Introduction²

Despite the existence of various initiatives for regional integration and cooperation among the so-called Greater Caribbean countries,³ it can be argued that along most of these countries' maritime borders, cross-border integration strategies that go beyond the rigid framework of the nation state and the purely territorial conception of such borders have not yet been consolidated. The difficulty in achieving integration policies that consistently articulate cross-border dynamics based on the needs of local actors, in both territorial and maritime contexts, shows the limited role that has been given to "grassroots" integration compared to the set of initiatives that continue to evolve from the centers of nation states' power.⁴

There is an entire sociocultural and environmental unit formed by the territories and maritime areas surrounding much of the Western Caribbean among countries such as Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.⁵ This unit is represented by the configuration of coastal territories and populations: the municipalities of Bluefields, Puerto Cabezas and Corn Island in Nicaragua; Limón and Cahuita in Costa Rica; Bocas del Toro and Colón in Panama; and the Archipelago Department of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina in Colombia. These territories experienced similar settlement dynamics after the English colonization of the Western Caribbean (^{Sandner, 2003}) that began in the sixteenth century and, along with the formation of slave and indigenous societies in the area, produced a common "Creole" language, livelihoods, and shared dining and cultural customs that survive today. These territories have also experienced several binational communities and families located on either side of the border because of the dynamics of exchange, diasporas and informal mobility in the region.

After the beginning of the consolidation process of Central American states in the nineteenth century, these territories and their cultures became part of the national dynamics of the legal and territorial administration, which were fragmented and dependent on dissimilar models of state organization. In recent times, this situation has challenged border societies' ability to harmonize integration and cooperation projects that respond to the logics of exchange in this geographical (as shown in Figure 1) and sociocultural unit.

Source: Prepared by authors on map from Google Earth.

Figure 1: Demarcation of the border area based on surrounding populations in Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica and Nicaragua in the Caribbean 

Recently, the International Court of Justice's ruling in the maritime and territorial dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua⁶ revealed the absence of cooperative instruments that would allow institutions and border societies to appropriate their surroundings to ensure the co-management of resources that hundreds of families, fishermen and various social groups depend on, given their close and indivisible relationship with the sea. This situation of regional fragmentation has been accentuated by ignorance and a lack of harmonization among the regulatory and institutional instruments that could demarcate local border entities in each country and locality with sufficient autonomy to deploy integration and cooperation strategies beyond their borders with the Caribbean Sea.

To overcome the rigid frameworks of state relations and provide local actors with tools for regional integration, a review of the regulatory and political-administrative bases of each country must be performed to identify localities' potential obstacles and possibilities, based on their legal and territorial configuration, related to the formulation and implementation of integration policies that favor the needs and dynamics of border societies in the Caribbean region.

In this article, we intend to show that Caribbean border territories belonging to the four countries selected for comparative analysis (Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama and Costa Rica) have dissimilar levels of potential for cross-border integration. Their legal and territorial capacity to establish cross-border integration policies depends on the greater or lesser development of legal and administrative standards and systems in the national, local and border contexts, which would enable the mobilization of resources and their use by social actors and politicians interested in achieving integration.

A qualitative and comparative methodology was used to develop the study in which the legal elements and territorial systems were reviewed at different levels (national, local and border) for each of the countries studied, with special emphasis on legislation pertaining to border issues, regulations of territorial autonomy and special regulations conducive to achieving cross-border integration. Based on the review, analytical matrices were created that yielded various results, which will be presented in detail in the comparative sections.

In the first part, a brief theoretical perspective is offered on border integration as a framework of reference to address the case proposed here. Second, the article focuses on the comparative process (based on the regulatory research conducted in each country) that yields results on the legal and administrative potential and constraints that could either allow or prevent the implementation of cross-border integration actions. Finally, some thoughts and recommendations are offered regarding the consolidation of an integration policy among the border territories in the Caribbean.

Conceptualizing the "cross-border"

"Cross-border regions"⁷ can be defined as territorial units composed of subnational units of two or more nation states built from specific physical forms of spatial innovation (infrastructure) or constructed from institutional frameworks or ties with communities on both sides of the border. Common interests and attractive opportunities cause these communities to cooperate despite their potential differences (^{Buursink, 2001, p. 17}; ^{Jessop, 2003, p. 188}; ^{Söderbaum, 2005, p. 92}).⁸ As seen in the definition, the forms of building a cross-border region do not necessarily correspond to a single process within that geographical area. Instead, there are five ways in which these micro-regions are constructed, namely, physical-geographical, cultural, economic, political and areas of planning and management (^{Söderbaum, 2005, p. 93}).

Meanwhile, in the context of a theoretical debate between a geoeconomic model⁹ and a territorial design model¹⁰ of cross-border regions, ^{Sohn (2014, p. 593)} defends the hypothesis that both regions and cross-border integration are not generated either solely by the overflow of the state border or because they share a common history on either side of the border; instead, this phenomenon seems contingent and tied to the agency capacity of regional and local actors to take advantage of the cross-border context in which they are immersed. Thus, the author agrees with ^{Buursink (2001, p. 17)} , who claims that cooperation and integration require parties to want to resolve common problems; this attitude is not necessarily the result of the adjacent nature of two local territories but of parties' will to act.

Therefore, we can say that cross-border integration and the construction of regions is a process that not only requires material factors (proximity and spatial potentials) but also involves non-tangible elements (identities and a common sense of belonging) that crystallize in the parties' decision to cooperate to promote joint projects that can be beneficial and enable the mobilization of the abovementioned resources towards a common goal. In other words, the decision rests on the local authorities involved, and therefore, revising the local authorities' powers to make these decisions is crucial to the formulation of a cross-border integration project among Caribbean countries.

A review of national legal systems to account for the possibilities that are open to the local spaces in question enables identification of the tools held by local actors to act in their border areas. It is vital to give a legal basis to possible cross-border activities, which can formalize the ties and relationships among these actors in an area susceptible to dispute, generating suspicion by national authorities. A review of the regulations at various levels of the national order will enable us to see the limits and possibilities for actors to influence and determine the creation of a cross-border integration region in the Greater Caribbean.

Legal-regulatory exploration: Tools for actors in the formation of a Cross-Border Integration Region in the Caribbean

For the comparative analysis proposed in this paper, we must review what each country's legal system provides to local actors, who (as we have seen) are the primary agents of the integration process along borders. Although the actual dynamics of decentralization may or may not be in-depth, allowing levels of autonomy at the local levels, the regulations can be a meeting point for the development of actions that will strengthen cross-border integration processes.

That said, this review focused on the legal elements relevant to a cross-border integration region. To this end, at the national level, each country's constitution and laws related to foreign policy will be reviewed, where each country's vision of integration and the border are delineated, such as the role of the national level in the international projection of its local authorities through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

At the border level, rules regulating the country's borders will be reviewed in a search for special border arrangements, the opportunity to initiate dialogues with similar local authorities and other exceptional aspects of these border areas.

Finally, the laws at the local level will be reviewed, with the powers of the municipalities broken down to look for elements of autonomy, including the signing of agreements, proposed bills and special legislation within the studied territories.

Here, we are interested in determining which countries offer their local border authorities the greatest ability to project themselves internationally so that the actors can both recognize the options provided by the legal system and build a strategy for achieving cross-border integration. Thus, the measurement of potential will be based on the indicators set forth in tables ¹, ² and ³.

Table 1: Variables and indicators for the national environment  

Source: Developed by authors.

Table 2: Variables and indicators for the border environment 

Source: Developed by authors.

Table 3: Variables and indicators for the local environment 

Source: Developed by authors.

Variables and indicators by level

Comparison

It is telling that Colombia and Nicaragua are the countries that provide their local authorities with the most power to conclude cross-border agreements. According to the selected variables, these two countries offer regulatory abilities to local actors to develop outreach strategies beyond their national borders. Panama and Costa Rica have weaker regulations for achieving such agreements, although in the case of Costa Rica, the power to draft bills could overcome the more circumscribed power of local authorities on the border to achieve cross-border agreements (see Table 6).

It is noteworthy that the more recent constitutions are more developed in terms of borders, municipal autonomy and cross-border perspectives. For example, the more developed constitutions were introduced in 1991 and ¹⁹⁸⁷ (Colombia and Nicaragua), whereas the least developed were introduced in 1949 and 1972 (Costa Rica and Panama). Thus, the legal developments of these constitutions will be more or less developed, an issue that is demonstrated in the measurement of potential, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Comparative potential by country 

Another important point is that there are special rules for two of the studied border areas. Colombia and Nicaragua provide special powers to both San Andrés and the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic (where Bilwi, Bluefields, and Corn Island are located) because of those areas' historical particularities, which was not the past with the other countries and their Afro-Panamanian and Afro-Costa Rican communities. We should consider, however, that despite the greater potential for these territories' border projection toward the Caribbean, many of the border development plans and policies implemented by nation states in these areas have tended to favor an "inward" development of the border; there has been insufficient use of regulatory tools for integration aiming for "outward" development.¹⁴

The sovereigntist conception of Costa Rican and Panamanian borders can be explained in the former case by the tension between Costa Rica and Nicaragua because the land border is very permeable and has generated bilateral conflicts between the two states. In the latter case, Panama is watchful of its seas because of narcotics trafficking and the difficulty in ensuring the safety of the Darién Gap. Arguably, these countries have preferred sovereignty to border development. Possible agreements in light of this low potential and security issues would depend on police cooperation with the two countries.

Significantly, there are at least two countries with a high potential in this regard, which may create a process that subsequently could be linked to territorial authorities in other countries, given a sample of successful experiences. Actors from both Colombia and Nicaragua have a useful legal space for identifying cross-border agreements that may have repercussions in the Greater Caribbean region (see Table 7).

Conclusion

The situation of inter-state boundaries and political conflicts in the Western Caribbean has highlighted the need to identify strategies that enable social and political actors in the region's border territories to develop integration actions as a method of overcoming the purely sovereigntist views that nation states have traditionally implemented in these territories. Examination of the region's legal and territorial systems can identify elements (beyond the ideological or political divisions of those in power) that can be exploited in the long term for the construction of a Region of Cross-Border Integration that flexibly articulates the needs for the interaction and complementarity of a Caribbean society that forms a distinct cultural unit.

We have seen throughout the article that not only the territorial and political configuration but also the legal context are relevant in areas in which local actors are imbued and where there are margins of action that can enable the conclusion of cross-border agreements. Further analysis should review of decentralization processes in the four countries, which generally can be regarded as incomplete processes either because of failed implementation or because very little decentralization legislation has been passed (^{Chacón, 2014}).

Likewise, one must consider that the border territories of the studied countries form a largely marginalized corridor from a social and economic perspective with respect to the core dynamics of development in the various nation states. This situation implies an urgent need to resolve underlying structural problems, which could become the main challenge for the establishment of effective long-term institutional practices to achieve border integration.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, legal elements could be the tools that actors mobilize to achieve cross-border integration. The existence of legislative initiatives in the four countries, for example, could encourage border laws that link local authorities either within the Greater Caribbean or in countries where there are already border laws, thus encouraging relations outside national spaces. In addition, special autonomies (in the cases of Nicaragua and Colombia) can be used to initiate processes that break with the national enclave. This possibility highlights the need to recognize municipalities' power to negotiate agreements without the need to create specific legal entities through the recognition of their international activities, thereby contributing to the development of "grassroots" integration strategies (^{CESPI, 2011, p. 73}).

As shown in the comparative analysis of the four countries studied, we can conclude that the more modern and in-depth the dynamics of constitutional reforms, decentralization and the development of border regulations, the greater the likelihood that local actors can develop cross-border integration policies. Colombia and Nicaragua proved to be the countries whose territorial entities and regulatory developments at various levels of government have the best legal and administrative tools to achieve a cross-border integration policy for the Greater Caribbean. This finding is particularly important considering that these two countries are engaged in particularly critical boundary disputes in the Caribbean that require urgent solutions. Panama and Costa Rica showed weak potential both in normative terms and in territorial organization, thus hindering those countries' chances of cross-border integration. Nevertheless, the detection of legal tools within national systems is vital to identify both the potential and the need for the possible mobilization of resources by local actors in achieving integration.

Two elements are therefore open for discussion in the specific case of the Caribbean: first, that border integration in the Caribbean necessarily implies looking at policy and management models of maritime areas because it is essentially the sea where economic and societal exchanges are developed. This is not to discount the importance of revising the territorial and legal systems that we have analyzed here: without social actors and their ability to articulate both inward and outward national spaces, the sea would be a vacant space that could not be to the subject of integration policies or agreements. Innovative and flexible models of maritime management that contribute to the formation of integrated coastal and marine areas will have to be reviewed.

Finally, we recognize the most important aspect of the cross-border situation: the possibilities of articulating the cross-border region in the Caribbean do not necessarily depend on regulatory or territorial models of regional integration-or even on supra- or trans-national institutions-to bureaucratically regulate the integration process. Border integration can respond to autonomous societal dynamics that dispense with institutional instruments in the states and their localities and even dispute or ignore these instruments, as indeed has already been occurring recently in autonomous processes that involve relations and twinning among social border actors in Colombia and Nicaragua.¹⁵ We believe, however, that the existence of legal tools and autonomous processes favored by nation states within their respective regulatory frameworks and territorial organizations constitute an encouraging environment for border societies, through autonomy and decentralization, to transmit their demands, empower their resources and assert their basic rights based on their cultural, economic and social ties.