← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 10473-2000 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 24/11/2000
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber finds no constitutional defects in the procedure or substance of the bill approving the Maritime Delimitation Treaty with Colombia.La Sala Constitucional no encuentra vicios de constitucionalidad en el trámite ni en el fondo del proyecto de aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación Marítima con Colombia.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber examines the mandatory legislative consultation regarding the bill to approve the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between Costa Rica and Colombia, signed in Bogotá in 1984. The Chamber determines that this treaty is not legally an additional protocol to the 1977 treaty but an independent instrument, and therefore its separate approval presents no constitutional defects. Regarding maritime cooperation, it notes that the details will be developed through subsequent special agreements, in accordance with the principle of good faith and the exchange of diplomatic notes. On territorial integrity, it concludes that the treaty does not affect it, since its object is the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone, over which the State exercises special jurisdiction under international law, not full sovereignty. The Chamber finds no constitutional defects in the procedure or substance of the bill, and issues the opinion accordingly.La Sala Constitucional examina la consulta legislativa preceptiva sobre el proyecto de aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación de Áreas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre Costa Rica y Colombia, firmado en Bogotá en 1984. La Sala determina que este tratado no es jurídicamente un adicional al tratado de 1977, sino un instrumento independiente, por lo que su aprobación separada no presenta vicios de constitucionalidad. En cuanto a la cooperación marítima, señala que los detalles se desarrollarán mediante acuerdos especiales posteriores, conforme al principio de buena fe y el canje de notas diplomáticas. Sobre la integridad territorial, concluye que el tratado no la afecta, ya que su objeto es la delimitación de la zona económica exclusiva, sobre la cual el Estado ejerce jurisdicción especial según el Derecho Internacional, no soberanía completa. La Sala no encuentra vicios de constitucionalidad en el trámite ni en el fondo del proyecto, y evacua la consulta en ese sentido.
Key excerptExtracto clave
A careful study of the text of both Treaties allows the Chamber to conclude that, even though the title of the one currently being processed in the Legislative Assembly under file number 13,928 expressly states that it is additional to the one signed in San José on March 17, 1977, the fact is that as to their object and purpose they are two different legal instruments, regulating factual and legal situations that are independent of each other, which were negotiated at absolutely different dates and under absolutely different circumstances, and therefore they have no link whatsoever that requires their joint legislative approval, or that results in the Costa Rican State inevitably approving or tacitly binding itself to what was agreed in the other one by approving one of them, in violation of the procedures that the Legal System provides for that purpose, as if one were a Protocol to the other. In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international conventions concerning the territorial integrity or the political organization of the country shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of not less than three-fourths of its total membership, and of two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly convened for that purpose. However, in the present case that supermajority was not necessary, and therefore as to this point no unconstitutionality is observed in the procedure for the legislative approval of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia", signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not concern the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the "exclusive economic zone" between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, over which our country cannot exercise full and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one "in order to protect, conserve and exclusively exploit all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the seabed and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles of International Law]", (Article 6 in conjunction with 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).Un atento estudio del texto de ambos Tratados permite a la Sala concluir que, a pesar de que en el título del que ahora se tramita en la Asamblea Legislativa bajo expediente número 13.928 se indique expresamente que se trata de un adicional al firmado en San José el 17 de marzo de 1977, lo cierto es que en cuanto a su objeto y fin se trata de dos instrumentos jurídicos diferentes, que regulan situaciones fácticas y jurídicas independientes entre sí, que fueron negociados en fechas y en circunstancias absolutamente diferentes, y que por lo tanto no tienen nexo alguno que obligue a su aprobación legislativa conjunta, o tenga como consecuencia que con la aprobación de uno indefectiblemente el Estado costarricense apruebe o se obligue tácitamente a lo acordado en el otro, con violación de los procedimientos que el Ordenamiento Jurídico prevé al efecto, como si uno fuese Protocolo del otro. De conformidad con el artículo 7 constitucional, los tratados públicos y los convenios internacionales referentes a la integridad territorial o la organización política del país requerirán aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa, por votación no menor de las tres cuartas partes de la totalidad de sus miembros, y la de los dos tercios de los miembros de una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada al efecto. No obstante, en el presente caso esa votación reforzada no era necesaria, y por lo tanto en cuanto a este extremo tampoco se aprecia inconstitucionalidad alguna en el procedimiento para la aprobación legislativa del "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", firmado en Bogotá, D.E. el 6 de abril de 1984, puesto que no se refiere a la integridad territorial de nuestro país. Esto porque el objeto del Tratado es la delimitación de lo que la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar denomina "zona económica exclusiva" entre la República de Colombia y la de Costa Rica, y sobre la cual nuestro país no puede ejercer una soberanía completa y exclusiva, sino una especial a "fin de proteger, conservar y explotar con exclusividad todos los recursos y riquezas naturales existentes en las aguas, el suelo y el subsuelo de esas zonas, de conformidad con aquellos principios [se refiere a principios de Derecho Internacional]", (artículo 6 en concordancia con el 56 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar).
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"No encuentra la Sala roce alguno de constitucionalidad en el procedimiento de aprobación legislativa del canje de esas notas, como en efecto se hizo en primer debate, primero, porque con ese acto no se varía en modo alguno el objeto y fin del Tratado; segundo, porque se trata de un intercambio formal realizado por los mismos sujetos que podían legítimamente suscribir el mismo Convenio, y, finalmente, porque se llevó a cabo el acto en concordancia con principios y normas del Derecho Internacional."
"The Chamber finds no constitutional friction in the procedure for the legislative approval of the exchange of those notes, as was indeed done in the first debate, first, because that act in no way alters the object and purpose of the Treaty; second, because it is a formal exchange carried out by the same subjects who could legitimately sign the same Agreement; and finally, because the act was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law."
Considerando IV
"No encuentra la Sala roce alguno de constitucionalidad en el procedimiento de aprobación legislativa del canje de esas notas, como en efecto se hizo en primer debate, primero, porque con ese acto no se varía en modo alguno el objeto y fin del Tratado; segundo, porque se trata de un intercambio formal realizado por los mismos sujetos que podían legítimamente suscribir el mismo Convenio, y, finalmente, porque se llevó a cabo el acto en concordancia con principios y normas del Derecho Internacional."
Considerando IV
"Con el 'Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia' no se afecta la integridad territorial de Costa Rica."
"With the 'Treaty on the delimitation of marine and submarine areas and maritime cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia', the territorial integrity of Costa Rica is not affected."
Considerando VI
"Con el 'Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia' no se afecta la integridad territorial de Costa Rica."
Considerando VI
"…la delimitación de fronteras marinas y submarinas objeto del Tratado en estudio no solo no afecta el territorio de Costa Rica, puesto que la anchura de nuestra zona económica exclusiva ni siquiera estaba reconocida internacionalmente antes de la suscripción de este Tratado –al menos en relación con la República de Colombia-; sino que, además, se efectuó con respeto a lo que establece el ordinal 6 de nuestra Constitución Política…"
"…the delimitation of marine and submarine boundaries, the object of the Treaty under study, not only does not affect the territory of Costa Rica, since the width of our exclusive economic zone was not even internationally recognized before the signing of this Treaty —at least in relation to the Republic of Colombia—; but furthermore, it was carried out with respect to what is established in article 6 of our Political Constitution…"
Considerando VII
"…la delimitación de fronteras marinas y submarinas objeto del Tratado en estudio no solo no afecta el territorio de Costa Rica, puesto que la anchura de nuestra zona económica exclusiva ni siquiera estaba reconocida internacionalmente antes de la suscripción de este Tratado –al menos en relación con la República de Colombia-; sino que, además, se efectuó con respeto a lo que establece el ordinal 6 de nuestra Constitución Política…"
Considerando VII
Full documentDocumento completo
00-09237 Case File: 00-009237-0007-CO Ruling: 2000-10473 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours and twenty-four minutes on the twenty-fourth of November, two thousand.- Mandatory legislative consultation on constitutionality submitted by the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill for the "Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, and being processed under legislative file number 13.928.-
Whereas:
1.- The consultation, submitted in compliance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, was received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at eleven hours and twenty-five minutes on November 2, 2000 (folio 1), with a certified copy of the legislative file. Likewise, an official communication signed by Mr. Manuel Freer Jiménez and two attached plans were received (folios 4 to 9); official communication FD-JM-327-00 of November 7 of the current year, signed by Deputy José Merino del Río, with which he attaches an addendum to the mandatory consultation submitted by the Legislative Directorate before the Chamber, regarding Bill Number 13.928, so that it may be taken into account (folios 10 to 39), and a brief signed by Francisco Ramón Jaén Martínez (known as Omar Francisco) and attached documents (folios 40 to 54). The Presidency of the Chamber accepted the consultation by resolution at fifteen hours and thirty-five minutes on the same day. The deadline to resolve it expires on December 2 of the current year (Article 101 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction).
2.- The formalities established by law were complied with in the procedure.
Drafted by Magistrate Vargas Benavides; and,
Considering:
I.- As a preliminary matter.- By force of law, only the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly is authorized to submit the mandatory consultation on constitutionality – such as the one now before us – (Articles 96 subsection a) and 97 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction). For this reason, the official communication sent to the Chamber by Deputy José Merino del Río, as well as those signed by Messrs. Manuel Freer Jiménez and Omar Francisco Jaen Martínez, are considered as statements that are added to its background records. Regarding the consultation made by the authorized body, the first step, for the purpose of resolving it, is to verify the procedures followed in this case, in accordance with Article 98 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, which states that the consultation must be made after the bill has been approved in the first debate and before its final approval, and that, when resolving it, the Chamber shall rule on any aspects or reasons it deems relevant from a constitutional standpoint, but its ruling shall be binding only with regard to procedural matters. For the aforementioned purposes and due to the importance of the matter at hand, a chronological summary of the bill will be provided in the following considering.
II.- The processing of file number 13.928 in the Legislative Assembly.- The bill for the "Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," being processed under legislative file number 13.928, has followed the following chronological order:
III.- The procedure in the specific case.- Having concluded the study of legislative file number 13.928, the Chamber finds no constitutional defects in the procedure for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia. However, due to the importance of the matter and the diversity of opinions it has generated within the Legislative Assembly, as seen in the file itself, it is deemed pertinent to make some considerations regarding three aspects closely linked to the constitutionality of the procedure carried out. These are: 1st) Whether the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, and the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica" signed on March 17, 1977, in San José, Costa Rica, are independent, and therefore can be approved separately. 2nd) What happens with the cooperation in maritime affairs that was agreed upon in Article II of the "Treaty on the delimitation of marine and submarine areas and maritime cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, in relation to what was agreed upon in this regard in the Treaty signed between the same parties in San José on March 17, 1977? 3rd) Does the "Treaty on the delimitation of marine and submarine areas and maritime cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" currently before us affect or not the territorial integrity of our country? If so, its approval would require a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly and two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose, in accordance with Article 7, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.
IV.- The "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," being processed under legislative file number 13.928, is not legally an addendum to the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica" signed on March 17, 1977: A careful study of the text of both Treaties allows the Chamber to conclude that, despite the fact that the title of the one currently being processed in the Legislative Assembly under file number 13.928 expressly indicates that it is an addendum to the one signed in San José on March 17, 1977, the truth is that, regarding their object and purpose, they are two different legal instruments that regulate factual and legal situations independent of each other, which were negotiated on absolutely different dates and under absolutely different circumstances, and therefore have no nexus whatsoever that requires their joint legislative approval, or has the consequence that with the approval of one, the Costa Rican State inevitably approves or is tacitly bound by what was agreed in the other, in violation of the procedures established for this purpose by the Legal System, as if one were a Protocol to the other. In this sense, for the Chamber, the term "addendum" used by the parties is nothing more than a drafting technical error, without – as has been stated – in any way affecting the constitutionality of the procedure carried out for its separate legislative approval, considering – in addition – that as recorded in the legislative file, there is an exchange of notes signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, agreeing that the entry into force of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica," signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, "shall be at the time of the exchange of the instruments of ratification, a procedure that shall be carried out in the manner and on the date that our Governments deem convenient." This, pursuant to the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1, and Article 31, paragraph 3, both of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which literally state:
Article 21 paragraph 1.: "Entry into force: A treaty shall enter into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree." Article 31 paragraph 3: "There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions…" The Chamber finds no constitutional friction in the procedure for the legislative approval of the exchange of these notes, as was indeed done in the first debate, first, because this act does not alter in any way the object and purpose of the Treaty; second, because it concerns a formal exchange carried out by the same subjects who could legitimately sign the same Agreement; and, finally, because the act was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law, as was evidenced previously in relation to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and to that extent also in accordance with our Political Constitution (Articles 7 and 121, subsection 4).
V.- Regarding maritime cooperation between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia: Closely linked to the previous point, the question arises as to how to execute the maritime cooperation referred to in Article II of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, given that it was drafted by referring to what was agreed in the Treaty signed in San José on March 17, 1977. On this matter, it is the Chamber's opinion that with this reference, the Costa Rican State would not be approving the entirety of the text of the latter Treaty, for the reasons set forth in the preceding Considering, and therefore, the object of the Treaty in this regard is not affected in any way by the separate approval of both legal instruments. On the other hand, in accordance with the principle of good faith, which is a rule in the interpretation of treaties, it is recorded in legislative file number 13.928 that the parties – through the subjects authorized for that purpose – agreed by means of respective notes that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the details of the maritime cooperation established in Article III of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984," shall be developed through special agreements to be agreed upon following the entry into force of said Instrument, as agreed in notes No. 396 UAT-PE of May 29 of the current year and DM-1081 of the same date" (certifications at folios 381 and 383, Volume II). Consequently, regarding this point as well, the Chamber finds no possible constitutional friction, as it is evident that neither the object nor the purpose of the Treaty will be frustrated or modified by the Legislative Assembly with its approval under these conditions, pursuant to the provisions of Article 121, subsection 4, of the Political Constitution.
VI.- The "Treaty on the delimitation of marine and submarine areas and maritime cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" does not affect the territorial integrity of Costa Rica:
In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international agreements concerning the territorial integrity or the political organization of the country shall require approval by the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than three-quarters of its total membership, and by two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose. However, in the present case, this qualified vote was not necessary, and therefore, regarding this point as well, no unconstitutionality is found in the procedure for the legislative approval of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the "exclusive economic zone" between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one "for the purpose of protecting, conserving, and exclusively exploiting all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the seabed, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [it refers to principles of International Law]" (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
VII.- Indeed, it is clear from the literal wording of Article I of the Agreement under analysis that its object is the delimitation of the marine and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that matters relating to the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the contiguous zone, were defined by agreement among the States that – like ours – signed the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (Law number 7291 published in Supplement number 10 to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in Articles 3 and 33, namely:
"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea.
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention." – The emphasis is not from the original - "Article 33: Contiguous zone.
1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (a) Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
2.- The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." – The emphasis is not from the original - In this regard, when the Chamber ruled on the mandatory consultation conducted on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions, it referred to the fact that our Constitution was expressly amended with the object of incorporating the universally accepted concepts of international maritime law gathered in the Convention, referring – among others – to the aforementioned Articles 3 and 33, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:
"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most benefited by the new Convention." (Judgment number 10-92 of 16:30 hours on January 7, 1992). – The emphasis is not from the original - It was precisely because of the impossibility of reaching an agreement between the States Parties on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone that it was finally defined that the method for doing so would be case-by-case, such that in the case of States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have to be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an "equitable solution." And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:
"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV." This norm is of great importance for reaching the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, given that it can be inferred from it that a country's unilateral claims over its corresponding exclusive economic zone actually have no validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. In the case of Costa Rica, and referring to the Pacific coast, this recognition refers to countries such as Panama and Colombia: in the case of the former, as stated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill subject to this Mandatory Consultation, the delimitation of the maritime and submarine borders with Colombia had as its necessary starting point the end of the demarcation line established in Article one, second paragraph, in fine, of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama," Law number 6705 of December 28, 1981, which entered into force as of December 14, 1982, without the status of island – with its consequences regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone – that has been internationally granted to Malpelo Island – under the absolute sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia – being questioned in that act. In this line of argument, the Chamber considers that the delimitation of marine and submarine borders, which is the object of the Treaty under study, not only does not affect the territory of Costa Rica, since the breadth of our exclusive economic zone was not even internationally recognized before the signing of this Treaty – at least in relation to the Republic of Colombia – but, moreover, it was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of our Political Constitution, insofar as it clearly determines that the special jurisdiction over what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the "exclusive economic zone" is exercised by the Costa Rican State in accordance with the principles of International Law. Now, it is this regulation that – as previously stated – defines that the delimitation of that zone between States with adjacent or opposite coasts must be effected by agreement between them, in order to achieve an equitable solution. In the specific case, based on the international recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over Malpelo Island and of the Republic of Costa Rica over Cocos Island. The Chamber thus understands that the determination of the status of the former as an island, and therefore of its implications regarding the exclusive economic zone, was weighed by the negotiators acting on behalf of the Costa Rican State, and in that sense, it is inferred that it is an equitable agreement, since it was the one reached by both parties, also considering the background in that direction that is valid at the international level (the case of Panama and Ecuador).
VIII.- Observations regarding the substance of the bill. The importance that the approval of this Treaty holds for the Costa Rican State is unquestionable, as is well indicated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, which "constitutes the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares in its Political Constitution as belonging to it in the Pacific, taking into account Cocos Island, and which grants it – now with international recognition and particularly from its main maritime neighbor – special jurisdiction in the Pacific 'close to half a million square kilometers'." It is, moreover, an International Agreement signed in accordance with our Political Constitution, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose legislative approval the Chamber finds no defect of constitutionality regarding the substance either, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Therefore:
The consultation is resolved in the sense that, in relation to the bill for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, being processed under legislative file number 13.928, this Chamber finds no defects of constitutionality. Notify.
R. E. Piza E.
President Luis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.
Adrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.
Susana Castro A.
Gilbert Armijo S.
SPA/oc/2céd.- **Exp:** 00-009237-0007-CO **Res:** 2000-10473 **SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.** San José, at ten hours and twenty-four minutes on the twenty-fourth of November of the year two thousand.- Mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality submitted by the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill for the "Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia", signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, and processed under legislative file number 13.928.- **Resultando:** **1.-** The consultation, which is submitted in compliance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 96 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, was received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at eleven hours and twenty-five minutes on November 2, 2000 (folio 1), with a certified copy of the legislative file. Also received was an official communication signed by Mr. Manuel Freer Jiménez and two attached maps (folios 4 to 9); official communication FD-JM-327-00 of November seventh of this year, signed by Deputy José Merino del Río, with which he attaches an addendum to the mandatory consultation submitted by the Legislative Directorate to the Chamber, regarding Bill of Law number 13.928, so that it may be taken into account (folios 10 to 39), and a brief signed by Francisco Ramón Jaén Martínez (known as Omar Francisco) and attached documents (folios 40 to 54). The Presidency of the Chamber acknowledged the consultation as submitted by resolution at fifteen hours and thirty-five minutes of the same day. The deadline to dispose of it expires on December second of this year (Article 101 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).
**2.-** In the proceedings, the formalities established by law were observed.
Drafted by Magistrate **Vargas Benavides**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- Preliminarily.-** By mandate of the law, only the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly is authorized to submit the mandatory consultation of constitutionality – such as the one before us now – (Articles 96 subsection a) and 97 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). For that reason, the official communication sent to the Chamber by Deputy José Merino del Río, as well as those subscribed by Messrs. Manuel Freer Jiménez and Omar Francisco Jaen Martínez, are taken as statements added to their case file records. Regarding the consultation made by the authorized body, the first thing to do, for the purpose of disposing of it, is to verify the procedures followed in this case, in accordance with the provisions of Article 98 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, which establishes that the consultation must be made after the bill is approved in the first debate and before final approval, and that, when disposing of it, the Chamber shall rule on any aspects or reasons it deems relevant from a constitutional standpoint, but binding only with respect to the procedures. For the foregoing purposes and due to the importance of the matter at hand, a chronological summary of the bill of law will be provided in the following recital.
**II.- The processing of file number 13.928 in the Legislative Assembly.-** The bill for the "Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia", processed under legislative file number 13.928, has followed the following chronological order:
**VIII.- Observations regarding the substance of the bill.** The importance that the approval of this Treaty holds for the Costa Rican State is unquestionable, as is well indicated in the statement of motives of the bill, it "constitutes the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares in its Political Constitution as belonging to it in the Pacific, taking into account Isla del Coco, and which grants it –now with international recognition and particularly from its main maritime neighbor– a special jurisdiction in the Pacific of 'nearly half a million square kilometers'". It is, moreover, an International Agreement signed in accordance with our Political Constitution, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose legislative approval the Chamber does not find any constitutional defect on the merits either, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.
**Por tanto:** The consultation made is answered in the sense that, with respect to the bill for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, which is being processed in legislative file number 13.928, this Chamber does not find any constitutional defects. Notifíquese.
R. E. Piza E.
Luis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.
Adrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.
Susana Castro A. Gilbert Armijo S. SPA/oc/2céd.- For the foregoing purposes and due to the importance of the matter at hand, a chronological summary of the bill will be provided in the following recital.
**II.- The processing of file number 13.928 in the Legislative Assembly.-** The bill for the “Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,” processed under legislative file number 13.928, has followed the chronological order below:
**III.- The procedure in the specific case.-** Having concluded the study of legislative file number 13.928, the Chamber finds no constitutional defects in the procedure for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia. However, due to the significance of the matter and the diversity of opinions it has generated within the Legislative Assembly, as seen in the file itself, it is deemed pertinent to make some considerations regarding three aspects closely linked to the constitutionality of the procedure carried out. They are: **<u>1°</u>** Whether the *“Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia,”* signed in Bogotá, D.E., on April 6, 1984, and the *“Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica”* signed on March 17, 1977, in San José, Costa Rica, are independent, and therefore can be approved separately.
<span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">2°</span> What happens to the cooperation in maritime matters that was agreed upon in Article II of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, in relation to what was agreed in this regard in the Treaty signed between the same parties in San José on March 17, 1977?
<span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">3°</span> With the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" that now concerns us, is the territorial integrity of our country affected or not?, in which case its approval would require a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total members of the Legislative Assembly and two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose, in accordance with Article 7, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.
**IV.- The "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," which is being processed in legislative file number 13.928, is not legally an additional protocol to the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica" signed on March 17, 1977:** A careful study of the text of both Treaties allows the Chamber to conclude that, despite the fact that the title of the one now being processed in the Legislative Assembly under file number 13.928 expressly indicates that it is an additional protocol to the one signed in San José on March 17, 1977, the truth is that in terms of their object and purpose, they are two different legal instruments, regulating factual and legal situations independent of each other, which were negotiated on absolutely different dates and circumstances, and therefore have no nexus whatsoever that compels their joint legislative approval, or that results in the approval of one inevitably leading the Costa Rican State to approve or tacitly bind itself to what was agreed in the other, in violation of the procedures that the Legal System provides for that purpose, as if one were a Protocol to the other. In this sense, for the Chamber, the designation "additional" used by the parties is nothing more than an incorrect drafting technique, without it—as has been stated—affecting in any way the constitutionality of the procedure carried out for its separate legislative approval, considering—furthermore—that according to the legislative file, there is an exchange of notes signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, agreeing that the entry into force of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica," signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, "will be at the moment of the exchange of the instruments of ratification, a formality that will be carried out in the manner and on the date that our Governments deem convenient." This, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1) and Article 31, paragraph 3, both of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which read literally:
<span style="font-style:italic">Article 21, paragraph 1.: "Entry into force: A treaty shall enter into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree."</span> <span style="font-style:italic">Article 31, paragraph 3: "There shall be taken into account, together with the context: a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions…"</span> The Chamber finds no friction whatsoever with constitutionality in the legislative approval procedure for the exchange of these notes, as was indeed done in the first debate, first, because that act does not alter in any way the object and purpose of the Treaty; second, because it is a formal exchange carried out by the same subjects who could legitimately sign the same Agreement; and, finally, because the act was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law, as was evidenced previously in relation to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and to that extent also in accordance with our Political Constitution (Articles 7 and 121, paragraph 4).
**V.- Regarding maritime cooperation between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia:** In close connection with the previous point, the question arises as to how to execute the maritime cooperation referred to in Article II of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it was drafted by referring to what was agreed in the Treaty signed in San José on March 17, 1977. On this matter, it is the Chamber's opinion that with this referral, the Costa Rican State would not be approving the entire text of the latter Treaty, for the reasons set forth in the preceding Whereas Clause, and therefore, the object of the Treaty in this regard is not affected in any way by the separate approval of both legal instruments. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of good faith that is the rule in the interpretation of treaties, legislative file number 13.928 records that the parties—through the subjects authorized for that purpose—agreed via respective notes that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the details of the maritime cooperation established in Article III of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984," will be developed through special agreements to be agreed upon after the entry into force of said Instrument, according to what was agreed in notes No. 396 UAT-PE of May 29 of the current year and DM-1081 of the same date," (certifications at folios 381 and 383, Volume II). Consequently, the Chamber also finds no possible friction with constitutionality in this matter, as it is evident that neither the object nor the purpose of the Treaty will be frustrated or modified by the Legislative Assembly upon its approval under these conditions, in accordance with Article 121, paragraph 4 of the Political Constitution.
**VI.- The "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia" does not affect the territorial integrity of Costa Rica:** In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international agreements referring to the territorial integrity or the political organization of the country shall require approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than three-quarters of its total members, and that of two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly convened for that purpose. However, in the present case, that reinforced vote was not necessary, and therefore, in this matter, no unconstitutionality is observed whatsoever in the procedure for the legislative approval of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia," signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the "exclusive economic zone" between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, and over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one for the "purpose of protecting, conserving, and exploiting with exclusivity all the natural resources and riches existing in the waters, the seabed, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles of International Law]," (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
**VII.-** Indeed, it is evident from the literal wording of Article I of the Agreement under analysis that its object is the delimitation of the marine and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that matters concerning the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the contiguous zone, were defined by agreement among the States that—like ours—signed the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (Law number 7291 published in Supplement number 10 to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in Articles 3 and 33, namely:
<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles</span><span style="font-style:italic">, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention." –The highlighting is not from the original-</span> <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">"Article 33: Contiguous zone.</span> <span style="font-style:italic">1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; a) Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
2.- The contiguous zone </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles</span><span style="font-style:italic"> from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> –The highlighting is not from the original-</span> In this regard, when the Chamber issued its ruling in the mandatory consultation conducted on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions, it noted that our Constitution was expressly reformed with the object of incorporating universally accepted international maritime law concepts embodied in the Convention, referring—among others—to Articles 3 and 33 cited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:
<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most benefited by the new Convention."</span><span style="font-style:italic"> </span>(Judgment number 10-92 of 4:30 p.m. on January 7, 1992). –The highlighting is not from the original- It was precisely due to the impossibility of reaching an agreement among the States Parties regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone that it was finally decided that the method for doing so would be casuistic, such that in the case of States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have to be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to arrive at an **"equitable solution."** And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:
<span style="font-style:italic">"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV."</span> This norm is of great importance for arriving at the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, considering that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over its corresponding exclusive economic zone have no real validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. In the case of Costa Rica and referring to the Pacific coast, this recognition refers to countries such as Panama and Colombia: in the case of the former, as stated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill that is the object of this Mandatory Consultation, the delimitation of the maritime and submarine boundaries with Colombia had its necessary starting point at the end of the demarcation line established in the first article, second paragraph in fine of the "Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama," Law number 6705 of December 28, 1981, which entered into force as of December 14, 1982, without that act questioning the status of island—with its consequences regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone—that has been internationally granted to Malpelo Island—under the absolute sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia—. In this line of argument, the Chamber considers that the delimitation of marine and submarine boundaries, which is the object of the Treaty under study, not only does not affect the territory of Costa Rica, since the breadth of our exclusive economic zone was not even internationally recognized before the signing of this Treaty—at least in relation to the Republic of Colombia—; but also, it was carried out in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 of our Political Constitution, insofar as it clearly determines that the Costa Rican State exercises special jurisdiction over what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the "exclusive economic zone" in accordance with the principles of International Law. Now, it is this regulation that—as stated previously—defines that the delimitation of that zone between States with adjacent or opposite coasts must be effected by agreement between them in order to arrive at an equitable solution. In the specific case, starting from the international recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over Malpelo Island and of the Republic of Costa Rica over Cocos Island. The Chamber thus understands that the determination of the status of the former as an island, and therefore its implications regarding the exclusive economic zone, was weighed by the negotiators acting on behalf of the Costa Rican State, and in that sense, it is inferred that it is an equitable agreement, since it was the one reached by both parties, considering also the precedents in that direction that are internationally valid (case of Panama and Ecuador).
**VIII.- Observations regarding the substance of the project.** The importance for the Costa Rican State of the approval of this Treaty is unquestionable, which, as is well indicated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, "constitutes the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares in its Political Constitution to belong to it in the Pacific, taking into account Cocos Island, and which grants it—now with international recognition and particularly from its main maritime neighbor—a special jurisdiction in the Pacific 'close to half a million square kilometers'." It is furthermore an International Agreement signed in compliance with our Political Constitution, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose legislative approval the Chamber does not notice any defect of constitutionality, likewise on the substance, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction.
**Por tanto:** Se evacua la consulta formulada en el sentido de que en relación con el proyecto de aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo numero 13.928, esta Sala no advierte vicios de constitucionalidad. Notifíquese.
Piza E.
President Luis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.
Adrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.
Susana Castro A. Gilbert Armijo S. SPA/oc/2céd.-
00-09237 Res: 2000-10473 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas con veinticuatro minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil.- Consulta legislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad formulada por el Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa, sobre el proyecto de "Aprobación del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", firmado en Bogotá, D.E. el 6 de abril de 1984, y que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 13.928.-
Resultando:
1.- La consulta, que se formula en cumplimiento de lo que establece el inciso a) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, fue recibida en la Secretaría de la Sala a las once horas y veinticinco minutos del dos de noviembre de 2000 (folio 1), con una copia certificada del expediente legislativo. Asimismo, se recibió un oficio suscrito por el señor Manuel Freer Jiménez y dos planos adjuntos (folios 4 a 9); el oficio FD-JM-327-00 del siete de noviembre del año en curso, suscrito por el Diputado José Merino del Río, con el cual adjunta un addendum a la consulta preceptiva formulada por el Directorio Legislativo ante la Sala, con respecto al Proyecto de Ley número 13.928, a fin de que sea tomado un cuenta, (folios 10 al 39), y con un memorial suscrito por Francisco Ramón Jaén Martínez (conocido como Omar Francisco) y documentos adjuntos (folios 40 a 54). La Presidencia de la Sala tuvo por presentada la consulta mediante resolución de las quince horas con treinta y cinco minutos del mismo día. El plazo para evacuarla vence el dos diciembre del año en curso (artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).
2.- En el procedimiento se cumplió con las formalidades establecidas en la ley.
Redacta el Magistrado Vargas Benavides; y,
Considerando:
I.- De previo.- Por imperio de la ley, para realizar la consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad –como la que ahora nos ocupa- solamente se encuentra legitimado el Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa (artículos 96 inciso a) y 97 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Por ese motivo, el oficio remitido a la Sala por el diputado José Merino del Río, así como los suscritos por los señores Manuel Freer Jiménez y Omar Francisco Jaen Martínez, se tienen como manifestaciones que se agregan a sus antecedentes. En cuanto a la consulta hecha por el órgano legitimado, lo primero que procede, a los efectos de evacuarla es verificar los trámites seguidos en este caso, en concordancia con lo que señala el artículo 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, al disponer que la consulta deberá hacerse después de aprobado el proyecto en primer debate y antes de la aprobación definitiva y que, al evacuarla, la Sala dictaminará sobre cualesquiera aspectos o motivos que estime relevantes desde el punto de vista constitucional, pero vinculante sólo en lo que se refiere a los trámites. Para los efectos anteriores y por la importancia del asunto de que se trata, en el siguiente considerando se hará una síntesis cronológica del proyecto de ley.
II.- La tramitación del expediente número 13.928 en la Asamblea Legislativa.- El proyecto de "Aprobación del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 13.928, ha seguido el siguiente orden cronológico:
III.- El procedimiento en el caso concreto.- Concluido el estudio del expediente legislativo número 13.928, no advierte la Sala vicios de constitucionalidad en el trámite para la aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia. Sin embargo, por la trascendencia del asunto y por la diversidad de criterios que ha generado en el seno de la Asamblea Legislativa, según se aprecia del mismo expediente, se estima pertinente hacer algunas consideraciones en torno a tres aspectos íntimamente ligados con la constitucionalidad del procedimiento llevado a cabo. Ellos son: 1° Si el "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", firmado en Bogotá, D.E. el 6 de abril de 1984 y el "Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica" suscrito el 17 de marzo de 1977 en San José, Costa Rica, son independientes, y por lo tanto pueden ser aprobados en forma separada. 2° ¿Qué pasa con la cooperación en asuntos marítimos que se pactó en el artículo II del "Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia" firmado en Bogotá el 6 de abril de 1984, en relación con lo que se pactó al respecto en el Tratado suscrito entre las mismas partes en San José el 17 de marzo de 1977? 3° Con el "Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia" que ahora nos ocupa, ¿se afecta o no la integridad territorial de nuestro país?, en cuyo caso se requeriría para aprobación la votación no menor de las tres cuartas partes de la totalidad de los miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa y de los dos tercios de los miembros de una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada al efecto, de conformidad con el artículo 7 párrafo segundo de la Constitución Política.
IV.- El "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 13.928 no es jurídicamente un adicional al "Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica" suscrito el 17 de marzo de 1977: Un atento estudio del texto de ambos Tratados permite a la Sala concluir que, a pesar de que en el título del que ahora se tramita en la Asamblea Legislativa bajo expediente número 13.928 se indique expresamente que se trata de un adicional al firmado en San José el 17 de marzo de 1977, lo cierto es que en cuanto a su objeto y fin se trata de dos instrumentos jurídicos diferentes, que regulan situaciones fácticas y jurídicas independientes entre sí, que fueron negociados en fechas y en circunstancias absolutamente diferentes, y que por lo tanto no tienen nexo alguno que obligue a su aprobación legisltiva conjunta, o tenga como consecuencia que con la aprobación de uno indefectiblemente el Estado costarricense apruebe o se obligue tácitamente a lo acordado en el otro, con violación de los procedimientos que el Ordenamiento Jurídico prevé al efecto, como si uno fuese Protocolo del otro. En ese sentido, para la Sala la denominación de "adicional" utilizada por las partes no es más que una incorrecta técnica de redacción, sin que –como se ha dicho- en algo afecte la constitucionalidad del trámite llevado a cabo para su aprobación legislativa en forma separada, habida cuenta –además–, que según consta en el expediente legislativo existe un canje de notas suscrito por los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores de ambos países, acordando que la entrada en vigencia del "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica", suscrito en Bogotá el 6 de abril de 1984, "será en el momento del canje de los instrumentos de ratificación, diligencia que se realizará de la manera y en la fecha que consideren conveniente nuestros Gobiernos." Esto, a tenor de lo que al efecto dispone el artículo 24 inciso 1) y el artículo 31 inciso 3, ambos de la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, que a la letra dicen:
Artículo 21 inciso 1.: "Entrada en vigor: Un tratado entrará en vigor de la manera y en la fecha que en él se disponga o que acuerden los Estados negociadores." Artículo 31 inciso 3: "Juntamente con el contexto, habrá de tenerse en cuenta: a) todo acuerdo ulterior entre las partes acerca de la interpretación del tratado o de la aplicación de sus disposiciones…" No encuentra la Sala roce alguno de constitucionalidad en el procedimiento de aprobación legislativa del canje de esas notas, como en efecto se hizo en primer debate, primero, porque con ese acto no se varía en modo alguno el objeto y fin del Tratado; segundo, porque se trata de un intercambio formal realizado por los mismos sujetos que podían legítimamente suscribir el mismo Convenio, y, finalmente, porque se llevó a cabo el acto en concordancia con principios y normas del Derecho Internacional, según se evidenció anteriormente en relación con la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, y en esa medida también acorde con nuestra Constitución Política (artículos 7 y 121 inciso 4).
V.- En cuanto a la cooperación marítima entre las Repúblicas de Costa Rica y Colombia: En íntimo ligamen con el punto anterior, surge la interrogante acerca de cómo ejecutar la cooperación marítima a la que hace referencia el artículo II del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", firmado en Bogotá, D.E. el 6 de abril de 1984, por haber sido redactado remitiendo a lo convenido en el Tratado suscrito en San José el 17 de marzo de 1977. Sobre el particular, es criterio de la Sala que con esa remisión no estaría el Estado costarricense aprobando la totalidad del texto de este último Tratado, por las razones expuestas en el Considerando precedente, y por ello, el objeto del Tratado al respecto no sufre afectación alguna con la aprobación separada de ambos instrumentos jurídicos. Por otra parte, en concordancia con el principio de buena fe que es regla en la interpretación de los tratados, consta en el expediente legislativo número 13.928 que las partes –a través de los sujetos legitimados para ese fin-, mediante sendas notas acordaron que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 31 de la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, los detalles de la cooperación marítima establecida en el artículo III del "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, suscrito en Bogotá el 6 de abril de 1984" serán desarrollados mediante acuerdos especiales que serán convenidos a partir de la entrada en vigor de dicho Instrumento, según lo acordado en las notas N° 396 UAT-PE del 29 de mayo del corriente año y DM-1081 de la misma fecha", (certificaciones a folios 381 y 383, tomo II). En consecuencia, tampoco en cuanto a este extremo encuentra la Sala ningún posible roce de constitucionalidad, al evidenciarse que ni el objeto ni el fin del Tratado se verán frustrados ni modificados por parte de la Asamblea Legislativa, con la aprobación del mismo en esas condiciones, a tenor de lo que al efecto establece el artículo 121 inciso 4 de la Constitución Política.
VI.- Con el "Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia" no se afecta la integridad territorial de Costa Rica:
De conformidad con el artículo 7 constitucional, los tratados públicos y los convenios internacionales referentes a la integridad territorial o la organización política del país requerirán aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa, por votación no menor de las tres cuartas partes de la totalidad de sus miembros, y la de los dos tercios de los miembros de una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada al efecto. No obstante, en el presente caso esa votación reforzada no era necesaria, y por lo tanto en cuanto a este extremo tampoco se aprecia inconstitucionalidad alguna en el procedimiento para la aprobación legislativa del "Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia", firmado en Bogotá, D.E. el 6 de abril de 1984, puesto que no se refiere a la integridad territorial de nuestro país. Esto porque el objeto del Tratado es la delimitación de lo que la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar denomina "zona económica exclusiva" entre la República de Colombia y la de Costa Rica, y sobre la cual nuestro país no puede ejercer una soberanía completa y exclusiva, sino una especial a "fin de proteger, conservar y explotar con exclusividad todos los recursos y riquezas naturales existentes en las aguas, el suelo y el subsuelo de esas zonas, de conformidad con aquellos principios [se refiere a principios de Derecho Internacional]", (artículo 6 en concordancia con el 56 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar).
VII.- En efecto, se desprende de la literalidad del artículo I del Convenio que se analiza, que su objeto es la delimitación de las áreas marinas y submarinas entre los Estados Partes, referidas al Océano Pacífico, y específicamente a la zona económica exclusiva, dado que lo atinente a la máxima anchura del mar territorial, así como de la zona adyacente quedó definido por acuerdo entre los Estados que –como el nuestro- suscribieron el "Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar" (Ley número 7291 publicada en el Alcance número 10 a La Gaceta del miércoles 15 de julio de 1992), específicamente en los artículos 3 y 33, a saber:
"Artículo 3. Anchura del mar territorial.
Todo Estado tiene derecho a establecer la anchura de su mar territorial hasta un límite que no exceda de 12 millas marinas medidas a partir de líneas de base determinadas de conformidad con esta Convención". –El resaltado no es del original- "Artículo 33: Zona contigua.
1.- En una zona contigua a su mar territorial, designada con el nombre de zona contigua, el Estado ribereño podrá tomar las medidas de fiscalización necesarias para:
Prevenir las infracciones de sus leyes y reglamentos aduaneros, fiscales, de inmigración o sanitarios que se cometan en su territorio o en su mar territorial; a) Sancionar las infracciones de esas leyes y reglamentos cometidas en su territorio o en su mar territorial.
2.- La zona contigua no podrá extenderse más allá de 24 millas marinas contadas desde las líneas de base a partir de las cuales se mide la anchura del mar territorial". –El resaltado no es del original- Al respecto, cuando la Sala se pronunció en la consulta preceptiva realizada con ocasión de la aprobación de este último Convenio, entre sus conclusiones se refirió a que nuestra Constitución fue reformada expresamente, con el objeto de incorporar los conceptos de derecho internacional marítimo aceptados universalmente y recogidos en la Convención, refiriéndose –entre otros- a los artículos 3 y 33 anteriormente citados, y, en conclusión dijo la Sala:
"…podemos decir que Costa Rica es uno de los Estados más beneficiados con la nueva Convención". (Sentencia número 10-92 de las 16:30 horas del 7 de enero de 1992). –El resaltado no es del original- Fue precisamente por la imposibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo entre los Estados Partes acerca de la delimitación de la zona económica exclusiva, que finalmente se definió que el método para hacerlo sería casuístico, de forma tal que entratándose de Estados con costas adyacentes o situadas frente a frente, la delimitación se tendría que efectuar por acuerdo entre ellos sobre la base del derecho internacional, a que se hace referencia en el artículo 38 del Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, a fin de llegar a una "solución equitativa". Y añade el artículo 74 del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar:
"Si no se llegare a un acuerdo dentro de un plazo razonable, los Estados interesados recurrirán a los procedimientos previstos en la Parte XV.".
Esta norma reviste gran importancia para arribar a la conclusión de que este Tratado no versa sobre la integridad territorial de nuestro país, habida cuenta que de ella se puede colegir que las pretensiones unilaterales de un país sobre la zona económica exclusiva que le corresponde, en realidad no tiene validez dentro del Derecho Internacional, a menos que se cuente con el reconocimiento de la comunidad internacional, y particularmente de los países vecinos. En el caso de Costa Rica y referido a la costa del Pacífico, este reconocimiento se refiere a países como Panamá y Colombia: en el caso del primero, tal y como se consigna en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley objeto de esta Consulta Preceptiva, la delimitación de las fronteras marítimas y submarinas con Colombia tuvo como necesario punto de arranque el final de la línea de demarcación establecida en el artículo primero, párrafo segundo in fine del "Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Cooperación Marítima entre Costa Rica y Panamá", Ley numero 6705 del 28 de diciembre de 1981, que entró en vigor a partir del 14 de diciembre de 1982, sin que en ese acto fuese cuestionado el status de isla –con sus consecuencias en cuanto a la delimitación de zona económica exclusiva- que se le ha otorgado internacionalmente a la Isla Malpelo –bajo soberanía absoluta de la República de Colombia-. En esta línea de argumentación, estima la Sala que la delimitación de fronteras marinas y submarinas objeto del Tratado en estudio no solo no afecta el territorio de Costa Rica, puesto que la anchura de nuestra zona económica exclusiva ni siquiera estaba reconocida internacionalmente antes de la suscripción de este Tratado –al menos en relación con la República de Colombia-; sino que, además, se efectuó con respeto a lo que establece el ordinal 6 de nuestra Constitución Política, en cuanto éste claramente determina que la jurisdicción especial sobre lo que el Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar denomina como "zona económica exclusiva", la ejerce el Estado costarricense de acuerdo con los principios del Derecho Internacional. Ahora bien, es esta normativa la que –como se dijo anteriormente- define que la delimitación de esa zona entre Estados con costas adyacentes o situadas frente a frente, se debe efectuar por acuerdo entre ellos, a fin de llegar a una solución equitativa. En el caso concreto, partiendo del reconocimiento internacional acerca de la soberanía de la República de Colombia sobre la Isla Malpelo y de la República de Costa Rica sobre la Isla del Coco. Entiende la Sala así que la determinación del status de la primera como isla y por lo tanto de sus implicaciones en cuanto a la zona económica exclusiva, fue ponderada por los negociadores que actuaron en representación del Estado costarricense, y en ese sentido se colige que se trata de un acuerdo equitativo, puesto que fue al que llegaron ambas partes, considerando además con los antecedentes en esa dirección que cuentan con validez a nivel internacional (caso de Panamá y Ecuador).
VIII.- Observaciones en cuanto al fondo del proyecto. Es incuestionable la importancia que para el Estado costarricense reviste la aprobación de este Tratado, que como bien se indica en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley "constituye el primer reconocimiento internacional de las áreas marinas y submarinas que Costa Rica declara en su Constitución Política que le pertenecen en el Pacífico, tomando en cuenta la Isla del Coco, y que le otorga –ya con reconocimiento internacional y particularmente de su principal vecino marítimo- una jurisdicción especial en el Pacífico "cercana al medio millón de kilómetros cuadrados". Se trata además de un Convenio Internacional suscrito con apego a nuestra Constitución Política, así como a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre Derecho del Mar, en cuya aprobación legislativa la Sala no advierte vicio alguno de constitucionalidad tampoco por el fondo, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el párrafo final del artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.
Por tanto:
Se evacua la consulta formulada en el sentido de que en relación con el proyecto de aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo numero 13.928, esta Sala no advierte vicios de constitucionalidad. Notifíquese.
R. E. Piza E.
Luis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.
Adrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.
Susana Castro A. Gilbert Armijo S.
SPA/oc/2céd.-
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.