Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:10:37.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case: Termination of the Judicial Phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Alona E. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For two and a half years, Colombia and Peru have engaged in a controversy regarding the status as a political offender and the ultimate disposition of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, long-time chief of the leftist Alianza Popular Revolucianaria Americana (APBA), who was granted asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima on January 3, 1949. Several months of fruitless diplomatic negotiation between the parties were followed by their submission of the case to the International Court of Justice which, in turn, has dealt with various aspects of the matter in the course of three successive judgments.

Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1951 , pp. 755 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

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 For the background of the case and a discussion of the first and second judgments which were rendered by the Court on November 20 and 27, 1950, see Manley O. Hudson, “The Twenty-Ninth Year of the World Court,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 19-27. See also L. C. Green's note on the case in International Law Quarterly, Vol. 4 (1951), pp. 229-239.

2 Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru), I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 266; this JOURNAL, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 179.

3 I. C. J. Reports, 1950, pp. 287-288.

4 Ibid., p. 399.

5 Ibid., p. 395, at p. 403.

6 See notes exchanged by Peru and Colombia on Nov. 28, Dec. 6, and Dec. 14, 1950, Revista Peruana de Derecho International, Vol. 10 (Sept.-Dec. 1950), pp. 233 et seq.

7 Peru agreed to the new proceeding on Dec. 26. Haya de la Torre Case, Order of January 3rd, 1951, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 4. The jurisdiction of the Court for this proceeding was based on Arts. 36 and 37 of the Statute of the Court and on Art. 7 of the 1934 Protocol of Friendship and Co-operation between Colombia and Peru. 164 League of Nations Treaty Series 22. In the face of the unwillingness of the parties to reach an amicable settlement of the controversy, the United States ventured to offer its good offices. The New York Times, Dec. 2, 1950, 6: 7. The Organization of American States was asked by Guatemala to include the “ ‘Reaffirmation of the Eight of Asylum as an American juridical principle’ ” on the agenda of the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers to be held in Washington in March, 1951. While the Council was sympathetic to this suggestion, it decided that the topic was not a factor in the emergency situation giving rise to this meeting of Foreign Ministers. In a resolution, the Council recommended that the Inter-American Juridical Committee “give preferential attention to the study of the topic of the regimen of political asylees, exiles, and refugees.” Council of the Organization of American States, Decisions Taken at the Meeting Held on February 14, 1951, pp. 25-26.

8 132 League of Nations Treaty Series 323; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 158.

9 The Cuban letter constituted a declaration of intervention under Art. 66, par. 1, of the Rules of the Court. Haya de la Torre Case, Judgment of June 13th, 1951, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, pp. 72-74.

10 It may be noted that Peru severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in August, 1949, over the issue of diplomatic asylum granted in the Cuban Embassy at Lima to two Apristas who subsequently escaped to Havana. International Court of Justice, Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia/Peru) Pleadings (May, 1951), pp. 3-5.

11 Pleadings, p. 17; I.C.J. Reports, 1951, pp. 76-77; this JOURNAL, pp. 782-783.

12 I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 75.

13 Ibid.In consideration of the Peruvian counter-memorial, an addition was made to the Colombian submission on May 16, 1951, the Court being requested:

“To state in what manner the Judgment of November 20th, 1950, shall be executed by Colombia, when stating, in accordance with the first point of our principal claim, ‘in what manner the Judgment of November 20th, 1950, shall be executed by Colombia and Peru’;

“On Submission II of the same Counter-Memorial: To reject it;

“And, should occasion arise, to reject Submission III of the said Counter-Memorial.” Ibid., p. 76.

The ad hoc judges again were José Joaquín Caicedo Castilla for Colombia and Luia Alayza y Paz Soldán for Peru. I.C.J. Communiqué No. 51/3 (unofficial), Feb. 9, 1951.

14 Pleadings, pp. 39, 40.

15 Ibid.

16 I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 71; this JOURNAL, p. 781.

17 I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 79.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., p. 80.

20 Ibid., p. 81.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., pp. 81-82.

23 Ibid., p. 82.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 83.

26 The New York Times, July 15, 1951, 20: 4. According to a despatch from Bogotá, of Aug. 4, unofficial sources indicated that Colombia would soon send an ambassador to Peru for the purpose of carrying on negotiations regarding Haya de la Torre. La Baeón, La Paz, Aug. 5, 1951, 1: 7.

27 See the letter of Dr. Eduardo Zuleta Angel to the New York Times, Nov. 22, 1950, 24: 6; see also the comment of L. C. Green in International Law Quarterly, Vol. 4 (1951), pp. 238-239.

28 The Permanent Court of International Justice was given jurisdiction in the Bolivian-Paraguayan dispute over the Chaco and in the Colombian-Peruvian dispute over Leticia, but neither case was adjudicated. Manley O. Hudson, International Tribunals, Past and Future (Washington, 1944), p. 141