The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica

Müller, Daniel

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_5

Daniel Müller³

862 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

The Treaty of Limits concluded between Nicaragua and Costa Rica in 1858 was aimed at determining the land boundary along the San Juan River and at establishing a specific regime of navigational rights in respect of part of this river. It became the source of constant differences and disputes between the two States. Some of these disputes concerning the interpretation and the application of the 1858 Treaty were submitted to arbitration in the late nineteenth century and to the Central American Court of Justice in the early twentieth century. Since 2005, both States have submitted four cases to the International Court of Justice concerning the course of the boundary determined in the 1858 Treaty and the scope of the navigational rights granted within this instrument.

Daniel Müller was part of the legal team representing the Republic of Nicaragua in the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). The views and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Republic of Nicaragua.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ladoga as a Gateway on the Road from the Varangians to the Greeks: Icelandic Sagas on Security Measures, Eleventh–Thirteenth Centuries

The Contribution of Benedetto Conforti to the International Law of the Sea

The Northern Sea Route: Solving Political and Legal Problems

Article 01 November 2020

Notes

1.
Application instituting proceedings, 28 July 1988, para 23(a).
2.
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Order of 19 August 1987, ICJ Reports 1987, p. 182.
3.
Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Application instituting proceedings, 25 February 2014.
4.
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2009, p. 213 (hereinafter ‘Navigational and Related Rights (Judgment)’).
5.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Joinder of Proceedings, Order of 17 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 166 (hereinafter ‘Certain Activities (Joinder)’); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Joinder of Proceedings, Order of 17 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 184 (hereinafter ‘Construction of a Road (Joinder)’).
6.
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment of 16 December 2015 (hereinafter ‘Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment)’).
7.
In Certain Activities and Construction of a Road, both States relied not only on the 1858 Treaty, but also on obligations arising under general international law in respect of the environment.
8.
Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Application instituting proceedings, 16 January 2017, para 3. In its Application, Costa Rica requested the Court to join the case concerning the land boundary and the case concerning the Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), which has been pending since 2014. Costa Rica opines: ‘The close relationship between this case and the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) will be readily apparent. It is manifest that the two cases should be joined. The two cases concern the same parties. They both concern the same geographic area where the two countries meet the Caribbean Sea. Moreover, the question of the present proceeding is closely related to the dispute in the Maritime Delimitation case, in that the two parties express different views as to the starting point of the maritime boundary in the Caribbean Sea. […] In order to proceed to the delimitation of maritime areas of the Parties in the Caribbean Sea, the prior settlement of this dispute is necessary.’ (ibid., para 24). The Court joined the two proceedings in its Order of 2 February 2017. Recalling its ‘broad margin of discretion’ under Article 47 of the Rules of Court and its previous case law (Order of 2 February 2017, para 16), the Court pointed out that ‘in view of the claims made by Costa Rica in the case concerning Isla Portillos and the close link between those claims and certain aspects of the dispute in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation, the proceedings in the two cases should be joined. Such a joinder will allow the Court to address simultaneously the totality of the various interrelated and contested issues raised by the Parties, including any questions of fact or law that are common to the disputes presented.’ (Order of 2 February 2017, para 17).
9.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 386, para 4.
10.
Award of the President of the United States in regard to the Validity of the Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua of 15 July 1858, Decision of 22 March 1888, RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 197–198 (hereinafter ‘Cleveland Award’).
11.
The Central American Court of Justice noted in 1916 that ‘since ancient times, [the San Juan River] has been looked upon as the artery that would some day be availed of to give life to the long projected canal’ (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 13 September 1916, reprinted in 11 AJIL 181 (1917), p. 221 (hereinafter ‘Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (1916 Judgment)’).
12.
Ibid., p. 198.
13.
Navigational and Related Rights, Memorial of Costa Rica, Vol. 2, Annex 7, p. 55 (English translation prepared by Nicaragua for the Cleveland Arbitration).
14.
Ibid., pp. 55–56.
15.
See Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1062, para 24 (‘Treaties or conventions which define boundaries in watercourses nowadays usually refer to the thalweg as the boundary when the watercourse is navigable and to the median line between the two banks when it is not, although it cannot be said that practice has been fully consistent.’) See also Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 149, para 149.
16.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment), supra n. 6, para 71.
17.
Navigational and Related Rights (Judgment), supra n. 4, p. 236, para 44. The Spanish original provides: ‘La República de Nicaragua tendrá exclusivamente el dominio y sumo imperio sobre las aguas del río de San Juan desde su salida del Lago, hasta su desembocadura en el Atlántico […]’.
18.
Ibid. The Spanish original provides: ‘[P]ero la República de Costa Rica tendrá en dichas aguas los derechos perpetuos de libre navegación, desde la expresada desembocadura hasta tres millas inglesas antes de llegar al Castillo Viejo, con objetos de comercio, ya sea con Nicaragua ó al interior de Costa Rica, por los ríos de San Carlos ó Sarapiquí, ó cualquiera otra vía procedente de la parte que en la ribera del San Juan se establece corresponder á esta República. Las embarcaciones de uno ú otro país podrán indistintamente atracar en las riberas del río en la parte en que la navegación es común, sin cobrarse ninguna clase de impuestos, á no ser que se establezcan de acuerdo entre ambos Gobiernos.’
19.
Treaty between Costa Rica and Nicaragua for the Arbitration of the Validity of the Boundary Treaty of 15 April 1858, Guatemala City, 24 December 1886 (Esquivel-Roman Treaty), BFSP, Vol. LXXVII, p. 476.
20.
Award of the President of the United States in regard to the Validity of the Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua of 15 July 1858, Decision of 22 March 1888, RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, p. 193 (Report of Assistant Secretary of State, G. L. Rives) (hereinafter ‘Rives Report’).
21.
Ibid., p. 202.
22.
Article 46 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides:

Article 46. Provisions of Internal Law Regarding Competence to Conclude Treaties

1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.
23.
Paragraph 6 of the commentary of Draft Article 43, YbILC 1966, Vol. II, Part two, p. 241.
24.
Rives Report, supra n. 20, p. 203. In his award, President Cleveland endorsed the findings and the reasoning of Rives, or at least, did not modify them.
25.
Ibid.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Ibid., p. 206.
29.
Ibid., p. 208.
30.
See ibid., p. 205.
31.
Ibid., p. 204.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Ibid., p. 205.
34.
Ibid., p. 206.
35.
See Navigational and Related Rights, Counter-Memorial of Nicaragua, Vol. 1, p. 122, para 3.1.49 and Vol. II, Annex 72.
36.
Cleveland Award, supra n. 10, p. 209.
37.
The first three issues concerned the course of the land boundary as defined under the 1858 Treaty.
38.
Cleveland Award, supra n. 10, p. 209.
39.
Ibid., p. 210.
40.
Ibid.
41.
See supra n. 19.
42.
Article VII of the 1886 Esquivel-Roman Treaty provides: ‘Whatever the decision of the Arbitration be, it shall be held to be obligatory between the Contracting Parties. No other recourse shall be admitted, and it shall come into force 30 days after it has been communicated to both Governments or to their Representative.’
43.
1886 Esquivel-Roman Treaty, supra n. 19, Article X. Article X provides further:

These measures, and the demarcation to which they refer, shall be done within 30 months from the date of the naming of the Commissioners.

These Commissioners shall be allowed to depart from the line laid down in the Treaty one mile in order to lay down natural lines or lines more distinguishable, but this deviation shall only be allowed when all the Commissioners are of one accord as to the point or points to be substituted.
44.
Navigational and Related Rights, Memorial of Costa Rica, Vol. 2, Annex 7, p. 55 (English translation prepared by Nicaragua for the Cleveland Arbitration).
45.
Convention on border demarcation concluded between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Nicaragua, El Salvador, 27 March 1896, reproduced in RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, p. 211.
46.
Ibid., Article I.
47.
Ibid., Article II.
48.
Award of 30 September 1897, RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 215–221 (hereinafter ‘Alexander First Award’); Award of 20 December 1897, RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 223–225 (hereinafter ‘Alexander Second Award’); Award of 22 March 1898, RIAA, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 227–230 (hereinafter ‘Alexander Third Award’).
49.
Alexander First Award, supra n. 48, p. 216.
50.
Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 February 2017, para 63.
51.
Alexander First Award, supra n. 48, p. 217.
52.
Ibid., pp. 218–219.
53.
Ibid., p. 217.
54.
Ibid., p. 219.
55.
Ibid., p. 217.
56.
Ibid., p. 220.
57.
Alexander Second Award, supra n. 48, p. 223.
58.
Ibid., p. 224.
59.
Ibid.
60.
Ibid.
61.
Alexander Third Award, supra n. 48, p. 227.
62.
Ibid., p. 227.
63.
Ibid., p. 228.
64.
Ibid., p. 228.
65.
Ibid., pp. 229 and 230.
66.
Ibid., p. 230.
67.
The International Court of Justice noted in this respect that ‘the navigability of watercourses varies greatly, depending on prevailing natural conditions. Those conditions can prevent the use of the watercourse in question by large vessels carrying substantial cargoes, but permit light flat-bottomed vessels to navigate’ (Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, ICJ Report 1999, p. 1071, para 40).
68.
Reproduced in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (1916 Judgment), p. 190.
69.
Ibid., p. 193.
70.
Cleveland Award, supra n. 10, p. 210.
71.
Ibid., pp. 210–211.
72.
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (1916 Judgment), p. 219. See also ibid., p. 224 (‘the Cañas-Jerez Treaty, far from having expired, stands ratified in its full vigor by the arbitral award of President Cleveland, to which decision the high parties concede the legal value of a perfect and obligatory treaty’).
73.
Ibid., p. 221.
74.
Ibid.
75.
Ibid., p. 222.
76.
Ibid., p. 223.
77.
Ibid., p. 229.
78.
Ibid., p. 202.
79.
Ibid., p. 212.
80.
UNTS, Vol. 1465, p. 233.
81.
Ibid.
82.
Navigational and Related Rights (Judgment), supra n. 4, p. 231, para 27.
83.
Ibid.
84.
Ibid., p. 225.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Ibid.
87.
Ibid., p. 231, para 28.
88.
Ibid., p. 226.
89.
Ibid.
90.
Ibid., p. 233, para 36.
91.
Ibid., p. 235, para 41 and p. 238, para 49.
92.
Ibid., p. 235, para 42.
93.
Ibid., p. 236, para 45.
94.
Ibid.
95.
UNTS, Vol. 1155, p. 331.
96.
Navigational and Related Rights (Judgment), supra n. 4, p. 231, para 27. See also Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 February 2017, para 63; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, para 33; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, pp. 109–10, para 160; Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1994, pp. 21–2, para 41; Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 812, para 23.
97.
Navigational and Related Rights (Judgment), supra n. 4, p. 237, para 47.
98.
Ibid., p. 239, para 52.
99.
Ibid., pp. 239–240, para 55.
100.
Ibid., p. 240, para 56.
101.
Ibid., p. 241, para 59.
102.
Ibid., p. 241, para 61.
103.
Ibid., p. 242, paras 63–64.
104.
Ibid., p. 244, para 71.
105.
Ibid., p. 247, para 80.
106.
Ibid., para 83.
107.
Ibid., p. 246, para 79.
108.
Ibid., p. 248, para 84.
109.
Ibid., p. 249, para 86.
110.
Ibid., para 87.
111.
Ibid., pp. 249–250, para 87(1)–(5).
112.
Ibid., p. 252, para 97.
113.
Ibid., pp. 254–259, paras 111–119.
114.
Ibid., pp. 259–261, paras 120–124.
115.
Ibid., pp. 261–262, paras 125–129.
116.
Ibid., pp. 262–263, paras 130–132.
117.
Ibid., pp. 254–255, paras 103–107.
118.
Ibid., pp. 255–256, paras 108–110.
119.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment), supra n. 6, para 65.
120.
Ibid., para 66.
121.
Ibid., para 68.
122.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 27, para 86(1).
123.
Ibid., p. 27, para 86(2).
124.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 369, para 59(2)(A).
125.
Ibid., para 59(2)(B).
126.
Ibid., paras 59(2)(C) and 59(2)(D).
127.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment), supra n. 6, paras 169–171.
128.
Certain Activities (Joinder), supra n. 5 and Construction of a Road (Joinder), supra n. 5. See the contribution of Sobenes E below.
129.
Ibid., respectively p. 170, para 18 and p. 187, para 12.
130.
Ibid., respectively p. 170, para 19 and p. 187, para 13.
131.
Ibid., respectively p. 170, paras 20–22 and p. 187, paras 14–16.
132.
Ibid., respectively pp. 170–171, para 23 and pp. 187–188, para 17.
133.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment), supra n. 6, paras 162 and 229(6).
134.
Ibid., para 229(7).
135.
Ibid., para 76.
136.
Ibid., para 81.
137.
Ibid., para 91—emphasis added.
138.
Ibid., para 92.
139.
Ibid., para 70.
140.
Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Avocat à la Cour, Docteur en droit, Paris, France
Daniel Müller

Authors

Daniel Müller
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Müller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Embassy of Nicaragua in The Hague, Den Haag, The Netherlands
Edgardo Sobenes Obregon
University Paris Nanterre, Paris, France
Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller, D. (2018). The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica. In: Sobenes Obregon, E., Samson, B. (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_5
Published: 22 November 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62961-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62962-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics