Territorial disputes of Nicaragua

Territorial disputes of Nicaragua include the territorial dispute with Colombia over the Archipelago de San Andres y Providencia and Quita Sueno Bank. With respect to the maritime boundary question in the Golfo de Fonseca, the ICJ referred to the line determined by the 1900 Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Boundary Commission and advised that some tripartite resolution among El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua likely would be required. Nicaragua also has a maritime boundary dispute with Honduras in the Caribbean Sea and a boundary dispute over the Rio San Juan with Costa Rica.

San Andres y Providencia

See also: San Andrés y Providencia Department and Colombia-Nicaragua relations

Location of San Andres and Providencia in the Caribbean.

In 1670 the English corsair Henry Morgan took over the islands until 1689. In 1803, after Spain's Viceroyalty of New Granada had been reestablished in 1739, the archipelago and the province of Veraguas – covering the western territory of Panama and the eastern coast of Nicaragua – were added to its area of jurisdiction. In the later colonial era the territory was administered from the province of Cartagena.

After gaining its independence, the Republic of Gran Colombia occupied the islands in 1822 and transferred control over them to the department of Magdalena. Subsequently, the United Provinces of Central America (UPCA) did not recognize the occupation of the islands and claimed ownership over them, while Colombia in turn protested the UPCA's occupation of the eastern coast of modern day Nicaragua. The UPCA federation dissolved in civil war between 1838–1840 and the resulting state of Nicaragua carried on with the dispute, as did the Republic of the New Granada (made up of modern Colombia and Panama) that emerged from the dissolution of Gran Colombia.

Colombia later established a local administration ("intendencia") in the islands during 1912. The signing of the Esguerra-Bárcenas treaty in 1928 between both governments temporarily resolved the dispute in favor of Colombia. However, since 1980, when the Sandinista government assumed power in Nicaragua, a constitutional reform was enacted and the treaty was renounced.

Nicaraguans claim that the treaty was signed under United States pressure and military occupation and thus does not constitute a sovereign decision, while Colombia argues that the treaty's final ratification in 1930, when U.S. forces were already on their way out, confirms its validity.

In 2001 Nicaragua filed claims with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the disputed maritime boundary involving 50,000 km² in the Caribbean, which includes the islands of San Andrés and Providencia. Colombia has claimed that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the matter and has increased its naval and police presence in the islands. It has also prepared the legal defense of its case that will be presented before the tribunal. In a preliminary decision the Court has sided with Colombia on the question of sovereignty over the Islands (47 km²) but has agreed with Nicaragua that the rest of the maritime accidents is yet to be assitgned according to the law of the sea and that the 82nd meridian is according to the Nicaraguan government not a maritime border. the Court said the islands belong to Colombia but as far as the maritime border and that it had competency to set that border to rule a final verdict on the dispute. In addition, Colombia and Honduras signed a maritime boundary treaty in 1999 which implicitly accepts Colombian sovereignty over the islands.

Gulf of Fonseca

Gulf of Fonseca from space, July 1997

Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador have a coastline along the Gulf of Fonseca and have been involved in a lengthly dispute over the rights to the gulf and the islands located there within In 1992, a chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, of which the gulf dispute was a part. The ICJ determined that Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador were to share control of the Gulf of Fonseca. El Salvador was awarded the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita, and Honduras was awarded the island of El Tigre. Nicaragua was not a party to that dispute and is therefore not bound by the decision.

Boundary dispute along the San Juan River

According to the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, reaffirmed in arbitration by Grover Cleveland in 1888 and interpreted by the Central American Court of Justicie in 1916 (case Costa Rica vs. Nicaragua), Nicaragua is sovereign over the Río San Juan, and Costa Rica has the right to navigate over part of the river with articles for trade which in case of need, as determined by Nicaragua can be accompanied by revenue cutters. The treaty also states that no taxes would be imposed on Costa Rican trade in goods except those accepted by mutual agreement. A dispute emerged in 1998 when Nicaragua forbade the transit of Costa Rican policemen in the river, which Nicaragua claims to be a breach of sovereignty, and unilaterally imposed a 25 $ tax for any Costa Rican tourists who enter the San Juan river, as persons are not objects of trade but subjects of trade and are therefore, not covered by the treaty. These topics were settled by the 2009 International Court of Justice ruling.

Sketch of the Greytown (i.e., San Juan del Norte) harbor area, contained in the first arbitral award given by Gen. Edward Porter Alexander on Sep. 30, 1897, indicating the boundary line between Nicaragua and Costa Rica as determined by that award. Alexander had been assigned by U.S. president Grover Cleveland to resolve the ambiguities in the location of the frontier set by the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858.

Historically, the possibility that the Río San Juan might become the route for a Nicaragua Canal has exacerbated the dispute. The construction of the Panama Canal, as well as Nicaragua's current construction of a dry ecocanal has largely deflated this motive for friction.

On July 13, 2009, the International Court of Justice published its ruling:

File:ActaAlexander.jpg

Map, dated March 2, 1898, from the official proceedings of the binational commission presided by engineer arbitrator Gen. Edward Porter Alexander, to define the frontier between the Republics of Nicaragua and Costa Rican.

(1) As regards Costa Rica’s navigational rights on the San Juan river under the 1858 Treaty, in that part where navigation is common, the court finds: that Costa Rica has the right of free navigation on the San Juan river for purposes of commerce including the transport of passengers and the transport of tourists. That persons travelling on the San Juan river on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation are not required to obtain Nicaraguan visas or to purchase tourist cards. That the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river have the right to navigate on the river between the riparian communities for the purposes of the essential needs of everyday life which require expeditious transportation. That Costa Rica has the right of navigation on the San Juan river with official vessels used solely, in specific situations, to provide essential services for the inhabitants of the riparian areas where expeditious transportation is a condition for meeting the inhabitants’ requirements. That Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river with vessels carrying out police functions. That Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river for thepurposes of the exchange of personnel of the police border posts along the right bank of the river and of the re-supply of these posts, with official equipment, including service arms and ammunition.

(2) As regards Nicaragua’s right to regulate navigation on the San Juan river, in that part where navigation is common, the court finds that Nicaragua has the right to require Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to stop at the first and last Nicaraguan post on their route along the San Juan river; That Nicaragua has the right to require persons travelling on the San Juan river to carry a passport or an identity document; that Nicaragua has the right to issue departure clearance certificates to Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation but does not have the right to request the payment of a charge for the issuance of such certificates; that Nicaragua has the right to impose timetables for navigation on vessels navigating on the San Juan river; that Nicaragua has the right to require Costa Rican vessels fitted with masts or turrets to display the Nicaraguan flag;

(3) As regards subsistence fishing, the court Finds that fishing by the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river for subsistence purposes from that bank is to be respected by Nicaragua as a customary right;

(4) As regards Nicaragua’s compliance with its international obligations under the 1858 Treaty, the court finds that Nicaragua is not acting in accordance with its obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it requires persons travelling on the San Juan river on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to obtain Nicaraguan visas; when it requires persons travelling on the San Juan river on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards; and when it requires the operators of vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to pay charges for departure clearance certificates.

Map depicting the border lines in the area near San Juan del Norte, as disputed by Nicaragua and Costa Rica, Oct. 2010.

2010 Isla Calero dispute

Main article: 2010 Isla Calero dispute

In October 2010 began a dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua regarding the dredging of 33 kilometres (21 mi) of the San Juan River by the Nicaraguan government in the area of Isla Calero. Costa Rica claims that violation of its sovereignty took place as Nicaraguan troops had entered Costa Rican territory, and the dredging of the river caused environmental damage in the wetlands at Isla Calero, which is part of the island nature reserve, in an area that is owned by the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment. Nicaragua rejected all claims and replied that, in fact, Costa Ricans had been invading their territory. The Costa Rican government responded by sending 70 police reinforcements to the border area on October 22nd. Nicaragua stationed around 50 soldiers in Isla Calero

Costa Rica claimed it was a military incursion and presented a complaint before the Organization of American States (OAS). On November 12, by a vote of 22 to 2, the OAS ambassadors approved a resolution requesting Costa Rica and Nicaragua to pull out their troops from a conflict zone along their common border and to hold talks to settle their dispute. Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega discarded the possibility of withdrawing the troops and disregarded OAS resolution because his government considers that this organization does not have jurisdiction to resolve border disputes. On November 18, 2010, Costa Rica filed proceedings against Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice.

Historical disputes

In an 1825 plebiscite, the region of Partido de Nicoya chose to be part of Costa Rica, becoming Guanacaste Province. Costa Rica annexed Guanacaste, in exchange for giving up her claims to sovereignty over the San Juan River and the Canal Route. However, when tensions between the nations rise over Costa Rica's rights of navigation in the river, Nicaragua often brings up the topic of Guanacaste as a counterpoint to the argument.

See also

• Foreign relations of Nicaragua
• Colombia-Nicaragua relations
• History of Nicaragua

Further reading

• Case Concerning The Territorial Dispute Nicaragua V. Colombia. United Nations Publications. 2004. p. 8. ISBN 9210709837.

External links

• Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) International Court of Justice
• San Juan River -- Border dispute with Costa Rica and Nicaragua