Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:26:15.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

El Chamizal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Philip C. Jessup
Philip C. Jessup*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Territorial disputes are commonplace in the history of international relations. The United States has had its share—the northeastern boundary with the British territories after the Revolutionary War, “54:40 or fight” in 1845–1846, the Alaskan boundary arbitration in 1903, and many others— including El Chamizal. This “thicket” or “brierpatch” was one in which the friendly relations between the United States and Mexico were entangled for almost a century. “The Chamizal conflict has not been a major factor in United States-Mexican relations, but has been a constant emotional irritant which has plagued both nations and had frequent reverberations throughout Latin America.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 423 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1973

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 Liss, B., A Century of Disagreement: The Chamizal Conflict 1864–1964 v (1965)Google Scholar.

2 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement, signed Feb. 2, 1848, 9 Stat. 922, T.S. No. 207.

3 5 Miller, Hunter, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America 288, 298, and 326 (1937)Google Scholar.

4 Convention Providing for an International Boundary Survey to Relocate the Existing Frontier Line between the Two Countries West of the Rio Grande, done at Washington, July 29, 1882, 22 Stat. 986, T.S. No. 220.

5 Convention Touching the International Boundary Line where it Follows the Bed of the Rio Colorado, done at Washington, Nov. 12, 1884, 24 Stat. 1011, T.S. No. 226.

6 Timm, The International Boundary Commission us and Mexico (1941).

7 Treaty relating to Boundary Waters and Questions Arising along the Boundary between the United States and Canada, signed at Washington, Jan. 11, 1909, 36 Stat. 2448, T.S. No. 548, 4 AJIL Supp. 239 (1910).

8 See Chacko, C. J., The International, Joint Commission, United States and Canada, Ch. II (1932)Google Scholar.

9 Exec. Report No. 7, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (1963).

10 Agreement relating to a Cease-Fire and the Restoration of the Status Quo, signed at New Delhi, June 30, 1965, 548 UNTS 277; 4 ILM 921 (1965).

11 Award of the Indo-Pakistan Western Frontier Boundary Case Tribunal, Feb. 19, 1968, 7 ILM 633 (1968).

12 Maghanbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Others v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 783, 9 Indian J. of Int’l. L. 234 (1969).

13 Id. at 800–801.

14 Quotations from official documents are taken from papers in the National Archives, for which I acknowledge my debt to Mrs. Bonnie Wilson.

15 The title of the principal legal officer of the Department of State was changed from “Solicitor” to “Legal Adviser” in 1931.

16 Root had selected Scott for the position solely on the basis of testimonials of his abilities, and he remained Root’s devoted follower in the Department and later in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

17 2 P. C. Jessup, Elthu Root 112 (1938).

18 A striking example of the procedure in question, which seems so wasteful, is to be found in a memo from Dennis on Sept. 13, 1911 to the Diplomatic Bureau which begins: “Prepare a memorandum for the Mexican Embassy.” Then follow four pages of text which are reproduced with very few changes in the official version which was sent on October 6 and is printed in [1911] Foreign Rel. U.S. 604–605 (1918).

19 This merely meant that his name was among the many inscribed on the list of possible arbitrators from which states could select ad hoc one or more persons to constitute an arbitral tribunal; this list, plus an “International Bureau” and a “Permanent Administrative Council” composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory states at The Hague, constituted the inaccurately named Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Bureau still exists and the diplomats once a year take their seats on chairs identified by the national coats of arms embroidered on the backs of the chairs.

20 Professor Charles A. Timm’s excellent study, supra note 6, at 136, incorrectly states the contents of the Mexican note of June 9, 1910.

21 E.g., Agreement for Arbitration (Compromiso) of a Controversy between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile concerning the Region of the Beagle Channel, done at London, July 22, 1971, 10 ILM 1182 (1971).

22 Signed at Washington, March 24, 1908, 35 Stat. 1997, T.S. No. 500, 2 AJIL Supp. 300 (1908).

23 Art. I.

24 Convention for the Arbitration of the Chamizal Case, done at Washington, June 24, 1910, 36 Stat. 2481, T.S. No. 555, 5 AJIL Supp. 117 (1911).

25 [1911] Foreign Rel. U.S. 573 (1918).

26 See supra p. 432.

27 [1911] Foreign Rel. U.S. 598 at 599 (1918).

28 J. B. Scott, Hague Court Reports 1 (1916).

29 Hearings on the Convention with Mexico for Solution of the Problem of the Chamizal Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1963).

30 Id. at 48.

31 Id. at 52.

32 When in 1969 the International Court of Justice proposed a revision of Article 22 of its Statute which would make it possible for the General Assembly of the United Nations to move the Court’s seat to some place other than The Hague should it be thought that the Court might function more effectively elsewhere, there were allegations in the Dutch press that all the judges owned villas on the Riviera and wanted to move the Court to a spot more convenient thereto!

33 Cushing, C., The Treaty of Washington 128, 136, 137 (1873)Google Scholar.

34 1 Jessup, supra note 17, at 400.

35 2 J. B. Scott, Hague Court Reports (2d ser.) 83 (1932).

36 6 UN Reports of International Arbitral Awards 173 (1955).

37 Cf. Jessup, P. C., The Price of International Justice 72–75 (1971)Google Scholar.

38 [1930] 3 Foreign Rel. U.S. 545 (1945).

39 Convention for the Rectification of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) in the El Paso-Iuarez Valley, signed at Mexico, Feb. 1, 1933, 48 Stat. 1621, T.S. No. 864, 28 AJIL Supp. 98(1934).

40 [1933] 5 Foreign Rel. U.S. 823–24 (1952).

41 For this period, material from the National Archives is supplied by Liss. supra note 1. See also Gregory, , The Chamizal Settlement—A View from El Paso, Southwestern Studies, Texas Western College Press, Summer 1963, Vol. I, No. 2 Google Scholar. The overall negotiations for settlement of the Mexican-United States boundary problems, with special reference to the use of river waters, are described in Jr.Hundley, N. Dividing the waters—A Century of Controversy Between the United States and Mexico (1966)Google Scholar.

42 6 Dept. State Bull. 351 (1942).

43 47 Dept. State Bull. 135 at 137 (1962).

44 New York Times, July 6, 1962.

45 Hearings before the Subcomm. on Inter-American Affairs of the Comm. on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess. on S. 2394, Feb. 26 and 27, 1964, at 54 (1964).

46 Ibid., 40.

47 49 Dept. State Bull. 199 (1963).

48 Act of April 9. 1960, Pub. L. No. 86–420, 74 Stat. 40.

49 Senator Mike Mansfield, Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group, Report of the Senate Delegation on the Ninth Meeting, held at Aguascalientes, Mexico, April, 1969, Comm. on Foreign Relations Doc, p. iv, July 24, 1969.

50 15 UST 21, TIAS No. 5515, 505 UNTS 185, 58 AJIL 336 (1964).

51 It is a measure of the skill with which the final settlement was reached that it was supported by El Paso interests, which indeed received reasonable indemnification.

52 109 Cong. Rec. 24873 (1963).

53 63 Dept. State Bull. 298 (1970).

54 Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary, signed at Mexico City, Nov. 29, 1970. TIAS No. 7313.

55 66 Dept. State Bull. 679 (1972).

56 119 Cong. Rec. S3760.

57 22 AJIL 735, 867 (1928).