Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:05:21.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guatemala vs. Great Britain: In Re Belice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1946 , pp. 383 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1946

References

1 For brief information see: The Statesman’s Year Book, 1943, pp. 271–273; Pan American Year Book, 1945, pp. 530–532. British literature: G. Henderson, An Account of the British Settlements of Honduras, 1811; Honduras Almanac, Belice, 1828; D. Morris, The Colony of British Honduras, 1883; A. R. Gibbs, British Honduras: A historical and descriptive account of the colony from its settlement, 1670, London, 1883; L. W. Bristowe and P. B. Wright, Handbook of British Honduras, 1889–1893; A. B. Dillon, Geography of British Honduras, London, 1923; M. S. Metzgen and H. E. C. Cain, Handbook of British Honduras, 1925; A. H. Anderson, Brief Sketch of British Honduras, London, 1927; Sir J. A. Burdon, Brief Sketch of British Honduras, London, 1928; Sir A. Aspinall, Handbook of the British West Indies, British Guiana and British Honduras, 1929–1930.

2 C. H. Haring, Buccaneers in the West-Indies, 1910.

3 Cambridge History of the British Empire, Vol. I, p. 246.

4 Same, p. 382.

5 Williams, Mary W., Anglo-Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815–1915, Washington, 1916, p. 2 Google Scholar.

6 Cambridge History of the British Empire, Vol. II, pp. 538–541. See also Sir J. A. Burdon, Archives of British Honduras, London, 1931–1935.

7 E. W. Williams, The Baymen of Belice and how they wrested British Honduras from the Spaniards, 1914.

8 Malloy, Treaties of the U.S., Vol. I, p. 659; Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, 1857, p. 187.

9 British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. XLIX, pp. 13–19; Martens, Vol. XVI, Part II (1860), pp. 370–374.

10 Same, pp. 96–106. See also British-Nicaraguan Treaty, signed at Managua on April 19, 1905, in Martens, 2e sér., Vol. XXXV (1908), p. 367, which provides, in Art. 2: “His Britannic Majesty agrees to recognize the absolute sovereignty of Nicaragua over the territory that constituted the former Mosquito Reserve.”

11 Ireland, Gordon, Boundaries, Possessions, and Conflicts in Central and North America and the Caribbean, Cambridge, Mass., 1941, pp. 120–128 Google Scholar.

12 Wyke-Aycinena Treaty: British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. XLIX, pp. 7–13; Martens: Vol. XVI, Part II (1860), pp. 366–370. The treaty is in English and Spanish.

13 Art. 7: “With the object of practically carrying out the views set forth in the preamble of the present Convention for improving and perpetuating the friendly relations which at present so happily exist between the two High Contracting Parties, they mutually agree conjointly to use their best efforts by taking adequate means for establishing the easiest communication (either by means of a cart-road, or employing the rivers or both united, according to the opinion of the surveying engineers) between the fittest place on the Atlantic Coast, near the settlement of Belice, and the capital of Guatemala, whereby the commerce of England on the one hand, and the material prosperity of the Republic on the other, cannot fail to be sensibly increased, at the same time that the limits of the two countries being now clearly defined, all further encroachments by either party on the territory of the other will ; be effectually checked and prevented for the future.”

14 Martens: 3e sér., Vol. XXVI (1933), pp. 42–48. The text of the treaty of 1859 is reprinted in the Annex.

15 Guatemala, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Libro Blanco: Cuestión de Belice, 1938, and Continuaeión del Libro Blanco, 1939.

16 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, , The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement, 1988–1940, Washington, 1940, p. 337 Google Scholar.

17 Work cited, p. 363.

18 D. Vela, Nuestro Belice, Guatemala City, 1939; Opinion of the Geographical and Historical Society of Guatemala on Guatemala’a right to Belice, 2nd ed., 1939; S. Aguilar, La cuestión de Bdice, in Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Juridicas y Sociales de Guatemala, Vol. I (1938–39), pp. 281–307, 499–630, Vol. II, pp. 56–114, 290–322, 440–453, 500–504, 543–556 and, Vol. IV, pp. 34–53, 250–268; Fernando Juárez Muñoz, Belice es nuestro, in same, Vol. II, pp. 557–561, and Vol. III, pp. 66–87,163–172; Marco Aurelio Morales, Asunto de Belice entre Guatemala y Bretaña in same, Vol. III, pp. 281–287; L. Anderson, Los Estados Unidos y las ocupaciones británicas en Centra-América, in Revista de Derecho Intemacional, No. 72 (1939), pp. 170–227; F. Termer, Guatemala und Britisch Honduras: ein Landatreit, in Ibero-Amerikanisches Archie, Berlin, Vol. XIV (1940), pp. 44–67; F. Asturias, Belice, Guatemala City, 1941, G. Santiso Gálvez, El caso de Belice alaluz de la historia y el derecho intemacional, Guatemala City, 1941; José Luis Mendoza, Inglaterra y sua poctos sobre Belice, 1942 (reviewed by Aurelio Alba in Tulnne Law Review, Vol. XIX (1944), pp. 315–322; A. Cravioto, LaPcude America, Mexico City, 1943; Gabriel Pasos, Belice: patrimonio de Guatemala, Thesis, Granada (Nicaragua), 1944.

The most important juridical study is L. Anderson, Estudiojuridico acerca de la controversia entre Guatemala y la Gran Bretaña relativa a la convención deSOde abril de 1859 sobre asuntoa territoriales in Revista de Derecho Intemacional, No. 70 (1939), pp. 163–231. This study has been made Guatemala’s official standpoint. Guatemala has also favored the book by Mendoza. A brief summary of Guatemala’s legal position is now given in Revista de . . . Guatemala, Vol. VIII (1945), pp. 24–27.

19 Text in Revista de . . . Guatemala, Vol. VIII (1945), pp. 35–79.

20 Same, p. 78.

21 The Guatemalan note of 1945 and the British answer of 1946 were circulated among the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations. (General Assembly, A/13, 23 January 1946, 5 pp.).

22 “By the treaty of 1783 Belice still remained under Spanish sovereignty. In 1815, and for many years subsequent to that date, Britain regarded Belice merely as a settlement of British subjects upon soil the sovereignty of which was in Spain” (Mary W. Williams, Anglo-Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815–1915, Washington, 1916, p. 9). It is, therefore, not correct, as Ireland states, that British Honduras has been “a British colony for 300 years” (work cited, p. 120).

23 A statement by Clayton to Bulwer is quoted in Cambridge History of the British Empire (Vol. II, p. 541), according to which the United States did not construe the renunciation of territorial interests by Great Britain as extending to her settlement in Belice. But later the Senate set up an inquiry into British proceedings in Belice and a United States Representative “went on to claim that Belice itself was part of Guatemalan territory and that the British settlers were intruders” (same, p. 541). The United States recognized British claims to Belice in the Dallas-Clarendon treaty of 1856, but Guatemala takes the position that this treaty can in no way be binding upon Guatemala.

24 Bancroft, History of Central America, Vol. II, p. 629. See also Manuel Peniche, Historia de las relaciones de España y México con Inglaterra sobre el establecimiento de Belice, 1869.

25 “Continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title” (Huber, Arbitrator, The Island of Palmas (Miangas), 1928).