Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:11:19.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Arbitration of the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

F. C. Fisher
F. C. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Supreme CourtPhilippine Islands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chief Justice Hughes and his associates, Dr. Bello-Codesido, of Chile, and Dr. Castro Urena, of Costa Rica, by a unanimous award rendered in Washington January 23,1933, have brought to an end a boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras which for nearlya hundred years has embittered the relations of these countries and at times has brought them to the verge of war. The territory which was affected by the dispute runs in a northeasterly direction from thevicinity of Cerro Brujo, a mountain on the frontierof El Salvador, to the Gulf of Honduras. Its length, from Cerro Brujo to the sea, is about 125 miles. Its width along the coast, from British Honduras to the Ulua River, is about 100 miles.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 1933 , pp. 403 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See map, infra, between pages 416 and 417.

2 Opinion and Award of the Special Boundary Tribunal, Guatemala and Honduras, Washington, D. C., 1933, p. 8.

3 Leyes de Guatemala, Pineda de Montt, Vol. I, pp. 14 and 24.

4 Munro, , Five Republics of Central America, p. 167.Google Scholar

5 Guatemalan Case, p. 564.

6 Vallejo, Hiatoria Politico, y Social de Honduras, Vol. 1, pp. 397-399.

7 Guatemalan Case, p. 565.

8 Ibid., p. 566.

9 The full text of the minutes and proceedings of the Commission of 1847 has been published by the Guatemalan Boundary Commission: LÁmites enire Guatemala y Honduras, Guatemala, Julio de 1928.

10 An English translation of this treaty is printed in the report of the Department of State upon the Mediation of the Honduran-Guatemalan Boundary Question, 1918-1919, Vol. 1, p. 17, Washington, 1919.

11 Treaty of 1895. Arts. IX, X, XI, and XII.

12 The full text of the minutes of the Mixed Technical Boundary Commission is published in Tratados Vigentes de Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1913), Part One, p. 117 et seq.

13 British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. 107, p. 908.

14 Mediation Record, Vol. II, p. 397.

15 Ibid., p. 398.

16 Serious discrepancies and deficiencies having been found in the maps produced by the parties, the Tribunal (Award, p. 70), after the case had been submitted, exercising the authority conferred upon it by Article XIII of the Treaty of 1930, ordered the photographing and mapping of the contested territory. The topographic relief in this area ranged from sea level to over 7,000 feet. The aerial method of surveying was chosen as the quickest way of supplying the needed information; and its comparatively low cost was another important factor. The United States Army Air Corps photographed the project, using a four lens camera, which is somewhat similar to the newer five lens camera, with the exception that the trailing wing photograph is omitted. In all, 1,300 photographs, covering 6,500 square kilometers, were made at an elevation of 13,000 feet above sea level, giving an approximate sea level photographic scale of 1: 24,000. The photography was completed in 31 days, although the flying was handicapped to a considerable degree by the rainy season. The photographs were studied stereoscopically and matched in strip mosaics. Line maps, showing the culture and drainage data traced from the strip mosaics, were assembled on a scale of 1:100,000. Existing maps supplemented by additional ground control were used as the base for map compilation. The maps and photographs were used by the Tribunal in the study of topographical and culture conditions in critical areas, and also to mark out and describe the line of award. The ground control work was started in August, 1932. The maps and photographs were delivered to the Tribunal in December. The maps were annexed to and made a part of the award.

17 For the text of the convention see this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 17 (1923), pp. 70-132.

18 Proceedings of the Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, 1923, pp. 56 and 62.

19 LÁmites entre Honduras y Guatemala, Publication of the Honduran Ministry of Foreign Relations, Tegucigalpa (1928), pp. 65-67.

20 Ibid., pp. 65-67.

21 Guatemalan Brief on the Preliminary Question (Washington, 1932), p. 13.

22 LÁmites entre Honduras y Guatemala, Tegucigalpa, 1928, pp. 85 and 86.

23 Decree No. 1568, Legislative Assembly of Guatemala, El Guatemalteco (Diario Ofidal), Vol. CXX, No. 94, July 31, 1928.

24 Honduran Gaceta, No. 7631, June 12,1928; LÁmites entre Honduras y Guatemala, Tegucigalpa, 1928, pp. 87-89.

25 LÁ entre Honduras y Guatemala, p. 90.

26 Ibid., pp. 91 and 92.

27 LÁmiies entre Honduras y Guatemala, p. 93.

28 Ibid., pp. 94-97.

29 Treaty of July 16, 1930. Art. I.

30 Ibid., Art. II.

31 Bulletin of the Pan American Union, February, 1932, p. 93.

32 Guatemala was represented by Dr. Carlos Salazar and Dr. Charles Cheney Hyde. The Honduran representative was Dr. Mariano Vdsquez.

33 The Spanish text of this part of Art. I of the convention is “ end caso de gue no hubiesen podido Uegar a un avenimiento diplomdiico ni convinieren en otra forma de arbitraje, ni estuvieren de acuerdo m someter dichas cuestiones o controversial a la decision de otro tribunal.”

34 Article IX et seq.

35 Honduran Brief on the Preliminary Question, p. 16.

36 LÁ entre Honduras y Guatemala, Tegucigalpa, 1928, pp. 94 and 107.

37 Article I.

38 Art. VII.

39 Art. VIII.

40 Art. XI.

41 Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Vol. LXVI, p. 93.

42 Treaty of July 16, 1930, Arts. Ill and IV.

43 Muirhead, , Historical Introduction to the Private Law of Rome, 2nd ed. 1899, p. 206;Google Scholar Sohm, , Institutes of Roman Law (1910), p. 310;Google Scholar Moyle, , Imperatoris Imtiniani Institwtionem, 4th ed., 1903, pp. 604-611.Google Scholar

44 18 Brit. & For. State Papers, 1119.

45 20 Brit. & For. State Papers, 1206,1207.

46 Case for Guatemala, pp. 30-34.

47 Woolsey, , “ Boundary Disputes in Latin-America,” this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 324,Google Scholar et seq.

48 Ayala, , “ Uti Possidetis,” Journal of the Academie Diplomatique Internationale (Paris), Dec. 1931, p. 249.Google Scholar

49 Quijano Otero, LÁ de los Estados Unidos de Colombia (1881), p. 386.

50 De Lapradelle, La Frontikre, Paris, 1928, p. 86. For other extended discussions of the theory of uti possidetis Google ScholarPubMedsee: Ayala, , “ Uti Possidetis,” Journal of the AeaMmie Diplomatique Internationale (Paris), Dec. 1931, p. 249;Google Scholar Alvarez, , Droit International Americain, Paris, 1910, p. 681,Google Scholar et seq.; Peralta, ExposS des Droits Territoriaux de Costa Rica (Paris, 1898), Quijano Otero, op. cit.; Moore, J. B., Memorandum on Uti Possidetis (Rosslyn, Va., 1913); Salazar and Hyde, The Case for Guatemala (Washington, 1932), pp. 1-48.Google Scholar

51 Case for Guatemala, p. 41.

52 Case for Honduras, p. 88.

53 Counter Case for Guatemala, p. 152.

54 Counter Case of Guatemala (Washington, 1932), p. 12.

55 Opinion and Award of the Special Boundary Tribunal constituted by the Treaty For July 16, 1930, between the Kepublics of Guatemala and Honduras. Washington, D. C., January, 1933.

56 Opinion and Award, supra.

57 Ibid., p. 6.

58 Ibid., p. 7.

59 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 9.

60 Ibid., p. 14.

61 Ibid., p. 15.

62 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 20.

63 Ibid., p. 22.

64 Ibid., pp. 33-36.

65 Ibid., p. 32.

66 Ibid., p. 35.

67 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 35.

68 Ibid., p. 43.

69 Ibid., p. 44.

70 Ibid., p. 45.

71 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 47.

72 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 48.

73 Ibid., p. 49.

74 Ibid., p. 53.

75 See map between pp. 416-417, supra.

76 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 66.

77 Ibid., p. 68.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid., p. 69.

80 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 70.

81 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 79.

82 Ibid., p. 84.

83 Ibid., p. 99.

84 Opinion and Award, supra, p. 85. .

85 Ibid., p. 85.