El Debate de de hoy en canal 6 estuvo bastante parejo entre los cuatro candidatos principales, esto porque cada uno en su oportunidad tuvieron buenos momentos.
Se noto que los otros tres candidatos usaron a Otto Guevara de blanco de sus ataques ya que cada uno de ellos se concentraron en el candidato del Movimiento Libertario, lo que demuestra una clara aceptación entre todos que la brecha entre los primeros dos lugares se acorta cada día mas.
Luis Fishman del Partido Unidad Social Cristiano (PUSC)por su parte uso una estrategia de acercamiento con Otton Solis del Partido Acción Ciudadana(PAC)sin embargo la distancia entre el segundo y tercer puesto es bastante y los dos candidatos que tienen la unica posibilidad de quedar electos en estas elecciones son Laura Chinchilla de Liberación Nacional(PLN) y Otto Guevara del Movimiento Libertario.
Una siga apostando a la continuidad en el gobierno y el otro al cambio.
A pocos días de las elecciones, pronto se sabrá si tenemos un cambio o no, el pueblo decidirá.
The Presidential debate today on channel 6 was very close among all four of the main candidates, because each one had certain high points this time.
Three of the candidates used Otto Guevara as their target in their attacks, they concentrateted on the candidate of the Libertarian Movement( ML), this shows us a clear aceptance that the space among the first and second place of these elections is getting narrower by the day.
Luis Fishman of the United Social Christian Party (PUSC)used a strategy of appearing a closeness with Otton Solis of the Citizens Acción Party (PAC)however there is a significant distance among the second and third place candidates and the only ones with a true chance of winning the elections this year are Laura Chinchilla or the Partido de Liberación Nacional (PLN) and Otto Guevara of the Libertarian MovementParty (ML) of which one bets on the continuity of the actual government and the other promotes a change.
In a few days we will know if we will have a change or not, the people of Costa Rica will decide.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Debate Otto, Laura y Otton, canal 7
El debate entre candidatos para la presidencia de Costa Rica anoche entre los primeros tres lugares Laura Chinchilla, Otto Guevara y Otton Solis fue muy esperado, estuvo bastante activo, entre los tres candidatos se destaco Otto Guevara haciendo reclamos y pidiendo respuestas a Laura Chinchilla sobre el gobierno actual y sobre sus actuaciones como diputada y ministra.
Laura Chinchilla por su parte se preocupó mas por defender al gobierno y a ella misma de sus actuaciones, dijo que necesitaba otros cuatro años para mejorar el trabajo que ha estado haciendo su partido.
Otton Solis por su parte tuvo una participacion menos activa aunque habló directamente acerca de los fallos del actual gobierno y ataco tambien a Chinchilla en varais actuaciones anteriores, tambien ataco a Otto pero con menos enfasis.
El dabate fue una sintesis de los reclamos que tienen muchos costarricenses con el gobierno, se noto a una Laura un poco nerviosa al principio, pero esos nervious fueron desapareciendo con el tiempo, Otto Guevara habló bastante claro y preciso en sus reclamos y Otton Solis tambien habló muy articulado.
En algunos momentos tambien hubo algunos comentarios venenosos entre los tres candidatos cuando Otto Guevara le contestó a Otton diciendole que no era estudioso cuando este ultimo le reclamaba algunos rumores acerca del pensamiento libertario y su plan de gobierno.
En algun momento Otton Solis trato de actuar como mediador y moderador, Laura por su parte actuó como la candidata que destaco algunos programas de gobierno y Guevara actuó mas como denunciante diciendo que lo que no hicieron en cuatro años no lo van a hacer ahora.
Laura Chinchilla por su parte se preocupó mas por defender al gobierno y a ella misma de sus actuaciones, dijo que necesitaba otros cuatro años para mejorar el trabajo que ha estado haciendo su partido.
Otton Solis por su parte tuvo una participacion menos activa aunque habló directamente acerca de los fallos del actual gobierno y ataco tambien a Chinchilla en varais actuaciones anteriores, tambien ataco a Otto pero con menos enfasis.
El dabate fue una sintesis de los reclamos que tienen muchos costarricenses con el gobierno, se noto a una Laura un poco nerviosa al principio, pero esos nervious fueron desapareciendo con el tiempo, Otto Guevara habló bastante claro y preciso en sus reclamos y Otton Solis tambien habló muy articulado.
En algunos momentos tambien hubo algunos comentarios venenosos entre los tres candidatos cuando Otto Guevara le contestó a Otton diciendole que no era estudioso cuando este ultimo le reclamaba algunos rumores acerca del pensamiento libertario y su plan de gobierno.
En algun momento Otton Solis trato de actuar como mediador y moderador, Laura por su parte actuó como la candidata que destaco algunos programas de gobierno y Guevara actuó mas como denunciante diciendo que lo que no hicieron en cuatro años no lo van a hacer ahora.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Volcan Turrialba hechando ceniza
El Volcan Turrialba ha estado hechando ceniza y columnas de humo, se han evacuado a varias personas que estan en las cercanias del volcan, otras todavia se han quedado al la espera y en alerta de cualquier otro cambio en el volcan, todavia no ha votado magma ni lava pero la actividad interna se ha sentido bastante igual que el olor a azufre y los movimientos constantes en los alrededores del colosso.
Aunque las autoridades no quieren alarmar a la población, ya hay una alerta amarilla lo que significa que las comisiones de emergencias ya se estan reuniendo y planeando las acciones en caso de una emergencia.
Espermos que no pase a mas.
Aunque las autoridades no quieren alarmar a la población, ya hay una alerta amarilla lo que significa que las comisiones de emergencias ya se estan reuniendo y planeando las acciones en caso de una emergencia.
Espermos que no pase a mas.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Interview on Michael Jackson and celebrities Channel 7 Costa Rica
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzi1ACiShvo
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Hague International Court of Justice, Río San Juan dispute.
The Court rules on Costa Rica’s right of free navigation and
Nicaragua’s power of regulation over the San Juan river
THE HAGUE, 13 July 2009. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).
In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court,
(1) As regards Costa Rica’s navigational rights on the San Juan river under the 1858 Treaty,in that part where navigation is common,
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica has the right of free navigation on the San Juan river for purposes of commerce;
⎯ Finds unanimously that the right of navigation for purposes of commerce enjoyed by
Costa Rica includes the transport of passengers;
⎯ Finds unanimously that the right of navigation for purposes of commerce enjoyed by
Costa Rica includes the transport of tourists;
⎯ Finds by nine votes to five 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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 purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards;
⎯ Finds by thirteen votes to one 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;
⎯ Finds by twelve votes to two 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river with vessels carrying out police functions;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river for the purposes 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; As regards Nicaragua’s right to regulate navigation on the San Juan river, in that part where navigation is common,
⎯ Finds unanimously 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua has the right to require persons travelling on the San Juan river to carry a passport or an identity document;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua has the right to impose timetables for navigation on vessels navigating on the San Juan river;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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,
⎯ Finds by thirteen votes to one 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,
Finds by nine votes to five 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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 purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua is not acting in accordance with its obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it requires the operators of vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to pay charges for departure clearance certificates;
⎯ Rejects unanimously all other submissions presented by Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
- 3 -
Reasoning of the Court
The Court recalls that the dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua concerns the
navigational and related rights of Costa Rica on the section of the San Juan river which runs from a point three English miles below Castillo Viejo to the mouth of the river at the Caribbean Sea. The
Court points out that it is not contested that the section of the river thus defined belongs to
Nicaragua, since the border lies on the Costa Rican bank, with Costa Rica possessing a right of free navigation. However, the Parties differ both as to the legal basis of that right and, above all, as to
its precise extent.
1. The extent of Costa Rica’s right of free navigation on the San Juan river
(a) The meaning and scope of the expression “libre navegación . . . con objetos de comercio”
The Court considers that the 1858 Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
completely defines the rules applicable to the section of the San Juan river that is in dispute in respect of navigation. It observes that Article VI of the Treaty in particular grants Costa Rica, on
the section of the river which follows the border between the two States, a perpetual right of free navigation “con objetos de comercio”. It notes that the Parties are in deep disagreement as to the
meaning of that phrase.
The Court has first to determine whether the phrase “con objetos de” means “for the
purposes of” ⎯ as Costa Rica contends ⎯ or “with articles of” ⎯ as Nicaragua contends. The Court is of the view that the interpretation advocated by Nicaragua cannot be upheld. The main
reason for this is that ascribing the meaning “with goods” or “with articles” to the phrase “con objetos” results in rendering meaningless the entire sentence in which the phrase appears. The
Court is of the view, by contrast, that Costa Rica’s interpretation of the words “con objetos” allows the entire sentence to be given coherent meaning. It finds that the expression “con objetos de
comercio” means “for the purposes of commerce”.
The Court then has to determine the meaning to be ascribed to the word “commerce” in the context of Article VI of the Treaty, so that the exact extent of the right of free navigation can be defined. The Court notes, first, that the term “comercio” is a generic term, referring to a class of activity. Second, it points out that the Treaty was entered into for an unlimited duration; from the outset it was intended to create a legal régime characterized by its perpetuity. The Court infers
from this that the term “comercio” must be understood to have the meaning it bears on each occasion on which the Treaty is to be applied, and not necessarily its original meaning. The Court accordingly finds that the right of free navigation applies to the transport of persons as well as the
transport of goods, as the activity of transporting persons can be commercial in nature nowadays, if a price (other than a token price) is paid to the carrier by the passengers or on their behalf.
(b) The activities covered by Costa Rica’s right of free navigation
Two types of private navigation are covered by the right of free navigation pursuant to Article VI of the 1858 Treaty: the navigation of vessels carrying goods intended for commercial transactions and that of vessels carrying passengers who pay a price other than a token price (or for
whom a price is paid) in exchange for the service thus provided.
The navigation of vessels belonging to the inhabitants of villages on the Costa Rican bank of the river in order to meet the basic requirements of everyday life, such as taking children to school
or in order to give or receive medical treatment, is also protected by the right of free navigation, not by Article VI, but by other provisions of the 1858 Treaty.
- 4 -
The navigation of official vessels, vessels which are the property of the Republic of Costa Rica, is not covered by the right of free navigation pursuant to Article VI of the 1858 Treaty unless it is undertaken for the “purposes of commerce”. The Court is of the opinion that, as a general rule,
the navigation of Costa Rican vessels for the purposes of public order activities and public services with no object of financial gain, in particular police vessels, lies outside the scope of Article VI of
the 1858 Treaty. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the navigation of Costa Rican official vessels used solely for the purpose of providing the population living on the river bank with what it
needs in order to meet the necessities of daily life is covered by the right of navigation such as it can be inferred from the provisions of the 1858 Treaty as a whole.
2. Nicaragua’s power of regulation of navigation
(a) General observations The Court notes that Nicaragua has the power to regulate navigation on the section of the San Juan river on which Costa Rica enjoys a right of free navigation. In its view that power is not unlimited. Indeed, a regulation is to have the following characteristics: it must only subject the
activity to certain rules without rendering impossible or substantially impeding the exercise of the right of free navigation; it must be consistent with the terms of the Treaty; it must have a legitimate purpose; it must not be discriminatory; and it must not be unreasonable. Moreover, the Court is of the opinion that Nicaragua is under an obligation to notify Costa Rica of the regulations
which it makes regarding the navigational régime on the San Juan river. That obligation does not however extend to notice or consultation prior to the adoption by Nicaragua of such regulations.
(b) The legality of the specific Nicaraguan measures challenged by Costa Rica
(i) Requirement to stop and identification: the Court is of the opinion that Nicaragua, as sovereign, has the right to know the identity of those entering its territory and also to know that they have left. The power to require the production of a passport or identity document of some kind is a legitimate part of the exercise of such a power. Nicaragua also has related responsibilities in respect of law enforcement and environmentalprotection. To that extent, the Nicaraguan requirement that vessels stop on entering the river and leaving it and that they be subject to search is lawful. The Court cannot,
however, see any legal justification for a general requirement that vessels continuing
along the San Juan river, for example from the San Carlos river to the Colorado river, stop at any intermediate point.
(ii) Departure clearance certificates: the Court considers that the requirement on vessels navigating on the river to obtain departure clearance certificates, for legitimate reasons of navigational safety, environmental protection and criminal law enforcement, does not appear to have imposed any significant impediment on the exercise of Costa Rica’s
freedom of navigation.
(iii) Visas and tourist cards: the Court recalls that the power of a State to issue or refuse a visa entails discretion. However in the present case Nicaragua may not impose a visa requirement on those persons who may benefit from Costa Rica’s right of free navigation.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that the imposition of a visa requirement is a
breach of the right pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty. The Court adds that Nicaragua is entitled to refuse entry to the river to a particular person for reasons of law enforcement and environmental protection. In such circumstances, it is not a breach of the right of free navigation. As for the requirement by Nicaragua that tourist cards be obtained, the Court observes that this does not appear to be intended to facilitate Nicaragua’s control over entry into the San Juan river. It notes that in the course of the proceedings Nicaragua
referred to no legitimate purpose as justification for imposing this requirement. The Court consequently finds that the requirement that passengers wishing to travel on Costa Rican vessels which are exercising Costa Rica’s freedom of navigation on the river must first purchase tourist cards is inconsistent with that right to freedom of navigation. (iv) Charges: as for the claim by Costa Rica concerning the payment of charges for the issuance of departure clearance certificates, the Court finds that, while Nicaragua has the right to inspect vessels on the San Juan river for safety, environmental and law enforcement reasons, those measures do not include the provision of any service to boat
operators. The Court considers that, in respect of Costa Rican vessels exercising freedom of navigation on the river, the payment must thus be seen as unlawful.
(v) Timetabling: the Court recalls that the exercise of a power to regulate may legitimately include placing limits on the activity in question. The limited evidence before the Court does not demonstrate any extensive use of the river for night time navigation. The Court thus infers that the interference with Costa Rica’s freedom to navigate caused by the
prohibition of night time navigation imposed by Nicaragua is limited and therefore does not amount to an unlawful impediment to that freedom, particularly when the purposes of the regulation are considered.
(vi) Flags: the Court considers that Nicaragua, which has sovereignty over the San Juan river, may, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, require Costa Rican vessels fitted with masts or turrets navigating on the river to fly its flag. This requirement cannot in any respect be
considered an impediment to the exercise of the freedom of navigation of Costa Rican
vessels under the 1858 Treaty.
(vii) Conclusion: the Court concludes that it follows from the above that Nicaragua has exercised its powers of regulation regarding the matters discussed under points (i), (ii), (v)
and (vi) above in conformity with the 1858 Treaty; but that it is not acting in conformity with the obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it implements measures requiring visas and tourist cards and the payment of charges in respect of vessels, boat operators and their passengers exercising the freedom of navigation.
3. Subsistence fishing For the Court, the failure of Nicaragua to deny the existence of a right arising from the practice of subsistence fishing, which had continued undisturbed and unquestioned over a very long period, is particularly significant. The Court accordingly concludes that Costa Rica has a
customary right which Nicaragua is obliged to respect with regard to the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river who engage in fishing for subsistence purposes from that bank.
4. The claims made by the Parties in their final submissions
The Court declares in particular that it will uphold the Parties’ claims in the operative part of the Judgment to the extent that they correspond to the preceding reasoning and will dismiss the others.
- 6 -
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Owada; Judges Shi, Koroma,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov,
Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood; Judge ad hoc Guillaume; Registrar Couvreur.
Judges Sepúlveda-Amor and Skotnikov append separate opinions to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge ad hoc Guillaume appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.
*
A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No. 2009/4”. In addition,
this press release, the summary and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s
website (www.icj-cij.org) under “Cases”.
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Barbara Dalsbaek, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0) 70 302 2396)
Nicaragua’s power of regulation over the San Juan river
THE HAGUE, 13 July 2009. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).
In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court,
(1) As regards Costa Rica’s navigational rights on the San Juan river under the 1858 Treaty,in that part where navigation is common,
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica has the right of free navigation on the San Juan river for purposes of commerce;
⎯ Finds unanimously that the right of navigation for purposes of commerce enjoyed by
Costa Rica includes the transport of passengers;
⎯ Finds unanimously that the right of navigation for purposes of commerce enjoyed by
Costa Rica includes the transport of tourists;
⎯ Finds by nine votes to five 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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 purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards;
⎯ Finds by thirteen votes to one 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;
⎯ Finds by twelve votes to two 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river with vessels carrying out police functions;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river for the purposes 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; As regards Nicaragua’s right to regulate navigation on the San Juan river, in that part where navigation is common,
⎯ Finds unanimously 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua has the right to require persons travelling on the San Juan river to carry a passport or an identity document;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua has the right to impose timetables for navigation on vessels navigating on the San Juan river;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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,
⎯ Finds by thirteen votes to one 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,
Finds by nine votes to five 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;
⎯ Finds unanimously 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 purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards;
⎯ Finds unanimously that Nicaragua is not acting in accordance with its obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it requires the operators of vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to pay charges for departure clearance certificates;
⎯ Rejects unanimously all other submissions presented by Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
- 3 -
Reasoning of the Court
The Court recalls that the dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua concerns the
navigational and related rights of Costa Rica on the section of the San Juan river which runs from a point three English miles below Castillo Viejo to the mouth of the river at the Caribbean Sea. The
Court points out that it is not contested that the section of the river thus defined belongs to
Nicaragua, since the border lies on the Costa Rican bank, with Costa Rica possessing a right of free navigation. However, the Parties differ both as to the legal basis of that right and, above all, as to
its precise extent.
1. The extent of Costa Rica’s right of free navigation on the San Juan river
(a) The meaning and scope of the expression “libre navegación . . . con objetos de comercio”
The Court considers that the 1858 Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
completely defines the rules applicable to the section of the San Juan river that is in dispute in respect of navigation. It observes that Article VI of the Treaty in particular grants Costa Rica, on
the section of the river which follows the border between the two States, a perpetual right of free navigation “con objetos de comercio”. It notes that the Parties are in deep disagreement as to the
meaning of that phrase.
The Court has first to determine whether the phrase “con objetos de” means “for the
purposes of” ⎯ as Costa Rica contends ⎯ or “with articles of” ⎯ as Nicaragua contends. The Court is of the view that the interpretation advocated by Nicaragua cannot be upheld. The main
reason for this is that ascribing the meaning “with goods” or “with articles” to the phrase “con objetos” results in rendering meaningless the entire sentence in which the phrase appears. The
Court is of the view, by contrast, that Costa Rica’s interpretation of the words “con objetos” allows the entire sentence to be given coherent meaning. It finds that the expression “con objetos de
comercio” means “for the purposes of commerce”.
The Court then has to determine the meaning to be ascribed to the word “commerce” in the context of Article VI of the Treaty, so that the exact extent of the right of free navigation can be defined. The Court notes, first, that the term “comercio” is a generic term, referring to a class of activity. Second, it points out that the Treaty was entered into for an unlimited duration; from the outset it was intended to create a legal régime characterized by its perpetuity. The Court infers
from this that the term “comercio” must be understood to have the meaning it bears on each occasion on which the Treaty is to be applied, and not necessarily its original meaning. The Court accordingly finds that the right of free navigation applies to the transport of persons as well as the
transport of goods, as the activity of transporting persons can be commercial in nature nowadays, if a price (other than a token price) is paid to the carrier by the passengers or on their behalf.
(b) The activities covered by Costa Rica’s right of free navigation
Two types of private navigation are covered by the right of free navigation pursuant to Article VI of the 1858 Treaty: the navigation of vessels carrying goods intended for commercial transactions and that of vessels carrying passengers who pay a price other than a token price (or for
whom a price is paid) in exchange for the service thus provided.
The navigation of vessels belonging to the inhabitants of villages on the Costa Rican bank of the river in order to meet the basic requirements of everyday life, such as taking children to school
or in order to give or receive medical treatment, is also protected by the right of free navigation, not by Article VI, but by other provisions of the 1858 Treaty.
- 4 -
The navigation of official vessels, vessels which are the property of the Republic of Costa Rica, is not covered by the right of free navigation pursuant to Article VI of the 1858 Treaty unless it is undertaken for the “purposes of commerce”. The Court is of the opinion that, as a general rule,
the navigation of Costa Rican vessels for the purposes of public order activities and public services with no object of financial gain, in particular police vessels, lies outside the scope of Article VI of
the 1858 Treaty. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the navigation of Costa Rican official vessels used solely for the purpose of providing the population living on the river bank with what it
needs in order to meet the necessities of daily life is covered by the right of navigation such as it can be inferred from the provisions of the 1858 Treaty as a whole.
2. Nicaragua’s power of regulation of navigation
(a) General observations The Court notes that Nicaragua has the power to regulate navigation on the section of the San Juan river on which Costa Rica enjoys a right of free navigation. In its view that power is not unlimited. Indeed, a regulation is to have the following characteristics: it must only subject the
activity to certain rules without rendering impossible or substantially impeding the exercise of the right of free navigation; it must be consistent with the terms of the Treaty; it must have a legitimate purpose; it must not be discriminatory; and it must not be unreasonable. Moreover, the Court is of the opinion that Nicaragua is under an obligation to notify Costa Rica of the regulations
which it makes regarding the navigational régime on the San Juan river. That obligation does not however extend to notice or consultation prior to the adoption by Nicaragua of such regulations.
(b) The legality of the specific Nicaraguan measures challenged by Costa Rica
(i) Requirement to stop and identification: the Court is of the opinion that Nicaragua, as sovereign, has the right to know the identity of those entering its territory and also to know that they have left. The power to require the production of a passport or identity document of some kind is a legitimate part of the exercise of such a power. Nicaragua also has related responsibilities in respect of law enforcement and environmentalprotection. To that extent, the Nicaraguan requirement that vessels stop on entering the river and leaving it and that they be subject to search is lawful. The Court cannot,
however, see any legal justification for a general requirement that vessels continuing
along the San Juan river, for example from the San Carlos river to the Colorado river, stop at any intermediate point.
(ii) Departure clearance certificates: the Court considers that the requirement on vessels navigating on the river to obtain departure clearance certificates, for legitimate reasons of navigational safety, environmental protection and criminal law enforcement, does not appear to have imposed any significant impediment on the exercise of Costa Rica’s
freedom of navigation.
(iii) Visas and tourist cards: the Court recalls that the power of a State to issue or refuse a visa entails discretion. However in the present case Nicaragua may not impose a visa requirement on those persons who may benefit from Costa Rica’s right of free navigation.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that the imposition of a visa requirement is a
breach of the right pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty. The Court adds that Nicaragua is entitled to refuse entry to the river to a particular person for reasons of law enforcement and environmental protection. In such circumstances, it is not a breach of the right of free navigation. As for the requirement by Nicaragua that tourist cards be obtained, the Court observes that this does not appear to be intended to facilitate Nicaragua’s control over entry into the San Juan river. It notes that in the course of the proceedings Nicaragua
referred to no legitimate purpose as justification for imposing this requirement. The Court consequently finds that the requirement that passengers wishing to travel on Costa Rican vessels which are exercising Costa Rica’s freedom of navigation on the river must first purchase tourist cards is inconsistent with that right to freedom of navigation. (iv) Charges: as for the claim by Costa Rica concerning the payment of charges for the issuance of departure clearance certificates, the Court finds that, while Nicaragua has the right to inspect vessels on the San Juan river for safety, environmental and law enforcement reasons, those measures do not include the provision of any service to boat
operators. The Court considers that, in respect of Costa Rican vessels exercising freedom of navigation on the river, the payment must thus be seen as unlawful.
(v) Timetabling: the Court recalls that the exercise of a power to regulate may legitimately include placing limits on the activity in question. The limited evidence before the Court does not demonstrate any extensive use of the river for night time navigation. The Court thus infers that the interference with Costa Rica’s freedom to navigate caused by the
prohibition of night time navigation imposed by Nicaragua is limited and therefore does not amount to an unlawful impediment to that freedom, particularly when the purposes of the regulation are considered.
(vi) Flags: the Court considers that Nicaragua, which has sovereignty over the San Juan river, may, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, require Costa Rican vessels fitted with masts or turrets navigating on the river to fly its flag. This requirement cannot in any respect be
considered an impediment to the exercise of the freedom of navigation of Costa Rican
vessels under the 1858 Treaty.
(vii) Conclusion: the Court concludes that it follows from the above that Nicaragua has exercised its powers of regulation regarding the matters discussed under points (i), (ii), (v)
and (vi) above in conformity with the 1858 Treaty; but that it is not acting in conformity with the obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it implements measures requiring visas and tourist cards and the payment of charges in respect of vessels, boat operators and their passengers exercising the freedom of navigation.
3. Subsistence fishing For the Court, the failure of Nicaragua to deny the existence of a right arising from the practice of subsistence fishing, which had continued undisturbed and unquestioned over a very long period, is particularly significant. The Court accordingly concludes that Costa Rica has a
customary right which Nicaragua is obliged to respect with regard to the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river who engage in fishing for subsistence purposes from that bank.
4. The claims made by the Parties in their final submissions
The Court declares in particular that it will uphold the Parties’ claims in the operative part of the Judgment to the extent that they correspond to the preceding reasoning and will dismiss the others.
- 6 -
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Owada; Judges Shi, Koroma,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov,
Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood; Judge ad hoc Guillaume; Registrar Couvreur.
Judges Sepúlveda-Amor and Skotnikov append separate opinions to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge ad hoc Guillaume appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.
*
A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No. 2009/4”. In addition,
this press release, the summary and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s
website (www.icj-cij.org) under “Cases”.
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Barbara Dalsbaek, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0) 70 302 2396)
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Costa Rica ----- Happiest place on Earth
Costa Rica tops happiness, 'green living' poll
SAN JOSE (AFP) - Costa Rica is the happiest place on earth, and one of the most environmentally friendly, according to a new survey by a British non-governmental group.
The New Economics Foundation looked at 143 countries that are home to 99 percent of the world's population and devised an equation that weighed life expectancy and people's happiness against their environmental impact.
By that formula, Costa Rica is the happiest, greenest country in the world, just ahead of the Dominican Republic.
Latin American countries did well in the survey, occupying nine of the top 10 spots.
Australia scored third place, but other major Western nations did poorly, with Britain coming in at 74th place and the United States at 114th.
The New Economics Foundation's measurements found Costa Ricans have a life expectancy of 78.5 years, and 85 percent of the country's residents say they are happy and satisfied with their lives.
Those figures, taken along with the fact that Costa Rica has a small "ecological footprint," combined to push the small nation to the top of the list.
A 2006 New Economics Foundation study designated Vanuatu the world's happiest nation, with Costa Rica at second place.
Sociologist Andrea Fonseca said Costa Rica gives its citizens the "tools" to be happy, but cautioned that happiness cannot be calculated just by looking at life expectancy and environmental practices.
She added that the country's rise to the top of the Happy Planet Index "has a lot to do with social imagination."
Costa Rica has a peaceful reputation because it does not have an army, and is also known for its protected ecological zones and national slogan "pure life," she said.
SAN JOSE (AFP) - Costa Rica is the happiest place on earth, and one of the most environmentally friendly, according to a new survey by a British non-governmental group.
The New Economics Foundation looked at 143 countries that are home to 99 percent of the world's population and devised an equation that weighed life expectancy and people's happiness against their environmental impact.
By that formula, Costa Rica is the happiest, greenest country in the world, just ahead of the Dominican Republic.
Latin American countries did well in the survey, occupying nine of the top 10 spots.
Australia scored third place, but other major Western nations did poorly, with Britain coming in at 74th place and the United States at 114th.
The New Economics Foundation's measurements found Costa Ricans have a life expectancy of 78.5 years, and 85 percent of the country's residents say they are happy and satisfied with their lives.
Those figures, taken along with the fact that Costa Rica has a small "ecological footprint," combined to push the small nation to the top of the list.
A 2006 New Economics Foundation study designated Vanuatu the world's happiest nation, with Costa Rica at second place.
Sociologist Andrea Fonseca said Costa Rica gives its citizens the "tools" to be happy, but cautioned that happiness cannot be calculated just by looking at life expectancy and environmental practices.
She added that the country's rise to the top of the Happy Planet Index "has a lot to do with social imagination."
Costa Rica has a peaceful reputation because it does not have an army, and is also known for its protected ecological zones and national slogan "pure life," she said.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Presidente de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya desterrado de su país.
El Presidente Manuel Zelaya arribo a Costa Rica hoy momentos después de ser derrocado por su misma gente cuando quiso copiar las artimañas de otros colegas de Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador.
Al pretender hacer una nueva constitución para beneficiarse, el pueblo Hondureño que se caracteriza por ser defensores de sus ideales de democracia y libertad no permitió que su presidente se convirtiera en dictador.
Inmediatamente el ejercito nacional Hondureño captó la preocupación de muchos de sus ciudadanos, los militares lo sacaron en Pijamas de su casa y lo escoltaron a Nuestro País.
Hoy mismo sale hacia Nicaragua para participar en la cumbre de SICA con otros presidentes.
Entre 9 y 6 de la mañana hay un toque de queda en todo el país según autoridades Hondureñas han notificado a la población.
Esta claro que Honduras no permite dictadores que pretenden consolidarse enternamente en el poder, algunos lideres políticos se enamoran del poder y luego no quieren soltarla, tienen la cáscara de poner su voluntad sobre la de el pueblo que los eligió.
El Ejercito Hondureño esta cumpliendo con su deber de defender la constitución de su país y no va a permitir a nadie que la viole aunque sea su propio presidente el que intente violarla.
Lastima que el ejercito Venezolano no tiene los huevos que tienen en el ejercito de Honduras.
Al pretender hacer una nueva constitución para beneficiarse, el pueblo Hondureño que se caracteriza por ser defensores de sus ideales de democracia y libertad no permitió que su presidente se convirtiera en dictador.
Inmediatamente el ejercito nacional Hondureño captó la preocupación de muchos de sus ciudadanos, los militares lo sacaron en Pijamas de su casa y lo escoltaron a Nuestro País.
Hoy mismo sale hacia Nicaragua para participar en la cumbre de SICA con otros presidentes.
Entre 9 y 6 de la mañana hay un toque de queda en todo el país según autoridades Hondureñas han notificado a la población.
Esta claro que Honduras no permite dictadores que pretenden consolidarse enternamente en el poder, algunos lideres políticos se enamoran del poder y luego no quieren soltarla, tienen la cáscara de poner su voluntad sobre la de el pueblo que los eligió.
El Ejercito Hondureño esta cumpliendo con su deber de defender la constitución de su país y no va a permitir a nadie que la viole aunque sea su propio presidente el que intente violarla.
Lastima que el ejercito Venezolano no tiene los huevos que tienen en el ejercito de Honduras.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
President Manuel Zelaya kicked out of his country
President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was kicked out of his country and brought to Costa Rica moments after trying to imitate the sneaky habits of some of his collegues from Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.
He is trying to change the nations constitution to Benefit himself by allowing himself to be reelected indefintely just like President Chaves did with his country.
The people from Honduras who are well known for defending their ideals, their democracy and their freedom did not allow their president to become a dictador.
The national army immediatly was able to recognize the worries of their citizens and act accordingly without delays, the military did good in removing the President in his pijamas and kicking him out of the country before it was too late.
It is clear that Honduras will not tolerate wanna be dictators, some leaders start out well and then fall in love with power and their political job and don´t want to let go, trying to make their will more important than the will of the people who elected them.
The Honduran army is defending their freedom, their constitution and won´t allow anyone to break there laws, even if it´s the president who thinks he is above the law.
Too bad the Venezuelan army doesn´t have the balls that the Honduran army has.
He is trying to change the nations constitution to Benefit himself by allowing himself to be reelected indefintely just like President Chaves did with his country.
The people from Honduras who are well known for defending their ideals, their democracy and their freedom did not allow their president to become a dictador.
The national army immediatly was able to recognize the worries of their citizens and act accordingly without delays, the military did good in removing the President in his pijamas and kicking him out of the country before it was too late.
It is clear that Honduras will not tolerate wanna be dictators, some leaders start out well and then fall in love with power and their political job and don´t want to let go, trying to make their will more important than the will of the people who elected them.
The Honduran army is defending their freedom, their constitution and won´t allow anyone to break there laws, even if it´s the president who thinks he is above the law.
Too bad the Venezuelan army doesn´t have the balls that the Honduran army has.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Meeting Michael Jackson
I had the opportunity to meet Miachael Jackson in person on several occasions, one of those occasions was the night of the Oscar awards, after the ceremony, we were at Liza Minnelis father s´ house at a party which I had gone to along with some friends.
We took some photos there and had a chance to talk to Michael for a while, afterwards we said good bye and left, later on that same night we were at another celebrity event and Michael went by in his red limo.
We decided to follow him, my mopther was acomanying me that evening, we arrived to another house in the Hollywood Hills, I got closer to him and when he saw that it was the same Photographer that he had met earlier he relaxed a bit.
Liza was with him and the Chofer/body guard..... Michael entered the hosue and Liza waited outside in the car, she invited me to sit inside while he came out.
About 10 minutes later, he came out and and we cahtted a little more, I told him that I would like a few autographs, one for my Mom and he happily signed several fotos, a couple of Thriller Albums.
After chatting some more he took off his dark shades and was going to let me have them, I thanked him but told him that I would prefer the glove he was wearing, which was his trade mark. H e smiled and thought about it for a second and proceded to take his glove off and give it to me.
We left very happy and excited, his white glovehas a seal stamped on it which was the invitation used for the famous ¨Thriller¨ party.
When we arrived back to Spago, the famous celebrity restaurant in Beverly Hills, we told all the other paparazzis about our adventure and meeting with Michael Jackson.
Lic.Gregory Kearney Lawson.
(506)8-841-0007
(506)2-232-1014
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Conociendo a Michael Jackson
Tuve la oportunidad de conocer a Michael Jackson en persona en varias ocasiones.una de esas ocasiones fue la noche de los premios Oscar, despues de la ceremonia estuvo en la casa de una actriz famosa Liza Minneli en una fiesta donde yo tambien asistí con otras amistades.
Ahi nos tomamos unas fotos con el y conversamos un rato, luego nos despedimos.Mas tarde en la noche estabamos en otra fiesta de los artistas y pasó cerca de nosotros en una limosina roja.
Nos pusimos atras a seguirlo mi mama que me acompaño esa noche y llegamos a otra casa en Beverly Hills, yo me le acerque de nuevo y cuando vió que era el mismo Fotógrafo se tranquilizó un poco, Liza tambien estaba con el y el guarda espaldas/chofer.... Ahi el entro a la casa y ella me invitó a sentarme en la limosina con ella mientras el salía.Como a los 10 minutos cuando el salió le dije que me había faltado unos autografos para mi mama y me firmó unas fotos y dos albumes Thriller.
Despues de conversar otro ratito se quitó los anteojos oscuros y me los iba a regalar, yo le agradecí mucho pero le dije que mejor me regalará el guante que llevaba puesto que era su tradicional insignia.Se sonrió y pensó un momento y luego se lo quitó y me lo regaló.
Salimos muy contentos, el guante blanco tiene un sello que era la invitación a la fiesta de el lanzamiento de su disco mas famoso, ¨Thriller¨ .Al regreso a Spagó, el restaurant famoso de los artistas de Beverly Hills, les contamos nuestra aventura a los demas paparazzi.
Lic.Gregory Kearney Lawson.
(506)8-841-0007
(506)2-232-1014
Ahi nos tomamos unas fotos con el y conversamos un rato, luego nos despedimos.Mas tarde en la noche estabamos en otra fiesta de los artistas y pasó cerca de nosotros en una limosina roja.
Nos pusimos atras a seguirlo mi mama que me acompaño esa noche y llegamos a otra casa en Beverly Hills, yo me le acerque de nuevo y cuando vió que era el mismo Fotógrafo se tranquilizó un poco, Liza tambien estaba con el y el guarda espaldas/chofer.... Ahi el entro a la casa y ella me invitó a sentarme en la limosina con ella mientras el salía.Como a los 10 minutos cuando el salió le dije que me había faltado unos autografos para mi mama y me firmó unas fotos y dos albumes Thriller.
Despues de conversar otro ratito se quitó los anteojos oscuros y me los iba a regalar, yo le agradecí mucho pero le dije que mejor me regalará el guante que llevaba puesto que era su tradicional insignia.Se sonrió y pensó un momento y luego se lo quitó y me lo regaló.
Salimos muy contentos, el guante blanco tiene un sello que era la invitación a la fiesta de el lanzamiento de su disco mas famoso, ¨Thriller¨ .Al regreso a Spagó, el restaurant famoso de los artistas de Beverly Hills, les contamos nuestra aventura a los demas paparazzi.
Lic.Gregory Kearney Lawson.
(506)8-841-0007
(506)2-232-1014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
