Rica nor Nicaraguans in Costa Rica shall pay for
Spanish version:JM
Alliance and Commerce Bonilla, Coleccion pagaranpor ia introduccidn de 10sfrut notsrales the introduction of the natural growth or own
(Mora-Martinez),Rivas, de Tratados y de propiaindustria...." manufacture.. ."
30April 1858 Internacionales
Articulo 19:"Se prohibe la introduccidnpor tierra, Article 19:"The introduction by land is forbidden,
(Managua:Tip0grafia bajopenadecomiso,de frutosyefectos extranjeros under penaltyofconfiscation,oftheforeignproducts
Intemaciona1,lgo9) de la una la otra Rep6blica.. ..Dichos efectos and effects of one Republic into the other.. .Such
English translation by extranjerOs.-" foreign effects.."
Costa Rica Articulo 20:"...per0 10sefectos y mercaderias que Article 20:". .but the effects and merchandise that
en dichos buques seintroduzcan.. ." in said vessels areintroduced.."
11 Nicaragua- CRMAnnex 8 French original:
CostaRica-F Belly, (Article 1)
Convention relative to Articulo 14: "Par mesure spiciale, tous les Article 14:"As a special provision,all the vessels of
the Concessionfor an CRRAnnex 12 bstiments de la Compagnie concessionnaire, quel theconcessionary Company,whichevermaybe their
Inter-oceanic Canal by (Article 14) que soitleurpavilion,jouiront pendant dixansdela flags, shall enjoy during ten years transit franchises,
franchisedupassage,pourvu qu'ilsne transportent providing they donot transportanymerchandise for
the River.San Juan and, Frenchversion: aucune marchandise d'exportation." exportation."
the Lake of F.Belly, CartedJetude
(Mora-Martinez-Belly), pour le trace elleprqfil Spanish original:
Rivas, 1 May 1858
du Canal de Nicaragua Articulo 14: "Como medida especial, todos 10s
(Paris: Chez Dalmont buques de la compafiiaconcesionaria, cualesquiera
et Doud,~diteurs,
1858),Document11. Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
que Seansuspabellones, gozaran durante diezafios
Spanishversion:
Archives delas franquicias deltrinsito, contal quenolleven
Diplomatiques, mercancia alguna de exportation"
Ministere desAffaires
Etrangeres, Paris,
Republic of France
English translationby
CostaRica
12 Great Britain- CRRAnnex 15 Articulo IV: "Las partes contratantes convienen ArticleIV:"The Contracting Parties likewise agree,
Nicaragua, Treatyof (ArticlesIV,V,VII, XI, asimismo, en que cualquier clase de producto, that whatever kind of produce, manufacture. or
Friendship, Commerce XVIII, XXIII) manufactura, 6 mercancia, que pueda ser de vez merchandize can be, from time to time, lawfully
and Navigation en cuando legalmente importada a 10sdominios imported into the British ...and in like manner,
(Lennox Wyke- Source: 12' CTS364 Britanicos ...yde lamisma manera,que cualquiera that whatever kind of produce. manufacture. or
Zeledon), Managua, Both the Spanishand clase de producto. manufactura, 6 mercancia que merchandize can be from time to time lawfully
11February 1860 English versionsare devez encuandopueda ser legalmente importadaa imported into the Republic of Nicaragua.. ..And
authentic. la Republica de Nicaragua.. .Y ademas convienen they further agree, that whatever may be lawfully
en que cualquiera cosa que pueda ser legalmente exported or re-exported from the onecountry.. ."
exportada o reexportada de unpais.. ."
Articulo V:"No se impondran otros omas crecidos ArticleV:"Nohigherorotherdutiesshallbeimposed
derechosala importaciona10sdominiosBritanicos, on the importation into the British dominions of
de cualquier articulo de vegetacion, producto, 6 any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of
manufactura de la Republica de Nicaragua,. ..que the Republic of Nicaragua ..than are or shall be
10sque se pagan ose pagaren en lo sucesivopor el payable on the same or the like article being the
mismo articulo6 otro semejante, del producto oDocument Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
manufacturadecualquierotropaisextrangero.. .No produce or manufacture of any other country.. .No
se impondra prohibicionalguna a la importacion a prohibition shall be imposed upon the importation
10sterritoriosdeuna de las dos Partes Contratantes of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture
de cualquier articulo de vegetacion, producto, 6 of the territories of either of the two Contracting
manufactura de 10sterritorios de la otra parte.. .niParties into the territories of the other,..nor shall
se impondra prohibicionalgunaa la exportacionde any prohibition be imposed on the exportationof
cualquier articulo quese haga de 10sterritorios de any article from the territories of either of thetwo
cualquierade las dos partes.. ." ContractingParties.. ."
Articulo VII: "...y en uno y otro caso, no se Article VII:". .and,ineither case,no discriminating
impondran ni exigiran derechos especiales en 10s duty shall be imposed or collected in the ports of
puertos de uno y otro pais, sobre dichos buques either country on the said vessels or upon their
o sobre sus caraas, bien sea que esas cargas cargoes,whether suchcargoesshall consistofnative
consistan en productos6 manufacturas naturales 6 or of foreignproduce or manufacture."
extranjeras."
Articulo XI: ". .y todos 10sgCnerosy mercancias ArticleXI: ". .andallgoodsandmerchandizewhich
que se salven, 6 sus valores, si se vendieses, seran shall be saved therefrom, or the produce thereof, if
fielmente restituidos a 10s propietarios.. .Los sold,shallbe faithfullyrestoredto the owners...The
generos y mercancias que se salven e la ruina no goods and merchandize saved from thewreck shall
pagaran derecho.. ." not be subjectto duties..."
Articulo XVIII: ". .y sus generos y efectos, de Article XVIII: "...and their noods and effects, of
cualquiera descripcion que sean, ya esten en su whatever description they maybe, whether in their
propia custodia o confiados a individuos 6 a1 own custody or entrusted to individuals or to the
Estado, no estaran sujetos a embargo 6 secuestro, Satate, shallnot be liableto seizure or sequestration
no a otras cargas 6 demandas que aquellas que se or toany otherchargesordemands then those which
hagan sobre efectoso propiedades semejantes.. ." may be made upon the like effects or pronertv
belonging.. ."I
Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
Articulo XXIII: "...o imponiendo opresivas Article XXIII: "...or by imposing oppressive
exacciones6irrazonablesderechossobrelasmalas, exactions or unreasonable tolls upon mails,
pasageros, buques,generos, efectos, mercancias.6 passengers, vessels,goods, wares. merchandize. or
otros articulos." other articles."
13 Nicaragua- NCMAnnex 18 Articulo XVIII: "La Compafiia podra, sin tener Article XVIII: "The Company, without being
CentralAmerican obligaci6n de pagar ningun impuestoni derecho, obligated to pay any tax or duty, may introduce
Transit Company CRRAnnex 16 introducir ala Republica materiales, maquinaria y into the Republic any materials, machinery and
(ArticlesVIII and cualesquieraotras cosa utiles y necesarias paraelother things that are useful andnecessary for the
Inter-OceanicTransit =I>
Contract (Molina- establecimiento....Bajo la inteligencia ademas de establishment...with the understanding that the
Morris), Washington English translation que la Compafiiaa1introducir 10sarticulos utiles, Company, upon introducingthe aforesaid useful
DC, 10November 1863 ofArticle XVIII by antes mencionados, ala Republics.. ." articles to theRepublic..
Nicaragua
ArticuloXXI:"ElGobiernodesembarcaydevuelve Article XXI: "The Government disembarks and
As Nicaraguadid a la Compafiia,el camino, estaciones,10smuelles, returns to the Company the road, stations, docks,
notprovide an vapores, restodevapores y todos10sdemasobietos steamers, the rest of the steamers and the other
Article XXI, English y propiedades de que la dicha Compaiiia.." obiects and property that the saidCompany..."
translationby Costa
Rica. Source: NCM
Annex 18 Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
14 United States- CRR,Annex 17 Articulo VI: "Se pagaran 10s mismos derechos Article VI: "The same duties shall be paid on the
Nicaragua Treaty of (ArticlesVI, VII, VIII, por la importacion a 10sterritorios de la republicimportation into the territories of the republic
Friendship, Commerce XVand XVII) de Nicaragua de cualquier articulo que seafruto o, Nicaragua of any article being the growth,
andNavigation (Ayon- Source: GPSanger, product0natural 6manufacturadode 10sterritor~os produce, or manufacture of the territories of the
Dickinson),Managua, The Statutesat de 10sEstados Unidos, ya seaque tal importacion United States, whether such importation shall be
21 June 1867 sea hecha en buques de Nicaragua 6 en buques made in Nicaraguan vessels orin the vessels of the
Large, Treatiesand de 10sEstados Unidos, y se pagaran 10smismos United States; and the same duties shall be paidon
Proclamations of derechos por la importacion en 10sterritorios de the importation into the territories of the United
the UnitedStates
ofAmericafrom 10s Estados Unidos de cualquier articulos que States of any articles being the growth, produce, or
December 1867, to sea fruto, producto natural 6 manufacturado dela manufacture of the republic ofNicaragua.."
republicade Nicaragua...." i
March 1869, VoIXV
(Boston: Little,Brown, Articulo VII: "...se concederh absoluta libertad V1l: be
and Co., 1869) al comprador al vendedor para contratar in all cases to the buyer and seller to bargainand
fijar el precio de cualesquiera generos, efectos fix the price of any&, wares ,r merchandise
the and 6 mercancias exportadas 6 6 de la republics de impoded into or exported from the republic of
English versions are
J authentic. Nicaragua..." Nicaragua..."
Articulo VIII: "En todo lo que hate relaciona la ArticleVIII: "In whatever relates to thepoliceof the
policia de10spuertos, a la carga y descarga de 10s ports, thelading and unlading ofships,the safety of
buques, a la seguridad de mercancias, generos y merchandise, @@& and effec .ts..
efectos.."
ArticuloXV:"....En estospuertos no seimpondran Article XV: "...At these ports no tonnage orother
6 exijiran por el gobierno de Nicaragua, ningunos duties shall be imposed or leviedby the government
derechos de tonelage u otros, sobre 10scuques de of Nicaragua on the vessels of the United States,
Or 0" any effec orts mchandise belonging to
10sEstados Unidos, 6 sobre efectos 6 mercancias
pertenecientesa ciudadanos..." citizens.."
Articulo XVII: ",..que impongan exacciones Article XVII: "...by imposing oppressiveexactions
opresivas 6 impuestos exesivos sobre las malas, 0' ~nreasonable tolls upon the mails, Passengers,
pasageros, mercanciasuotros articulos..." vessels, goods. wares, merchandise, or other
articles.. Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
15 Costa Rica- CRMAnnex 10 Articulo I: "Habra entre las Republicas de Article I: "There shall be between the Republics of
Nicaragua, Treaty of Englishtranslationby Nicaragua y Costa Rica una reciproca libertad de Costa Rica and Nicaragua a reciprocal freedom of
Commerce (Volio- comercio, en todos 10s articulos no prohibidos trade in all tgoods that are not prohibited by their
Zelaya), San Jose, Costa Rica por sus respectivas leyes. En consecuencia, 10s respective laws. As a consequence, the citizens of
14August 1868 ciudadanosde cualquiera de las dos partes, podran anyofthetwopartiesmaytravelfreelyandsafelyby
irpor mar y por tierra,ibre y seguramentecon sus sea or by land with their ships ancarpo a, d enter
buques y cargamentos,y entrar en 10spuertos, rios through the ports, rivers and territories habilitated
y territorios habilitados de la otra; y lo mismo queby the other party; the same as the nationals, they
10snaturales,podran hacer el comercio,por mayor shall be able to do commerce, retail or wholesale,
6 por menor, alquilar y ocupar casas y almacenes, rent and occupy houses and warehouses, fix prices
fijar 10sprecios a sus mercaderias.." on their merchandise ..."
Articulo 11:"...se declara y establece, respecto de Article11:". .itisthereforedeclaredandestablished,
sus particulares y propias producciones; que las regarding theirparticular and ownproducts: that the
importaciones y exportaciones que se hagan de imports and exports that are made from one point
uno a otro punto, ya sea por mar 6 por tierra, de to the other, either by sea or land, of the goods or
10sarticulos 6 productos naturales 6 industriales, natural or industrialproducts natural to the sender's
propiosdel pais que loremite, nopagaran derechos country shall not pay rights or taxes of any kind
ni impuestode ninguna clase."
''5UnicePara evitar toda duda, lo mismo que "Unique.- To avoid any doubt as well as any fraud,
cualquier fraude, se conviene: que 10s efectos it is agreed: that item cosnsidered in thisArticle,
de que habla este articulo, en su introduccion al when they enter the dominion or territory.."
territorio 6 dominios.."
Articulo 111:"Respecto a1 comercio y articulos Article 3"Regardingtradeandforeign goods, either
extranjeros, ya sea en su importation 6 en su for exporting or importing,by sea or land.."
exportation, por mar 6por tierra..." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Description in English
16 Costa Rica- NCMAnnex7 Articulo 2: "El Gobierno de Nicaragua, por su Article 11:"The Government of Nicaragua, on its
Nicaragua Convention parte, se compromete en caso de celebrar algdn part,commitstostipulate,intheeventthatanytransit
(Esquivel-Rivas), San contratodetransito,seaconnaturales6extranjeros, contract is entered into, whether with nationals
Jose,21December 1868 a estipular:que lastarifassobrefletes deproductos or foreigners, that the freight rates establishedby
6 mercaderiasde irnportacion6 exportation.. ." Nicaragua for imported or exported products or
merchandise.. ."
Articulo4: "En el casoen que SanJuan dejede ser ArticleIV:"In the event that SanJuan ceasesto bea
un puerto franco,y que el Gobierno de Nicaragua freeport, andthe GovernmentofNicaragua subjects
sujete a registro6 aforo las mercaderias que se to registration or taxation the merchandise which
importen, 6 10s productos que exporten por el,
is imported or the products which are exported
quedaran libresdetales formalidadesy del pagode through it, the merchandise and products imported
cualesquiera.derechos,lasmercaderiasy productos orexportedby CostaRica shallbe exemptfromsuch
que Costa Rica importe6 exporte." formalities and from the payment ofany duties"
17 CostaRica- CRMAnnex 13 Articulo 9: "El concesionario tendra el derecho de ArticleIX:"The contractor shallhavearight to take
Nicaragua,Treaty for the (Article 1) tomar, en 10sterrenos que pertenezcan a1Estado, from the lands belonging to the State the materials
excavationof an Inter- sin pagar por ellos ninguna indernnizacion6 taza, of all kinds, such as timber, stone, lime, puzzolana,
oceanicCanal (Jimenez- NCM Annex8 10s materiales de toda especie, como maderas, earth for filling in, and otherobjects necessary for
Montealegre), San Jose, (Articles 1,2, 3, 12,43, piedras, cales, puzolanas, tierras destinadas a the construction and maintenance ofthe canal..."
18June 1869 44, and45) rellenary otrosobietosque sean necesarios para la
CRRAnnex 19 construction y mantenimiento del canal" (..)
9714'16'27 Articulo 12:"..La Repdblicade Costa Ricapodra Article XII: "...The Republic of Costa Rica may
and 28)
abriresos caminosaun en territorio deNicaraguay open such roads even in Nicaragua territory and
English translation navegar 10srios pertenecientesa1mismo territorio navigateontheriversinthatterritory,forthepurpose
ofArticle 12by con el objeto de dar salida para el canal a 10s of transporting and introducing its agricultural,
Nicaragua. productos de su agricultura, de su industriay de industrial and commercial products to the'canal.
su comercio, y de hacer sus correspondientes Nicaragua may not impede inany way whatsoever
As Nicaraguadidnot
provide anEnglish introducciones, sin queen ningun caso Nicaragua the opening of said roads, nor the navigation of
translationofArticles ponga obstaculo para la apertura de tales said rivers; andin the mouths of these rivers, Costa
caminos, ni la navegacion de dichos rios y que Rica may establish customs and warehouses at the
9y14'16'27 and 28y en la desembocadura de ellos, podra Costa Rica expense of the State..."
English version from establecer aduanas y almacenes de deposit0 por
(1870-1871)LXI BFSP
1144-1151 cuenta del Estado..." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description inEnglish
Articulo 14: "El co'ncesionariopodra introducir, Article XIV: "The contractor may import free of
libres de derechos de aduanay de cualquiera tasa, Custom-Housedutyoranyothertax, all articlesand
todos 10sarticulos y objetos que sean necesarios obiectsnecessary forthe useof theundertaking.. ."
para eluso de la empresa..."
Articulo 16: "En cuanto a 10s articulos, cuya Article XVI: "As for those articles of which the
introduccionesprohibidapor laley,elconcesionario importation is prohibitedby the law,the contractor
podra llevarlos.." may bring themin.. ."
Articulo 27: "..ni podra imponer ningun derecho Article XXVII: "...nor any transit duty, under
de transito,bajo cualquieradenominationque sea, whatsoever denomination, on the merchandise
a las mercancias conducidascomo tales en dichos conveyed as such in the said ships, or on the
navios,ni a 10spasajeros ni tripulaciones." passengers or crews."
Articulo 28: "Las mercancias que estos navios ArticleXXVIII:"The merchandisedisembarkedby
desembarquen y entreguen a1comercio del pais, those ships and delivered to the commerce of the
quedaran sujetasa 10sderechos establecidospor la country, shallbe subject to the duties fixed by the
legislaciongeneral dela Republics" general lawsof the Republic."
18 Costa Rica- CRRAnnex 20 Articulo 2: "El Gobierno de Nicaragua por su Article 2: "The Government of Nicaragua, on its
Nicaragua, Treaty forthe (Articles2 and 4) parte, se compromete...que las tarifas sobre fletespart, undertakes that...the tariffs over freights
de productos 6 mercaderias de importation 6 of products or merchandise for importation or
Deviation of theWaters Source:JMBonilla,
of the Colorado River Collecidnde Tratados exportacion..." exportation..."
(Jimenez-Montealegre), Internacionales
San Jose, 21 June 1869 Articulo4: "En el caso de que San Juan del Norte Article.4: "In the event that San Juan del Norte
(Managua:Ti~Ografia deje de serun puerto francoy que el Gobiernode ceases beinga free port and thatthe Governmentof
Internaciona1, 909)3 Nicaragua sujete aregistro 6 aforo las rnercaderias Nicaragua subjects to registration or appraisalthe
pp. 403-405. que se importen 6 10sproductos que se exporten merchandise that is imported or the products that
por 61,quedaran libresde tales formalidadesy del are exported through it, they will remain free from
~~~li~thranslationby
Costa Rica pago de cualesquieraderechos, las mercaderiasy such formalitiesand from the payment of whatever Document Reference Description inSpanish Description in English
productos que CostaRica importe 6 exporte, sin dues the merchandise and products that Costa Rica
que en ningimcaso...pueda oponerse obstaculoal imports or exports, without it being allowed in
de Costa any case...may oppose .obstacles to Costa Rica's
Rica.. .pues se declara que dicho comercio de commerceofimportandexport...sinceit isdeclared
imvortacion v exvortacion de Costa Rica queda that said commerce of import and exportof Costa
absolutamente libre de toda traba, embarazo y Rica remains absolutely freeof any hindrance,
derecho detoda clase." impediment ordue of anykind."
19 Nicaragua- NCM Annex19 Articulo 1:"El Gobierno de Nicaragua concede Article 1: "The Government of Nicaraguagrants
F.A.PellasNavigation English translation by a1sefiorF.A. Pellas...el privilegio exclusive...deto Mr. F.A. Pellas...the exclusive privilege...to
Contract,Managua, Nicaragua navegar por vapores en riode San Juan del Norte navigate with steamboats the San Juan del Norte
1March 1877 i lago de Granada i el de transportar por el,los river and Lake Granada [lake Nicaragua] and
10sproductos delpais i mercancias destinadasa1 transporting through them the fruitsof the land
comerciointeriorde laRepublica. .." as well as merchandise destined to the Republic's
interior..
20 Costa Rica- NCMAnnex9 Articulo 4: "CostaRica.tendri el derecho de abrir Article 4: "CostaRica shall have the rightto open
Nicaragua Treaty English translation by en el territorio de Nicaragua 10s caminos que in the territoryofNicaragua the necessary roadsfor
of Limits (Alvarez- Nicaragua necesite para laimportacion o exportacion de sus importing and exporting its effects, through Lake
Zambrana),Granada, efectos,por elLago deNicaragua.. ." Nicaragua. ."
5 February 1883,
unratified Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Description in English
21 Costa Rica- NCM Annex 10 Articulo IV "Para el caso de que se lleve a efecto Article IV: "In the event of the construction of the
Nicaragua, Treaty Englishtranslationby la construction del ferrocarril indicado en la railroad line indicated in the foregoing article, the
of Limits (Navas- clausula precedente, el Gobierno de Nicaragua se Government of Nicaragua reserves the right to set
Castro), San Jose, Nicaragua reserva el derecho de establecer una aduana con up a customs-house, with its respective employees
19January 1884, sus correspondientes empleados y dependencias and offices, at the starting point of the railroad
unratified en el punto de partida de la linea ferrea, ya sea line, either on the bank of the Lake or at any of
en la ribera del Lago 6 en cualquiera de 10srios the aforementioned rivers, with the objective of
mencionados, destinado dicho establecimiento a1 registering any merchandise which is imported to
registro de mercancias que de 6 para Nicaragua or exported from Nicaragua ...CostaRica shall not
se importen 6 exporten...Costa Rica no cobrara chargecustom duties or othernational or localtaxes
derechos de aduana, ni otros impuestos nacionales for in-transit merchandise in its territor.".
6 locales por razon del transit0 de mercancias
dentro de su territorio.."
Articulo IX: "Costa Rica tiene el derecho de abrir Article IX: "Costa Rica shall have the right to
en el territorio de Nicaragua 10s caminos que build, within the territory of Nicaragua, the roads
necesite para la importacion o exportacion de sus which are necessary to import and export its effects
efectospor elLagodeNicaragua y el rio Colorado, through the Lake ofNicaragua, the Colorado River,
rio y puerto de SanJuan del Norte ..." and the river and port of San Juan del Norte.."
22 Costa Rica- CRRAnnex 22 Articulo VIII: ". .En cuanto a 10s derechos Article VIII: ". .Regarding Civil rights, their
Nicaragua, Treaty of (ArticlesVIII,XIX, civiles, dicho goce y equiparacion seran desde attribution and equivalence shall of course be
Peace, Friendship, XXIX and XXXIII) luego absolutos, sin reserva ni diferencia alguna, absolute, with no reservations or differences,
Commerce and Source: JMBonilla, especialmenteen cuanto a libertades y seguridades especially in regard to freedom and safety, both
Extradition (Navas- personales y de domicilio,a 10smedios de adquirir personal and domiciliary, as to the means of
Castro), San Jose, Collecidnde Tratados bienes de toda clase, poseerlos, conservarlos, acquiring goods of any kind, possessing, keeping,
19January 1884, Internacionales transferirlos y transportarlos dentro y fuera de transferring and transporting them inside and
(Managua:Tipografia
unratified Internacional,1909), la Republics y al ejercicio del comercio y la outsidethe Republic andto the practice of trade and
pp. 455-466. navegacion..." navigation...."
Englishtranslationby
Costa RicaDocument Reference Description in Spanish Description inEnglish
Articulo XIX: ". .que las importaciones y Article XIX: "...that the imports and exports that
exportaciones que se hagan de uno a otro punto, are made from one point to the other, either by
ya sean por mar 6 por tierra, de 10s articulos 6 sea or land, of the articles or natural and industrial
productos naturales t industriales propiosdel pais products natural to the sender's country shall not
que 10sremite, no pagaran derechos ni impuestos pay rights ortaxes of anykind, either fiscal orlocal.
de ninguna clase, sean fiscales 6 locales. Para Toavoid anydoubt as well as any fraud, it is agreed
evitar toda duda, lo mismo que cualquier fraude, that theproductsreferredto inthis article, when they
se conviene en que 10sproductos de que habla este enter the territoryor dominion of one of the parties,
articulo, ensu introducciona1territorio 6 dominios shall be accompanied bya bill.oflading issued...in
de la una parte, deberan ir acompaiiados de una which the origin ofsaid products..."
guia expedida.. .en que se hara constar ser de ella
el origen 6 procedencia de dichosproductos.. ."
Articulo XXIX: "Cuando haya lugar a la Article XXIX: "When the extradition proceeds,all
extradicion, todos 10s obietos aprehendidos, que obiects seized that have any relation to the crime
tengan relacion con el delito y sus autores se and its perpetrators shall be rendered, with due
entregaran sinperjuicio del derechodetercero, a la respect totherightsofthirdparties,to the requesting
Republics reclamante.. ." Republic ..."
Articulo XXXIII: "Los gastos que causen Article XXXIII: "The expenses incurred by
el mantenimiento y transporte del individuo the maintenance and transport of the requested
reclamado, y tambien la entregay traslacion de 10s individual, as well as the delivery and transport of
obietos, que por tener relacion con el delito deban theobiectsthatmustbe sentandreturnedonaccount
restituirseyremitirse, seranacargode laRepublica of their relation to the crime, shall be paid by the
que solicite la entrega." Republic that requests the delivery." Document Reference Description in Spanish Description in English
23 United States CRRAnnex 23,Article Articulo IV: "Con el objeto de llevar a cab0 este Article IV: "For the purpose of carrying out this
ofAmerica-Nicaragua, IV convenio.. ." (...)para 10s depositos de aguas, agreement...for reservoirs, dykes, piers, docks,
Treaty providing for the Sources: diques, muelles, arsenales, accesorios de las spaces about locks, for lights, beacons, storehouses,
construction of an Inter- esclusas, faros, seiiales, almacenes, talleres, machine shops, buildings, and for whatever other
Oceanic Canalacrossthe Englishversion:Report edificios y para cualesquiera otros obietos thins necessary..."
territory of Nicaragua of theIsthmian Canal necesarios..."
(Frelinghuysen- Commission,1899-
Zavala), Washington,' 1901,AppendixL,
1December 188 pp. 359-363
Spanishversion:
Memoriade la
Secretariade
RelacionesExteriores
y CarterasAnexas
de laRepublics de
CostaRica (SanJose:
ImprentaNacional,
1884-1885)
24 Costa Rica- CRRAnnex 24 Articulo VII: "...especialmente en cuanto a Article VII:"...particularly in regard to freedoms
Nicaragua Treaty of (ArticlesVII, XVIII, libertadesy seguridades personalesy de domicilio, and personal and domiciliary guarantees, to the
Peace, Commerce and XXVIII and XXXII) a 10s medios de adquirir bienes de toda clase, means of acquiring goods of any kind, to possess,
Extradition (Esquivel- poseerlos, conservarlos, transferir..." preserve and transfer them ..."
Chamorro), San JosC, Spanishversion:JM
9 October 1885 Bonilla,Coleccidn Articulo XVIII: ". .que las importaciones y Article XVIII: "...that the imports and exports
de Tratados exportaciones que se hagan de uno a otro punto, made from one point to the other, eitherby sea or
Internacionales ya sean por mar o por tierra, de 10s articulos o land, of the articles or natural products from the
(Managua:Tipografia productos naturales propio del pais.. .Para evitar country.. .To avoid any doubt, as well as any fraud,
Intemacional, 1909), toda duda, 10s mismo que cualquier fraude, se
pp. 489-498 Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
English translation by explica:que 10sproductosdequehablaestearticulo it isstated:that the products mentioned inthisarticle
CostaRica son 10s de libre comercio en el pais, donde se are those of free trade in the country where they
introducen yse conviene enque dichos productos are introduced and it is agreed that said products,
al ser introducidos en el territorio o dominios de when introduced into the territory or domains of
la una parte, deberan ir acompafiadosde una guia one party, shallbe accompanied by a bill oflading
expedida por la autoridades competentesde la issued by the competent authorities of theother in
otra en que se hara constar ser de ella el origen o which the origin of said products from thatparty
procedencia de dichosproductos.. ." shall be certified."
Articulo XXVIII: "Cuando haya lugar a la Article XXVIII: When the extradition proceeds, all
extradicion todos lo objetos aprehendidos que obiects seized that have any relation to the crime
tengan relacion con el delito y sus autores se and its perpetratorsshall be rendered.."
entregaran..."
Articulo XXXII: "Los gastos que causen el Article XXXII: "The expenses incurred by the
mantenimiento y traspasodelindividuo reclamado, maintenanceandtransferoftherequested individual,
y tambien la entrega ytraslacionde 10sobletosque as well as the delivery and transport of theoblects
por tener relacion.." that by having relation..."
25 Contract NCMAnnex 20 Articulo 5:"El Estado se compromete a no hacer Article V: "The Estate (sic) binds itself not to
between theGovernment (Article 5) ninguna concesion ulterior para la apertura de make any subsequent concession for theopening
of the Republic of un Canal entre 10sdos Oceanos, mientras dure el of a canal between thetwo oceans during the term
Nicaragua and the CRRAnnex 25 presente privilegio,y se abstendratambiCndurante of the present concession, and also to abstain from
Nicaragua Canal (Articles 30 and 40) el mismo tiempo, de hacer la concesion de un
granting a concession for a railroad, such as might
Association of New English translation of Ferrocarril que hiciera competenciaa1Canal para compete with the canal for the transportation of
Yorkfor the opening Article 5 byNicaragua. el trasporte de mercancias,... merchandise.. ..
of an inter-oceanic
canal (Cirdenas- Articulo 30: "La compafiiano podra introducir a1 Article XXX: "The company shall not import
Menocal). Managua, territoriode laRep6blica,rnercanciascon el objeto merchandise into the territoryof the Republic, for
the purpose of trafficking, without paying the
23 March 1887 de traficar conella, si no here pagando Document Reference . Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
duties established by law But it may import
Englishtranslation 10sderechos de aduana establecidos por ley. Sin
ofArticles30 and embargo, podri introducir libres de derechos de free of custom duties, and of any tax whatsoever,
40 from Report of aduana y de cualesquiera impuestos, los articulos the articlesneeded for the works of the enterpris...
theIsthmian Canal necesarios para 10strabajos de la ernpresa...para for running the the colnPanYmay keep
Commission1899- eltrabajode10stalleresquela Compaiiiamantenga in operation; and such~lkh may consist of tools,
1901(Washington: en actividad; pudiendo consistir dichos articulos apparatus, coal... These Z!kb may
be transported between whatever points they may
GovernmentPrinting .enutensilios, rniquinas, aparatos, carb6n..Estos be required during the works of opening of the
Office, 1904)pp. 389- obietos podrin transitar ente cualesquiera puntos
400 dondehayan de necesitarsedurante lostrabajos de canal...Goods, the commerce of which is not free,
aperturadelCanal.. ..se exceptriande lafranquicia are excepted from the privileges contained in this
contenida en este articulo, 10sobietos que no sean
de libre comercio,"
Articulo 40: ". .Per0 por las mercaderias que se ArticleXL: "...But all suchmerchandiseas shallbe
embarquen 6 desembarquen.. ." loaded or discharged.."
26 Contract CRRAnnex27 ~rti~~l~~VI: u~a~sociaci(,nnopodrhintroducir Article XXVI: "The Association cannot import
between the Government (ArticlesXXVI, en el temitoriode la Rephblica mercancias con el merchandise into the territory of the Republic for
of the Republic of Costa XXXVI,XXXVII, objeto de traficarcon ellas, sino here pagando los the purposes of trafficking with it without paying
Rica and the Nicaragua XXXIX and XL) derechos de ~d~~~~ establecidos la ley; sin the custom duties established by law, but it shall
CanalAssociation for embargo, podrh introducir libre de tales derechos have the right to import free from custom duties
the opening of an inter- Spanishversion: and of any other imposts whatsoever, the iddS
ArchivoNacionalde y de cualesquiera otros impuestos, 10s articulos needed for the works of the enterprise...and the
oceaniccanal (PCrez- Costa Rica necesarios para los trabajos de la E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ .
Menocal), San Jose, saidarticles may consist of implements,machinery,
31 July 1888 .Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English
English version: consistiran dichos articulos en utensilios, apparatus... These articles may be transported
AR Colquhoun,The maquinas,aparatos...Estosobietospodrantransitar between whatever points theymay be needed
Key of thePacgc: ente cualesquiera puntos donde haya necesidad, the work of the constructionof the canal...Those
TheNicaragua durante 10s trabajos de la construccion del articles the commerce of which is not free are
Canal(Westminster: Canal.. .Se excep~an de la franquicia contenida excepted fromthe privileges grantedin this Article,
Archibald Constable & en este articulo, 10sobjetos que no sean de libre and shall remainsubject ..."
Co., 1895)pp. 386-407 comercio.. .
ArticuloXXXVI:"La Republics de Costa Rita no Article XXXVI: "The Republic of Costa Rica
establecera derecho de tonelaje, anclaje, pilotaje, shall not establish any tonnage, anchorage,pilot or
faro, o ninglin otro sobre las embarcaciones de lighthouse dues, or any other charges of any kind
whatsoever, upon vessels of any class whatever,
cualquiera clase quesean,ni sobre las mercancias,
equipajes y pasajeros, que transiten por el or upon the merchandise, baggage and Passenger
Canal.. ." whichmay passthroughthe canal.. ."
ArticuloXXXVII:"Afindeasegurarlamasamplia Article XXXVII: "For the purpose of securing the
libertad de trinsito para personas y propiedades, most ample liberty or the transit of Persons and
habra en cada margen del canal una zona libre.. . PDWdY, a free zone shall be established on each
Lasmercanciasqueseembarquen6 desembarquen side of the canal...All merchandise that shall be
en cualquier puerto del Canal dentro del territorio loadedordischargedatanypointofthe canal within
the territoryof CostaRica.. ."
de Costa Rica.. ."
Articulo ~XIX: "...tendra la Asociacion el Article XXXIX: "...the said association shall have
derecho de establecer y percibir par el pasaje de the right to establish andcollect for the passageof
10sbuques y embarcacionesde toda clase, el de allkindsofships, vessels,travelersandmerchandise
viajeros y mercancias a trav6s del Canal y en las throughthe canal.. ."
aguasy puertos de su dependencia.. ."
Articulo XL: "...Tambitn se concede una rebaja Article XL: "...A reduction of fifty per centumof
de un cincuenta por ciento en la tarifa generala the general tariffis also granted to all vessels that
cualquier buque que comience su navegacion con begin their voyage for a foreign country atany of
destino a1extranjero, en cualquierade 10spuertos the ports belonging to the Republic, witha cargo
pertenecientes a la Republica, y cuyo cargamento wholly consistingofproducts of the country ....
se componga en su totalidad de productos del
pais...." Document Reference Descriptionin Spanish Descriptionin English -
27 Costa Rica- NCM Annex 12 Articulo VI: "...y que haga dificil el embarque Article VI: "...and it makes it difficultto load and
Nicaragua, Treaty y desembarque de todas clase de mercaderias.. .. unload all classes of merchandise...The purpose of
Englishtranslationby El expresado derecho de uso tiene por objeto the aforesaid right of use is to transport, load and
of Limits (Guerra- Nicaragua
Castro), Managua, el transporte, embarque y desembarque de toda unload allkinds ofmerchandise,withoutrestriction,
23 December 1890 clase de mercaderias, sin restriccion ninguna, la build railways and wharves; establish offices,
construction deferrocarrilesymuelles;lafundacion commercial stores and residential houses, which
de oficinas, establecimientos comerciales y casas shall be subject, as well as the persons who inhabit
dehabitacion, lascuales,asicomolaspersonas que this tract of land, to the jurisdiction and laws of
habiten dicha faja de terreno, estaran sometidos a Costa Rica. ...
lajurisdiccion y leyesde Costa Rica. ...
Articulo VII: "Con el fin de que a Nicaragua le Article VII: "So that Nicaragua has sufficientspace
quede espacio suficientedecostano rocallosa en la of non-rocky coast at Salinas Bay for loading and
Bahia de Salinas,para el embarquey desembarque unloading all kinds of merchandise.. ."
de toda clase de mercaderias..." Chapter4
Nicaragua'sBreaches
A. Introduction
4.01 The facts of the present matter are simple. Nicaragua gradually started
infi-ingingCosta Rica's navigational rights on the San Juan during the context
of the Nicaraguan Civil War (1980-1989). Although the initial restrictions on
Costa Rican navigation were justified as temporary, exceptional measures to
protectNicaragua's national security in the context ofan armed conflict,38and
although some of the restrictions were suspended when Costa Rica protested,
during the mid-1990s the situation worsened, particularly after 14 July 1998
when Nicaragua prohibited navigationby Costa Rican police.
4.02 After Costa Rica filed its Application in September 2005, Nicaragua
implementedadditionalrestrictions on CostaRican navigation, both public and
private, including visa and passport requirements and a prohibition of fishing
for riparians, reaching a point where Costa Ricans are actively discouraged
from using the San Juan ~iver at all. Nicaragua has gradually increased its
military presence ii the border area. The Nicaraguan press reported that new
military posts were opened in the area in March 2007,384 against a background
where Nicaraguan authorities have threatened to use force to prevent Costa
Rican navigation.385
4.03 Nicaragua's unlawfulrestrictionsand hindrances to CostaRica's use of
the SanJuan River have caused considerableharm to the local inhabitants who
need to use the River on a daily basis; to the boatmen who transported tourists
383 See e.g. the note from Nicaraguan Ambassador in CostaRica, Javier Chamorro Mora, to Costa
Rican Foreign Minister,Bemd Niehaus Quesada of 12 November 1980: CRM, Annexes, Vol3,
Annex 40. See also the following pressnotes in CRM, Annexes, Vol 5: "Nicaragua conditions
navigation on the watersof the San Juan River", (Annex 111);"Nicaraguans announce control on
the SanJuan", (Annex 115); "Ramirez offers gradual respect to navigation on theSan Juan River"
(Annex 122);and "Nicaragua guaranteesfreedom on the San Juan River" (Annex 121).
384 "New Army Posts in the San Juan River",voDiarioM,anagua, 26 March2007: CRR,An-
nexes,Vol2, Annex 58.
385 See this Reply, paragraph 4.52; see also Nicaraguan PresidentialDecree No. 65-2005 of 28 Sep-
tember 2005, Nicaraguan Official Gazette No. 188of 29 September2005:es, Vol2,
Annex 69.- a majority of whom have seen their businesses seriously affected; to the
State institutions that formerly provided security,health care and other social
services to the inhabitants; and to the inhabitants themselves, many of them
Nicaraguan nationals,who have lost access to those services.
4.04 The present Chapter responds to Nicaragua's claims that it has not
breached Costa Rica's navigational and related rights. It demonstrates that
Nicaragua's breaches of those rights are continuing.
SectionBdealswiththebreachesofCostaRica'sperpetualrightoffreenavigation.
Subsection (1) deals with the obligation to land at the Nicaraguan bank
and pay for a "departure clearance certificate." Subsection (2) examines
Nicaragua's impositionofothercharges,includingimmigrationandtourist
fees. Subsection(3) demonstrates that Nicaragua has required Costa
Ricans and foreignerson CostaRican vesselsto carrypassports andvisas.
Subsection (4) discusses Nicaragua's imposition of timetables on Costa
Rican navigation and subsection (5) examines the searches conducted by
Nicaraguan authoritiesto CostaRican vessels and passengers.
SectionCaddressesthebreachesofCostaRica'srightofnavigation"forpurposes
ofcommerce," includingnavigationby CostaRican Governmentofficials
for purposes of communication and the provision of health, social and
educational services,and navigation of CostaRicans generally in order to
communicatebetween places on the CostaRican bank of the River.
Section D deals with the breaches of Costa Rica's right of protection of
commerce, safeguard, defence and re-supply of police posts, and in
particular with navigation of Costa Rican police in accordance with the
1858Treaty andthe 1888ClevelandAward.
Section E examines the breaches of Costa Rica's related rights, including the
imposition of a requirement to fly the Nicaraguan flag,the prohibition of
subsistencefishingby CostaRican riparians, denial ofthe right to land on
the Nicaraguan bank andNicaragua's obligationto facilitatetrafficon the
River in accordancewith the 1956Agreement.
Section F deals with Nicaragua's plea that Costa Rica has acquiesced
in Nicaragua's violations of its rights. It addresses three specific
allegations: measures relating to tourism arising from the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Ministers of Tourism of 5 June 1994;
navigation of Costa Rican police on the River; and the allegation that Costa Rica recognises the need to obtain permission to navigate on the
San Juan.
In a concluding section (Section G) Costa Rica discusses Nicaragua's
strategy of "militarization" of the San Juan border area in an effort to
actively discourage Costa Rican navigation.
B. Breachesof CostaRica'sperpetual right of free navigation
(1) The obligation to land at the Nicaraguan bank and payment for a
"departureclearancecertificate"
4.05 In its Memorial, Costa Rica presented the following evidence:
(i) In the early 1980s,Nicaraguan army authorities began demanding that
CostaRicanvesselsonthe SanJuanlandattheirposts ontheNicaraguan
bank, report to the Nicaraguan authorities and pay for a "departure
clearancecertificate." Thiswasrequiredevenwhen CostaRicanvessels
werenavigatingfromonepoint inCostaRicanterritory to another. This
practice was suspended in 1982when Costa Rica protested,386 and only
occasionallyoccurred after the end of the Nicaraguan civil war.
In 2001 CostaRican riparians complainedthat they were being charged
(ii)
US$25 per vessel for permission to navigate on the River. Costa Rica
has repeatedly protested this measure,387 but despite these protests the
"departure clearance certificate" continues to be charged. The cost
has varied between US$25 and US$5 and appears to vary according
to the particular Nicaraguan post where it is issued. Costa Rica's
Memorial annexed evidence of the imposition of a charge in the form
of a "departure clearance certificate", in the form of notes of protest,388
386 Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Fernando Volio Jimenez, to Nicaraguan Charged'Affaires a.i to
Costa Rica,Oscar RamonTCllez,Note of 16July 1982:CRM,Annexes, Vol3, Annex 42.
387 Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Elayne Whytet,o Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco
Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Noteofpril 2001: CRM,Annexes, Vol3, Annex 70.
388 Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Elayne Whyte, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco
Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Noteof 18 April 2001:, Annexes, Vol 3, Annex 70; Costa Rican
Foreign Minister, Robertoas Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisr guirreA
Sacasa, Noteof 9May 200:CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 71 ;and Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Rojas,to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco XavierAguirre Sacasa,Note of 26 Sep-
tember 2001:CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 73. affidavits,389press reports390 and copies of several "departure clearance
certificate^."^^'
4.06 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua did not deny this evidence, nor did
itpresent any evidence to contradict it.
4.07 Since Costa Rica submitted its Memorial, Nicaraguan authorities have
continued to impose an obligation toland at the Nicaraguan bank andto pay a
"departure clearancecertificate." The current cost is US$10per vessel for each
one-way trip.392
4.08 Annexed to this Reply is further evidence of these continuing breaches,
constituted by:
(i) a receipt dated 25 October 2007 for a "departure clearance certificate"
charged to a Costa Rican boatman which indicates he was charged
$6.000 (equivalent to approximately US$11
(ii) new affidavits, including that of Victor Julio Vargas Hernandez, who
states:
"the applicationof restrictionsand the threats to CostaRicans are increased or
mademoreseverewhentheguardsare changedonposts.ToallowCosta&can
navigation sometimes they demand payment in goods, through cigarettes,
liquor or food."394
(iii) an affidavitof MarlenyRojas Vargasreferring to an incident where she
was forced to land onthe Nicaraguan bank:
"on one occasion a woman had a medical emergency,andurgently required
somemedicine, and when trying to helpher, in order to obtainthe medicine
from the shop that sold it, in Costa Rican territory,she was forced to cross
. the San Juan River to request permission to make the
In respect of this affidavit, SketchMap 2 opposite, demonstrates that
although the witness7house and the store wherethe medicine was sold
389 Affidavitof 5 May 20:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 83
390 "Nicas insist on charging",La Nacidn, SanJose, 8May 2001: CRM,Angexes,Vol5, Annex 169.
391 CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annexes 241(a) and(b).
392 If payment is made in CostaRican currency, theamount payable appears to varyaccording to the
way in which the local Nicaraguan authoritiescalculatethe exchange rate.
"Departure clearance certificate" chargedto Jorge Lao, 25 October 2007:xes, Vol2,
393
Annex 71.
394 Affidavit of Victor JulioVargasHernindez, 29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol2,54.nFor
similar evidence, see also Affidavits oforales Chacbn, 30 April 2007: CRR Annexes,
Vol2, Annex 50; and CarlosLao Jarquin, 28 July 2007:CRRAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 51.
395 Affidavitof Marleny RojasVargas,29 July 2007: CRRAnnexes,Vol2, Annex 54. Sketchmap2
BOCA SAH CARLOS
Residences
COSTA RICA were both in Costa Rican territory and only a short distance by boat,
the witness was forced to cross all the way to the Nicaraguan Army
1 Post to report and then return to Costa Rican territory to purchase the
I
I medicine.
(2) Othercharges
4.09 In its Memorial, Costa Rica presented the following evidence:
(i) By the mid- 1990s,in additionto the chargefor the "departure c -learance
certificate,"Nicaraguan authoritieschargedUS$5 for a "tourist card to
everypassengeronaCostaRicanvesselonthe SanJuan,evenwherethe
vesselwastransitingfrom one,partofCostaRicanterritoryto another.396
Failure to pay could entail a security risk for Costa Rican passengers,
I sincethe Nicaraguan army officialswere heavily armed.397
(ii) Costa Rica protested this and the Nicaraguan Foreign
Ministerrespondedthat the chargewould not applyto Costa Ricans but
only to other passengers.399TheNicaraguan press alsoreported that the
chargewould onlyapplytotravelbeyond the areawhere CostaRica has
aperpetualright offree navigation.400Despitethis response,the charge
was not suspended and has continued to apply to all Costa Ricans and
passengers on Costa Rican vessels, including riparians of the River,
and to the entire area in which Costa Rica has a perpetual right of free
navigation.401
(iii) Costa Rica protested once again in May 2001.402Despite an exchange
of notes by both Foreign Ministers, the US$5 not only continued to be
"Conflict with the Nicaraguansdue to tourism on the San Juan", La Nacidn, San JosC,S March
1994:CRM,Annexes, Vol5, Annex 123;"Ticos weremachine-gunned at the San Juan River", La
Nacidn, San JosC,8 March 1994; CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 124.
"_5 to navigate on the San JuanRiver", La Nacidn, San 10sMarch 1994:CRM, Annexes,
Vol5, Annex 126.
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Bernd NiehausQuesada,to NicaraguanAmbassador in CostaRica,
AlfonsoRobelo, ~ote'of 15March 1994:NCM,Vol 11Annex 41.
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, ErnestoLeal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Bemd Niehaus Que-
sada,Note of 17March 1994:CRM,Annexes,Vol3, Annex 48.
"Problems with Ticossolved", Prensa, Managua, 8 March 1994:CRM,Annexes, Vol5, Annex
125.
SeeAffidavitof 5 May 2001:CRM,Annexes, Vol4, Annex 83
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, RobertoRojas Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco
Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Noteof 9 May 2001:CRM,Annexes,ol3, Annex 71. charged but in early 2002 an additional US$2 was charged on grounds
of"immigration feesfor enteringNicaraguan territory."403InMay 2002
a furtherUS$2was added,purportedly as"immigration feesforexisting
Nicaraguan territory".404Thus, from May 2002 until the present time,
allpassengersonCostaRicanvesselsareforcedtopay US$9tonavigate
on the SanJuan, evenwhen the travel isbetweenplaces on CostaRican
territory.
(iv) Evidence of these charges was annexed to Costa Rica's Memorial,
including copies ofthe US$5 "tourist cards"chargedto CostaRicans in
2001 and 2005;405 copies of "transit permit through the border points"
' (anotherterm fortheUS$5 charge)paid in 2005and 2006;406 and copies
of the receipts for the payment of the US$4 "migratory service (entry
and exit) paid in 2005 and 2006.407The imposition of these charges
was confirmedby numerous statements of boatmen and hotel owners
describing the hardships they have endured as consequence of these
4.10 InitsCounter-Memorial,Nicaragua didnot denythe impositionofthese
charges,nor did itpresent any evidenceto contradictthe evidencepresented by
Costa Rica.
4.11 Since then, Nicaraguan authorities have continued.to impose these
chargeson Costa Rican navigation. Annexed to this Reply is evidence of these
continuingbreaches, including
(i) new affidavitq409
403 "Nicas raise River charge", La Nacidn, San Jose, 21 May 2002: CRM, Annexes, Vol 5, An-
nex 174.
404 "Nicas raise River charge",Nacidn, San Jose, 21 May 2002: CRM, Annexes, Vol 5, An-
nex 174.
405 CRM,Annexes, Vol6, Annexes 242(a) and (b).
406 CRM,Annexes, Vol6, Annexes 243(a) and (b).
407 CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annexes 245(a) and (b).
408 Seeforexample the followingAffidavitsin CRM,Annexes,Vol4: CarlosLaoJarquin(Annex84);
GeovannyNavarro Garro(Annex85);PabloGerardoHernandez Varela(Annex 86);Santos Martin
Arrieta Flores (Annex 87); Marvin Hay-Gonzalez (Annex 91); WindelHodgsonHodgson (Annex
93); DanielReese Wise (Annex 95); andon Hodgson Hodgson(Annex 96).
409 See for example Affidavit of VictorJulio VargasHernandez, 29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol2,
Annex 54. (ii) an officialreceipt issued on 25 October 2007 to a Costa Rican boatman
for US$4 for a "Immigration Dispatch";410 and
(iii) areceipt for US$5dated25 October2007for a "Transitpermit atborder
point".411
(3) Visas and passports
4.12 In its Memorial, Costa Rica presented the following evidence:
(i) Inresponse to CostaRica institutingthe present proceedings, starting in
October 2005, Nicaraguan authoritiesrequired Costa Ricans, and other
foreign nationals from countries that require a visa to enter Nicaragua,
to carry their passports with a Nicaraguan visa while navigating on the
SanJuan in CostaRican If these requirementswere not met,
Costa Rican boatmen and passengers were prevented from navigating
I ontheRiver.413 Inone incident,aCostaRicanboatman was detainedfor
severalhours for failing to carry aNicaraguan visa.414
(ii) The total cost of the visa is US$25, plus expenses related to travelling
to the nearest Nicaraguan Consulate, which at the time Costa Rica
submitted its Memorial was in the capital city of San This
constitutesan additionalexpenseto the charges described above, which
brings the total to US$34 per passenger for each trip, plus "departure
clearance fees" of US$20 per vessel.
(iii) Costa Rica's Memorial demonstrated that this measure has practically
destroyedCostaRican commercialtransportationoftourists inthe route
410 "Immigration dispatch" charged to Jorge Lao, 25 October 2007: CRR, Annexes, Vol 2,
nex 72(a)
411 "Transitpermit at borderpoint" chargedto Jorge Lao, 25 October 2007; CRR,AnnexAn-Vol2,
nex 72(b).
412 See for example the following press notesin CRM,Annexes,Vol5: "Ticos will pay for avisa", El
Nuevo Diario, Managua, 19 October 2005 (Annex 188);"Nicaragua conditions passing of Costa
Rican vessels", Nacicin,San Jose, 16October 2005 (Annex 185); "Nicaragua demands aVisa
and Passport on theRiver",Nacidn, San Jose, 30 October 2005 (Annex 189).
413 See for example the Affidavit of Pablo GerardoHernindez Varela,27 January 2006: CRM, An-
nexes, Vol4, Annex 86; and Note from Mr. Jorge Lao Jarquin and Mr. Santos Arrietato
Costa Rican Foreign Ministry,22 November 2005: CRM,Annexes,6, Annex 238.
414 Note fromMr.Jorge Lao Jarquin andMr.SantosArrieta Floresto Costa Rican ForeignMinistry,22
November 2005: CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 238.
415 Copies of the payment receipts for each visa,as well as of the visas themselves, are includedin
CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 244. See also theAffidavit of Carlos Lao Jarquin,27January 2006:
CRM,Annexes,Vo14,Amex 84. betweenPuertoViejodeSarapiquiandBarradelColoradoorTortuguero,
all on CostaRican territory.416
4.13 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua has not denied any of these facts
nor responded to the evidencepresented.
4.14 Costa Rica annexes to this Reply evidence that revenue from the %
impositionof avisarequirementis tobe appliedtofinanceNicaragua's defence
beforethis Court,whichprovides further supportto Costa Rica'sclaimthat this
is a retaliatory measure. ~ccordin~ to ~icara~~anPresidential decree No. 97-
2005, published in the Official Gazette No. 237 of 7 December 2005, revenue
obtained from the consularvisas charged to Costa Ricans would be destined to
financethe costs of Nicaragua's defence in the proceedings institutedby Costa
Rica in the present case.417
4.15 CostaRicanotesthatin2006NicaraguaopenednewConsulatesinPuerto
Viejode Sarapiqui,inLimon, and in Ciudad Quesada. Limon is approximately
100kilometresfromSarapiqui andciudad Quesadaapproximately70 kilometres.
However the Consulate in Sarapiqui does not operate regularly. Costa Ricans
who wish tonavigateonthe SanJuan aretherefore stillforcedto travelto either
Limon, Ciudad Quesada or San Jose, any of which would require a full day's
journey, taking account of waiting time at the Consulate.
4.16 Further evidence annexed to this Reply affirms that the Nicaraguan
authorities continue to require the carrying of a passport and Nicaraguan visa
fornavigationonthe SanJuantothepresent day. ACostaRicanboatmanwhose
2001 statementdescribedthe hardships he faced inconsequenceofNicaragua's
restrictions418stated in a recent affidavit:
"That sincehis last affidavit regarding the restrictions imposedby Nicaragua on Costa
Rican navigationon the SanJuanRiver,Nicaragua has imposed the obligationto carry
a visa on Costa Ricans navigating the San Juan River. That this measure has harmed
416 See for example the following Affidavits inCRM,Annexes,Vol4: GeovannyNavarro Garro (An-
nex 85); Santos Martin Arrieta Flores(Annex 87); Marvin Hay-Gonzalez (Annex 91); Annando
Perla PCrez(Annex 92); Windel Hodgson Hodgson (Annex 93); and Daniel Reese Wise (Annex
95).
417 Nicaraguan Presidential DecreeNo. 97-2005 of 2 December 2005, Nicaraguan OfficialGazette
No. 237 of 7 December 2005:CRRAnnexes,l2, Annex 70.
418 See CRM,Annexes,Volume4,Annex 83.him as well as all other boatmen who obtain their living from the transportation of
persons and tourists from Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui to Tortuguero and other towns
located in Costa Rican territory."419
Another CostaRican boatman stated:
"...since the month of November of two thousand five, when the Government of
NicaraguaimposedarequirementforCostaRicanstocarryapassportwithaNicaraguan
visa for thenavigationon the SanJuan River,he has seen the activityof transportation
of tourists from Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui to Barra del Colorado and the Tortuguero
Channels in Costa Rican territory very gravely affected, to the point thathe is near to
abandoning his business as a result of those and other restrictions that Nicaragua has
imposed on Costa Rican navigation."420
4.17 Thereare far-reaching consequences of theserestrictions and chargesfor
CostaRican riparians. Sinceallpersons are liable to comply with Nicaragua's
requirements, priests visiting to give Mass in the local communities, doctors
and medical personnel travelling to provide assistance to both Costa Rican and
Nicaraguan residents of the Costa Rican bank and officials from'costa Rican
health and socialassistanceauthorities areall subjected to these obligations. The
consequences for the provision of health and social assistance in these areas is
described inmore detail below.421A pressreport of 14 May 2007 explainedthat
.
the restrictions have resulted in a loss of these services, including the provision
of Mass:
"123 days after Sandinista Daniel Ortega came to power in Nicaragua, the situation
has become more stringent. Not even priests are able to say mass in the Costa Rican
villages on the river margin, because they are charged $25 (213thousand)everytime
they pass...
It has been a year since Father Mario Chavarria, from Pita1de San Carlos, last visited
the Costa Rican communities on the banks of the San Juan River, because every time
he visited the area he had to pay $25($13 thousand).
'Ithas been ayear sinceI lastvisited that area.Onmy lastvisit, an Immigrationofficial
told me I could pass, but that I would have to pay on my next visit,' said Chavarria.
More than 40 families there cannot rkceive mass, and on Sundays, they must leave
their homes very early to hear the word ofGod."422
Therehave also been reports that these restrictions have prevented doctors and
the Red Cross from visiting these areas:
419 Affidavit of Jorge ManuelLao Jarquin, 28July 2007:CRR,Annexes, Annex 52.
420 Affidavit ofCarlosLao Jarquin,28 July 2007:CRR,Annexes,, Annex51.
421 SeethisReply, paragraphs 4.26-4.41.
422 "Neighbours from theSanJuanplea forhelp",ia, SanJosC,14May 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol
2, Annex 59."Small farmers that must navigatethe SanJuan almost every day,and are not required
to pay that fee, are not happy either. 'There are townsby the San Juan where doctors
and the Red Cross cannot go because they have to pay all that money,'they say."423
4.18 This situation and its impact on the localtourist and related commercial
activities - on which many local families depend - was explained in a press
report of 10 June 2007:
"Until a year ago, hundreds of tourists rented boats in Puerto Viejo de Sarapiquito go
to the San Juan River, and after paying $7 at the Nicaraguan army post, they would
head on to Tortugueroor Barra del Colorado.. . But that situation changed drastically
overnight, and had immediate effects.
According to Pablo Hernandez, a local boatman, 'Tourists are now an endangered
species'in this zone.
Thereasonisfinanciallysimple.Forthe lastyear,Nicaraguahas been charging $25 for
a visa plus another $9 for a 'rightof passage; along the SanJuan.
Theresults:now almostno onevisitsthis border zone, a popular tourist destinationfor
its incomparablenatural beauty.. .
'Weare going bankrupt. I used to transport tourists even fourtimes a month andnow I
hardly do it once a month.Nobody wants to go to the San Juan because they must pay
a lot of money,'complainsPablo Hernandez.
He saysthe dropintourismalsoaffectssmallentrepreneurswith cabinsandrestaurants
along the Sarapiqui River, particularly those that are closer to the San Juan River,
where nobody wants to go.
'Ican assureyou this town isdying ever since they started chargingthat US$34. This
is outrageous because you must pay to go to Costa Rican towns,' said the owner of
some of those cabins.. .
Only very fewvisitors come here, for now, and most of them turn back because they
refuse to pay the US$34 fee."424
(4) Timetables
4.19 In its Memorial, CostaRica presented the following evidence:
(i) In 1999 Nicaraguan authorities imposed timetables on Costa Rican
navigation on the River, only permitting navigation from 6am to
423 "_34 fee marks the endof local tourism",La Nacidn, San Jose, 10June 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol
2,Annex 60.
424 "_34 fee marks the endof local tourism",La Nacidn, San Jose, 10June 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol
2,Annex 60. Accordingto theNational Instituteof Statisticsand Surveys,the poverty line inCosta
Rica for the year 2007 is set at a monthly incomeof 43, 261 colonesor approximately US$86.50.
Any income below that amount reaches the poverty level.As has been stated, in the area of the
SanJuan River there isa high incidenceofpoverty. The cost of onejourney on theSan Juan River
for any of those residents living below the poverty line could represena third of their
monthly income. It is clear that poorfamiliesed of travel on the River simply cannot afford
the charges imposedby Nicaragua. 5.30~m.~~C ~ostaRicaprotested thismeasure,42b 6utNicaraguacontinued
to prohibit navigation outside of those permitted times.
(ii) Costa Rica's Memorial annexed evidence as to the inconvenience this
measure causedto Costa Ricans who need to use the River,particularly
riparians who depend on the River as a means of transportation to
obtain social and health services from the Costa Rican Government.
These included statements of Costa Rican health authorities explaining
that timetables have prevented some inhabitants of the region from
travelling at night for emergency health-related as well as
statementsfromteachers who attest that these restrictions have affected
the provision of educational services.428
4.20 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua did not deny that it has imposed
timetables on Costa Rican navigation, nor did it present any evidence to
contradictthe evidencepresented.
4.21 Since Costa Rica submitted its Memorial, Nicaraguan authorities have
continued to impose timetables on Costa Rican navigation. Annexed to this
Reply is evidence of this, including:
(i) new affidavitstestifying that timetables for Costa Rican navigation on
the San Juan are still inforce;429and
(ii) a recent press note which states that Costa Rican navigation is now
limitedby a curfew of 5pm.430
(5) Searches
4.22 In its Memorial, CostaRica presented the following evidence:
425 "San Juan: Calm and uneasiness",LaNacidn, San Jose,4 July 1999:CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex
155.
426 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Francisco
Xavier AguirreSacasa,Note No. DM-207-2001,9 May 2001:,Annexes,Vol3,Annex 71.
427 SeeAffidavit by Sandra Diaz Alvarado:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 100.
428 SeeAffidavit byDiane Gomez Bustos:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 101.
429 See for exampleAffidavitof Victor Julio VargasHernandez, 29 July 2007:s, Vol2,
Annex 54.
430 "Neighbours fromtheanJuan plea forhelp"Dia,SanJose, 14May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol
2,Annex 59. In the context of the civil war in Nicaragua in the early 1980s,
(i)
Nicaraguan army officials started searching Costa Rican vessels and
their passenger^.^^A 't the conclusion of the war searches ceased, but
theyresumedsporadicallyin 1998afterNicaraguaprohibitednavigation
. by Costa Rican
(ii) After Costa Rica filedthe present Application, searches of Costa Rican
vesselsandtheirpassengersincreasedandwereaccompaniedbygeneral
harassment. Costa Rica'sMemorial annexed evidenceof this including
an affidavit of a Costa Rican boatman stating that his passengers were
regularly searched at the Nicaraguan Army Post at Boca Sarapiq~i.~~~
It also documented cases in Boca San Carlos where schoolchildren
were boats and fishing implements were confiscated435
and neighbours harassed by the Nicaraguan Army and Immigration
authoritieswhen theyattempted to travel on the River.436
4.23 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua did not deny that its authorities
searchCostaRican vesselsandtheirpassengers, nor did itpresent any evidence
to contradictthe evidencepresented in the Memorial.
431 See for example Affidavits of Marvin Hay-Gonzalez, 28 January2006; CRM, Annexes, Vol4,
Annex 91; andArmando Perla Perez, 28 January 2006: CRM,Annexes, Vol4, Annex 92. See also
"Nicas confiscate materialfrom journalists on the San JuanNacidn, San Jose, 24 Febru-
ary 1983:CRM,Annexes, Vol5,Annex 117;Manager of Swiss Travel Services,ilia Gamboa,
to Costa Rican Ministerof Public Security,AngelEdmundo Sol7June 1982:.CRM,Annexes,
Vol6,Annex 223; CostaRican Foreign Minister, FernandoVolioJimenez, to Nicaraguan ChargC
d'Affairesa.i to Costa Rica,Oscar Ramon Tellez,Note No. D.M.133-82, 8 June 1982:CRM,An-
nexes,Vol3, Annex 41;Manager of SwissTravel Services,Emilia Gamboa,to CostaRicanDeputy
Foreign Minister, Ekhart Peters,5July 1982:CRM,Annexes,6, Annex 224; Managerof Swiss
. . Travel Services,Emilia Gamboa, to Costa Rican Deputy Foreign Minister, Ekhart Peters,13July
1982: CRM,Annexes, Vol6,Annex 225; Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Fernando VolioJimenez,
to Nicaraguan Charge'Affaires a.i to Costa Rica, Oscar RamonTellez, Note No. D.M. 126-82,
16July 1982: CRM, Annexes,Vol 3, Annex 42; Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Fernando Volio
Jimenez, to Nicaraguan Ambassador to Costa Rica, Rogelio Ramirez Merca, ote No. D.M.
014-83,8 March 1983:CRM,Annexes, Vol3, Annex 47.
432 See for example "Charge for Ticos travellingon the San Juan reinstated",El Nuevo Diario, Mana-
gua,7 May 2004: CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 180.
433 SeeAffidavitof SantosMartin Arrietares, 27 January 2006:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 87.
434 SeeAffidavitof Diane GomezBustos, 16February 2006:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 101.
435 See for example Affidavitsby Leone1Morales Chacon: CRM, Annexes, Vol4, Annex 106;Erick
Maikol Martinez Lopez: CRM, Annexes,l4, Annex 107;and Josefa AlvarezAragon: CRMAn-
nexes, Vol4, Annex 109.
436 SeeAffidavitsof SandraDiazAlvarado, 16February 2006: CRM,~nnexes, Vol4, Annex 100;and
LuisYananCorea Torres, 16February2006: CRM,Annexes, Vol4, Annex 102.4.24 Sincethe Memorial,the searchesofCostaRican vessels andpassengers
have continued and have indeed worsened. Costa Rica annexes the following
evidenceto this Reply:
(i) A Costa Rican preacher who needed to navigate the San Juan Rivei-on
19March 2007 on a journey starting from Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui,
accompanying a group of American missionaries who were taking
school and health articles to the communities of Tambor, Remolinito
and Arbolito, all on Costa Rican territory, testifies that all passengers
were searched and some of their belongings seized. He stated:
"At the mandatory stop point that the Nicaraguan Armyimposes at their Post
at the mouth of the Sarapiqui River,'the Nicaraguan military boarded the
vessel to search all belongings, seizing fromthem photographic cameras and
the.passportsof all the peopletravelling and threatehing them that theywould
bring dogs to search if they were carrying othercameras. The seized articles
were given backat their
(ii) Aboatman who previouslynavigated onthe SanJuanregularly testified
that the gravity and intensity of the harassment faced by Costa Rican
riparianshasreachedalevelwheremostofthemavoidnavigationwhere
. .
possible. He stated:
"...duetothe restrictions that theNicaraguans begantoiinposeonCostaRican
navigation on the San Juan River, and mainlybecause of the verbal abuse to
which they were being subjected eachtime they reported themselvesto the
Nicaraguan Army posts,he had avoidedusing the river;andbecause of that he
had not visited hisfarm for about six months."438
Similarly,the followingtestimony was reported in a press note:
"Jarmir Aguilar, who lives in Curefia, is a tenth grader from Boca de San
Carlos. She must cross the river to go to school. 'If you are not seen on the
other side, you will nothave anyproblems,' saidthe
437 SeeAffidavitof RodrigoAntonio ZamoraArroyo, 28 July 2007:CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 53.
438 SeeAffidavitof Leone1Morales Chacon,30April 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 50.
439 "Neighboursfrom the San Juan plea forhelp",A1Dia, San Jose, 14May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol
2,Annex 59.C. BreachesofCostaRica'srightofnavigation "forpurposes of commerce"
4.25 In its Memorial, Costa Rica demonstrated that its right of navigation
"for purposes of commerce" includes navigation by Costa Rican government
officialsto provide essential services (includinghealth, education and security)
to the local population - a majority of whom are Ni~araguan.~~~It also
demonstratedthat local inhabitantshave aperpetual right of free navigation for
the purposes of communication between the villages and towns, or any other
point on the Costa Rican bank, to any place on either bank of the River where
navigation is common,or to the interior of CostaRi~a.~~I 't presented evidence
that Nicaragua has violated these rights, including evidence of
Nicaragua's preventing Costa Rican judicial officialsfrom navigating
(i)
on the San Juan to carry out officialduties on Costa Rican territ01-y;442
(ii) Nicaragua's preventing Costa Rican technicians from the Programme
of the Eradication of Screwworms from navigating on the San Juan to
implementthe Programme in the Costa Rican border zone;443
(iii) Nicaragua's preventing a judge, a fiscal agent, a public defender and
two officialsfrom the Judicial Investigation Organism from navigating
on the San Juan en route to Fatima de Sarapiquito investigate the death
of an 11-month old
(iv) the suspension, from November 2005, of the provision of domiciliary
health services from the Costa Rican Social Security Office to certain
local communities, resulting in the loss of primary health services for
at least 164 inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank, including at least 23
children;445
440 See CRM,paras. 4.52-4.57, esp.5-4.56.
441 See CRM, para. 4.57.
442 CRM,para. 5.100. See "Nicaraguawould chargevisa to CostaRican policemen", La Nacidn, San
Jose, 6August 1998:CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 150;"Police were not allowed to navigate",La
Nacibn, San Jose, 28 September 2000: CRM,Annexes, Vol 5, Annex 166;and "Energetic protest
against Nicaragua" Nacidn, San JosC,29 September2000: CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 167.
443 CRM,para. 5.98. SeeCosta Rican Foreign Minister, RobertoRojas Lopez,to Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Eduardo Montealegre, 7September 1998:CW,nexes,Vol3, Annex 52.
444 CRM, para. 5.97. See "Nicaragua would charge visa to Costa Rican policemen",n, San
JosC,6August 1998:CRM,Annexes, Vol5, Annex 150.
445 CRM, para. 5.101. See the following correspondence: Directorof the HealthArea of Pital of San
Carlos, Costa Rican Department of Social Security, Dr. Kattia Corrales Barboza, to Director of
the Regional Management and HealthService Networks, Northtar Region, Dr. Omar Alfaro
Murillo, Note No. RHNPI-303, 7 November 2005:CRM, Annexes, Vol 6, Annex 236; Regional
Director of the Northtar Regional Medical Services, Dr.OmarAlfaro Murillo, to General Di-(v) the detrimentaleffectNicaragua's restrictionshave had onthe provision
of educational services in the region.446
IngeneralrestrictionsimposedbyNicaraguahaveprevented CostaRicans from
using the River as a waterway for comm~nication.~~~
4.26 After Costa Rica filed its Application in September 2005, the situation
for Costa Rican officials attempting to navigate on the San Juan deteriorated.
Most importantly,due to Nicaragua's restrictions, Costa Rican health officials
have been unable to provide health services to the communities on the Costa
Rican bank of the River. It was in these circumstances that in May 2006 Dr.
Thais Ching, Director of the Social Security's Health Areaof Puerto Viejo de
Sarapiqui, felt compelled to approach the Nicaraguan Consulate in Sarapiqui
to request collaboration from the Nicaraguan authorities. Since 10May 2006
Nicaraguan immigration officials had been preventing Costa Rica's Social
Securityhealth personnel fromusing the San Juan to travel to the communities
of Tambor, Fiitima and San Antonio to provide health services, as had been
regularlydoneinthepast. As is evidencedinDr. Ching's Noteof 14June 2006
addressedtotheNicaraguanConsulatCiudadQuesada,the Consulat Sarapiqui
replied that she should go insteadto the Consulate in Ciudad Quesada to make
the request, and that the usual requirementsto navigate onNicaraguan territory
are the carryingof a passport, visa and a payment of US$25 per person. In her
Note to the Nicaraguan Consul at Ciudad Quesada, Dr. Ching complained that
rector of Regional Management and Health Service Networks,Dr.Armando VillalobosCastaiieda,
Note No. DGRRSSRHN-2511-05,15 November 2005: CRM, Annexes, Vol 6, Annex 237; and
Head of the Nurse Department of the Health Area of Pital, Costa Rican Departmentof Social
Security,c. Antonio Garcia Perez, to Director of the Health Area of Pital of San Carlos, Costa
Rican Departmentof Social Security,Dr.Kattia Corrales Barboza, Note No.DAP-EA-030-2006,9
February 2006: CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 239. SeealsoAffidavit of Ana GabrielaMazariegos
Zamora, 14February 2006:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 98;Affidavit of Kattia Patricia Corrales
Barboza, 16 February 2006: CRM, Annexes,Vol4, Annex 99; and Affidavit of Sandra DiazAl-
varado, 16February 2006: CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 100;Head of the Nursing Department of
the HealthArea of Pital, Costa Rican Department of Social Security, GarciaPCrez,to
Director'ofthe HealthArea of Pital of San Carlos, Costa Rican Department of So, r. SecurityD
Kattia Corrales Barboza, NoteNo. DAP-EA-030-2006, 9 February 2006:CRM, Annexes,6,
Annex 239.
446 CRM,para. 1.02. SeeAffidavitof Diane Gomez Bustos,16February 2006:CRM,Annexes,Vol4,
Annex 101.
447 CRM, para. 5.103. See,e.g., "Charge for Ticos travelling on the San Juanreinstated, El Nuevo
Diario,anagua, 7 May 2004: CRM, Annexes,Vol5, Annex 180;"Nicaragua conditions passing
of Costa Ricanvessels",acidn,SanJose, 16October 2005:CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 185;
"Nicaragua conditions passing of Costa Rican vessels",o Diario, Managua, 17October
2005: CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 187.the impositionof suchrequirementswould endangerthe lives ofthe inhabitants
of those CostaRican communities,many of themNicaraguan:
"Weare hereby bringingto your attention the situationwe have been facing sinceMay
10, 2006. The Immigration officersat the Nicaraguan borderpos'tin the San Juan
River are requiringfromus that inorderto continuewith the medical tours on the river
we must count with the approvalof the Nicaraguan Vice-Consulin Sarapiqui.
Therefore this Medical Office, through letter275 - 2006, submitteda request for that
permit toMr.Duilio Hernandez, Nicaragua's Vice-Consul in Sarapiqui.
In his letter CNS 014/05/06, dated May 19, 2006, Mr. Hernandez writes: '...In this .
respect, after the necessary consultationsand inquiries with the immigration post
mentioned by youas well as other competent authorities, Ihave been informed that if
the Officeunder your honourable chargeneeds to use the San JuanRiver ofNicaragua
toprovide health services to theCostaRican communitiesof Tambor, Fatima, and San
Antonio, you must comply with the requirements that are normallyestablished for
the duly authorized entrance of foreign personsand vessels into Nicaraguan territory.
Therefore, I must inform you that this Vice-Consulate is not incharge of granting
navigation permitsfor vessels ...' (I enclose a copy of the letter).
Laterhe toldmebyphonethat the normal requirementstonavigate through Nicaraguan
territory are: passport, visa, anda fee of $25 per person.
This measure harms the neediest people in that zone,who do not even have minimum
health and education conditionsand employment sources. We are talking of a total
of 449 people, 123 families, 50% of which are from Nicaragua. Among these are
198 children between the ages of 0 and 9 years, 109 teenagers, 209 adults, and 23
senior citizens. This is also affecting the officerswho work at the border post of the
Nicaraguan Army in la Trinidad, to whom we have always provided our services
whenever theyhave requested.
Since this is a humanitarian matter, whose main objective is to provide medical
servicesto all the border population,regardless of their migratory,economic, or social
conditions, weare asking for yourgood offices so that our functionaries can continue
providing medical attentionin that zone,as has always been done.The team in charge
of this mission includes:a doctor, a nurse's aide, a pharmacy technician, a technical
assistant for primary care and a network clerk."448
4.27 In its counter-~emorial, Nicaragua used Dr. Ching's affidavitin an
attempt to show that Costa Rica has always requested permission to navigate
the an Juan. 'It stated:
"[c]onsistentwith the 1858Treatyandthe ClevelandAward,Nicaragua has consistently
required that those from Costa Rica obtain authorization to cross into her territory,
whether onthe SanJuan or elsewhere. Costa Rica has repeatedlyrecognized this need
to obtainpermission."449
448 ~irectoi, Costa Rican Social Security'~und,Health AreaPuerto Viejo de Sarapiqui, Dr.Thals Ch-
'ing Zamora, to First C6nsu1,Nicaraguan Consulate, Ciudad Quesada, Licenciado Mario Rivas
Baldelomar,Note No. 346-2006, 14June 2006: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 44.
449 NCM, para. 6.2.11.The Counter-Memorial then cites Dr. Ching's note of 19 June 2006, in which
sheapparentlyrequestedNicaragua's permissiontonavigatethe SanJuan River
to provide healthcare services to the communities of Tambor, Fatima and San
Antonio, aspurportedproof of Costa Rica's"consistent" practice of requesting
permission.450
4.28 Thetruth ofthe matteristhatDr.ChingwascompelledbytheNicaraguan
Ambassador in Costa Rica to modify her original request, in a manoeuvre
devisedby Nicaragua to create "evidence" tosupport its unfounded claim. As
can be clearly seen in Dr. Ching's Note of 14 June 2006 to the Nicaraguan
Consul at Ciudad Quesada extracted above, her original request was for
"collaboration".451After theNicaraguan Consulat Sarapiquidenied to assist in
facilitatingnavigation for the health officials,shehad to turn to the Nicaraguan
ConsulatCiudadQuesada,who in turnmadehergototheNicaraguan Embassy
in San Jose. There, the NicaraguanAmbassador himself told Dr. Ching that if
she wanted assistance she would have to modify her Note so that it expressly
stated that she was asking for "authorization" as it is stated in her Note of 19
June 2006,which Nicaragua annexedto its Counter-Memorial.452
4.29 Dr. Ching explainedthese incidents in a statement given under oath on
8August 2007. She stated:
"SECOND: Shecontinues stating that sheknows that the care activitiesare carried out
withparticular considerationattheborder areasof CostaRica, inthe vicinity ofthe San
Juan River, given the special conditions of poverty,vulnerabilityand distance of those
communities, among other those ofTambor,Remolinito, SanAntonio andFatima, all
located on the right bank of the San Juan River, in Costa Rican territory. That she
knows that from time immemorialthe health workers of Costa Rica have travelled
to thoseco~nrnunitiesby the San Juan River, as this is the only way to communicate
to those places, and that during all this time, including the yearstwo thousand and
four and two thousand and fivewhen she was in charge of that area, theywere never
requiredto request permissionto conduct said navigation.
THIRD: That on ten May two thousand and six,the Nicaraguan Military informed
them that from thatday on the usual navigationon the San Juan River to Costa Rican
health workers was prohibited and thatin order for these health workersto navigate,
they had to go to the Nicaraguan Consulates in Costa Ricato obtain a Nicaraguan
450 NCM, para. 6.2.12, citing NCM,11Annex 51
451 Director, Costa RicanSocial SecurityFund, Health Area Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui,Dr.ThaYsCh-
ing Zamora,toFirst Cbnsul, Nicaraguan Consulate, Ciudad Quesada, Licenciado Mario Rivas
Baldelomar, Note No. 346-2006,une 2006: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 44.
452 NCM,Vol 11Annex 51.visa. She states that given the vulnerability and exposure to infectious-contagious
diseases of those populations, among others malaria and dengue, and the chance that
there couldbe a sanitary crisis outbreak that could threaten the livesof many people,
the Health Area decidedto contact the Nicaraguan authorities inCosta Rica to find a
solution. For this purpose she sent notes to Nicaragua's Vice-consul inPuerto Viejo
de Sarapiqui, and laterto Nicaragua's Vice-consul in CiudadQuesada, requesting the
collaboration to conduct visitsto the populations adjacent to theSan Juan River. She
continues stating that the Nicaraguan Vice-consulin Ciudad Quesada informed her
that she had to request a special permit beforethe Nicaraguan Embassy in Costa Rica.
Accordingly, she visitedthe Nicaraguan Ambassador inCosta Rica at his office, to
whom she requested the collaboration, in the same terms that she had done before
the Vice-consuls. Whilst thinkingthat she would get a favourable answer given the
imperative need to provide the urgent health services, nevertheless,the Ambassador
told her that in order to analyze the request,she had to change the term 'Request for
collaboration' to 'Request of Authorizationto navigate the San Juan River,'otherwise
her request would notbe processed. He also informed herthat her petition would be ..
resolved by the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua.
FOURTH: She says that herjob is not to make considerations of legal character,and
that given the imperative needto provide urgent services to the populationsin orderto
safeguard the health and the livesof people, particularly of children andother social
groups in risk in the area of the San Juan River, she wrote the note under the terms
demandedbytheAmbassador, alldoneas aresult of the urgentstateof necessity, given
the aforesaid imminent sanitaryrisks."453
4.30 Dr. Ching's testimony and note demonstrate that Costa Rican health
authorities didin factnavigatewithout restrictions in thepast andthat itwas not
until May 2006 that Nicaragua began to demandpermits for such navigation.It
describes how Nicaraguan consular and diplomatic authorities manipulated her
desperate situationtoproduce the"evidence" laterused inNicaragua's Counter-
Memorial.
4.31 Other Costa Rican Government institutions havealso suffered because
of Nicaragua's recent restrictions. Such is the caseof the Ministry of Health,
whose officials from the Sarapiqui Sector Health Area and the Program for
Nutrition Centres used to navigate on the San Juan River twice a month to
provide services in basic health care as well as to deliver food, education and
other services to the communities on the San Juan border zone. Since the
middle of 2006 their navigation has been impeded by Nicaragua, generating
great concern becauseof the importanceof these services for the inhabitantsof
theborder communities. This situationprompted Costa Rica'sForeign Minister
453 Affidavitby Dr.Thai'sChingZamora,8August 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 55.towrite anoteto theNicaraguan MinisterofForeignAffairson 14August2006
in which, appealing to humanitarian reasons, he urged Nicaraguato lift those
restrictions. The note stated:
"Becauseofthis,Excellencya ,sidefromthepositionsofourcountrieswithrespecttothe
subjectof Costa Rican navigationonthe San Juan River , yGovernmentrespectfully
urges theIllustriousGovernmentof Nicaraguato eliminatethe restrictionsimposed
for thenavigationofCosta RicanauthoritiesoftheMinistryofHealthinthat river,so
that theintegrityandhealthof thepeopleofthat zonewillnot beaffected,who intheir
majority belong to very poorfamilies.My Governmenttrusts thatYourExcellency
andtheIllustriousGovernmentofNicaraguaunderstandthh eumansignificance ofthis
situation,andwillagree totake the necessary steptso solveit."454
4.32 As canbe seen, Costa Ricawas carefulto indicatethat suchrequestwas
made "aside from the positions of our countries with respect to the subject of
Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan River," not only to be consistent with
its previous statements about the issuesin dispute before this Court but alsoto
giveNicaragua an opportunitytoresolve the situationonhumanitariangrounds
without itsposition in respect of this dispute being affected. Nicaragua didnot
respond to this note and the restrictions on Costa Rican navigation remain in
force to the present day.
4.33 The lack of medical servicesto those border communities clearly raises
the risk of sanitary outbreaks. For example, a recent outbreakof leptospirosis
on Nicaraguan territory - resulting in nine persons dead and some 1500
infected - caused concern for Costa Rican health authorities, particularly in
the northern border zone.455
4.34 Another Costa Rican Government institution whose work has been
gravelyaffectedbyNicaraguan restrictionsonthe SanJuan isthe Joint Institute
for SocialAssistance(IMAS),whichinthepastnavigatedonthe SanJuanRiver
to reach poor families livingon the Costa Rican bank -- many of whom are of
Nicaraguan origin - in order to bring financial aid so that their children can
have accessto education. In lightofNicaragua'srestrictions, localpersonnel of
the IMAS have been placed inthe position of having to request permission on
454 Costa Rican Foreign Minister, BrunoStagno Ugarte, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman
Caldera Cardenal, Note No.DM-254-06 of 14August 2006:nnexes,Vol2, Annex 45.
455 "Health Authorities WatchtheNorthern Borderfor LeptospNacidn,SanJose, 30 October
2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 62. the terms dictated by Nicaraguan authorities. On 14August 2007 Mr. Marvin
Chavez Thomas, Regional Manager of the IMAS in San Carlos, sent a Note to
theNicaraguan ConsulinCiudadQuesada,Mr.JoseReinaldoRodriguezLindo,
requesting permission for the IMAS personnel to navigate the San Juan River
in order to provide financial assistance so that children in those communities
could attend lessonsat the BocaSan Carloshigh school. As he explained inhis
Note, dueto heavy rains inthe area, the roads were destroyed and the only way
to reach the area was'using theRiver.456
4.35 Mr.Chavezmadethe followingstatementinan affidavitannexedto this
Reply:
"...in the region that his Institute operates, theCosta Rican communities along the
bank of the San Juan River are among the poorest and most vulnerable in the country,
particularly because of the high number of Nicaraguan families residentthere who
have children born in CostaRica, which make up the majority ofthe population in
said area, which IMAS assists...before the year two thousand six, IMAS personnel
visited those communitiesusing the SanJuan River withoutrequestingforpermission.
ow e .the ricaraguan authoritieshave been requiring that Costa Rican officials
request permission in order to visitand aid those communities...Given the urgent
need for IMAS to provide economic support to poor people in those communities,
and in particular to support the childrenin those communities financially,so they can
receive basic primary and secondaryeducation,IMAS was placed in a position where
it needed to request the authorization demanded by the Nicaraguan authorities to
navigate the river,as there is noother means to reach thosecommunities."457
4.36 Mr.Chavezindicatesinhis affidavitthat he didnot receive areply from
the Nicaraguan authorities.458On other occasions, however, the Nicaraguan
authoritieshaverespondedquitequicklyto CostaRicanrequests forpermission
to navigate. For example on 22 May 2007 the Coordinator of the Northern
Regional Office of the Costa Rican Ombudsman'sOffice,Ms. Laura Navarro,
was alsocompelledto sendanotetotheNicaraguan ConsulinCiudadQuesada,
Mr. Mario Rivas, to request "authorization" for IMAS officials who would be
participating in a regional Environment and Health Fair that was to be held by
the high schoolofBoca SanCarlos,andwho intendedto takethe opportunityto
visit poor families in the communitiesof Boca SanCarlos and La Curefia. Ms.
' IMAS Regional Manager in Carlos,Marvin Chavez Thomas,to Nicaraguan Consulate at Ciu-
456 dad Quesada, JosCReinaldo Rodriguez Lindo, Note GRHN-188-08-07, 14 August2007: CRR,
Annexes,ol2, Annex 49.
457 Affidavit Marvin ChavezThomas, 5November 2007: CRR, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 56.
458 Affidavit by MarvinChavezThomas, 5November 2007:nnexes,Vol2, Annex 56.Navarro's request indicatedthat for thesepurposes the IMASpersonnelneeded
to navigate on the San Juan on May 25,26, and 27.459
4.37 Nicaragua responded to Ms. Navarro on 25 May 2007 in a note signed
by Mr.Emilio RappaccioliPasos, Minister Counsellor atNicaragua's Embassy
in San Jose. The relevant parts of Mr.Rappaccioli's note readas follows:
"After this Embassy consulted with the Nicaraguan Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
we extend a special authorisation to navigate the San Juan of Nicaragua River for
the aforementioned purposes and it cannot be used for any other purposes or places
different from the aforesaid ones,or in violation of Nicaragua's full sovereigntyover
the River.
This permit isa gesture of friendship, good neighbourpolicy,and good faith courtesy
anditcannotbeused in anyotherwayorwithpurposeswhich areharmful toNicaragua
in any wayor circumstance.
This permit willbe valid only for theh,26th and 271hof May, 2007."460
4.38 It can be observed that, according to Nicaragua's response, the IMAS
personnel could only visit the Costa Rican communities of Boca San Carlos
and La Curefia,and only on the days indicated in the Note. In other words, the
capacity of Costa Rican authorities to visit their own country in the places and
at a time of their choosing is being limited by Nicaragua. It is revealing that
Nicaragua's "permit" isdescribed as "a gesture of friendship, good neighbour
policy and good faith courtesy," rather than in accordance with Costa Rica's
perpetual right of free navigation on the San Juan River. Finally, according
to Nicaragua, each time Costa Rican officials must use the San Juan River to
discharge their missions, they must obtain "special authorization" from the
Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry in Managua and cannot be authorised by any
other, moreaccessibleNicaraguan official.
4.39 Mr.Rappaccioli's.note was accompaniedby a document issued by the
Nicaraguan Embassy in San Jose, entitled "Authorization for Navigation,"
which stipulatedthat:
459 Coordinatorof the Northern Regional Officeof the Ombudsman's Office, Licda. Laura Navarro
Rodriguez,to Consul ofNicaragua at Ciudad Quesada, Mario Rivas,Note No. DHR-RN-051-2007,
22May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 46.
460 NicaraguanMinisterCounsellor,EmilioRappaccioli,toCoordinatoroftheNorthern RegionalOffice
of the Ombudsman's Office, Licda. Laura Navarro Rodriguez, Note No.133/2007,
25 May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 47."Nicaraguan authorities have the Right to cancel'this permitin case of a violation of
the laws of the Republic of Nicaragua.Also,the bearers of this permit should undergo
routine checksfromthe corresponding a~thorities."~~'
4.40 As can be seen, Nicaragua once again took the opportunity to establish
new and unilateral conditions for Costa Rican navigation on the River, in
an attempt to profit as much as possible from Ms. Navarro's request for
"authorization" for navigation. It is clear that this request was only made in
thecontext of recent Nicaraguan restrictions on CostaRican navigation andthe
urgent need of Costa Rica7s health and social assistance authorities to provide
assistance to residents of the border zone. This is confirmed in an affidavit of
Ms. Laura Navarro:
"...as a result of the recentprohibition imposedby Nicaraguaupon CostaRican public
workers to continue navigating the San Juan River, some institutions in charge of
social security and the improvementof the living conditions of the inhabitants areno
longer visiting some of the communitieslocated on the Costa Rican bank of the San
Juan River, given that navigation on the river is the only means to reach them. As a
result of the danger that those communitiesface because they have noaccess to those
services, a Health and Environmental Fair was planned, to take place in the area of
Bocade SanCarlos, includingavisit to some ofthose communities. In order to secure
the access of the CostaRican workers to those isolated communities,and as a result of
Nicaragua's demandsfor the request ofpermits, a request to theNicaraguan Consulate
on twenty two May two thousand and seven was made, so that the workers from the
Joint Institute for Social Assistance could take financial assistance to the families
living in the communities in the area ofCurefia,at the Costa Rican bank of said river.
...on twenty five Maytwo thousand and seven she received an authorization from the
Nicaraguan Embassyin Costa Rica, and not by the Consul,towhom she had originally
sentthe request. Despitehavingreceivedthe authorization,thetrip wassuspendeddue
to weather conditions inthe zone."462
4.41 The experiences of Costa Rica Government officials described above
show thatbefore themiddle of 2006,Nicaragua did not require those officialsto
request permission to navigate onthe River. They alsoindicatethatNicaragua
has shown no consideration at all forthe lives or well-being of the residents of
the area, including the numerous Nicaraguans who benefit from Costa Rican
health and social services; but that it has attempted to use these situations to
461 Nicaraguan EmbassyinCostaRica, "Authorizationto navigate", given tothe Ombudsman'sOffice
and the Ministryof Health Personnel, 25May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 48
462 Affidavit by Laura Navarro Rodriguez,6November 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 57.its own advantage, and in particular to obtain evidence whichit has presented
before this Court.
4.42 Since the Memorial, the situation has also deteriorated for Costa Rican
boatmen and riparians seeking to exercise Costa Rica'sperpetual right of free
navigation for communication purposes. Currently theyare at the mercy of
the will and mood of the Nicaraguan military and immigration officials who
controlthe SanJuanRiver andwho feel they have the power to dictaterules and
restrictions as they please. For example agroup of missionaries who needed
to navigate on the River starting from PuertoViejo de Sarapiqui on 19March
2007 to distribute school and health articles to the communities of Tambor,
Remolinito and Arbolito, all on Costa Rican territory, were prevented by the
military from visiting Arbolito. The missionary Rodrigo Antonio Zamora
Arroyo affirmedunder oath the following:
"That in his condition as preacher of a Christian organization, he carries out charity
activities for children of poor communities along the border area of Costa Rica,
specificallyinthe towns of Tambor,Remolinito andArbolito, the firsttwo on the right
bankofthe SanJuan River. Thetown ofArbolito islocatedatthebank ofthe Sarapiqui
River, also in Costa Rican Territory.
SECOND:ThatonnineteenMarchtwothousandandseven,he accompaniedagroupof
missionariestakingwiththem schoolandhealth articlesto the communities ofTambor
andRemolinito. AtthemandatorystoppointthattheNicaraguanArmyimposesattheir
Post at the mouth of the Sarapiqui River, the Nicaraguan military boarded the vessel
to searchallbelongings, seizing fromthem photographic cameras andthe passports of
all.thepeople travelling and threatening them that they would bring dogs to search if
they were carrying other cameras. The seized articles were given back at their return.
Additionally,they only allowed them to visit the town of Remolinito, and prohibited
them from visitingthe town of Tambor,which is also in Costa Rican territory."463
As can be seen once again, the Nicaraguan authorities consider that they have
the power to limitCosta Rican navigationasthey please, inthiscasepreventing
the missionaries from visitingone particular town in Costa Rican territory.
4.43 The case of this preacher was also used by Nicaragua inits Counter-
Memorial to attempt to prove Costa Rica's "regular and,consistent practice"
of requesting permission to navigate the San Juan.464As was the case for
Dr.Ching,465the truth is that this missionary had no choice but to request
-
463 AffidavitofRodrigoAntonio Zamora Arro, 8 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 53.
464 NCM, para.6.2.13citing NCM,Vo11,Annex 53.
465 See above, paragraphs4.26-4.30. permission on the terms dictated by the Nicaraguan authorities. Evidently
this purported request of "authorization" does not demonstrate a "regular and
consistentpractice" ofrequestingpermission:itisanisolatedcasethat occurred
in the context of increased Nicaraguan restrictions after Costa Rica filed its
Application. It isclearevidenceoftheretaliatorymeasuresNicaraguahastaken
against those Costa Ricanswho wish to navigate on the SanJuan River for the
purposes of communication, as well asof the dire straits that these people find
themselves when they seekto carry out their duties.
. .
4.44 Not only do the Nicaraguan authorities in the border area consider
..that they have the power to limit navigation by Costa Ricans by restricting
the Costa Rican territory they can visit while navigating on the San Juan; they
have also limited the amount of time they can stay on Costa Rican territory.
Mr. Jorge Lao Jarquin, a Costa Rican boatman, described the following
incident:
"...on the thirty firstof June of two thousand ans dix, when he was transporting
missionariescarryingwith themschooling materiaa lndhealth articles forhechildren
of Remolinito,in Costa Ricanterritory,the NicaraguanMilitary locatedin Bocade
Sarapiquiorderedthemthat theycouldonlystay fortwohoursinsaid
4.45 That CostaRicans are subjectto the arbitrary wishes of the Nicaraguan
authorities stationed at the Army and Immigration posts along the San Juan
River is a fact. Costa Rica's Memorial included numerousaffidavitsand press
reports to this effect. Nicaragua has not denied any of the incidents described
in Costa Rica'sMemorial.
4.46 The hardships currently facedby Costa Rican riparianswere confirmed
in an affidavitgiven on 28 July 2007.467One witness stated the following:
"...untiltoday,theNicaraguanauthoritiesattheSanJuanRiverpostinthisareacontinue
to imposerestrictionson Costa Ricanfree navigationonthe San JuanRiver,to wit:
theflyingonlyoftheNicaraguanflagonCosta Ricanvesselstobeabletonavigatethe
River;thepayment oftaxes,particularlyforthose CostaRicanw s hodonotliveinthe
zone; all childrentravellintoschoolmustreport like all othercosta Ricanstravelling
throughthe River;the impositionof timetablesonlyon Costa Ricanvessels; search
andinspectionsofprivate property; the prohibitio onsome CostaRican ripariansto
466 Affidavitof Jorge Manuel LaoJarquin, 28 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 52.
467 Affidavitof Victor JulioVargasHernandez, MarlenyRojasVargas,Mario SalasJimCnezand Leo-
nel Morales Chacbn,29 July 2007:CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 54.navigate the river for having given opinions to the national press, and the seizure of
artisanalfishingimplements,includingboats. He continuesstatingthat saidauthorities
continue to impose a prohibition on artisanal fishing for consumption on Costa Rican
riparians. He also says that the application of restrictions and the threats to Costa
Ricans are increased or made more severe when the guards are changed on posts.
To allow Costa Rican navigation sometimesthey demand payment in goods, through
cigarettes,liquor orfood."468
4.47 Another witness gave the following declaration:
"...on the occasion of a press report by national media about the situation of Costa
Rican navigation on the SanJuan River,personnel of the NicaraguanArmy came into
Costa Rican territory to tell the media they could not take photographs from Costa
Ricanterritory. He continuesstatingthat inthe samemediareport he was interviewed,
and he described the restrictions sufferedby the Costa Ricans on the River. The day
aftertheinterview,the officerinchargeoftheArmypost inthe area senthim amessage
telling himthat he hadto goto theNicaraguan post to speaktohim aboutthe interview
he had given,to which he refused. Ever since then he has feared navigating the River
as a result of the reprisals that could be taken against"469
4.48 Aschoolteacherinthe CostaRicantown ofBoca de SanCarlosnarrated
someincidentsregardingthe situationfacedbythe schoolchildreninthe region,
that are symptomatic of the daily harassment the riparians must endure. The
schoolteacherdeclaredthat:
"...because of her occupation the Nicaraguan military constantly demands that she
submit lists bearing the names of the children students who must navigate the River
in order to attend the High School, all of whom live in towns located in Costa Rican
territory. In total there are sixteenchildrenwho must travel the River daily. She states
that she knows that at the end of the year two thousand and six, the children were
stoppedby the Nicaraguan Military,who gave them a lecture for about an
4.49 A CostaRican riparian resident in the town of Boca San Carlos, who in
the past regularlyused the SanJuanRivertoreachhis farm inthe region known
as SanAntonio de Cutris (see SketchMap 3 opposite), described in an affidavit
the followingincidentwhich occurred inApril 2007:
"That since the year one thousand nine hundred seventy nine he owns a cattle farm in
the region of SanAntonio de Cutris de San Carlos, which is located towards the west
of Boca de San Carlos, where he resides, in which he also grows some crops. Due
to the lack of any roads that connect those communities he had always used the San
Juan River.as communication waterway between his farm and Boca San Carlos. ...
468 Affidavitof Victor JulioVargasHernandez, 29 July 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2,54.nex
469 AffidavitofMario SalasJimCnez,29July 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 54.
470 Affidavitof Marleny RojasVargas,29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 54.before Costa Rica presented thecase againstNicaraguahe used to travel almostonce
a week to his farm, for which he took his boat, reportedto the Army andMARENA
post in BocaSan Carlos,and wentto SanAntonio. ..due to the restrictions thatthe
Nicaraguansbegan to imposeon Costa Rican navigationon the San Juan River,and
mainly becauseoftheverbal abuseto which theywerebeing subjectedeachtime they
reported themselvesto theNicaraguanArmyposts,he hadavoidedusing the river, and
becauseof thathe hadnot visitedhis farmfor about six months. However,on twenty-
fourAprilof this year hehadto go to his farm to take some calves,forwhich he went
to theArmypost to report himself. He says that to his surprise hewas informed that
that dayhe couldnotbe grantedthe authorizationto navigate, and thathe should come
back in two days, that is, on Thursday twenty-six. He returned that dayand again
was refused the authorization to navigate, without beinggiven any explanation,as a
resulthe deemeditprudentnotto insiston the subject,andthushe hadto return tohis
residence without being able neither togo to his farm nor to transferhis cattle....he
knows of other casesof neighbours who also have had problems transportingtheir
cattlethroughthe SanJuanRi~er."~"
As described in this statement, Costa Rican riparians are at the mercy of
the Nicaraguan authorities who control the San Juan River. In this case the
Nicaraguan authorities simplydeniedthis cattle farmerthe right tousethe River
forhis commercial activities without giving any explanation.
D. Breachesof CostaRica's right of protectionof commerce, safeguard,
defence and re-supplyof border posts
4.50 In its Memorial, CostaRica demonstrated that its perpetual right of free
navigation includes navigation with official vessels and armed personnel in
order to protect its commercial navigation, in accordance with the 1858 Treaty
as interpreted by the Cleveland Award and affirmed by the 19 16 Judgment.472It
presented evidence that Nicaragua unilaterally prohibited navigation by Costa
Rican police vessels on 14July 1998.473Prior to that date, Costa Rican police
had regularly navigated on the San Juan River, in uniform and carrying their
normal arms, and had even carried out joint operations with the Nicaraguan
Army.474 The Memorial also referred to statements given by the Nicaragua
471
Affidavitof Leone1Morales Chacon,30April 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 50.
472 CRM,para. 4.96.
473 See Note of the Intendent Commander in service of Atlantic Command, Sarapiqui, Daniel Soto
Montero, toCosta Rican Foreign Ministry,14February 2006: CRM,Annexes, Vol6,Annex 240.
See also "Border dispute with Nicaraguans",LaS,an Jose, 16July1998:CRM,Annexes,
, ,:Vo15,Annex 131;and "Aleman: Ticos out",El NuevoDiario, Managua, 17July 1998:CRM,An-
nexes, Vol5,Annex 132.
474
Daniel Soto Montero (Annex 89); Luis Angel Giron Angulo(Annex 90); Jose Granados Mon- 88);
toya (Annex 94); Ruben Lao Hernandez (Annex 103); and VictorJulio Vargas Hernandez (An-
nex 105).President in October 2005, threatening to use force in order to prevent Costa
Rican police from navigatingon the River.475
4.51 This prohibition is still in force and has caused many problems for the
Costa Rican police, for whom the tasksof supplying and relieving their police
posts and visiting the local communities to provide security have become
extremely difficult. In 1999the Costa Rican police post in La Curefia,on the
right bank of the San Juan, had to be closed because of the impossibility of
accessby landandNicaragua'sprevention of accessby the River. CostaRica's
Memorial demonstratedhow theCostaRican inhabitantsofthe San Juan border
region have seen their security greatly weakened and have repeatedly voiced
those concerns.476The nation's securityhas also been weakened since the
capacity of the Costa Rican policeto combat trans-border crimes suchas drug
and armstraffickinghas suffered.477
4.52 A'nnexedto this ~e~lyis fbrther evidence that Nicaragua continues to
prevent Costa Rican police from navigating on the San Juan with their normal
arms. In factNicaragua has authorised its Amy officialsto detain Costa Rican
armed personnel. ANicaraguan Presidential Decree entitled"The Government
ofNicaragua willnot allowArmedNavigationofForeign Forces inNicaraguan
Territorial Waters," was approved on 28 September 2005 and the
followingday. It states:
"Article 1. - The Government of the Republo if Nicaraguawill not allowarmed
navigationofforeign forcesinnational waters,asit isa flagrantviolationofnational
sovereignty, thePolitical Constitution a,ndthelaw.
Article 2.- TheNicaraguanArmy isorderedtoimmediatelyincrease itspresenceand
permanentsurveillanceat the San JuanRiverin ordertoprevent, with allthe means
providedtoitbynationallegislation,thetransitof armedpersonnel, the reliea fnd the
transportationofweapons,ammunition and supplies,byforeign forces,aswellas any
other activityrelatedtotheillicittrafficking of armsin.allofits aspects.
475 SeeCRM,para. 5.136.
476 See "Intense arms control", La Nacidn, San Jose, 25 September 2000: CRM, Annexes, Vol 5,
Annex 165; "Neighbours in the San Juan River feel defenLa Nacidn, San JosC,22 June
2002,: CRM, Annexes,ol5, Annex 177;"San Juan: Calm and uneasiness",La Nacidn, SanJose,
4 July 1999:CRM,Annexes, Vol5,Annex 155;and"San Juan spices up relationship with Nicara-
guans",a Nacidn,San Jose, 10July 2000:CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 164.
477 "Vesselsinvestigated",Nacidn, San JosC,17January 1999:CRM,Annexes,Vol5, Annex 154;
"The Northern Border:An open door for drug dealers",dn, SanJost, 13June 2005: CRM,
Annexes,Vol5, Annex 18;and "Intense arms control",La Nacidn,SanJosC,25 September2000:
CRM,Annexes, Vol5, Annex 165.Article 3. - The Ministry ofthe Interior, through theNational Police Department, is
ordered to proceed immediatelyto confiscate allthe arms that are seized and take the
offenders before the Nicaraguan Courtsof Justice so they can be tried with the full
severity ofthe law for the crimes they may have committed."478
E. Breachesof Costa Rica's relatedrights
(1) Flags
4.53 In its Memorial, CostaRica presented the following evidence:
(i) AfterNicaragua prohibited CostaRican police navigation in July 1998,
Nicaraguan authorities began forcing Costa Rican boatman to carry
the Nicaraguan flag in order to navigate on the River.479Costa Rica
protestedthis measure480 and, after an exchangeof diplomaticnotes, the
restriction was no longer implemented.
(ii) In October 2005, after Costa Rica filed its Application in the present
case, Nicaraguan authorities again required Costa Rican vessels to
carry a Nicaraguan flag.48'Costa Rica's Memorial annexed numerous
statementsofCostaRicanboatmenandripariansdescribingthismeasure
and the problems it
4.54 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua doesnot denythat itrequires Costa
Rican vesselsto flyaNicaraguan flag in the SanJuan. Instead it asserts a right
478 Nicaraguan Presidential Decree No.65-2005of 28 September2005,publishedNicaraguan Official
Gazette No.188of 29September2005: CRR, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 69.
479 See "Nicaraguan hostilityworsens", Nacidn, San Jose, 4 August 1998:~RM,Annexes, Vol5,
Annex 147; "Commercedecreases along the border", La Nacidn, San Jose, 27 September 1998:
CRM,Annexes, Vol 5,Annex 152. See also the Affidavitof 5 May 2001CRM,Annexes, Vo14,
Annex 83 and the Affidavit of Santos Martin Arrieta Flores, 27 January 2006:CRM, Annexes,
Vol4, Annex 87.
480 Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Robertoojas Lopez, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,Francisco
XavierAguirre Sacasa,Note No.DM-207-2001,9 May 2001: CRM,Annexes, Vol3, Annex 71.
481 See the following press notes: "Nicaragua conditions passingof Costa Rican vessels",,
San Jose, 16October 2005:CRM,Annexes,Vol5,Annex 185;"CostaRican vessels willbear the
Nicaraguan flag",a Prensa deNicaragua, Managua, 17 October. 2005:CRM, Annexes, Vol 5,
Annex 186; "Nicaragua conditions passingof Costa Rican vessels",uevo Diario, Managua,
17October 2005:CRM, Annexes, Vol 5, Annex 187; and "Costa Rican Foreign Affairs Minister
seeks dialogue regarding visasand flagsl Nuevo Diario, 1 November 2005: CRM, Annexes,
Vol5,Annex 190. See also note from MunicipalMayor ofSariCarlos, Costa Rica, Lic. Alfredo
Cordoba Soro, to Directorof Foreign Policy, Costa Rican Foreign Ministry, Jose Joaquin
Chaverri Sievert,Note No. AM-1315-2005, 18 October 2005:CRM,Annexes, Vol6,Annex 235.
See also Affidavit ofJoseeno Rojas, 16July 2006:CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 108.
482 See the following affidavits in CRM,Annexes, Vol4: Carlos Lao Jarquin (Annex 84); Geovanny
Navarro Garro (Annex 85); Pablo Gerardo Hernandez Varela (Annex 86);antos Martin Arri-
eta Flores (Annex 87); Marvin Hay-Gonzalez (Annex 91); Daniel Reese Wise (Annex 95); Diane
Gomez Bustos (Annex 101);and JoseMorenoRojas (Annex 108).to impose such a requirement - although it does so without any supporting
evidence,andinthefaceofmorethanacenturyofCostaRicannavigationonthe
Riverwithoutflyingthe Nicaraguanflag. h he seno internationalobligationto
fly the flag of the territorial Statewhen exercising a conventionally guaranteed
perpetual right of free navigation in an international watercourse unless the
contrary is expresslyprovided for in the relevant convention.483
4.55 New affidavitsannexedto thisReplyconfirmtheNicaraguan authorities
continueto require Costa Rican vessels to flythe Nicaraguan flag.484
(2) Fisheries
4.56 In its Memorial, Costa Rica presented evidence-that after Costa Rica
filed the present Application in September2005 Nicaraguan authorities began
to prevent Costa Rican riparians from their traditional practice of fishing for
subsistence purposes. Costa Rica's Memorial annexed numerous affidavits
proving this fact and describing the difficulties experienced by Costa Rican
riparians as a result of this measure.485
4.57 Despite the evidence presented by Costa Rica, ~icara~ua claims in
its Counter-Memorial that it has not prevented fishing by Costa Ricans for
subsistencepurposes, stating:
"Nicaragua wishesto make quite clearthat notwithstanding itsrights over the SanJuan
River, ithas never ordered the prevention of fishing for subsistence purposes by Costa
Ricanriparians.. .WhatNicaraguadoesnot acceptisthat shehas prevented fishing for
subsistence purposes even for the short period involvedsince the instituting of these
proceedings in September 2005".486
Nicaragua's Counter-Memorialdoes not contain any evidence in support of its
claim, nor does it contain any evidence contradicting that provided by Costa
Rica. But Nicaragua does not deny the existence of a practice of subsistence
fishing by Costa Rican riparians. Nicaragua's actions amount to a violation
--
483 See this Reply,paragraphs3.104-3.108..
484 SeeAffidavits of Leonel Morales Chacon,30April 2007: CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 50; and of
Victor JulioVargasHernandez, 29 July 2007:nnexes,Vol2, Annex 54.
485 Seethe followingAffidavitsin;Annexes,Vol4: VictorJulioVargasHernandez(Annex 105);
Leonel Morales Chacon (Annex 106); Erick Maikol Martinez Lopez (Annex 107); Jose
Rojas(Annex 108);and JosefaAlvarezAragon (Annex 109).
486 NCM,para.5.1.1.15.of a locally-applicable customary rule of international law wliich has caused
significantprejudice on the Costa Rican bank of the River.487
4.58 Annexedtothis Reply is further evidencethat CostaRican riparians are
being prevented from subsistence fishing by Nicaraguan authorities.488This
evidence includes:
(i) An affidavitof 29 July 2007 ofVictorJulioVargasHernandez, Marleny
RojasVargas,MarioSalasJimenezandLeonelMoralesChaconconfirms
that the .prohibition on fishing is still in force and that Nicaraguan
authorities continue their practice of seizing fishing implements and
boats.489One of the witnesses states: ..
"...the restrictions and prohibition imposed by Nicaraguato Costa Rican
riparians of the River to fish for their basic consumptioncontinues to date,
under the threat of detention and seizure of their fishing implements and
boats."490
(ii) .A press note of 14 May 2007 affirms Nicaragua's prohibition of
subsistencefishingand explains some of its consequences:
"'We could go fishing before, but notnow. If we get caught, they confiscate
ourboats andwe could even be senttojail in SanCarlosdeNicaragua,' added
Cerdas.
He isthe oldest inhabitant in Cureiia, a communitywith more than 40 families
that surviveon the banks of the San Juan.
Last Friday, Cerdascommented that before theycould sell a cow or a pig on
the Nicaraguan side,but now it has been prohibited.
'Nicaraguan military boats travel up anddownthe river once or twice a week,
precisely to stopfishing or illegal navigation in the river.
Adrian Lizano, who has been residing in Cureiia for the last eight months,
grows yams for a living. 'Things aredifficultwhen fishingis not allowed,'he
(3) Landing rights
4.59 In its Memorial, Costa Rica demonstrated that it has a right to land at
any part of the Nicaraguan bank of the River where navigation is common, a
487 See thisReply,paragraphs3.109-3.121.
488 See thisReply,paragraphs3.109-3.121.
489 Affidavitof Victor JulioVargasHernandez, MarlenysVargas,Mario Salas Jimenez andLeo-
nel Morales Chacon,29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex54.
490 AffidavitbyeonelMoralesChacon,29 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex.54.
491 "Neighbours fromthe SanJuanplea forhelp",Dia, San~osk,14May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol
2, Annex 59. right which impliesthe right to stop or not to stop. This is inconsistentwith an
~ obligationto stop in order to pay chargesand to undergo
4.60
.In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua expressly states that it recognises
the right of Costa Rican vessels to land at any part of the Nicaraguan bank
where navigation is but it argues that this right "can only be used
for the enjoyment of Costa Rica's rightto navigate with articles of trade..494
It alsoarguesthat "[tlhe right to land doesnot entail freedomto trade anywhere
alongthe route."495
4.61 CostaRica demonstratedinchapter3abovethat thephrase "conobjetos
de comercio" means "for purposes of commerce" and not "with articles of
trade".496Evenif"conobjetosdecomercio"isinterpretedasagenerallimitation
on Costa Rica'sperpetual right of free navigation, this does not confer a right ,
on Nicaragua to restrict Costa Rica's right to land on the Nicaraguanbank.497
Theevidencepresented inthis Reply showsthatNicaragua continuesto require
Costa Ricans to land on the Nicaraguan bank and pay charges.498
(4) . Facilitation of trafficonthe River
4.62 1n its Memorial, posta Rica demonstrated that Article I of the 1956
Agreementprovided a dutyto facilitateand expeditetrafficon the River,a duty
which Nicaragua clearly violates by doing everything it can to prevent Costa
Rican trafficon the San Juan.499
4.63 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua claims that the 1956 Agreement
contains no obligations beyond those which result from the 1858 Treaty and
the Cleveland Award; since Costa Rica only has a right of navigation "con
CRM,para. 5.138. See also CRM, paras. 4.119-4.120.
NCM, para. 4.1.47.
Ibid.
NCM, para. 4.1.48.
Seethis Reply,paragraphs 3.39-3.78.
Seediscussionin this Reply,paragraphs 3.122-3.128.
Seethis Reply,paragraphs4.05-4.11.
CRM,paras. 5.139-140. objetosde comercio" - meaning "with articles of trade" - any duty in the 1956
Agreement is limited to navigation"with articles of trade."500
4.64 Costa Rica hasshownthatthis interpretation is incorrect. The evidence
contained in this Reply demonstrates that Nicaragua continues to impede and
prevent Costa Rican navigation on the River.5o1
E Nicaragua's pleaof acquiescence
4.65 In its Counter-Memorial,Nicaragua attempted to show that Costa Rica
acquiesced in the.restrictionsto its navigationon the San Juan. But Nicaragua
misrepresents and distorts the facts. It offers only limited examples of private
conduct and of recent requests made under constraint. CostaRica itself has
never acquiesced inNicaraguan restrictionsto its rights on the San Juan.
Measures relating to tourism arising from the Memorandum of
(1)
Understandingof 5June 1994
4.66 Nicaragua's Counter Memorial argues that the Memorandum of
Understanding signed on 5 June 1994 by the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan
Ministers of Tourism constitutes a concessionfrom Costa Rica that Nicaragua
has the rightto adopt measures applicableto tourism on the San Juan River. It
states:
"TheMemorandum ofUnderstanding .:literatlystatesthatCosta Rica must purchase
, touristscardsfromNicaragua.Thelanguageusedisclearandleavesnodoubtregarding
'theobligation[CostaRicahas] to[purchasetouristcards]'and toregisterCosta Rican
touristbusinesses."502
4.67' The document Nicaragua refers to is referenced as "CRM Annex
26(3)(b)". Its quotation of that document misrepresents the document, adding
words that are neither in the original document in Spanish nor the correct
translation in English. The original Spanishtext reads:
"3.-LosMinistros, concientes de la situacionexistenteen lazona,acuerdanbuscar
e implementar todos 10smecanismosa su alcancepara facilitar eldesarrollode la
actividadturistica,orelloconvienen en:
500 NCM,paras.6.2.1-6.2.10.
501 This Reply,paragraphs4.05-4.24.
502 NCM, para. 1.3.41.A.- Realizarunregistro detalladodecadacompafiiaturisticaqueopereen lazona,de
10snaviosutilizadosy sussiglasderegistro, ycomunicarloa1otropais.
B.-Desarrollar,dentrode10sproximostreintadias 1,0smecanismosnecesariop sara que
puedanentregarle tarjetasde turismoa las empresas pre-registradas, quientesndran
la obligationde comprarlas, llenarlas correctamen teentregarlasa las autoridades
correspondientes.Los Ministrosprocuraranquela mismatarjetadeturismole sirva
a1turistaparamultiples entradas y salidas durante10streinta diasde su validez,asi
mismo,que elpasaporteno sea el unicodocumentovalidode identificacihpara10s
turista~."~~~
4.68 As can be seen, the text does not contain any provision which obliges
Costa Rica, or Costa Rican tourist operators, to purchase tourist cards from
Nicaragua. Nor is there any obligation for Costa Rican tourist operators to
register in Nicaragua. Tothe contrary,in the context of an intention to develop
"joint sustainabletourism", and of express languagethat both Ministers would
endeavourto ensurethe tourist cards hlfilled certain conditions,theAgreement
wasthattouristoperatorswouldregisterandbuytouristcards fromtheauthorities
of their respective countries - i.e. that Costa Rican tourist operators would
register andpurchase tourist cards from Costa Rican authorities. Furthermore,
both Ministers agreedto inform the other of the registration information. The
Agreement containsno obligation for Costa Rican vessels or tourist operators
to register with Nicaraguan authorities. It does not, as Nicaragua suggests,
constitute a concession from CostaRica that Nicaragua has the right to adopt
measures applicableto Costa Rican tourismon the San Juan.
4.69 The Agreement, although not in force, constitutes a clear indication
that Nicaragua recognised that Costa Rica's perpetual right of free navigation
included navigation with tourists. It stipulated that each country would keep
a registry of tourist operators and would sell tourist cards to those operators.
Thosetouristcards were intendedtobe validformultiple tripsinthe area ofthe
San Juan.
(2) Navigation of Costa Rican police on the River
4.70 Nicaragua contends that it permitted navigation of Costa Rican police
personnelcarryingtheirnormalarmsasamatter of 'bordercourtesy".504However
503 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex26.
504 NCM, para1.3.43.NicaraguadoesnotproducetotheCourtasinglepieceofevidence,documentary
or otherwise, supporting this allegation. This Reply contains evidence that
Costa Rican police continuously navigated on the River,505 navigation which
did not and does not require permission fromNicaragua because it falls within
the scope of Costa Rica's perpetual right of free navigation under the 1858
Treaty and the 1888ClevelandAward, specificallyunder the Second article of
that
4.71 The modus operandi carried out by Costa Rican police navigating on
the SanJuan inthe secondhalf ofthe 1990's entailedonlyanunderstandingthat
CostaRicanpolice officerswouldcommunicatetheirpassagetotheNicaraguan
authorities,with the animusof cooperationwithNicaragua. Neither the 1995507
or the 199850A s greements established a "concession" from Costa Rica, nor is
there any official document in which Nicaragua "granted" "permits" to Costa
Rica, nor any document from Costa Rica requesting them, simplybecause that
neveroccurred. Atthetimeofthe modusoperandi, bothcountriesunequivocally
recognised that Costa Rica had a perpetual right of free navigation which
included navigation of this kind.
4.72 Nicaraguamisconstruesthe ~lajuela ~eclaration of26 September2002,
which it cites to suggest that Costa Rica had no interest to raise the issue of
navigation to. re-supply border posts.509 In that Declaration, both parties
agreed to "freeze" the legal situation claimed by each of them for three years.
Article 4 of the Declaration expressly stipulatedthat it could not be interpreted
or prejudged as a renunciation or in detriment of the positions and rights that
each party had within the framework of international law.510
4.73 In connectionto the Declaration, in aNote addressedto theNicaraguan
Foreign Minister dated 26 September 2002, the Costa Rican Foreign Minister
indicated the willingness of Costa Rica not to exercise any police navigation
505 See this Reply,Appendix, paragraphs A.33'A.44.
506 Seethis Reply, paragraphs 3.79-3.95 above.
507 nex 27.mmuniquC(Cuadra-Castro), La-Cruz, 8 September 1995:CRM, Annexes, 2,An-
508 JointCommuniqui:(Cuadra-Lizano),Managua, 30 July 1998:CRM,Annexes,Vol.2,Annex 28.
509 NCM, para.5.2.10.
510 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 29. duringthe three years oftheAlajuela Declaration. Nicaragua misconstrues this
note, arguing that it confirmedCosta Rican authorities were not convinced that
they had a need for or a right of navigation by police for the purposes of re-
supplying border posts.511The Note did not express anythingof this character.
It addressed Costa Rica's willingness not to navigate with its police forces
for the purpose of re-supplying border posts in a context where Nicaragua
had threatened not to permit such navigation (including threats ofthe use of
weapons), and in a context where the Alajuela Declaration signedby both
parties expressly reserved each of their claims for a periodof three years.
. (3) Allegationsthat CostaRicareeognisesthe needto obtainpermission
to navigate on the San Juan
4.74 Nicaraguaclaimsthat CostaRicahas repeatedly recognisedthe needsto
obtain permission fromNicaragua to navigatingon the San Juan.512
4.75 To support its allegation Nicaragua presented twonotes from almost a
year after Costa Rica commenced these proceedings: a Note of19June 2006
fromDr.Thais Ching Zamora, Director of the PuertoViejode Sarapiqui Health
Area,513 and a Note from a private organization called "Comunidad Alianza
Cristiana y Misionera" from the townof Horquetas de Sarapiq~i.~'~
4.76 In respect of the first note, the circumstances in whichDr. Ching was
effectively forced to submit her note to the Nicaraguan Ambassador have
alreadybeen explained.515 Dr.Ching7srequest cameunder conditionsof duress
as a result of the Nicaraguan prohibition of navigation by Costa Rican health
officials.516 That prohibition may have resulted in a significant increase in
healthrisks forripariansinthe area,with children being particularly vulnerable.
Bearing in mind that accessto these communities is extremely difficult if one
cannotnavigate onthe River,and alsotaking into consideration the rapid spread
511 NCM, para.5.2.10.
512 NCM, para. 6.2.11.
513 NCM,Vol 11Annex51.
514 NCM,Vol11,Annex 52.
515 SeethisReply,paragraphs 4.24-4.30 above.
5.16 See CRM,Annexes,Vol4, Annex 99.of dengue and other diseases in CentralArneri~a,~"it isunderstandable that the
possibility of a major sanitary crisis518would compel CostaRican authoritiesto
do everything in their power to gain access to these communities, as they did.
4.77 Other examples of recent requests made by Costa Rican authorities
follow the same pattern.519Nicaragua prohibits the long standingnavigation of
Costa Rican officials,and forces those institutions to request "permissions" to
provide essential socialand medical assistance. ThusNicaragua has effectively
forced these institutions to comply with its requirements for permission to
navigate. In the circumstances it is clear that these requests do not amount
to a concession by Costa Rica but are a product of the emergency situation
Nicaragua has created.
4.78 Nicaragua attempts to present these recent requests as State practice.
Twopoints must be emphasised in response to this attempt. First, any requests
that may have been made by local institutions result from the prohibition to
navigate imposed by.Nicaragua, as 'Dr. Ching's experience shows. Second,
Nicaragua's demands for writtenrequests using prescribed language came well
after the filing of the application by Costa Rica in September 2005, and even
after the filingof Costa Rica'sMemorial.520
4.79 With respect to the second note, from "ComunidadAlianza Cristiana y
Misionera de Horquetas", an independent and private religious organization,
similar considerations are applicable. This incident has also been described in
this Reply,521 and in any case is a request made by a citizen that does not in any
way constitute Statepractice by CostaRica, as neither would any other request
from aprivate party.
4.80 It shouldberememberedthat,asstatedby RodrigoZamora,thepreacher
in charge of Comunidad Alianza Cvistiana y Misionera de Horquetas, the
517 See"Health Authorities WatchtheNorthern BorderforLeptospirosis",LaNacidn, SanJose, 30 Oc-
tober, 2007:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 62.
518 Seeabove, footnote457. 2
519 Seethis Reply, paragraphs-4.41.
520 Seeabove, paragraphs 4.26-4.41; Affidavit ofThai'sChingZamora, 8August 2007:CRR,Annexes,
Vol2, Annex 55.
521 Seeabove, paragraphs4.42-4.43.organizationneededtotransporthealth,sanitaryandfoodarticlestoCostaRican
communitiesalongthe SanJuanRiver. AlthoughNicaraguahasrecognisedthat
this navigation (according to Nicaragua only with "articles of trade") should
be fi-ee,52the Nicaraguan authorities demanded that the organization seek a
permitto navigate.523Evidentlytherequestby themissionarieswasmade inthe
context of the duress created by Nicaragua, in which there was no other means
for them to reach the communities they intended to visit along the San Juan
River.
4.81 Even more troubling is the statement made by a staff member of the
Nicaraguan Embassyin SanJose informingMr.Zamorathat ifthe missionaries
were CostaRicans there would be trouble in granting them the permission. In
Mr.Zamora's own words:
"...when he arrived at the NicaraguanEmbassy in San Jose, he was attended by a
member of staff who told him that if the missionaries travellingon the SanJuan River
were CostaRicans therewouldbe problems,to which hereplied that they were mostly
foreignmissionaries."524
. -
4.82 It seemsthatthe intentionbehindforcingCostaRicanstopresentwritten
requests to navigate the San Juan, in precise terms dictated by the Nicaraguan
Embassy,wastoproduceevidenceuponwhichNicaraguacouldarguethatthere
was Statepractice from Costa Rica requesting permission to navigate. In other
words,Nicaragua is attemptingto profit fromits own violations.
G. Conclusions
4.83 ThisChapterhas demonstratedthatNicaragua hasviolated CostaRica's
navigational and related rights in the San Juan, and that those violations are
continuing. Further restrictions were imposed oncosta Rican navigation after
Costa Rica filed the Application in the present case. Restrictions include the
obligationtolandattheNicaraguanbankandpaymentfora"departureclearance
certificate", the imposition of other charges in;luding tourist and immigration
fees and searches to Costa Rican vessels and their passengers. After the filing
of Costa Rica's Application, Nicaraguan authorities required Costa Ricans
522 SeeNCM,para 4.1.10.
523 SeeAffidavitof Rodrigo Antonio Zamora Arroya,28 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 53
524 SeeAffidavitof Rodrigo Antonio Zamora Arroya,28 July 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 53.navigating on the San Juan to purchase aNicaraguanvisa in advance andCosta
Rican riparians were preventedfrom their long-standing practiceof fishing in
the River. In addition to the prohibitionon navigation by CostaRican police,
all forms ofnavigationby CostaRican Governmentofficialshave been subject
to restrictions- which has serious implicationsfor the provision of health and
socialassistance and education to inhabitantsofthe CostaRicanbank, many of
whoareNicaraguan. Further,timetables restricting CostaRicannavigationhave
been maintained and new restrictionshave been imposed, includinglimitations
to the places on Costa Rican territory which can be visited when navigating on
the SanJuan and limitations to the durationofthose visits. CostaRican vessels
are also required to fly a Nicaraguan flag when navigatingon the River. .
4.84 It has also been demonstrated that CostaRicans who need to use the
San Juan River are actively discouraged from doing so, both by the increased
restrictions imposedby Nicaragua and by the harassment they are subjected
to by the Army and Immigration authoritieswho control the River. As part of
the strategy to discourage Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan, Nicaragua
has even increased its military presenceon the River in order to discourage all
CostaRican navigation. Nicaragua issued a PresidentialDecree allowingtheir
military personnel to detainCosta Rican police navigatingon the River,and in
fact to use force against them.525statements of Costa Ridan riparians confirm
that the increased military presenceon the River has indeed served to impede
them from fishing and, in general, caused them to feel threatened and to fear
for theirpersonal security if they navigate. The following testimony provides
evidence of this fact:
"Rafael Palacios haslivedfor 10yearsinMedioQueso,inLosChilesdeUpala.He
takes peopledown the riverinhisboat. 'Ianyone asksmeto go up to the SanJuan I
sayno,Iwillnottake anychances,'saidPalacios.Heclaimsthat whenDanielOrtega
came to powers ,urveillanceinthe SanJuan Riverhas beenstrengthened.'Nowthere
aremoresoldierswithfastboats.Iftheyseeyouintheriver,theywill catchyoufaster,'
said Palacios.
Alongthatsmall afflueno tfMedioQueso,hegoesup 500 metersfrom the Nicaraguan
post. Hedoesnotgo anyfurther.
525 Nicaraguan Presidential DecreeNo. 65-2005 of 28 September 2006, Nicaraguan Official Gazette
No. 188of 29 September 2005:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 69.'One cannottake any chances. They can confiscate your boat andeven take you tojail
to San Carlos deNicaragua. Youmust even pay a finefor trespassingthe border,'said
Pala~ios."~~~
4.85 More recently,a Nicaraguan congressmanproposed to create a military
school on the Nicaraguan border of the San Juan River. His statements.were
recorded by the Nicaraguan press in the followingterms:
"Congressman Enrique Quiiionez, of the Constitutional Liberal Party,PLC, wants a
military training school of the Nicaraguanarmyto operatealongthe SanJuan River as
an irrefutable sign that the river belongsto Nicaragua and to stop Costa Ricans from
using that waterwayfor tourist activities.
The statements made by the Liberal legislator came when President Daniel Ortega
announced his intentionsto withdraw the case on the dispute for the river from The
Hague and reach an extrajudicial agreement withCosta Rica.
...Concerning this matter, Quifi6nez said 'many times Costa Ricans abuse their
navigation rights and navigate theriver armed and profit fromtourism, something not
even Nicaraguans havedone.'
The PLC Congressman, President of the Committee of the Interior of the National
Congress, said this is a very simple situation. 'Ihave always statedwe should detach
two strong police and army posts andeven open a military training school and then
just wait and seeif any tourists will visit that zone withour soldiers practicingin their
own territory.
...I have always said wewant to see our army there, as a sign of sovereignty and
by no means is it an aggression because itis our territory and we can have training
commandos. MaybeCosta Rican and otherforeign tourists will enjoyseeing how our
soldiers trainin the river,' saidii16nez."~~~
4.86 Nicaragua's strategy of "militarization" of the River area clearly
contravenesArticle IX of the 1858Treatyof Limits, which states that:
"Under no circumstances, and even in case that the Republics of Costa Rica and
Nicaragua should unhappily find themselvesin a state of war,neither of them shallbe
allowed to commit anyactofhostilityagainstthe other,whether inthe portofSanJuan
del Norte, or the SanJuan river,or in the Lake ofNi~aragua.''~'~
4.87 Nicaragua-has argued that Costa Rica acquiesced in the restrictions to
its navigation on the San Juan. These arguments are based on misleading or
misrepresented facts, as the treatment by Nicaragua of the text signed by the
526 "Neighbours from the SanJuanplea for help",A1Dia, Sa14May 2007: CRR,Annexes,Vol
2,Annex59.
527 "The SanJuan River should be militarized", El NuevoDiario, Managua, 7 October 2007: CRR,
Annexes,Vo12,Amex 61.
528 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 7(b).Ministers of Tourism in 1995demonstrates. Furthermore Nicaragua engaged
inapolicy whereby CostaRicanpeople and institutionswere obligedtorequest
written permission to navigate on the River from the Nicaraguan Embassy
in Costa Rica. This policy was put into effect after Costa Rica presented its
Application to the Court in September 2005 and seems intended to provide
documentary support for allegations of Statepractice by Costa Rica requesting
permission to navigate on the San Juan. As has been demonstrated in this
Chapter, no such practice exists, and in fact the few instances where Costa
Rican Government officials requested permission were due precisely to the
situation created by Nicaragua's restrictions on Costa Rican navigation,and in
some instances there is clear evidence of manipulation of Costa Rican officials
by Nicaraguan Consular and Diplomatic representatives. Costa Rica rejected
any and all allegations by Nicaragua that it has acquiesced in Nicaragua's
restrictions of its perpetual right of free navigation on the River and its related
rights. Chapter 5
Remedies
A. Costa Rica's Entitlements
5.01 In its Memorial Costa dica requests the following remedies as a
consequenceof the internationallywrongful acts committedby Nicaragua:
(1) a declaration of the extent ofNicaragua's violations of its obligations;
the cessation of the internationally wrongful acts that continue to be
(2)
committedby Nicaragua;
(3) reparationbyNicaraguafordamagecausedasaresultofthoseviolations;
and
(4) appropriate guarantees of non-repetition by Nicaragua of its wrongful
5.02 Nicaragua does not dispute that the Court may grant declaratory relief:
in fact it requests a declaratoryjudgment in itsour.530
5.03 Nicaragua does not address Costa Rica's claim to cessation of
internationally wrongful acts but merely asserts that Nicaragua has not
committedany such acts.
(1) Nicaragua's claim that Costa Rica seeks to exercise diplomatic
protection
5.04 NicaraguaclaimsthatCostaRicaisnotentitledtocertainoftheremedies
it has claimed because they "could only be made as a matter of diplomatic
protection,theconditionsforwhicharenotfulfilledinthepresent case." Itrefers
generally to Costa Rica's claim for compensation for the losses and expenses
incurredby CostaRican citizens andNicaragua's obligationto permit riparians
of theCOS& Rican bank to fish in the River for subsistence purposes.531Apart
fromthese general statementsit does not specify further which of the remedies
529 SeeCRM,para.6.01.
530 NCM,para.7.1.1andparas.7.2.1-7.2.6.
531 NCM, para7.1.10.or claims are, in its view,diplomaticprotection claims. Nor does it statewhich
conditions it alleges are not fulfilledfor such a claim to be brought. However,
giventhat the lossesallinvolveCosta Rican citizensand CostaRican vessels, it
appears that Nicaragua is alluding to a requirement to exhaust local remedies.
5.05 Nicaragua's objection to Costa Rica's request for remedies must be
considered in the context of Costa Rica's primary claim, which is a claim
concerning Costa Rica's own navigational rights under the 1858 Treaty of
Limits. Article VI of the Treaty of Limits provides for a perpetual right of
free navigation for the Republic of Costa Rica as a Stateparty to that Treaty.532
That right includestheunrestricted and,permanentright ofmovement for Costa
Rican vessels whether engaged in the transport of goods orpassengers or both,
on the routes and to the places established by the 1858 Treaty of Limits.533
Costa Rica's rights of navigation are not claimed as a matter of diplomatic
protection but as treaty rights belonging to CostaRica.
5.06 An element of the compensation claimed by Costa Rica by way of
reparation includes losses caused to Costa Rica for charges, visas and permits
requiredby Nicaragua for CostaRican vessels and CostaRican citizens. These
losses have occurred as a direct result of the internationally wrongful acts of
Nicaragua in violation of Costa Rica's treaty rights of navigation. This claim
for reparation does not transform Costa Rica's claim for its treaty rights into
a diplomatic protection claim. It is merely an element of the loss suffered by
Costa Rica as a result ofNicaragua's internationallywrongful conduct.
5.07 In any event, even if Costa Rica's claim for compensation for losses
caused to Costa Rica for charges, visas and permits required by Nicaragua
for Costa Rican vessels and Costa Rican citizens could be characterised as a
diplomatic protection claim, that claim is incidental to Costa Rica's claim for
its own treaty rights. The dominant claim is Costa Rica's claim for its own
navigational rights pursuant to the Treaty of limits.
532 See, generally,CRM, pa4.06-4.16.
533 SeeCRM,para. 4.1.6.5.08 Any diplomaticprotection claimbroughttovindicatethe rights ofCosta
Rican vessels and citizens in respect of the San Juan River could be brought
alongside Costa,Rica's treaty claim without a need to exhaust local remedies
becauseArticle VI ofthe TreatyofLimits createsinterdependentrights forboth
Costa Rica and Costa Rican nationals. The situation is analogous to the claim
before the Court in the Case ConcerningAvena and other Mexican Nationals,
where Mexico asked the Court:
"...to adjudge and declare thatthe United States,in failing to comply withArticle 36,
paragraph 1,of theViennaConvention, has 'violated its international legal obligations
to Mexico, in its own right andin the exercise of its right of diplomatic protection of
its nationals."534
The Court there noted that Mexico did not claim to be acting solely on the
basis of diplomatic protection, but that it "also asserts its own claims, basing
them on the injury which it contends that it has itselfsuffered, directly and
through its nationals" as aresult of the treatyviolations of the United States.s35
It recalled its finding in the LaGrand case that the Article 36(1) of the Vienna
Convention created individual rights for the national concerned, and held that
incircumstanceswhereatreatyconferredbothrights onthe stateand individual
rights, Mexico could claim for violations of both sets of rights without a need
to exhaust localremedies:
"It would further observe that violationsof the rightsof the individual underArticle36
may entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and that violations of the
rights of the latter may entail a violation of the rights of the individual. In these
special circumstances of interdependence of the rights of the State and of individual
rights, Mexico may, in submitting a claim in its own name, request the Court to rule
on the violation of rights which it claims to have suffered both directly and through
the violation of individual rights conferred on Mexican nationals under Article 36,
paragraph 1(b). The dutyto exhaust local remediesdoes not apply to such a request.
Further, for reasons just explained, the Court does not findit necessary to deal with
Mexico's claimsofviolationunder adistinctheadingofdiplomaticprotection. Without
needing to pronounce at this juncture onthe issues raised by the procedural default
rule ...the Court accordingly finds that the second objectionby the United Statesto
admissibility cannot beupheld."536
5.09 A similar claim was made by Nicaragua in its applications against the
United States and Costa Rica, the latter subsequently abandoned before any
534 SeeCase Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States ofAmerica),
Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 200p.12,35(para. 40).
535 Ibid. (emphasisin original).
536 Ibid.,36 (para.40).finding on jurisdiction or merits. In both applications, Nicaragua claimed
compensation-"bothon its own behalf and in respect of wrongs inflictedupon
itsnationals."537In those cases,no local remedieshad been employed, still less
exhausted.
Assurancesand guaranteesof non-repetition
(2)
5.10 Nicaragua also contests Costa Rica's request for assurances and
guarantees of non-repetition. It contends that assurances and guarantees
of non-repetition are not required in all circumstances and that they are not
required in the present case. It has suggested that "Nicaragua has constantly
and consistentlyreaffirmed hercommitment to strictly respect the 1858Treaty
ofLimits" andassurancesand guaranteesofnon-repetition"would addnothing
to these firmcommitments".538
Further, Nicaragua argues that there is "no legal basis" for the Court
5.11
to comply with Costa Rica's request that the assurances and guarantees of
non-repetition include the "abrogation of those legislative and administrative
measures taken by Nicaragua that, if continued in force, would constitute a
violation" of Nicaragua's obligations in respect of Costa Rica's navigational
and related rights.539It adds that Costa Rica's submission is"vague andbased
on insufficient evidence".540
5.12 Costa Rica has requested assurances and guarantees of non-repetition
because Nicaraguarsviolationsofitsnavigationalandrelatedrightsareconsistent
and continuing.541This is further evidenced by Nicaragua's continuing denial
of the very existence of Costa Rica'srights.542This is precisely the situation in
which assurances and guarantees of non-repetition are required, to ensure the
restoration of confidence in a continuing relationship in circumstances where
537 MilitaryandParamilitaryActivities inandagainst Nicaragua,I.C.J.Reports 1986,p. 20,para. 17.
See also Application instituting Proceedings submitted btyhe Governmentof Nicaragua against
CostaRica,NicaraguanMemorial,p. 112,para. 3.
538 NCM,paras. 7.1.11-13.
539 CRM,para. 6.23.
540 NCM, para. 7.1.9.
541 See for example,this Reply,paragraphs 4.05-4.49.
542 See for example,this Reply,paragraphs 4.05-4.49.the injured state "has reason to believe that the .mere restoration of the pre-
existing situationdoes not protect it sati~factorily".~~~
5.13 Demands for assurances and guarantees of non-repetition were found
to have been satisfied by the respondent State in.LaGrand, Avena and Case
concerningArmed Activities onthe Territoryof the Congo. In each case the
respondent State had made an express additional commitment addressing the
specificrequestsmadeby the applicant. Itwasnot sufficientthattherespondent
State's obligationswere incorporatedinan existing treaty provision which was
the subjectofthe dispute: somenew and specificcommitmentwas required. In
LaGrand the United States presented an apology to ~erman~ for the specific
breachoftheViennaConventionandcarriedouta"vast anddetailedprogramme
inordertoensurecomplianceby itscompetentauthorities.. .with itsobligations
underArticle 36oftheViennaConventi~n."~~I ~nAvenatheCourtnotedthatthe
United Stateshadmade"considerableefforts"toensurethat itslawenforcement
authorities provided consular information to persons in accordance with its
obligationsundertheViennaConvention:inthecircumstancesthiswasregarded
as meeting Mexico's request for a general assuranceof non-repeititi~n.~~~ In
DRC v Uganda Uganda entered into a new, binding international agreement
whichcontainedaspecificobligationinthe sametermsastheDRC's request for
assurancesandguarantees. TheCourtfoundthatthisamountedto"aclearlegally
bindingundertakingthat [therespondent]willnotrepeatanywrongfulacts" and
thereforemet the DRC'srequest for specificguarantees and assurances of non-
repetition.546Although the Court in its recent decision in Case Concerningthe
Application ofthe Conventionon thePrevention andPunishment of the Crime
of Genocidedeclinedto grantBosnia and Herzegovina's requestfor assurances
and guarantees of non-repetition in respect of breaches of the obligation to
prevent and punish genocide, it did so in circumstances where it had already
made a direction concerning the Respondent's continued duty of punishment
and obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the
543 CRM,para. 6.22. SeeCRM,paras. 6.19-6.23,citingLaGrand (Germanyv. Unitedstates ofAmer-
ica),I.C.J. Reports 2001,p. 466, 512(para. 123).
544 LaGrand (Germanyv. UnitedStatesofAmerica), I.C.J.Reports 2001,p. 466, 512 (para. 123).
545 Case ConcerningAvenaand other Mexican Nationals (v. UnitedStatesofAmerica),Judg-
ment,I.C.J.Reports 2004,p. 12,pp.68-98,paras. 149-150.
546 Armed Activities on the Terrof the Congo (Democratic Republicof the Congov Uganda),
Judgmentof 19December 2005, para. 257. . ,formerYugoslavia:again it considered that directionwas sufficientto meet the
Claimant'srequest.547
5.14 In contrast, Nicaragua has offered no apology for its consistent and
continued violations of Costa Rica's rights of navigation. It has expressed
its commitment to respect the Treaty of Limits but it has taken an impossibly
narrow interpretation of those rights, and it has made no attempt to deny facts
which, even on its own view of the matter, unqu.estionablyconstituteviolations
of Costa Rica's rights. In these circumstances Nicaragua's assertion thatit is
committedtorespectingthe 1858TreatyofLimitsisdevoidofpracticalmeaning.
In addition, ~icaia~ua has offered no commitment in respect of Costa Rica's
relatedrights, includingthe right ofriparians to subsistencefishing. CostaRica
affirms its request for assurances and guarantees of non-repetition which are
necessary to ensure that Costa Rica's rights areprotected.
5.15 Nicaragua's rejection of Costa Rica's request for the abrogation of
legislativeand administrativemeasures takenby Nicaragua which, if continued
in force, constitute a violation of Nicaragua's obligationss48 is similarly devoid
of merit. Assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, including repeal of
legislation which allowed the breaches to occur, may be sought by way of
satisfaction.549Such assurances are a necessary element in the protection of
Costa Rica's rights. Costa Rica has referred to two Nicaraguan Presidential
DecreeswhichdealwiththeimpositionoftherequirementthatCostaRicanspay
for a visa to navigate on the San Juan and the prohibition of police navigation
respectively,s50and the protection of Costa Rica's rights requires that these
Decrees and all other relevant measures be abrogated.
547 Case Concerning theApplicationofthe Convention on thePrandpunishmentoftheCrime
of Genocide(BosniaHerzegovinaerbiaandMontenegro), Merits, Judgment2,6 February2007,
.atpp. 166-167,paras.-466.
548 CRM,para. 6.23; NCM,para. 7.1.9.
549 SeeILC Commentary to the Articles on State Responsibility,~rticle 30(b), para. (11);Article 37,
para. (5).
550 See this Reply,paragraphs4.52 and 4.84. (3) Compensation
5.16 Costa Rica has claimed reparation under established principles of
international law,551 including restitution and compensation.552It has specified
the pecuniary compensationit claims to include:
"(a) the loss caused to Costa Rican vessels arising from the so-called 'departure
clearancecertificate' imposedon Costa Rican vessels navigating the San Juan
River;
(b) the loss caused to Costa Rica for the charge of tourism cards, transit permits
and immigrationfees imposedon CostaRicanvessels navigating the SanJuan
River;
' (c) the loss caused to Costa Rica for the charge of a consular visa to any Costa
Rican citizen seeking to navigate the San Juan River;
(d) the losses caused to Costa Rica for the further expenses incurred by Costa
Rican citizens, the consequential losses in their activities, as well as all other
material and moral damage sufferedby them;
(e) the expenses and costs incurred by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua's
violations causing Costa Rica to be unable to resupply the police posts along
the Costa Rican bank through the SanJuan River;
interest at prevailing rates from the time the claim arose until the payment of
(0
thejudgment; and
(g) suchother relief as the Court may deem appropriate."553
5.17 Nicaragua alleges that Costa Rica has failed to establish a causal link
between Nicaragua's internationally wrongful acts and the injuries for which
CostaRicaisclaiming compensation.554 InfactCostaRica's Memorialcontains
detailed specificationfirstof CostaRica'srights, then ofNicaragua's violations
of those rights.555These matters are surnrnarisedin Costa Rica's requestfor a
declaration.556Where Costa Rica has requested compensation - to be assessed
ina separatephaseoftheseproceedings - it hasspecifiedtheparticular category
of loss, whether in the form of charges, expenses and costs directly resulting
fromNicaragua's internationallywrongfulacts.557
551 SeeCRM,paras. 6.08-6.10.
552 SeeCRM,paras. 6.11-6.17.
553 CRM,para. 6.15
554 See NCM,para. 7.1.7.
555 SeeCRMChapters4 and 5 respectively.
556 CRM,para.6.03 and Submissions,pp. 147-148.
557 CRM, para.6.15.5.1 8 InaccordancewiththeCourt'spreviouspractice,CostaRicahasrequested
the Court to reserve the determinationof the scope of compensationdue from
Nicaragua to a subsequentphaseof the case. Citing the Court's decision in the
UnitedStates Diplomatic and ConsularStaff in TehranCase,Costa Rica notes
thatthis"isparticularly requiredinthepresent proceedings becauseNicaragua's
breaches are still continuing."558Consistently with the Court's decision in the
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germanyv Iceland), Costa
Rica requests that the Court declare that Costa Rica is entitled to compensation
for all injuries causedbyNicaragua's unlawful acts,reservingitsright to submit
a concrete claim asto the amount, as well as evidenceof damages caused, at a
laterstage.559
5.19 In the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v
Iceland), Germany requested compensation for alleged actsof harassment of
its fishing vessels by Icelandic coast patrol boats. It did not, however,ask for
an assessment of compensation for certain specified actsbut "for a declaration
of principle that Iceland is under an obligation to make compensation to
[Germany] in respect of all unlawful acts of interferences with the fishing
vessels of [Ger~nany]."~~T ~he Court noted that Germany listed a large number
of incidents involving its vessels and a general account of what Germany
described as harassment of its fishing vessels by Iceland.561But the Court
refused to accedeto Germany's request, noting that Germany had not requested
that compensation be assessedin a subsequentphase of the proceedings:
"It is possible to request a general declaration establishing theprinciple that
compensation is due, provided the claimant asks the Court to receive evidence and
to determine, in a subsequent phaseof the same proceedings, the amountof damage
to be assessed. Moreover, while the Applicant has reserved all its rights'to claim
compensation', it has not requested thatthese damages be proved and assessed in a
subsequent phaseofthepresent proceedings. Itwouldnot beappropriateforthe Court,
when acting under Article 53 of the Statute,and after the Applicant hasstated that it is
not submittinga claim forthe payment of a certain amount of moneyascompensation,
to take the initiative of requesting specific informationand evidence concerning the
558 CRM,para. 6.16.
559 CRM,para. 6.17.
560 FisheriesJurisdiction (FederalRepublic of Germany vIceland), Merits,1974p.175,s
p. 204,(par74).
561 Ibid. (par74-75).indemnity which in theview of theApplicant,wouldcorrespond to eachincidentand
eachheadofdamage."562
5.20 In Military and Paramilitav Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Merits), Nicaragua requested the Court to declare that compensation was
due to Nicaragua and "to receive evidence and to determine, in a subsequent
phase of the present proceedings, the quantum of damages to be assessed as
the compensation due to the Republic of Ni~aragua."~~~ The Court considered
Nicaragua's request for the"nature and amount of the reparation due to it to
be determined in a subsequent phase of the proceedings" to be appropriate.564
Similarfindingshave been made in other cases, includingFactory at Chorzdw
(Merits),565 Corfu Channel UnitedStates Diplomatic and Consular
Staffin Tehran567 andArmedActivitieson the Territoryof the Congo.568
5.21 Nicaragua objects to Costa Rica's request for compensation on the
basis of the "vague and indistinct character of the alleged damages and of the
requested reparation."569Nicaragua concedes that a claimant may request a
general declaration establishing that compensation is due, provided it asks the
Courtto determinethe amountof damagein a subsequentproceeding, as stated
intheFisheriesJurisdictionCase(Federal RepublicofGermanyvIceland). But
it argues that the Court "is prevented from making an all-embracing finding of
liabilitywhich would cover matters as to which it has only limited information
and slender evidence".570
Ibid., 204-205 (para. 76).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against NicICJReports 1986 p. 14, 142
(para.283).
Ibid.(para.284).
Factory at Chorzdw,Merits, PCIJReports,SeriesA,No. 17(1928)p. 64,paras. 7-8 ofthe Disposi-
tif.
CorjiuChannel, Merits, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 26. In its final submissions the UK requested the
Court to determine that, as a result of the breach by the Albanian Government of its obligations
under international law, it had sustaineddamages amounting to £875,000 (ibid.,ourt
held thatit hadjurisdiction under the SpecialAgreementto assess the amount ofthe compensation,
but reserved thequestionto a subsequent phase (ibid., 26).
Unitedstates Diplomatic and ConsularStaffin Tehran,Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980,pp.41-2(para.
90);p 45, Dispositif,paras. (5)-(6).
Armed Activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda),
Judgment of 19December2005, dispositifpara (14). Seealso ibid.,paras. 259-260.
NCM,para. 7.1.5.
NCM, para. 7.1.7,citing I.C.J. 1974,p. 204 (para. 76).5.22 Nicaragua's useof the Court's decision inFisheries Jurisdiction on this
point is inapposite for two reasons.
(i) First, as the Court noted in Fisheries Jurisdiction, Germany did not
request that the damages be proved and assessed in a subsequent
proceeding; it only reserved its rights"to claim c~mpensation."~~~ This
stands in clear contrast to the present case.572After listing the specific
violations of Costa Rica's rights inits submissions,CostaRica asks the
Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is obliged,inter alia,
"to makereparationto CostaRica forall injuriescausedto Costa Ricaby
the breachesofNicaragua's obligations referre tdabove,inthe formof the
restorationof the situationpriorto the Nicaraguan breachea sndcompensation
in anamounttobedetermined in a separatephaseofthese proceeding^."^'^
Inthecircumstances,theCourt's statementthat"[ilt ispossibletorequest
ageneraldeclarationestablishing theprinciple that compensation isdue,
providedtheclaimantaskstheCourttoreceiveevidenceandtodetermine,
ina subsequentphase ofthe sameproceedings, the amountofdamage to
be assessed" is directly applicable to Costa Rica's request.574
(ii) Second,CostaRicahasnotrequestedtheCourttomake"anall-embracing
finding of liability which would cover mattersas to which it has only
limited information and slender evidence." Costa Rica has specified
Nicaragua's breachesof Costa Rica's perpetual rightof free navigation
andrelated rights.575Ithas specifiedeach andevery right thatNicaragua
has violated and has requested the Courtto adjudge and declare that
Nicaragua has violated thoserights.576In addition, it has specifiedthe
elements which should be included in compensation, and that each
elementhasbeen causedbyNicaragua's internationallywrongful acts.s77
Costa Rica's requestis at least as specific as the submissions in cases
wherethe Courthasgrantedrequests foradeclarationthat compensation
- -
571 Ibid.
572 CRM,para. 6.17.
573 CRM, Submissions,para.(b),p. 148.
574 Fisheries Jurisdiction (FederalRepublicof GervIceland), Merits,ICJ Reports 1964,p. 204
(para. 76).
575 CRM,para. 5.144.
576 CRM,para. 6.03. SeealsoCRM, Submissions,para. 2, p. 1,7.
577 CRM,para. 6.15. is due, reserving determination of the scope of compensation due to a
subsequentphase of the case.
5.23 ItistruethatinbothFisheries Jurisdiction andMilitary andParamilitary
Activitiesin and againstNicaragua the Court was faced with a situationwhere
the respondent State had failed to appear.578However, neither case supports
an argument that a declaration that compensation is payable, the amount of
compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the proceedings,
cannot be made by the Court whenboth parties participate in the merits phase.
In fact the Court has granted such a declaration in cases where both parties
participated in the merits phase. This was the case in Factory at Chorzdw
(Merits),579 CorjiuChannel (Merits),5so andmost recently inArmedActivitieson
the Territoryofthe Congo.58'Furtherin Unitedstates Diplomatic and Consular
Staffin Tehran,Iran failedto appear but the Court did not refer to the fact that
the respondent State failed to appear nor to Article 53 in providing that the
amount of reparationwas to be determinedat a subsequent phase.5s2In United
States Diplomatic and Consular Staff inTehran the Court noted that where
violations were continuing, as in the present case, "the form and amount of ...
reparation" couldnot be determinedatthepresenttime.5s3Giventhatviolations
arecontinuingin the presentcase, it isclearthat an order in the terms soughtby
Costa Rica is appropriate.
B. Nicaragua's request for a declaration
5.24 Nicaraguahasrequestedthe Courtto issueadeclarationabout the extent
ofCosta Rica'srightsof navigation. The firstfiveparagraphs ofthe declaration
relate to the scope of Costa Rica's rights of navigation and, consistently with
578 As noted by NCM, para. 7.1.8.
579 Factory at Chorzdw,Merits, P.C.I.J.ReportsA,eNo. 17(1928)p. 64, paras. 7-8 of the Dis-
positif.
580 Corfu Channel,Merits, I.C.J.Reports 1949,p. 26.
581 Armed Activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda),
Judgment of 19December2005,dispositif para (14).
582 United States Diplomaticand Consular Staffin Tehran,Judgment, I.C.J. ~eports 1980,pp. 41-42
(para. 90). Seealso ibid.,(para. 8, reproducingthe US submissions).
583 United States Diplomatic and Consular StafSin Tehran,Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 41-42
(para.90).Nicaragua's attemptsto limit Costa.RicaYsrights, request the Court to declare
Costa Rica's rights are of a limited character.584
5.25 InlightofCostaRica'sargumentsastothescopeofitsrights,Nicaragua's
request for a declarationinthe terms itproposes mustbe rejected. The terms of
the declaration sought by Costa Rica accurately reflect Costa Rica's perpetual
rights of free navigation resulting from international law, particularly the 1858
Treaty of Limits, the Cleveland Award of 1888, the judgment of the Central
American Court of Justice of 13September 1916 and the 1956Agreement
pursuant toArticle IV of the Pact ofAmity.
5.26 The remaining five paragraphs of Nicaragua's declaration relate to
separate allegations, some of which bear no relation to the dispute before the
5.27 Nicaragua requests the Court to declare that Costa Rica "is obliged
to comply with the regulations for navigation (and landing) in the San Juan
imposedby Nicaraguan authoritiesinparticular related to matters ofhealth and
security."586But the requirements actually imposedby Nicaragua (without any
evidentlegislativebasis) areabreachofCostaRica's rightsunderthe applicable
instrumentsanddecisions:adeclarationinthetermssoughtbyNicaraguacannot
accordinglybe granted.
5.28 Nicaragua asserts that "Costa Rica has to pay for any special services
providedbyNicaragua intheuse ofthe SanJuan eitherfornavigationorlanding
on the Nicaraguan banks."587The fact is that no such services are provided,
and even if they were, compulsory payment for services on a river subject to
the regime of the Treaty of Limits would contradict the perpetual right of free
navigation.
584 SeeNCM,para. 5.2.5.
585 See Rules, Article(2). Quite apart from the requirementof timeliness, Article 80 requires a
counter-claim to be "directly connected withthe subject-matter of the claim of the other party":
, seeArticle 80(1). Nicaragua's "reservations", even if they had been timds counter-ea
claims, would not have satisfiedthis requirement. Seediscussion in this Reply, paras. 1.16-1.17.
586 NCM, para. 7.2.6.
,587 Ibid.5.29 Nicaragua alleges that "Costa Rica has to comply with all reasonable
charges for modem improvements in the navigation of the river with respect
to its situation in 1858."588Exactly what is meant by this statement is unclear,
especiallyinthe circumstancesthat therehave been no "modern improvements
in the navigation of the river", indeed no improvements of any kind. In any
event (even if, hypothetically, there had been any such improvements), Costa
Rica's perpetual and free rightof navigation cannot bemade subject to charges
by Nicaragua. This was confirmedby President Cleveland,who decided:
"4:TheRepublic ofCostaRica isnotboundtoconcurwith theRepublicofNicaragua in
the expenses necessarytoprevent the bayof SanJuan deNorte from being obstructed;
to keep the navigation ofthe river'orport free andunembarrassed, or to improve it for
the common benefit.
5.The Republic ofCostaRicaisnot bound tocontributeanyproportion oftheexpenses
that may be incurred by theRepublic of Nicaragua for any of the purposes above
mentioned."589
5.30 Nicaragua claims that"[rlevenue serviceboats may onlybe used during
and with special reference to actual transit of the merchandise authorized by
Treaty."590 This isrelated toNicaragua's attempt to limit Costa Rica's free right
ofnavigation,anditsrightsofnavigationwithrevenue servicevessels expressly
recognised in the ClevelandAward. Costa Rica has shown that Nicaragua's
claim to limit Costa Rican navigationin this way is without f~undation.~~'
5.31 Finally,Nicaragua makesan assertion aboutits rights to dredgethe San
Juan, a matter which is not relatedto any aspect of the dispute now before the
Court. It claims:
cc
v. Nicaragua has the right to dredge theSan Juan in order to return the flowof
waterto that obtaining in1858 evenifthis affects the flowofwaterto otherpresent day
recipients of this flowsuch as the ColoradoRiver."592
This claim, like Nicaragua's purportedreservations,593is without merit and
withoutincidenceforthepresentcase. Onthecontrary,anyworkofimprovement
by Nicaragua cannot result in damage to Costa Rican.t.rritory,as provided for
by President Cleveland:
588 Ibid.
589 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16. Seefin-therdiscussion this Reply,paragraphs3.08-3.35.
590 NCM, para. 7.2.6.
591 Seethis Reply,paragraphs 3.79-3.95.
592 NCM, para. 7.2.6.
593 See discussionin this Reply,paragraphs 1.16-1.17."6.TheRepublicofCostaRicacannotpreventtheRepublicofNicaragua fromexecuting
at her own expenseandwithin her own territory suchworks of improvement,provided
such works of improvement do not result in the occupation or flooding or damage of
CostaRicaterritory,or inthe destructionor seriousimpairmentofthenavigation ofthe
said river or any of its branches at any point where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate
the same. The Republic of CostaRica has the right to demand indemnificationfor any
places belonging to her on the right bank of the river SanJuanwhich may be occupied
without her consent, and for any lands on the same bank which may be flooded or
..
damaged in any other way in consequence of works of improvement."s94
5.32 In recent correspondence,Costa Rican Foreign Minister Roberto Tovar
Faja expressed support in principle for improvement works on the San Juan,
while noting that "those improvements works must be carried out without
causing any damageto CostaRican territory,asprovided for in the 1888Award
of the President of the United States."595Although the Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister replied on 8 May 2006, his note made no reference to the issue of
damage to Costa Rican territo~-y.596
594 CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 16.
595 See Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Fajat,o Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman
Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-187-065 May 2006: CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 42. See also
Costa Rican Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar Faja,to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, Norman Cal-
dera Cardenal, NoteNo.M-37-06,26 January 2006 (CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 39), in which
Costa Rica requested information about Nicaragua's planned worktso dredge the San Juan, as
had been reported by the press. In its response, Nicaragua confirmed that "infrastructureand im-
provements works for social benefit"were being carried out in the San Juan: Nicaraguan Foreign
Minister, Norman Caldera Cardenal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister, RobertoFraja, Note
No. MREIDM-JV262/02/06,17 February 2006: CRR,Annexes, Vol 2, Annex 40. Despite this
assertion, to date no improvements works have begun inthe area, nor has any dredging occurred.
Seealso Nicaraguan Foreigninister,NormanCalderaCardenal,to Costa RicanForeign Minister,
RobertoTovarFaja,NoteNo. MREIDM-AJ/340/03/06, 16March2006:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, An-
nex 41.
596 See Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, NormanCaldera Cardenal, to Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
Roberto Tovar Faja,Note NoMREIDM-JI/511/05/06,8 May 2006: CRR, Annexes, Vol2, Annex
43. SUMMARY
1 These proceedings concern breaches by Nicaragua of Costa Rica's
perpetual right of free navigation and related rights in respect of the San Juan
River. These rights are set out in a series of treaties and decisions including
the Treaty of Limits of 15April 1858 and the Cleveland Award of 1888, and
also result from customary international law. Since the 1990sNicaragua has
imposed and maintained restrictions on the navigation of Costa Rican vessels
and theirpassengers on the San Juan which are contraryto CostaRica's rights.
Since these proceedings were commenced, Nicaragua has tightened existing
restrictionsand imposednewrestrictionswhich incombinationtend todenythe
substanceof Costa Rica'srights entirely.
2 The San Juan is a boundary river governed by an international treaty
regimeattributingtoCostaRicaaperpetualright offreenavigationforpurposes
of commerce. Nicaragua's sovereigntyover the waters of the San Juan cannot
be used to restrict or limit the scope and exercise of the perpetual right of free
navigation, which wasrecognised by the Treaty of Limits at the same time as
sovereigntyover the River was grantedto Nicaragua.
3 As to the substanceof the rights relied on by Costa Rica:
(1) Agood faith interpretationof the ordinarymeaning of the terms
intheir context-both internaland external - taking into account
the object and purpose of the Treaty of Limits leads to the
inexorable conclusionthat thephrase "conobjetos de comercio"
means "for purposes of commerce" and not "with articles of
trade".
(2) Subsequent agreements, subsequent practice, and rules of
international law applicable to the dispute,and the behaviour of
Nicaragua itself, confirm this interpretation, as do the relevant
antecedentsof the Treaty of Limits and the circumstancesof its
conclusion.
Costa Rica is entitled to navigate with public vessels manned
(3)
by CostaRican officialscarrying their normal arms on that part
of the San Juan where navigation is common, in exercise of its
right of communication through the San Juan and in order to
protect its freedom of navigation,to safeguard the River and to defend the boundary areas as well as the common Bay of San
Juan delNorte.
(4) Costa Rican vessels exercising the perpetual right of free
navigation are entitled to fly the Costa Rican flag and cannot
be obliged to hoist the Nicaraguan flag as a condition for that
exercise.
(5) There is a consistent practice - recognised by Nicaragua -
allowing the inhabitants of the right bank of the SanJuan to fish
for subsistencepurposes, which has created a customaryright to
suchfishing. a
(6) The conventional right to land on the Nicaraguan bank cannot
be restricted by regulations which effectively deprive the right
of anypractical effect.
The "~~reement of 9 January 1956, concluded pursuant to
(7)
ArticleIVofthePact ofAmity,of21February 1949,imposesan
autonomousobligationonNicaragua tofacilitateandto expedite
,traffic on the San Juan River.
Any attempt by Nicaragua to deny Costa Rica's rights by
(8)
considering them as representing a simple "border courtesy"
dependent on the goodwill of Nicaragua has no basis and must
be rejected. .
4 Nicaragua has violated Costa Rica's navigational and related rights in
respect ofthe SanJuan,and thoseviolations are continuing. Further and severe
restrictions were imposed on Costa Rican navigation after Costa Rica filed the
Application in the present case. Restrictions include:
(1) the obligationto land on theNicaraguan bank andpayment for a
"departure clearance certificate";
'theimpositionofotherchargesincludingtouristandimmigration
(2)
fees and searchesof Costa Rican vessels and their passengers;
aprohibitiononnavigationbyCostaRicanpolice, andrestrictions
(3)
on navigation by other Costa Rican officials, with serious
implicationsforthe provision ofhealth andsocial assistanceand
educationto inhabitants of the CostaRican bank;
timetablesrestricting Costa Rican navigation;
(4)
(5) limitations on the places on Costa Rican territory which can
be visited when navigating the San Juan and on the duration of
those visits; (6) requirements to flythe Nicaraguan flag when navigating on the
San Juan; and
(7) prohibition offishing for subsistencepurposes.
5 Nicaragua's argumentthatCostaRicahasacquiescedintheserestrictions
is without foundation.
6 Costa Rica requests appropriate remedies as a consequence of the
internationallywrongful acts committedby Nicaragua, in particular:
(1) a declaration of the extent of Nicaragua's violations of its
obligations;
(2) the cessation of the internationally wrongful acts that continue
to be committedby Nicaragua;
reparation by Nicaragua for damage caused as a result of those
(3)
violations, the amount to be assessed, if necessary, in a separate
phase of the proceedings; and
(4) appropriate guarantees of non-repetition by Nicaragua of its
wrongful conduct.
These remedies are appropriate and Costa Rica's request for them admissible.
In particular, since the case concerns rights of Costa Rica as a State under
treaties and other instruments binding on the parties, Costa Rica's application
is not brought within the framework of diplomatic protection, and there is no
requirement to exhaust local remedies (if any exist) in Nicaragua. Rather,
Costa Rica asserts its own claims, basing them on the injury which "it has
itselfsuffered, directlyand throughitsnationals" as aresult ofthe violationsby
Nicaragua.597As to assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, Costa Rica's
request that the Court order these is appropriate since Nicaragua's violations
of its navigational and related rights are consistent, deliberate and continuing.
In the circumstances Costa Rica has every "reason to believe that the mere
restoration of the pre-existing situationdoes not protect itatisfa~torily".~~~
7 Onthe otherhandNicaragua's requestfor adeclarationbearsnorelation
to the actual dispute between the parties and shouldbe rejected.
597 Case ConcerningAvena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v.UnitedStates ofAmerica), Judg-
ment, ICJReports 2004,p. 12,35-36 (para.40) (emphasis in original).
598 LaGvand (Germanyv. UnitedStates ofAmerica), ICJReports 2001,p. 466, 512(para. 123). SUBMISSIONS
1. For these reasons, and reserving the right to supplement, amplify or
amend the present submissions, Costa Rica requeststhe Court to adjudge and
declarethat Nicaragua isinbreach of its international obligations in denying to
Costa Rica the free exercise of its rights of navigation and related rights on the
San Juan.
2.
In particular the Court is requested to adjudge and declare that,by its
conduct, Nicaragua has violated:
the obligation to allow all Costa Rican vessels and their
(a)
passengers to navigate freely on the San Juanfor purposes of
commerce, including communication andthe transportation of
passengers and tourism;
the obligationnot to impose any charges or fees on Costa Rican
(b)
vessels andtheir passengers for navigating onthe River;
the obligation not to require persons exercisingthe right of free
(c)
navigation on the River to carry passportsor obtain Nicaraguan
visas;
(d) the obligation not to require Costa Rican vessels and their
passengers to stop atanyNicaraguan post along the River;
(e) theobligationnotto imposeotherimpedimentsonthe exerciseof
the right of free navigation, including timetables for navigation
and conditions relatingto flags;
the obligation to allow Costa Rican vessels and their passengers
(f)
while engaged in such navigation to landonanypart ofthe bank
where navigation is commonwithout payinganycharges,unless
expressly agreedby both Governments;
(g) the obligation to allow Costa Rican official vesselsthe right to
navigate the San Juan, including for the purposes of re-supply
and exchange of personnel of the border posts along the right
bank of the River with their official equipment, including
servicearms and ammunition, and forthe purposesofprotection
as established in the relevant instruments, and in particular the
Second article of the ClevelandAward; (h) the obligation to facilitate and expedite traffic on the San
Juan, within the terms of the Treaty of 15 April 1858 and its
interpretation by the Cleveland Award of 1888, in accordance
. .
withArticle 1ofthe bilateral Agreement of 9 January 1956;
(i) the obligationtopermit riparians of the Costa Rican bank to fish
in the River for subsistence purposes.
Further, the Court is requested to adjudge and declare that by reason of
3.
the above violations, Nicaragua isobliged':
immediatelyto cease allthe breaches of obligations which have'
(a)
a continuing character;
to make reparation to Costa Rica for all injuries caused to Costa
(b)
Rica by the breaches of Nicaragua's obligations referred to
above, in the form of the restoration of the situation prior to
the Nicaraguan breaches and compensation in an amount to be
determined in a separate phaseof these proceedings; and
(c) to give appropriate assurances and guarantees thatit shall not
repeat its unlawful conduct, in such form as the Court may
order.
4. The Court is requested to reject~icara~ua'srequest for a declaration.
Agent of Costa Rica
15January 2008 Appendix: SomeHistorical Issues
A.O1 In its Counter-Memorial, Nicaragua complains that Costa Rica has
misrepresented historical facts, but it presents little or no evidence in support
of its own allegations. This Appendix addresses Nicaragua's approach to the
followinghistorical issues:
(A) whether the San Juan belonged exclusively to any of the Provinces
during the Spanish period: Costa Rica establishes that it did not (see
below,paragraphsA.02-A.14);
(B) to what extent the issue of Nicoya was a live point for negotiation in
concludingtheTreatyofLimits, 1858:CostaRica establishesthat itwas
not (see below,paragraphsA.15-A.22);
(C) whether there is relevant discrepancy in the territorial descriptions of
Costa Rica as between the 1825 Constitution and that of 1841: Costa
Rica establishesthat there was not (see below,paragraphsA.23-A.28);
(D) whether Costa Rica participated alongside Nicaragua in canalization
contractsand agreementsat the time of the Treatyof Limits: CostaRica
establishesthat it did so participate (see below,paragraphsA.29-A.32);
whetherCostaRica engagedinofficialnavigationonthe lower SanJuan
(E)
after 1886:Costa Rica establishes that it did engage in such navigation
(seebelow,paragraphsA.33-A.44); ,
A. The lower San Juan Riverand its mouths
A.02 In its Memorial, Costa Rica claimed that the San Juan did not belong
exclusively to any of the Provinces during the Spanish period.599Nicaragua
disputes this, arguing that the Royal Charter given to Diego de Artieda on
1December 1573 gave the mouths of El Desaguadero to Nicaragua, and that
this situationremained unchanged until 1821 .'joO
A.03 The Order issued on 17 May 1561 by the Captaincy General of
Guatemala,by order of the King of Spain,naming LicentiateJuan Cavall6nthe
599 CRM,para.2.08.
600 SeeNCM,para. 1.2.11. MajoroftheProvinceofNueva CartagoandCostaRica, setdownthe following
limits for that Province:
"...as far as the boundary of the city of Nata and itsjurisdiction, in the Kingdom of
Tierra Firme, otherwise called Castilla del Oro, and then along this line to the limits
.ofthe Dukedom of Veragua, andfrom the southem Sea to the Northern Sea up to the
'Desaguadero,this being included.. ."601 (Emphasis added.)
A.04 In relation to the San Juan, the limits in the 1561Order were similar to
those established by the 1540Royal Charter to Diego Gutierrez602The 1561
Order provided that the SanJuan (i.e. the Desaguadero)would be part of Costa
Rica, as the order states "until El Desaguadero inclusive".603
A.05 In its Counter-MemorialNicaragua claims that the 1573Royal Charter
"establishedvery clearlythat 'the mouthofthe Desaguadero(SanJuanRiver)...
belongs to Nicaragua..."'604But it fails to explain significantcontradictions in
the 1573Charter. Paragraph 5 of the Charter provided that Diego deArtieda's
conquest would commence "...on the northern part, from the mouths of the
Desaguadero ..."605Clearlythese mouths were included:the Royal Charteruses
the word "desde", meaning "from", which isan inclusiveterm. This paragraph
did not stipulate that the mouth of the El Desaguadero was part of Nicaragua.
Paragraph 12 of the Royal Charter has a similar reading, with the exception
that after the words "El Desaguadero" it added the words "that is to the parts
of Nicaragua'"jo6As noted above, the additional wording is not included in
paragraph 5 of the Charter.
601 . See'CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 3.
602 See CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 1.
603 CRM,Annexes, .Va l,Annex 3.
604 SeeNCM, para. 1.2.11;seealsoNCM, para. 1.2.3..
605 NCM, Vol 11,AM~X86, p. 303. Paragraph 5 of the Royal Charter stipulated: "...And once you
arrive there, you (sic) offer todiscover the entire coast of the said province, fromthe mouths of
the Desaguaderoto the confinesof Veragua, in the NorthSea,and you will take possessionon Our
behalf of whateverhas not been taken;and you willdiscover all the inland of the said province up
to the SouthSea..".
606 .NCM, Vol 11Amex 86,p. 302. Paragraph.12ofthe Royal charter stipulated: "Firstly,we giveyou
license and authority to discover, settle and pacify the aforesaid Provinceof Costa Rica and other
lands and provinces containedtherein...and on the northern part, from the mouthsof the Desa-
guadero, 'quesa laspartesde Nicaragua', allacrossthe land, to the ProvinceofVeragua." Itshould
be noted thatCostaRicadoesnot agree with Nicaragua's translationfromthe Spanishlanguageinto
the English languageofthe wordsues claspartes deNicaragua",translated by itas "that bklong
toNicaragua". Costa Ricaconsiders that those original words correct translationis: "that is to the
parts of Nicaragua".A.06 Notwithstandingthis contradiction,andassumingthattheRoyal Charter
intended to leave the mouth of the Desaguadero to Nicaragua, the River itself
continued to be under Costa Rican jurisdiction in accordance with the 1561
Order,which was not repealedby the 1573Charter.
A.07 Another possible reading is that Diego de Artieda's conquest would
commence from the mouths of the Desaguadero up to the parts of Nicaragua,
as set down in the 1540and 1541Royal Charters, that is, 15leagues to the east
fromLake Nicaragua, which is consistentwith the history of the border.
A.08 Oneitherreading,the 1573Charterdidnot stipulatethat the entireRiver
belonged to Nicaragua, as the 1561 Charter had clearly stipulated for Costa
Rica. Nor did it establish where any new limits of Nicaragua were located.
Nor did itestablishthat the CostaRicanborderswere modified,thereby leaving
unaltered the limits marked down in the previous Royal Charters. Whatever
reading that is givento the1573Royal Charter,it cannotbe citedto supportthe
conclusionthat the River SanJuan, in all its extension,came under Nicaraguan
jurisdiction.
A.09 No other provision of the 1573 Royal Order established a change of
possession over the entire course of the River or a significant change to the
relevant boundaries of the provinces, nor any modification as to the rights of
navigationandfishingestablishedinthe 1540Royal Charteq607 nor any changes
to the 1561Order. Therights of theparties inrespect of theirboundaries and of
fishing and navigation remained the same as those set forth in the 1540Royal
Charter,as amendedby the 1541Royal Charter and the 1561Order.
A.10 Nicaragua's claim to ownership of the entire San Juan is also untenable
because the provisions of a 1576Royal Charter confirm that Nicaragua's
territorydidnotreachasfarasthemouthsoftheDesaguadero. Theentireeastern
territory of what today is Nicaragua's Caribbean coastand parts of the eastern
territory of what today is Honduras were called Nueva Cartag~:~Oi*ts limits
stretchedfromthe mouth ofthe Desaguaderoto Cape Camaron,borderingwith
607 SeeCRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 1.
608 See SketchMap4. the Province of Honduras.609O . n 10February 1576 the King of Spain issued
a Royal Charter authorising Diego Lopez to conquer and settle the Province
of Lataguzgalpa, which included most of the territory formerly within Nueva
Cartago. The limits of this Province were set down as follows:
"Firstly. His Majesty will appoint him his Governor and Captain-Generao l f the said
Province, whichis the whole land included fromthe mouth of El Desaguadero to the
north up to Cape Camaron, in the same direction where the Provinceof Honduras
begins, with all the inland territory included therein,til reaching the boundary and
jurisdiction of the Province of Nicaragua and Nueva Segovia, and whatis that of
Honduras; and the said Captain Diego Lopez shall have the saidGo,vernorshipduring
his lifetime.."6'0 (Emphasis added.)
A sketch map showing the Province of Lataguzgalpa is opposite (Sketch Map
4).
A.11 Itisclearfromtheprovisionsofthe 1576RoyalCharterthattheProvince
of Lataguzgalpa included all the land up to the boundary and jurisdiction of
Nicaragua. Nicaragua's territorydidnotreachtothemouthsoftheDesaguadero,
contrary to Nicaragua's Counter Memorial.
A.12 If the 1576Royal Charter is reviewed alongside the Royal Charter of
1540,as amendedin 154 1,aswell as the Order of 1561,it makesperfect sense,
since the limits of the Province of Nicaragua reached only fifteen leagues to
the east, following the Desaguadero (San Juan River) from Lake Nicaragua to
the Caribbean Sea. Thus, in 1576the entire Caribbean coast did not belong to
Nicaragua,neitherdidthe lowerpart ofthe River SanJuan,includingthe mouth
oftheDesaguadero. Evenifthe 1573RoyalCharterhad intendedtoallocatethe
mouth of the Desaguadero to Nicaragua, as Nicaragua claims, the 1576Royal
Charter allocated the territory from the northern bank of the River northwards
to the Province of Lataguzgalpa. According to the 1576 Royal Charter, the
limits of Nicaragua would be those set forth previously, as established by the
1540Royal Charter and setout in SketchMap 4. TheRiver itself aswell asthe
entire coast to the south belonged to Costa Rica, in accordance with the 1540
609 CapiGlacion con DiegoGutierrezparalaconquistade laProvinciadeCartago,29November 1540,
in MMde Peralta, CostaRica,NicarayuPanama en el SigloWIsu Historiay sus Limites (Ma-
drid:ibreria Murillo, 1883):CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 1.
610 Royal Charter of the King of SpaintoDiegoinArchivode Indias, ColeccidndeDocumentos
Intditos relativosa1descubrimiento,conquistay organizacidnde las antiguasposesiones espaEo-
las de Amtrica y Oceania, sacadas de 10sArchivos del Reynoy muy especialment del de Indias:
CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 1. Sketchmap4
LIMITS OF COSTA RICAAND LATAGUZGALPAACCORDING TO THE ROYALCHARTER
OF THE KING OF SPAIN TO DIEGO LOPEZ, 10 FEBRUARY 1576.Royal Charterand 1561Order,unalteredby the 1573and 1576Royal Charters.
Furthermore, the 1576 Charter established that the Province of Lataguzgalpa
included all the land to the north fromthe northernbank of the San Juan River,
thus leaving Costa Rica with the same limits and jurisdiction set down in the
Royal Charter of 1540,as amendedby the Royal Charterof 1541andthe Order
of 1561.
That this remained the situation in the 18th century can be seen from
A.13
the report about the Province of Costa Rica presented by Luis Diez Navarro
to the Captain General of Guatemala in 1744. This stated that the Province of
CostaRica's jurisdictionwas "from the north, from the mouths of the San Juan
River until the Shieldof Veraguas, atthe Kingdom of Tierra Firme.. ."611Thus
in 1744there was no doubt that the mouths of the San Juan River belonged to
CostaRica, as most of the San Juan River.
A.14 Further evidence is found in Costa Rica's 1825 Constitution which
provided that CostaRica's limitson the north were the "mouth of the San Juan
River."'j12CostaRica standsby its claimthat the SanJuan River did not belong
exclusivelyto either of the Provinces during colonial times.
B. Theissue of Nicoya
A.15 Nicaragua claims that Costa Rica annexed the "Partido de Nicoya"
unilaterally,taking advantage of the Nicaraguan conflictprevailing in 1824.613
It contends that when negotiations for the 1858Treaty of Limits commenced,
"the District ofNicoya was part of wicaragua's] territory".614Both assertions
are without foundation.
A. 16 When independence reached Central America, the Central American
territories agreed to form the CentralAmerican Federation, a supreme national
body thatwould integrateallthe territoriesunder one singleunion. But internal
611 Report regardingthe Provinceof CostaRica,presentedby Luis Diez Navarroto theCaptain Gen-
eralof Guatemala,Revista de 10sArchivos Nacionales,Aiio11-setiembrey octubrede 1939-NO.11
y 12:CRR,Annexes,Vol2,Annex 28, p.581.
612 SeeNCM, para 1.2.15;M,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 193,p. 769. \
613 NCM, para.1.2.4.
614 NCM, para.1.2.49.struggles and civil war startedinNicaragua as early as 1821,when strife broke
out in Nicaragua between the cities of Leon andGranada.6'5
A.17 By 1824thefateofthedistrictsthatwereonceunderonesinglejurisdiction
became an issue to be decided by each of those There had been a
close relation between Costa Rica andthe "Partido deNicoya", to the point that
together they formed an electoral district to elect their joint representative to
the Spanish Court in 1813617 and again in 1820.618Given those circumstances
and the close commercial relationship between Costa Rica and Nicoya,the
Nicoyans had no desire to be involved in Nicaragua's struggles. A plebiscite
tookplace on25 July 1824,wherebythepeople ofNicoya decidedtojoin Costa
Ri~a.~'~This decision, ratifiedby the Central American Federal Congress in
1825,620 was reaffirmedby the people ofNicoya seven times between 1826and
1854. The integration of Nicoya into Costa Rica was achieved in conformity
with international law, peacefully andby the determination of its people,more
than 30 years before the negotiations for the Treaty of Limits.
A.18 Nicaragua acknowledgedthe integration ofNicoya to Costa Rica when
its Constitution of 8 April 1826 did not include Nicoya as part of Nicaraguan
territory.Article I1of that Constitution stated:
"TheTerritoryof theState embracesthe districtsof Nicaragua, GranadaM , anagua,
Masaya, Matagalpa, SegoviL a,eon,Subtiaba,and El Realej~."~~'
A.19 Nicaragua presents the negotiationof the 1858Treatyas follows:
615 Nicaragua acknowledges this fact: NCM, Introduction, para. 7, p.
616 MasayaTreaty, 26April 1823:CRR,Annexes,Vol2,Annex 3. See also NCM, para.2.4.
617 Resolution by the Royal Audienciaof Guatemalaregardingthe election of members ofthe Spanish
Cortesfor Costa RicaandNicoya, 3May 1813,P.Perez Zeledon,Reply to theArgument ofNicara-
gua on theQuestion of the Validityorty to the TreatyofLimits ofApril 15, 1858,(Washington,
D.C.: Gibson Bros,87),pp.103-104: CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 2.
618 Tablapara facilitarla eleccionde 10sdiputados a Cortes: CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 63.
619 Nicoya Act, 25 July 1824:CRR,Annexes,l2, Annex 64.
620 Decree of the Central AmericanCongress in 1825, approving the annexationof Nicoya to Costa
Rica, P.Perez Zeledon,ly to theArgument ofNicaragua on the Question of the Validityor Nul-
lity to the Treatymits ofApril 15, 1858,(Washington,D.C.: Gibson Bros, 1887),p. 192:CRR,
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 5.
621 Nicaraguan Constitution,8April 1826,P.Perez Zeledon,y to theArgument of Nicaragua on
the Question of the Validityor Nullity to the TreaofApril 15, 1858,(Washington,D.C.:
Gibson Bros, 1887),pp.107-108: CRR, Annexes,Vol 2, Annex 65. It should be noted thatthis
description of Nicaragua's territory did notinclude the mouthof the San Juan River, the San Juan
River as suchor any of the territories in the Caribbean Coast."By means of [the 18581 Treaty Nicaragua accepted the Annexation of Nicoya by
Costa Rica; Costa Rica for her part recognized thatNicaragua was the entire and sole
sovereignof the SanJuanRiver and that her borderwithNicaragua did not reachasfar
asthe coast of Lake Nicaragua. Inthis Treaty Nicaraguaalso granted limited rightsof
navigationto CostaRica in a part of the San Juan River."(jZ2
The 1858 Treaty of Limits marked the final recognition by Nicaragua of the
decisiontakenbythepeople ofNicoya - butthathad longbeenanaccomplished
fact.
A.20 In itspresentationofthe quidpvo quo ofthe 1858TreatyNicaragua fails
to refer to the context of the ratification of that Treaty, which was intimately
connected with the Canalization Convention between ~icaragua, Costa Rica
and Felix Belly, signed on 1May 1858in Ri~as.~~A ~rticle 4 of the Nicaragua-
Costa Rica-Belly Convention expressly provided that the boundary between
CostaRica and Nicaragua would be the canal. It stated:
"Dans le casoh le tracepartant de l'embouchurede la Sapoa sur le lac de Nicaragua,
et aboutissant a la baie de Salinas surle Pacifique, serait reconnu praticable par les
ingknieurs,ce trace sera ch\iside preferencepar la Compagniepour aboutir dulac de
Nicaragua au Pacifique,etpar le fait meme, le canal deviendra dans toute sa longueur
la limite definitivedes tatdseNicaragua etdeCosta-Rica. Dans lecascontraire,cette
limiterestera ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui, saufreglement ~ltdrieur."~~~
As co-sovereignsof the canal, CostaRica and Nicaragua would evidentlyboth
have rights of navigation in the waterway. This is confirmed in Article 25 of
the Canalization Convention, which provided that Costa Rica and Nicaragua
both couldveto navigation inthe canalby warships of France, England and the
United States:
"Des que laneutralit6du canal auraCtCsolennellementgarantiepar un acte Cmanedes
trois gouvernements deFrance, d'Angleterreet desEtats-Unis, l'entree pourra en2tre
accordee a des navires de guerre parune deliberationunanime de ces trois puissances,
pourvu que les gouvernements de Nicaragua et de Costa-Rica n'y mettent aucune
opposition, etsaufreglementprealable avec la Compagnie c~ncessionnaire."~~~
622 NCM,para. 1.2.6.
623 CRM, Annexes, Vol2, Annex 8.
624 Nicaragua-Costaica-FBelly, Convention relativeto the concessionforan Inter-oceanicCanalby
the River SanJuan and the Lake of Nicaragua (Mora-Martinez-Belly), Rivas,:CRR,
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 12,Article4.
625 Nicaragua-CostaRica-FBelly, Convention relativeto the concessionfor anInter-oceanic Canal by
the River San Juanand the Lakeof Nicaragua (Mora-Martinez-Belly),Rivas, 1May 1858:CRR,
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 12,Article25. This is consistent with theaccount ofFtlix Belly,who was
present for negotiationsof both the 1858Treaty andthe canalization Convention: see
A TruversL'AmeriqueCentrule:le Nicaragua et le CanalInteroceanique,Tome Second (Paris:
Librairiede la SuisseRomande,67),150-165,esp. 152-5. Pages 150-165are includedas CRR,A.21 The picture which thus emerges from the negotiations leading to the
1858Treatyis not at allthat of a grant of sovereigntyto Nicaragua in exchange
for the incorporationofNicoya into Costa Rica. By 1858Nicoya was a settled
matter and it remained for Nicaragua only to formally acceptthe incorporation
of Nicoya into Costa Rica. Instead, the grant of sovereignty over the San Juan
inthe 1858Treatywasbalanced againsttheperpetual right of freenavigationto
Costa Rica.
A.22 At no stage did Costa Rica seek to conquer and annex any Nicaraguan
The incursions intoNicaraguan territory on the part of Costa Rican
forces during the Walker War were implicitly authorised by Nicaragua and
were essential to the final victory against the Filibusters, a fact subsequently
acknowledgedby Ni~aragua.~~'
C. The 1825and 1841 Constitutions
A.23 In its Counter Memorial,Nicaragua argues that Costa Rica disregarded
theterritorialboundariesofitsown 1825Constitutioninits 184 1C~nstitution,~~~
and concludes that Costa Rica did not respect the utipossidetis set down in its
1825 Constitution. Nicaragua attached a map depicting what it claims is the
line drawnby the 1825Costa Rican Con~titution.~~~
A.24 Nicaragua's map does not reflect the limits set forth in the 1825
Constitution. First, it shows a straight line commencing in the mouth of the
Colorado River and not in the mouth of the San Juan River, as stipulated by
the 1825 Constitution. Second, the straight line terminates at the Tempisque
River and not at the SaltoRiver. Third, the Costa Rican 1825Constitution did
not establish the existence of any straight line from the mouth of the San Juan
River to the SaltoRiver, asNicaragua implies. The map marked by Nicaragua
is not a Costa Rican map from the 1820sand the limits have been marked by
Annexes,Vol2, Annex 66.
626 NCM, para 1.2.48(e).
627 See e.g., speech by the President of Nicaragua to the Diplomatic Corps on14 September 2005:
CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 68: "The solidarity of the Central American brothers-especially that
from the Costa Rican brothers- was decisive to achieve tlf the filibusters". See also
CRM, CompleteCopies of Certain Annexes,Vol.3,Anne(b)p. 153.
628 SeeNCM, para.1.2.19.
629 SeeNCM, SketchMap 3.Nicaragua forthepurposes ofthis case:itisnot acontemporary depictionofthe
boundary.
A.25 Article 1.5of the 1825 Constitution laid downthe boundaries of Costa
Rica as follows:
"TheState's territorwillextend,for now, fromWestto East,fiomthe SaltoRiver,
which dividesitfrom thatofNicaragua, up totheChiriquiRiver, whichis the border
oftheRepublicofColombia,andfromNorthtoSouth,from one sea to the other,eing
its limits on the north the mouth of the San Juan Rivand the shieldofVeraguas,
and inthe souththemouthof the AlvaradoRiverandthatofChiriq~i."~~ (Emphasis
added.)
The 1825 Constitution established a temporary delimitationof the territory of
CostaRica. Again,Article 15establishedthat"The ~tatk'sterritory will extend,
for now.. .", awaiting a decision by the Central American FederalCongress
regarding the integration of Nicoya, integration that had been approved by
the people of Nicoya six months before the drafting of the Constitution, a
fact that Nicaragua omits to mention. At the time of the adoption of the 1825
Constitution the integration of Nicoya within CostaRica had yet to be ratified
by the ~ederal Congress. The Federal Congress Decree of9 December 1825,
issued 11 months after Costa Rica's constitution, agreed that Nicoya should
remain part of Costa Rica.
A.26 By 1840, the Central American Federation was dissolved, Nicaragua
being the first state to withdraw from the Federation in 1838. The legal
situation'ofNicoya remained the same as in 1825. Considering this fact, the
1841 Constitution included Nicoya as part of theterritory of Costa Rica, as
stipulatedby the Federal Congress in 1825. There is no contradictionbktween
the 1825and the 1841Costa Rican Constitutions.
A.27 As tothe limits ofNicoya, itwas clearlyunderstood that itreached up to
the La Flor River and Lake Ni~aragua.~~N ' icaragua had recognised that theLa
Flor River was the limit between Nicaragua and Nicoya--bynow part of Costa
Rica--when its Legislative Assembly stipulated that "[tlhe road between the
630 CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 193,p. 769.
631 Report regarding the Provinceof CostaRica,presentedby Luis Diez Navarroto the CaptainGen-
eralof Guatemala,4:CRR,Annexes,Vol2Annex28, p.580.city ofRivas inNicaragua and the District ofNicoya shallbe repaired, asfar as
the river called La Flor" (emphasis added).632
A.28 None ofNicaragua's Constitutions of this period indicatedthe extent of
Nicaraguan territory or where its boundaries lay,and none made any reference
to the San Juan River. The Nicaraguan Constitutions only stated that its limits
to the southwere with Costa Ri~a.~~~
-
D. Negotiationsfor an inter-oceanic canal
A.29 NicaraguacontendsthatCostaRicadidnotparticipateincanalizationand
transitcontractsinrespectofthe SanJuan:rather "Nicaragua acted asexclusive
territorial sovereign and administrative grantor, without any participation
whatsoever by the Republic of Costa Ri~a."~~~ In its view, Costa Rica's claim
that it participated as a party, solely or jointly, in canal contracts and treaties
"lacks any historical or documentary Nicaragua's attempt to
misrepresentCostaRica's participationincanaltreatiesandcontractsisintended
to undermine its claim to a perpetual right of free navigation recognised by the
relevant instruments, including the 1858Treaty of Limits.
A.30 Costa Rica'sparticipation in various canal contracts and treaties can be
seen in documents produced to the Court, some of which have been cited by
Nicaragua. For example, Costa Rica was party to the Montealegre-JimCnez
Inter-Oceanic Canalization Treaty of 18June 1869,636 by which it adhered to
the Aybn-ChevalierContract for the excavation of an inter-oceanic It
provided a right for CostaRica to openroads and navigaterivers inNicaraguan
territory for the purposes of transport, such opening and navigation not to be
impeded by Nicaragua "in any way whatsoever".638An extension of Costa
Rica's rights of navigation to the entirety of the River was provided for in
- -- --
632 See CRM, CompleteCopiesof CertainAnnexes,Vol.3,Annex207(b),p.115 and see alsop. 150.
Seealso SketchMap4 in CRR.
633 SeeCRM,CompleteCopiesof CertainAnnexes,Vol.3,Annex207(b),p. 107.
634 NCM, para. 1.3.13;see alsoparas. 1.2.48-1.249
635 NCM, para. 1.2.48.
636 NCM,Vol 11,Annex 8,pp. 29-31. Seealso CRM,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 13.
637 SeeCRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 11.
638 SeeNCM, Vol 11Annex 8,Article 12. Article I11of the Costa Rica-Nicaragua Cordero-ZufiigaConvention of 5 April
1940.639In addition, the Costa Rica-Nicargua-F. Belly Convention, referred
to above, clearly provided for Costa Rica's participation in the canal project:
indeed it provided that the boundary between the two countries would be the
canal, clearlyrecognising navigation rights in the canal for both countries.640
A.31 In addition, several of the contracts and treaties to which Nicaragua
is a party provide express recognition of Costa Rica's rights, including rights
of navigation. For example, the Cass-Irisarri Treaty of 16 November 1857
provided:
"Article XX: It is understood that nothingcontained in this treaty shall be construed
to affect the claim of the government and citizensof the Republic of Costa Rica to
a free passage by the San Juan River for their personsand property to and from the
Costa Rica's rights were also expressly reserved in the Bryan-Chamorro
ConventionbetweenNicaragua and the United States.642
I A.32 Costa Rica entered into various contracts without Nicaragua's
: participation, such as the Webster and Harris-Escalante Contract, between the
I governmentofCostaRica,aBritish subjectandaUnited Statescitizen,granting
' rights of navigation and transpo~-t.643
E. Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan River after 1888
A.33 Nicaragua argues that there is no record of Costa Rican navigation on
the lower SanJuan by Costa Rican vessels of the revenue service after 1886.644
639 CRM,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 22, Article111.
640 Seeabove,'paras.A.19-A.21;Nicaragua-CostaRica-F Belly, Convention relativeto the concession
for an~nter-oceanicCanal by the.River sin Juan and the Lake of Nicaragua (Mora-Martinez-
Belly),Rivas, 1May 1858:CRR,Annexes,Volannex 12,Articles 4 and 25.
641 United States-Nicaragua, Treatyof Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Cass-Irisarri), Wash-
ingtonDC, 16November 1857:CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 10. Fordiscussionof the mistransla-
tionofArticle XX by Nicaragua,seeabove, paragraphs 1.11-12. SeealsoGreat Britain-Nicaragua,
Treaty of Friendship, Commerceand Navigation (LennoxWyke-Zeledon),Managua, 11February
1860:CRR, Annexes, Vol2, Annex 15;and France-Nicaragua, Treatyof Friendship, Commerce
and Navigation (Sartiages-Maximo Jerez), WashingtonDC,il 1859:CRR, Annexes, Vol2,
Annex 14.
642 CRM, Annexes,Vol2, Annex 20.
643 see NCM, Vol11,Annex 16.
644 SeeNCM, para. 4.2.17.Although Costa Rica's perpetual right of free navigation is not dependent upon
actual exercise or Costa Rica has provided evidence that it did indeed
exercise those rights.
A.34 The 1888ClevelandAwarditself constitutes clear evidence of this. The
navigation of its Revenue Service cutters wasone of the central issues of the
arbitration: the arbitrator found in favourof Costa Rica in respect of the right
of Costa Rican Revenue Service vesselsto navigate on the San Juan.646Costa
Rica's right of navigation was reaffirmedin the 1916 Judgment ofthe Central
American Court of Justice, including a right of navigation with vesselsof the
revenue service.
A.35 The navigation of Costa Rican public vessels onthe SanJuan after 1888
was demonstratedby CostaRica in its Mem~rial.~~O ' fparticular relevance was
the trip taken by the Vessel Adela in 1892.648Reports detailing navigation of
vessels of the Costa Rican Revenue Service in the San Juan afterthe Cleveland
Awardwere annexed. Reports fortheyears 1906,649190865a 0nd 1909(js1describe
activities carriedoutby the CostaRican Revenue Service inthe areaof the San
Juan River and include evidence of navigation on the River.
A.36 Furtherreports fromthe20th century evidencingCostaRicannavigation
on the San Juan are annexed to thisReply. Reports by the Revenue Guard of
Rosalia, apost located on the SanCarlosRiver in Costa Rican territory,provide
evidenceofthe activities carried outby that post inthe San Juan area. Thus, the
Report to the Deputy Inspector of the Revenue on 20 October 1915states:
"...The operational servicebetween passed21stto the 20thpresentwasas follows:
September 21,22, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29and30onlydailyandnocturnalservice.
645 SeeArticle 6 of the 1858Treatyof Limits: CRM,Annexes,Annex 7(b).
646 See CRM,Annexes,Vol2, ~nnex 16.
647 SeeCRM, Annexes,Vol6, Annexes 210 and216.
648 See CRM,paras.4.85,4.86 andcRM, Annexes,Vol6, Annex 209. Asnoted inthis Reply,Nicara-
guamisrepresented this incident inNCM; Costa Rica's explanationof theent isabove,
paragraph 1.15.SketchMapto this Replydemonstratesthejourney taken bytheAdela.
649 See CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex 214.
650 See CRM,Annexes,Vol6, Annex215.
651 SeeCRM,Annexes, Vol6, Annex216.October 1,an assignmentbyArturo GonzalezandZacariasEsquivel, departed to Boca
the Rio San Carlos, returningwithout incident on the 3rd.. ."652
Areport fromthe samepost of 18December 1915,also states:
"...The operations that took place between the past 20th to the 18th present were as
follows:...
30that 6amatask forcedepartedtoMuellede SanCarlos,formedby theguardsEliseo
Villalobosand IsmaelTrejos.. .
15tha task forceformedby the guards RafFallas andIsmael Trejosdeparted to Buena
Vista...
20th a mail assignmentby Raf Fallas departed..."653
A.37 These reports also illustrate the traffic of vessels at the time, both
between Costa Rican towns as well as between Costa Rican and Nicaraguan
towns. The trafficon the River included the transportation of passengers. The
log of 20 October 1915states:
"...Oct. 4th at 3pm a boat docked coming from San Juan del Norte guided by Ester
Arce. Crew: Ambrosio Jiron and JosCCastillo. Departed to Aguas Zarcas, without
cargo.
[Oct]4th at2pm a boat dockedcoming from Sarapiqui,guidedby Mr.Leslie E. Lynn,
a crew memberand three passengers.. ."654
A.38 Another sampleof the officialrecords from 1968show the various task
force activities performed by the Revenue Guard at Boca del Rio San Carlos
post. The Report of 5 August 1968 to Captain Jorge Gamboa detailed the
following activities:
"I herewith allow myself to inform you about the assignments carried out during the
month of July,complaintsfiledwith the Inspection.-
On 24 July one for the revision of commercial licenses along the San Carlos River.
On 26 July one in El Dorado on the San Juan River, concerning some Ipecac.
On 26 July one in Infiernitoconcerning someIpecac.
On 29 July one in Pocosol in relation to the felling of trees.. ."655
652 Note from Commandant of the RosaliaRevenue Guard to the Deputy Inspector of the Treasury,
20 October 1915:CRR, Annexes,ol2, Annex 31.
653 Note from Commandantof the Rosalia Revenue Guard tothe Deputy Inspector of the Treasury,
18December 1915,CRR,Annexes, Vol2, Annex 32.
654 Note from Commandantof the Rosalia Revenue Guard to the Deputy Inspector of the Treasury,
20 October 1915: CRR, Annexes,Vol 2, Annex 31. See also "Departure Clearance Certificate"
issued by the Costa RicanRevenue Guard in Boca del rio Sarapiqui,to a private citizen, 6 April
1868: CRR, Annexes,Vol2, Annex67(a), which indicates the vesselwas carrying 10passengers.
Explanation of the issuance of Costa Rican "departure clearance certificates" is found in
para. 5.07.
655 Note from the Revenue Guardof Boca de San Carlos to Chief of Personnel of the General Inspec-
torateofthe Treasury, 5August 1968:CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 35. Syrupof ipecac(raicillainA.39 Two of the missions referred to in the Report of 5August 1968 are
detailed further in additionalreports. The first states:
"For your information, I am sending a complaint filed in this office by Mr. Pablo
Lozano, regarding Ipecac located in the place named INFIERNITO, by the San Juan
River. I went to said place in company of the Fiscal Guard MISAEL MURILLO
BARBOZA, and indeedthere was Ipecac."656
The secondReport states:
"On Monday 29 July 1968, I went on assignment accompanied by Fiscal Guard
MISAEL MURILLO BARBOZA and Mouth of Sarapiqui Park Ranger Mr. RUBEN
LAO HERNANDEZ, to the place called POCO SOLby the San Juan River, in order
to verify the felling of trees, of approximately two hundred and fifty 'varas',when we
arrived to the place we verified that, as had been denounced by Captain Scot of Los
Chiles de Grecia, said felling had taken place."657
A.40 Samples of other official correspondence from 1991 detail activities
undertaken by the Costa Rican police at the time in the area of the San Juan
River. A Report to the Minister of Public Security by the Chief of Post of the
Border Police in Sarapiqui states:
"I proceed to report the essential needs of the Border Police at Sarapiqui.
SlTUATION ...
Section 2:
Perimeter ofjurisdiction:. ..
Hamlets that are serviced by waterway (Sector A): Sarapiqui River, Sucio River,
Masaya, EosArbolitos, Pangola,Los Angeles, La Ceiba, La Trinidad.
Hamlets that are serviced by waterway (Sector B): Ochoa, Palo Seco, Cureiia, Isla
Morgan,Cureiiita,RemolinoGrande,Remolinito,CaiioTambor,CaiioCopalchi,Boca
de Sarapiqui,Boca Las Marias, Boca La Tigra.. ."658
These locations are shown in Sketch ~ab 3. Many of the aforementioned
towns are located on the right bank of the San Juan. Evidently those towns
were visited via the SanJuan. The Report further states:
"AREA OF JURISDICTION:
Barra del Colorado accountsfor a community of about 5,500inhabitants.
- --
the original Spanish)was made from "rhizomeof the Ipecacuanha plant"and was used for medici-
nal purposes, variously to induce vomiting andas a cough medicine.
656 Note from Sub Inspector of the Revenue Guard in Bocade San Carlos to LieutenantLopez of the
General Inspectorateof the Treasury,26 July 1968:CRR,Annexes, Annex 33.
657 Note from Sub Inspector of the Revenue Guardin Boca de San Carlos to Lieutenant Lopez of the
General Inspectorateof the Treasury,29 July 1968: CRR, Annexes, Vol 2, Annex 34. The term
"vara" in this context is usedas a measuring unit. A"vara" measures 83.59centimeters.
658 Costa Rican Police Major, Francisco CordobaCordoba,to CostaRican MinisterofPublic Security,
LuisFishman Z.,Note No. C.D. 0666-91, 19August 19: RR.Annexes,Vol2, Annex 36.Our JurisdictionArea extends approximatelyfor 400 squarekilometres. -
To travel to the Barra del Colorado Unit, we navigate using an azimuth from south
to north, of 180"to 360°, with an approximate distance of 170'kilometres of fluvial
A.41 This Report not only reveals the size of one of the communities close
to the San Juan; it also reveals the distance from Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui to
Barra del Coloradoby boat, through the San Juan, which is the only means to
reach that communityby waterway.
A.42 Another Note dated 29 April 1992 from Major Francisco Cordoba
Cordoba, Chief ofPost to Lieutenant Colonel Guillermo Saenz,Director ofthe
Civil Guard, reports the following:
"In what is called the Deltas (advancedposts) we need to open Delta No. 7, because
that isthe locationofthe mouthofthe ColoradoRiverandthe SanJuandel Norte River
ofNicaragua,a locationwith aconstantmovementoftourists, aswell asof immigrants
from theneighbouringcountryofNicaragua. The Nicaraguan Government has a Park
Rangers Post from IRENE, to control Sylvester Flora and Fauna of the area. It has
been coordinatedwith the officials'ofthe SandinistaArmy, stationedacrossDelta No.
8, so that the Park Rangers do not interceptthe tourists and Costa Rican farmerswho
navigatealongthe RioColoradoand SanJuan,so they travel freely,observingthe legal
conditions in accordancewith the navigationtreatiesbetweenboth countries."660
ThisNote showsthe earlyintentionsof someNicaraguan authoritiesto interfere
with Costa Rican navigation, a situation the Costa Rican local authorities had
duly informedto the NicaraguanArmy so that the applicable instruments were
complied with. It demonstrates the regular transit of tourists on the San Juan.
It shows that the Nicaraguan Army was not requiring 'Costa Rican vessels to
stop and report to Nicaraguan authorities, as the Note refers only to stopping
effectedbyNicaraguanParkRangers. Costa Rica actuallyrequestedthe help of
Nicaraguan Army officialsto prevent impediments to Costa Rican navigation
imposedby theParkRangers. The CostaRican officialsclearlyunderstood that
anyNicaraguan authorityrequiring CostaRican vessels to stopwas abreach of
the applicable instruments.
659 Costa Rican Police Major,FranciscoCordobaCordoba,to CostaRicanMinisterof Public Security,
LuisFishrnanZ., Note No. C.D. 0666-91, 19August 1991:CRR.Annexes,Vol2, Annex 36.
660 Costa Rican Police Majorand Chief of Post, Francisco CordobaCordoba,to Costa Rican Director
of the Civil Guard, Lieutenant Colonel Guillermo Saenz, NoteNo. C.D.O. 81-92, 29April 1992:
CRR,Annexes,Vol2, Annex 37.A.43 Another example is the Report dated 25 May 1992by Major Francisco
Cordoba Cordoba to Colonel Guillerrno Saenz Brenes, Director of the Civil
In that Report it is explained that Nicaraguan farmers demanded
that officials from the Costa Rican Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle should
come to Nicaragua to discuss an ordinance restricting the importation of
agriculturalproducts into CostaRica, otherwise they would block Costa Rica's
free navigation on the San Juan River. It is further stated that the Nicaraguan
Army authorities were ready to help and support the Costa Rican authorities
in case such threat would materialise. It said that on Thursday 21 May 1992
surveillancewas carriedoutthroughout the SanJuan,up to Morgan Islands and
down to the mouth orentranceto San Juan del Norte.
A.44 This Report evidences the type of activities carried out .by the Costa
Rican Civil Guard on the San Juan. It confirmsthe navigation throughout the
River for surveillance purposes by the Costa Rican police in discharging its.
dutiesasestablishedbyArticlesIVandVIofthe 1858TreatyofLimits. It shows
that suchoperationswere carriedoutwith the fullknowledge oftheNicaraguan
Army,not because CostaRica had to informthem, but because the CostaRican
and Nicaraguan authorities worked in close cooperation. Nicaraguan Army
officers not only alerted the Costa Rican officials about what the Nicaraguan
farmers intended to do, they also offered to cooperate with the Costa Rican
authorities, should the Nicaraguan farmers blockade or impede Costa Rican
navigation.
F. Conclusions
A.45 This Appendix has demonstrated the following facts, contradicting4he
positions adopted by Nicaragua in its Counter-Memorial:
(1) Duringthe Spanishperiodthe SanJuanRiverdidnotbelong exclusively
to any of the Provinces. Further, Costa Rica's rights of fishing and
navigation set forthby the 1540Royal Charter as amendedby the 1541
Roy<. Charter remained unchanged.
661 Chief of Post, Major Francisco CordobaCordoba, to Costa Rican Directorof the Civil Guard,
Lieutenant Colonel GuillermoSaenz,Note No. C.A.25 May 1992:CRR,Annexes, Vol2,
Annex 38. The territory of Nicoya was incorporated into Costa Rica in 1824 by
the free will and resolution of itspeople, a decision made in accordance
with internationallaw and reaffirmedby the people ofNicoya on seven
separate occasions. The limits of Nicoya remained the same as they
were before the independence of the Central American Provinces in
1821. This situationwas recognised in 1825by the Federal Congress of
CentralAmerica which decided that Nicoya would remain under Costa
Ricanjurisdiction, thusupholding the decision of the people ofNicoya.
No changesto the legal framework setup in 1825were ever introduced
by the Federal Congress. Thus, the territory of Nicoya continued to
be part of the territory of Costa Rica thereafter, a fact that was merely
recognised by Nicaragua in the 1858Treaty of Limits.
Nicaragua's attempt to present the quidpvo quo of the 1858 Treaty as
a grant of sovereignty to Nicaragua in exchange for the annexation of
Nicoya to CostaRica is a misrepresentation. The 1858Treatybalanced
a grant of sovereignty to Nicaragua against attribution to Costa Rica
of a perpetual right of free navigation. The right of navigation was in
fact essential to those negotiations, as evidenced by contemporaneous
documents and the evident assumption by both Nicaragua and Costa
Rica of the likelihood of an inter-oceaniccanal along the San Juan.
The Costa Rican Constitutions of 1825and 1841reflected thejuridical
situation of Nicoya and of Costa Rican territory, contrary to what is
representedbyNicaraguainitsSketchMap3 .66Thereisnocontradiction
between the 1825 and 1841 Constitutions: the 1825 Constitution laid
downthatthelimitsofCostaRicaweretemporary;the 1841Constitution
included the territory of Nicoya, reflecting the juridical status at that
time. Nicoya's territory reached upto the La Flor River to the north,
a limit recognised by Nicaragua as its border with Nicoya until it was
changedby the Treatyof Limits.
Costa Rica participated either solely or jointly in several canalization
contracts.
(6) Although Costa Rica'sperpetual right of free navigation is not subject
to a condition of exercise or use, Costa Rica has demonstrated that it
exercisedits right of navigation regularly.
662 NCM SketchMap 3. CERTIFICATION
I have the honour to certify that the documents annexed to this Reply are true
copies and conform to the original documents and that the translations into
English madeby CostaRica are accuratetranslations.
ViceMinister Edgar UgaldeAlvarez
Agent of CostaRica
15January 2008 LIST OFANNEXES
VOLUME 2
Agreements,Awardsand Judicial Decisions
Annex Title Date
1 Royal Charter of the King of Spainto Diego 10February 1576
Lopez
Source:Archivo de Indias, Coleccidn
de Documentos Inkditos relativos a1
descubrimiento, conquistay organizacidn de
las antiguasposesionesespaiiolasdeAmkrica .
y Oceania,sacadas de 10sArchivos del Reyno .
y muy especialmente del deIndias (Madrid:
Imprenta de Jose Maria PQez, Misericordia, 2.,
1870),pp. 528-537
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica
2 Resolutionby the RoyalAudiencia of 3 May 1813
Guatemalaregardingthe election of members of
the SpanishCortesfor Costa Rica andNicoya
Source:P.Perez Zeledon, Reply to theArgument
of Nicaragua on the Question of the Validityor
Nullity to the Treatyof Limits ofApril 1858,
(Washington,D.C.: GibsonBros, 1887),pp.103-
104
3 Masaya Treaty 26April 1823
Source: ObrasHistdricas Completas del
Licenciado Jerhnimo Pkrez, impresaspor
disposicidn del Excelkntisimor.Presidente
de laRepublics Don Adolfo Diaz bajo la
direccidny con notas del Doctor Pedro
Joaquin Chamorro(Managua:Imprentay
Encuadernacion National, 1928),pp. 465-467
Englishtranslation by CostaRica4 Decree of the CentralAmerican Federation 16June 1825
Congressregarding an inter Oceanic Canal
throughNicaragua, Guatemala
Source: CompilacibndeLeyes no insertasen las .
ColeccionesOJicialesf,ormada por elLic Don
Cleto Gonzalez Viquez,Tomo 1(San Josk),pp.
411-413 ,
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica
5 Decree of the Federal Congress of Central 9 December 1825
America in 1.825,approving the annexation of
Nicoya to Costa Rica
Source:P.Perez ZeledonArgument on the
Questionof the Validityof the TreatyofLimits
between CostaRica andNicaragua (Washington
D.C.: Gibson Bros., 1887),p. 192
6 Contract BetweenNicaragua and theAmerican. 27August 1849
Atlantic and Pacific Ship-CanalCompany
(Zepeda-Juarez-White), Leon,Articles 12, 14,
21 and 37
Source:NCMAnnex 14
English translationby Costa Rica
7 United States-Nicaragua,General Treaty of 3 September 1849
Amity,Navigation, and Commerce, (Squier- (unratified)
Zepeda), Leon,Articles IV,V,VI, VII, VIII,
XXVI, XXXIII, XXXIV,XXXV
Source: CLWiktor, UnperfectedTreatiesof
the UnitedStates ofAmerica1776-1976, Vol1
1776-1855(NewYork:Oceana Publications,
1976),pp. 280-302
8 United States-GreatBritain, Convention 19April 1850(in
Concerning a Ship Canal Connecting the force 4 July 1850)
Atlantic and PacificOceans (Clayton-Bulwer), (ratified)
WashingtonDC, Preamble andArticles 111V ,
and VIII
Spanishversion: MM Pera1ta;El Canal
InterocehnicodeNicaraguay CostaRica en
1620y en 1887(Bruselas:Imprenta deAd.
Mertens, 1887),pp.68-71
English version: 104CTS 41 ,
9 Costa Rica-United StatesTreaty of Friendship, 10July 1851
Commerce and Navigation (Molina-Webster), (ratified)
WashingtonDC, Preamble andArticles 11,IV,
VI, VII, VIII, XI andI1 '-
Sources:
English version:Report of theIsthmian
Canal Commission 1899-1901 (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1904),pp. 417-420
Spanishversion: Coleccibn de 10s~ratados
Internacionales Celebradospor laRepublica
de CostaRica, VolI (San Jose: Tipografia
Nacional, 1893),pp. 65-72
10 United States-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship, 16November
Commerce andNavigation (Cass-Irisarri), 1857
WashingtonDC, Articles 11,IV,VII, VIII, XV, (unratified)
XVI, XVII and XX
Sources:
English version: CLWiktor, Unperfected
Treatiesof theUSA,VolumeI11856-1882 (New
York: OceanaPublications, 1976),pp. 135-143
Spanishversion: US National Archives,
WashingtonDC, Unperfected Treaty SeriesW-2
I1 Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treatyof Peace, 30April 1858
Friendship,Alliance and Commerce (Mora- (unratified)
Martinez), Rivas, Preamble andArticles 18, 19,
20
Source: JM Bonilla, Coleccidn de Tratados
Internacionales(Managua: Tipografia
International,1909)
English translation by Costa Rica Nicaragua-Costa Rica-F Belly, Convention 1May 1858
relative to the Concession for an Inter-oceanic
Canal by the River San Juan and the Lake of
Nicaragua, (Mora-Martinez-Belly),Rivas,
Articles 14(French, Spanish and English);
Articles 4 and 25 (French)
Sources:
French version: F Belly, Carte d'etudepour
le trace et leproJildu Canal de Nicaragua
(Paris: Chez Dalmont et Doud, ~diteurs, 1858),
Document 11,pp. 10-21
Spanishversion:Archives Diplomatiques,
Ministere desAffaires~tran~eres,Paris,
Republic of France
English translationby CostaRica
13 United States-NicaraguaTreaw of Friendship, 16March 1859
Commerce andNavigation (Lamar-Zeledon), (unratified)
Managua, Preamble,Articles 11and XX
Sources:
English version: CL.Wiktor, Unperfected
Treatiesof theSA, VolumeI11856-1882(New
York: OceanaPublications, 1976),pp. 157-166
Spanishversion: US National Archives,
WashingtonDC, Unperfected Treaty Series X-2
14 France-Nicaragua,Treaty of Friendship, 11April 1859
Commerce andNavigation (Sartiges-Maximo
Jerez),WashingtonDC,Article XXXIII
Source: 120CTS 337
15 Great Britain-Nicaragua,Treaty of Friendship, 11February 1860
Commerce and Navigation (Lennox Wyke-
(ratified)
Zeledon), Managua, Preamble andArticles IV,
V,VII, XI, XVII, XVIII,XXIII and XXVI
Source: 121CTS 364
16 Nicaragua-CentralAmerican Transit Company 10November
Inter-OceanicTransitContract (Molina-Morris), 1863
Washington,ArticlesVII, XIX and XXI
Source:NCMAnnex 18
English translationby CostaRica.17 United States-NicaraguaTreatyof Friendship, 21June 1867
Commerceand ~avigation on-~ickinsoi), (ratified)
Managua, Preamble,Articles 11,VI, VII, VIII,
IX, XV,XVI and XVII
Source: GP Sanger, TheStatutes atLarge,
TreatiesandProclamations ofthe UnitedStates
ofAmericafrom December 1867, toMarch
1869, VolXV(Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.,
1869),pp. 549'-562
18 CostaRica-Nicaragua,Treatyof peace and 30 July 1868
Friendship (Volio-Zelaya),San.Jose, Preamble
(unratified)
Englishversion: 134CTS 478-482
Spanishversion: JM Bonilla, Coleccionde'
TratadosInternacionales(Managua:Tipografia
Internacional, 1909),pp. 375-382 -
19 Costa Rica-Nicaragua,Treatyfor the 18June 1869
excavation of an Inter-oceanicCanal (Jimenez- (unratified)
Montealegre) San Jose,Articles IX, XIV,XV,
XVI, XIX, XXIII, XXVII and XXVIII
Source:NCM Annex 8
English version: (1870-1871)LXIBFSP 1144-
1151
20 Costa Rica-Nicaragua,Treaty for the Deviation 21June 1869
of the Watersof the ColoradoRiver (Jimenez-
(unratified)
Montealegre), San Jose,Articles 2 and 4
Spanishversion: JM Bonilla, Coleccibnde
TratadosInternacionales (Managua:Tipografia
Internacional, 1909),pp. 403-405
English translationby CostaRica .. .
21 Costa.Rica-Nicaragua, Canalization Convention ..1.January 1884
(Navas-Castro), SanJose, Preamble (unratified)
Spanishversion: JM Bonilla, Coleccionde . .
TratadosInternacionales (Managua:Tipografia . .
Internacional, 1909),pp. 469-471 ' . .
English translationby CostaRica .22 CostaRica-Nicaragua, Treaty of Peace, 19January 1884
Friendship, commerce and Extradition(Navas- (unratified)
Castro), SanJose, Preamble,Articles VIII, XIX,
XXIX and XXXIII
Spanishversion: JM Bonilla, Coleccibnde
TratadosInternacionales (Managua: Tipografia
Internacional,1909),pp. 455-466
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica
23 United States ofAmerica-Nicaragua, Treaty 1December 1884
providingfor the constructi.onof an Interoceanic (unratified)
Canalacross the territory of ~icara~ua
(Frelinghuysen-Zavala),WashingtonDC,
Preamble,Articles IV,V,VIII and XI11
Sources:
Englishversion: Report of theIsthmian
Canal Commission1899-1901 (Washington:
GovernmentPrinting Office, 1904),Appendix L,
pp. 359-363
Spanishversion: Memoria deLa Secretariade
Relaciones Exterioresy CarterasAnexas de la
Republics de CostaRica (SanJose: Imprenta
Nacional, 1884-1885)
24 Costa Rica-NicaraguaTreaty of Peace, 9 October 1885
Commerceand ~xtradition (~s~uivel- (unratified)
Chamorro),San Jose, Preamble,ArticlesVII,
XVIII, XXVIII and XXXII
Source:JMBonilla, Coleccibnde Tratados
Internacionales(Managua:Tipografia
Internacional,1909),pp. 489-498
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica
25 Contract between the Governmentof the . 23 March 1887
Republic ofNicaragua and the Nicaragua Canal
Association of NewYorkfor the opening of
an inter-oceaniccanal (Cardenas-Menocal),
Managua,ArticlesVII, XIII, XVI, XXXand XL
Source: Report of theIsthmian Canal .
Commission1899-1901 (Washington:
GovernmentPrinting Office, 1904),pp. 389-400 26 ClevelandAwardupon the validity of the Treaty 22 March 1888
of Limits of 1858betweenCostaRica and
Nicaragua, WashingtonDC, Spanishversion of
Award,SecondArticle and ThirdArticlepoint 5
Source of Spanishversion: MemoriaAnual de la
Secretaria de Relaciones Exterioresy Carteras
Anexas 1888 (SanJose':Imprenta Nacional,
1888)
27 Contract betweenthe Government of the 31 July 1888
Republic of Costa Rica and the Nicaragua Canal
Associationfor the opening of an inter-oceanic
canal (Perez-Menocal),SanJose, Preamble,
Articles VI, VII, XXVI,XXVI, XXXVII,
XXXIX, XL and XLV
Sources:
Englishversion:AR Colquhoun, TheKey of the
Pacgc: TheNicaragua Canal (Westminster:
Archibald Constable& Co., 1895),pp. 386-407
Spanishversion:Archivo Nacional de Costa
Rica
Correspondence
Annex Description Date
28 Report regarding the Province of Costa 1744
Rica, presented by LuisDiezNavarro to the
Captain General of Guatemala
Source: Revista de losArchivos Nacionales,
Aiio111-setiembrey octubre de 1938-No. 11
y 12,(SanJosC:ImprentaNacional, 1939),p.
581 .
English translationby CostaRica
29 Secretaryof Stateof the United States, T.F.. 31October 1887
Bayard,to Nicaraguan Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary,Horacio
Guzman,
Source: United StatesDepartmentof State
Archives30 Nicaraguan Envoy Extraordinary and 1November 1887
Minister Plenipotentiary,Horacio Guzman,
to Secretaryof Stateof the United States,T.F.
Bayard
Source:United StatesDepartment of State
Archives
31 Note from Commandantof the Rosalia 20 October 1915
Revenue Guard to the Deputy Inspector of the
Treasury
Source:ArchivoNacional de Costa Rica
English translation by Costa Rica
32 Note from Commandantof the Rosalia- 18December 1915
Revenue Guard to the Deputy Inspector of the
Treasury
Source:ArchivoNacional de Costa Rica ..
English translationby Costa Rica
. .
33 Note from Sub inspecto rf the Revenue 26 July 1968
Guard in Boca de San Carlos to Lieutenant
Lopez of the General Inspectorate of the
Treasury
Source:ArchivoNacional de'costa Rica
English translation by Costa Rica
34 Note from Sub Inspector of the Revenue 29 July 1968
Guard in Boca de San Carlos to Lieutenant
Lopez of the General Inspectorate of the
Treasury
Source:ArchivoNacional de Costa Rica
English translationby Costa Rica
35 Note fromthe Revenue Guard of Boca de San 5August 1968
Carlos to Chief of Personnel of the General
Inspectorate of the Treasury
Source:Archivo Nacional de Costa Rica
English translationby Costa Rica'CostaRican Police Major,Francisco Cordoba 19August 1991
Cordoba,to Costa Rican Minister of Public
Security,LuisFishman Z., Note No. C.D.
0666-91
English translationby Costa Rica
CostaRican Police Major and Chief of Post, 29April 1992
Francisco Cordoba Cordoba,to Costa Rican
Director of the Civil Guard, Lieutenant
Colonel Guillermo Saenz,Note No. C.D.O.
81-92
English translationby CostaRica
Costa Rican Chief of Post, Major Francisco 25 May 1992
Cordoba Cordoba,to CostaRican Director
of the Civil Guard, Lieutenant Colonel
Guillermo Saenz,Note No. C.A. 372-92
Englishtranslation by Costa Rica
CostaRican Foreign Minister,Roberto 26 January 2006
TovarFaja, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Norman Caldera Cardenal, Note No. DM-37-
06
English translationby Costa Rica
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,Norman 17February.2006
Caldera Cardenal, to CostaRican Foreign
Minister,Roberto Tovar Faja, Note No. MRE/
DM-JI/262/02/06
English translationby Costa Rica
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,Norman 16March 2006
CalderaCardenal, to CostaRican Foreign
Minister,Roberto Tovar Faja,Note No. MRE/
DM-AJ/340/03/06
English translationby Costa Rica
Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Roberto 5 May 2006
TovarFaja, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Norman Caldera Cardenal,Note No. DM-
187-06
Englishtranslationby Costa Rica 43 Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,Norman 8May 2006
Caldera Cardenal,to Costa Rican Foreign
Minister,Roberto TovarFaja, Note No.MREI
DM-JII511/05/06
English translationby CostaRica
44 Director, CostaRican social SecurityFund, 14June 2006
HealthArea PuertoViejo de Sarapiqui,
Dr. Thai'sChing Zamora, to First Consul,
Nicaraguan Consulate, Ciudad Quesada,
Licenciado Mario Rivas Baldelomar.Note
NO.346-2006
English translationby Costa Rica
45 Costa Rican Foreign Minister,Bmno Stagno 14August 2006
Ugarte, to Nicaraguan Foreign Minister,
Norman Caldera Cardenal,Note No. DM-
254-06
English translation by CostaRica
46 Coordinatorof the Northern Regional 22 May 2007
Office of the Ombudsman's Office,Licda.
Laura Navarro Rodriguez,to Consul of
Nicaragua at Ciudad Quesada,~aiio Rivas,
Note No. DHR-RN-051-2007
English translationby Costa Rica
47 Nicaraguan Minister Counsellor,Emilio 25 May 2007
. Rappaccioli, to Coordinator of the Northern
Regional Officeof the Ombudsman's
Office,Licda. Laura Navarro Rodriguez,
Note No. ENCR/NF/EN/133/2007
English translation by CostaRica
48 Nicaraguan Embassy in Costa Rica, 25 May 2007
"Authorizationto navigate" given to the
Ombudsman'sOffice andthe Ministry of
Health Personnel
English translationby Costa Rica 49 :. ..,IMAS Regional Managerin San Carlos, .. . 14August 2007
. . ... \.i .-. *?;..,-:>-
Marvin ChairezThomas, to ~icara~uan'"'
... Consulate, Ciudad Quesada, Jose Reinaldo . . '.I:
' ': ~&dfi~~~~ ~ifi&,N~t~ No. ~m-'188id8~()7 :<; <-:*,,?..rl , :.,.
. .: > ...\ :.. ... ,..>. ;: .:.
- . .. .
English transla.tio nb' 8ost.Ri>. , . .... . ,
, ; :., ., . ..'..
Annex Description Date
50 Leone1Morales Chac6n 30April 2007
English translationby Costa Rica
51 Carlos Lao Jarquin 28 July 2007
. . . ,.
' English translationby cdsta Rica . .
52 Jorge Manuel Lao Jarquin - 28 July 2007
,
English translationby Costa Rica
. .
...
53 Rodrigo~ntonio ~amora~rroio 28 July 2007
. .
English translationby Costa Rica
54 Victor JulioVargasHernandez, Marleny Rojas 29 July 2007
Vargas,Mario Salas JimCnezand Leonel
Morales Chac6n . .
English translationby Costa Rica
. .
55 Thais Ching Zamora 8August 2007
English translation by Costa Rica '
56 Marvin Chavez Thomas 5 November 2007
English translation by Costa Rica
57 Laura Navarro Rodriguez ' . 6 November 2007
English translationby Costa Rica -. . Press Reports
: .: :.:. -, . .
.:I, : .I. . ,. J .. . ..
Annex Title' ...:.... . . : '..Sourc. . :,. .; ... Date
...
.,..'.....'. ' .',,,;,..: ! ...t... .. I . ....
58 "New Army Po -sts ic the..S..a,, . . El, he?? : . 26 March
. .... ., ,
Juan River" .:, , .. . Diario, . . . , .. '2'07
English translation byCosta Rica Managua,
59 "Neighbours from the SanJuan A1Dia, 14May 2007
plea forhelp" . . San Jose
English translation byCosta Rica .
60 "_34 fee marks the end of local La hcidn, 10June 2007
tourism" an ~osk
English translationby Costa Rica
. .
61 "The SanJuan River should be El ~uevo 7 October
militarized" Diavio, 2007
Englishtranslation by CostaRica Managua
62 . "HealthAuthoritiesWatch La Nacidn, 30 October
the Northern Borderfor San Jose 2007
Leptospirosis"
Englishtranslation by costa Rica
OtherDocuments
Annex Description Date
63 Tablapara facilitar la eleccibn de 10sdiputados a ' 28 July 1820
Cortes
.Source:ArchivoNacional de CostaRica
64 NicoyaAct 25 July 1824
'Source: ArchivoNacional de Costa Rica.
English translationby Costa ~iba
65 Nicaraguan Constitution,Article I1 8April 1826
Source: P.PerezZeledon, Reply totheArgument
ofNicaragua on the Questionof the Validityor
Nullity to theTreatyofLimits ofApril 15, 1858,
(Washington,D.C.: Gibson ~ros, 1887),pp.107-
10866 F. Belly, A Travers L'Amkvique Centrale: le 1867
Nicaragua et le Canal Interockanique, Tome
Second (Paris: Librairie de la Suisse Romande,
1867),pp. 150-165
67 (a) "Departure Clearance Certificate" issued by 16April 1968
the Costa Rican Revenue Guard in Boca del rio
Sarapiquito a private citizen, 16April 1968
(b) "Departure Clearance Certificate" issued by 13June1968
the Costa Rican Revenue Guard in Boca del rio
Sarapiqui to a Costa Rican Park Ranger, 13 June
1968
Englishtranslationby Costa Rica
68 Speechby President of Nicaragua to the 14September
Diplomatic Corps 2005
Source:Nicaraguan Presidency
English translationby CostaRica
69 Nicaraguan PresidentialDecreeNo. 65-2005 of 29 September
28 September2005 2005
Source:Nicaraguan OfficialGazetteNo. 188of
29 September2005
English translationby Costa Rica
70 Nicaraguan Presidential DecreeNo. 97-2005 of 7 December 2005
2 December 2005
Source:Nicaraguan OfficialGazetteNo. 237 of
7 December 2005
English translation by CostaRica
71 "Departure clearance certificate"chargedto Jorge 25 October 2007
Lao
English translationby Costa Rica
72 (a) "Immigration dispatch" chargedto ~oi~eLao 25 October 2007
(b) "Transitpermit at border point" charged to.
Jorge Lao
English translationby Costa Rica
Reply of Costa Rica