Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:47:19.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Central American Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Manley O. Hudson
Manley O. Hudson*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Federation in Central America. The organization of an international court in Central America was greatly facilitated by the fact that since their independence began the five Central American states have had a tradition of solidarity. This tradition has persisted in spite of frequent dissensions, and it has been expressed in numerous attempts at federation. Under the Spanish régime, the Vice-royalty of Guatemala included in its five provinces the territory of what is now the five states. It was this dependency which declared its independence in 1821. Two years later the Republic of the United States of Central America was formed, and it continued for some years. Later attempts at union were made in 1835, 1842, 1847, 1852, 1889, and 1895, all of them more or less abortive, as was the latest attempt in 1921. Unanimous agreement of the five states was always difficult to achieve; distances were great and communications difficult; and no pressing need made union imperative. Yet the attempts at federation were renewed from time to time, over a period of a century. They had the effect of encouraging cooperation in many fields, and led to the efforts in 1902, 1907 and 1921 to create a judicial agency for the handling of disputes between the five states.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1932 , pp. 759 - 786
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1932

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 On the history of these provinces, see the arbitral award of the King of Spain, of Dec. 23, 1906. 35 Martens, N. R. G. (2 ser.), p. 563.

2 A note on these attempts is published in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 29. See also Moreno, L., Historia de las Relaciones Interstatuales de Centroamérica (Madrid, 1928), pp. 507 Google Scholar; Dana G. Munro, The Five Republics of Central America (1918), c. 8; Scott, James Brown, “The Central American Peace Conference of 1907,” 2 this Journal (1908), p. 121 Google Scholar; “The Central American League of Nations,” World Peace Foundation, Pamphlet Series, Vol. VII (1917).

3 For the Treaty of Union of Jan. 19, 1921, see 5 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 19; 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 600.

4 The text is published in 31 Martens, N. R. G. (2 ser.), p. 243; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 881.

5 Information as to Nicaragua is lacking.

6 Minutes of Central American Peace Conference, 1907, Appendix 1, pp. 7–10.

7 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, II, p. 608; Moreno, op. cit., p. 159.

8 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 351.

9 3 Tejada, Tratados de Guatemala, p. 391.

10 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, II, p. 617.

11 Anderson, Luis, “The Peace Conference of Central America,” 2 this Journal (1908), p. 144.Google Scholar

12 The conference was also influenced to some extent by the treaty concerning pecuniary claims of Jan. 30, 1902, the text of which was published in the Minutes of the Central American Peace Conference, 1907, Appendix 1, p. 11.

13 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1906, 1, p. 851.

14 3, Tejada, Tratados de Guatemala, p. 391; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1906, I, p. 857.

15 This seems to have been thought by Nicaragua to be inconsistent with the Treaty of Corinto. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, p. 608. In 1907, various proposals were made for arbitration between Honduras and Nicaragua, by the two heads of states.

16 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1906, 1, p. 863.

17 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, II, p. 644.

18 Ibid., p. 644. Meetings of the preliminary conference were held in Washington, Sept. 11 and 16, 1917; the minutes are included in the Minutes of the Central American Peace Conference, 1907, pp. 5–11.

19 Minutes of the Central American Peace Conference at Washington, 1907. Preparatory meetings were held on Nov. 12 and 13.

20 Conferencia Centroamericana de Wàshington (Managua, 1908), p. xii.

21 The texts of these instruments are to be found in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, pp. 692–711, and in Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 219–265.

22 See Moreno, op. cit., pp. 251–266; República de Costa Rica, Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1909, p. viii; 1910, p. ix; 1913, p. xv.

23 The minutes of the conference state that the annexed article “was approved in the form of a recommendation” on Dec. 13, 1907. Minutes, p. 70.

24 Ramírez, Pactos Internacionales de El Salvador (1910), I, p. 84.

25 Convenciones Internacionales de Nicaragua (1913), pp. 146, 182.

26 Colección de las leyes y decretos, República de Costa Rica, 1908, primer semestre, p. 92.

27 La Gaceta de Honduras, April 1, 1908, No. 3,016, p. 201.

28 Recopilación de las Leyes de la República de Guatemala, 1908–1909, p. 349.

29 Ramírez, Pactos Internacionales de El Salvador (1910), p. 116.

30 It is not clear whether five ratifications of the annexed article were required to give it force. Mr. Dana G. Munro says that the article was never ratified. The Five Republics of Central America, p. 215. The provisional article was expressly mentioned in the ratification of Salvador. Ramirez, op. cit., p. 92. Both the provisional and the annexed articles are included in the text of the convention published in Convenciones Internacionales de Nicaragua, Managua, 1913, p. 155, and in La Gaceta de Honduras, April 3, 1908, p. 202. The two articles are expressly included in Decree No. 749 of Guatemala, March 11, 1908. Recopilación de Las Leyes de Guatemala, 1910, p. 349. On the other hand, no reference to the two articles is made in the text or ratification appearing in Colección de Leyes y Decretos de Costa Rica, 1908, pp. 92–104.

31 For the text, see Tratados Vigentes de la República de Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1913), Part I, pp. 431–432. An English translation is published in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 93.

32 Apparently, Marciano Acosta, substitute justice, was sitting at the time of the closing of the court. 46 Bulletin of the Pan American Union (1918), p. 540.

33 Article 9 of the Rules of Court provided for the payment by the court of traveling expenses of substitutes.

34 Anales de la Corte de Justida Centroamericana, III, Nos. 1–8, p. 14; IV, Nos. 11–13, p. 43; V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 109–110; VII, Nos. 19–20, p. 16.

35 For the text of the convention, see U. S. Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 93. It was ratified by Costa Rica, Jan. 30, 1911; Guatemala, Feb. 20, 1911; El Salvador, March 17, 1911; Nicaragua, Dec. 30, 1911; Honduras, March 19, 1912.

36 República de Costa Rica, Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1915, p. xvii.

37 “The New Palace of the Central American Court of Justice.” 44 Pan American Union Bulletin, June, 1917, pp. 734–739.

38 Representatives of the United States and of Mexico participated in the inaugural ceremony.

39 Anales, I, No. 4, p. 350; 8 this Journal (Supp., 1914), p. 190.

40 Though official, the Anales constitute a magazine of propaganda tendency, rather than a record of the court.

41 Anales, III, Nos. 1–8, p. 10.

42 Idem, p. 11 : V, Nos. 14–16. p. 104.

43 Anales, VII, Nos. 19–20, p. 37.

44 Cf., Basdevant, S., Les fonctionnaires internationaux (Paris, 1931)Google Scholar; Preuss, L., “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities of International Agents,” 25 this Journal (1931) p. 699 Google Scholar; Secretan, J., Les immunités diplomatiques des représentants des États membres et des agents de la Société des Nations (Genève, 1928)Google Scholar.

45 This provision seems to have been taken from Art. 48 of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, of July 29, 1899. See Minutes of the Central American Peace Conference of 1907, p. 65.

46 Anales, III, Nos. 1–8, p. 7.

47 Anales, I, No. 4, pp. 339–353. An English translation of the rules is published in 8 this Journal (Supp., 1914), p. 179.

48 See the note in Anales, I, No. 4, p. 382.

49 Anales, II, Nos. 11–16, pp. 193–210. An English translation of the ordinance is published in 8 this Journal (Supp., 1914), pp. 194–213.

50 Minutes of the Central American Peace Conference, 1907, p. 61.

51 Idem, p. 72.

52 Anales, I, No. 1, p. 67.

53 These facts are recorded in Protesta del Doctor Francisco Paniagua Prado, Magistrado de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana (Nicaragua, 1911), p. 5. This protest was addressed to the court, from León de Nicaragua, June 14, 1911.

54 Art. 12 of the rules adopted on Dec. 2, 1911, provided that the appointment of justices was an “act of exclusive responsibility of the State” making the appointment.

55 Anales, I, No. 1, pp. 12–99; II, Nos. 1–2, pp. 55–57; ibid., Nos. 6–10, pp. 179–182.

56 Strictly, not all of the matters considered by the court should be called cases.

57 In a pamphlet of the World Peace Foundation of February, 1917, concerning the “Central American League of Nations,” it is said that states not parties to the difficulty haled the actual parties before the court. The telegrams published in República de Costa Rica, Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1909, pp. vii–xi, seem to afford some basis for this statement; but the court was not originally seized of the case by Costa Rica, that state merely supplying the information on which it acted.

58 2 this Journal (1908), p. 836.

59 2 this Journal (1908), p. 838.

60 Published by the court (183 pages), at San José in 1908; also in Libro Rosado de El Salvador (1908). For English translations, see 3 this Journal (1909), pp. 434–436, 729–736. See also Ramírez, Cinco años en la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana (1918), p. 31.

61 Defensa por el señor representante y abogado de Guatemala con motivo de la demande del Gobierno de Honduras contra los de El Salvador y Guatemala (Guatemala, 1908).

62 Voto del Magistrado por Nicaragua en la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana (1908), San José: Maria v. de Lines. Justice Bocanegra (Guatemala) also gave a separate explanation of his vote.

63 James Brown Scott, in 3 this Journal (1909), p. 436. See also, Joseph Wheless, “The Central American Court of Justice,” 21 Case and Comment (1914), p. 551.

64 Resolución dictada en la demanda del Dr. don Pedro Andrés Fornos Diaz contra el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala (San José, 1909). For an English translation, see 3 this Journal (1909), pp. 737–747. See also Ramírez, op. cit., pp. 28–41.

65 Anales, I, No. 2, pp. 146–164.

66 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1910, p. 744.

67 Anales, I, No. 3, pp. 199–214.

68 Anales, II, Nos. 6–10, pp. 129–150.

69 Anales, II, Nos. 6–10, pp. 185–192.

70 Anales, III, Nos. 1–8, pp. 26–27.

71 Art. 2 of the convention of 1907 gives the court jurisdiction in cases brought by individuals, “provided that the remedies which the laws of the respective country provide against such violation shall have been exhausted or that denial of justice shall have been shown.”

72 See also Ramírez, op. cit., p. 61.

73 Anales, IV, Nos. 9–11, pp. 1–119; Ramírez, op. cit., pp. 82–106.

74 Anales, IV, Nos. 9–11, p. 84.

75 Anales, IV, Nos. 11–13, pp. 1–12. See also Ramírez, op. cit., pp. 107–110.

76 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 87–103, 122–129; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, pp. 841–842, 843–845; República de Costa Rica, Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1916, Anexos, pp. 63–137.

77 3 U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 2740.

78 Colección de Tratados, República de Costa Rica (1896), p. 149; British and Foreign State Papers, p. 1049.

79 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1888, I, p. 456.

80 Before the Central American Court of Justice, the Government of Costa Rica against the Government of Nicaragua (Printed at National Printing Office, San José, Costa Rica). An English translation of Costa Rica’s petition was published at Washington in 1916, by Gibson Brothers.

81 On Feb. 18, 1916. 3 U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 2742.

82 On March 27, 1916, the Costa Rican Minister in Washington notified the Secretary of State of the United States that the proceeding had been instituted. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 837.

83 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 843.

84 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 87–89; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 841.

85 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 90, 95, 98, 100, 102.

86 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 849.

87 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, p. 122.

88 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 130–176. English translations are published in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 862; 11 this Journal (1917), p. 181. The latter translation, reproducing a translation published by the Costa Rican Legation in Washington, seems to indicate erroneously that Justice Navas was not present when the decision was handed down.

89 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, p. 177.

90 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 888.

91 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916), p. 893; 11 this Journal (Supp. 1917), p. 3. For the replies to this communication, see Anales, VI, Nos. 16–18, pp. 1–6.

92 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 1104.

93 The text of the complaint, which bore the date of Aug. 14, 1916, is not published in the Amies. It may be found in Libro Rosado de El Salvador (San Salvador, 1916). An English translation is published in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 853.

94 Salvador’s claim of a condominium with Nicaragua and Honduras led to a protest by the latter, which refused to admit any condominium “in the waters of Fonseca Bay which correspond to Honduras.” U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 890.

95 Anales, V, Nos. 14–16, pp. 229–231; VI, Nos. 16–18, pp. 7–9.

96 Anales, VI, Nos. 16–18, pp. 21–95; Alegato verbal de Señor Guerra, abogado del Gobierno de El Salvador en la vista del juicio promovido contra el Gobierno de Nicaragua (San José, 1917).

97 Anales, VI, Nos. 16–18, pp. 96–170. An English translation of the decision is published in 11 this Journal (1917), p. 674; and in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 862.

98 Anales. VI. Nos. 16–18. p. 171.

99 Idem, p. 199.

100 Anales. VII, Nos. 19–20, p. 18.

101 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 1104. This note was in marked contrast to the attitude of the Nicaraguan delegation at the conference of 1907. Conferencia Centro-americana de Wàshington (Managua, 1908), pp. xii–xv.

102 For the text, see 5 this Journal (Supp., 1911), pp. 291–293.

103 The negotiation of this convention was conducted with considerable secrecy. A text is published in Appendix L to the claim of Costa Rica against Nicaragua, before the Central American Court of Justice. (An English translation of this claim was published by Gibson Brothers, Washington, 1916.) A spirited defense of the convention, entitled “American Policy in Nicaragua,” by George T. Weitzel, one of the signers, is published in Senate Document No. 334, 64th Congress, 1st session. See also Finch, George A., “The Treaty with Nicaragua Granting Canal and Other Rights to the United States,” 10 this Journal (1916), p. 344.Google Scholar

104 For the English text, see 3 U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 2740. A Spanish text may be found in El Golfo de Fonseca y el Tratado Bryan-Chamorro, Documentos Oficiales, Ministerio de las Relaciones Exteriores de El Salvador (San Salvador, 1917), p. 61. For comment see Luis Anderson, “El Tratado Bryan-Chamorro,” Anales, VII, Nos. 19–20, p. 43.

105 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1032.

106 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 812.

107 Idem, p. 833.

108 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1022; 1914, pp. 959, 962, 967; 1915, p. 1110; 1916, pp. 811, 814, 818. An account of Costa Rica’s protests to the United States and to Nicaragua is also given in República de Costa Rica, Memoria de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1913, pp. viii–xv; 1915, p. xii; Anexos, 1915, p. 58.

109 Identical protocols were signed by the United States with Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Dec. 1, 1900. 1 U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 351; 2 idem, p. 1290. In a memorandum entitled “The Disturbing Influence in Central America of the Nicaraguan Canal Treaty with the United States of America” (Washington, 1917), Mr. Chandler P. Anderson argues that these protocols were never in force.

110 The writer is informed that no record of a protest by Honduras exists in the archives of the Department of State in Washington.

111 At an earlier period, El Salvador had urged the construction of a Nicaraguan Canal by the United States. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1883, p. 57.

112 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1027. In 1917, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador published a collection of documents, entitled El Golfo de Fonseca y el Tratado Bryan-Chamorro. A “Manifesto from the Salvadorean People in Central America to the People of the United States,” Sept. 30, 1913, may be some indication of public opinion in El Salvador.

113 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 815.

114 On the neutrality of Honduras, see Salvador Rodríguez González, “The Neutrality of Honduras and the Question of the Gulf of Fonseca,” 10 this Journal (1916), p. 509.

115 See Reeves, Jesse S., “Clearing the Way for the Nicaragua Canal,” 17 this Journal (1923), p. 309.Google Scholar

116 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 30.

117 Idem, p. 31. By Art. 1 of the Tacoma Agreement of Aug. 20, 1922, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, declared that the Treaty of Peace and Amity of 1907 should be regarded as being in force beginning from that date, pending its revision. Conference on Central American Affairs, 1923, p. 6.

118 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1918, p. 247.

119 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 39–45.

120 Anales, VII, Nos. 19–20, pp. 32–42.

121 For the text of the treaty, see Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 15 (1921), pp. 328–335; 5 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 19; 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 600.

122 La Gaceta de Honduras, Sept. 29, 1921, pp. 873–883.

123 See 11 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 393.

124 The treaty of 1907 seems to have been denounced by Nicaragua in 1920.

125 For the texts, see Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), pp. 70–132; Proceedings of the Conference of 1923, pp. 287, 296, 392; 2 Hudson, International Legislation, pp. 901, 908, 985.

126 Fifteen nominations were made by the Government of the United States in compliance with Article 3 of the convention. 20 this Journal (1926), p. 142. Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua each designated six persons. U. S. Treaty Information Bulletin No. 15, p. 1. Apparently no designations have been made by Honduras and El Salvador. In connection with the boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras, the government of the latter relied upon the non-existence of a complete list in refusing to submit the dispute to the International Central American Tribunal.

127 In June, 1928, the Government of the United States suggested that a boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras be referred to the tribunal created under the convention. By a treaty signed at Washington on July 16, 1930, of which ratifications were exchanged October 15, 1931, the Governments of Guatemala and Honduras agreed to an arbitration of their boundary dispute by a special tribunal. The parties were unable to agree as to the capacity in which this tribunal should act, and a preliminary question was formulated to enable the tribunal to decide whether it should act as the International Central American Tribunal created by the convention of February 7, 1923, or as a special boundary tribunal. On January 8, 1932, the special tribunal, consisting of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Luis Castro-Urefia, and Emilio Bello-Codesido, decided this preliminary question, holding that it was bound to act as a special boundary tribunal and not as the International Central American Tribunal. Guatemala-Honduras Boundary Arbitration, Opinion and Judgment of the Special Tribunal on the Preliminary Question, Washington, 1932.

128 See Eyma, Jean, La Cour de Justice Centre-Américaine (Paris, 1928), pp. 40–58.Google Scholar

129 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 35.