1. López, J.F., Derecho y arbitraje internacional: legislación y Jurisprudencia argentina, (Paris, 1891) p. 5.Google Scholar

2. See Bolivar's Circular of 7 December, 1824 inviting the Republics to the Congress at Panama (1826); Selected Writings of Bolivar (compiled by Lecuna, Vicente), (New York, 1951) ii. 456.Google Scholar

3. E.g. see The American Treaty of Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogota) of 30 April, 1948: 30 U.N.T.S., no. 449.

4. In the inter-war years great hopes were placed on the efficacy of the processes of inquiry and conciliation. The International American conferences of those years succeeded in creating and perfecting instruments e.g. the Gondra Treaty (1923) and the Washington Convention of Conciliation (1929) which embodied these pacific procedures. The threat of the Second World War produced the system of consultation which has come in the post-war years to play a major role in dealing with Latin American disputes. This role has been shared with the Inter-American Peace Committee, a peace-keeping body which was first employed in 1948 and functioned fairly satisfactorily until 1956 when it was stripped of its real power.

5. Cf. the practice among the ancient Greeks. “By far the largest class of disputes submitted to arbitration in the ancient Greek world appears to have consisted of those which arose out of conflicting territorial claims”: Tod, , International Arbitration amongst the Greeks, (Oxford, 1913), p. 53.Google Scholar

6. e.g. The Mexico-Venezuela Arbitration (1903)Google Scholar: Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, prepared by Ralston, and Doyle, , 58th Congress. 2nd Session Senate, Dec, No. 316, pp. 875–888Google Scholar; Stuyt, , Survey of International Arbitrations, 1794–1970, (Leiden, 1972), No. 259Google Scholar (hereafter referred to as Stuyt): Brazil-Peru (1904): Stuyt, No. 273; Brazil-Paraguay (1972); Stuyt, No. 99. These arbitrations concerned private claims.

7. Buckland, , A Textbook of Roman Law, (Cambridge, 1963), p. 734.Google Scholar

8. In South America 1810 was considered to be the year of independence; in Central America it was 1821. Cf. the 1964 Resolution of the Organization of African Unity which declared inter alia: ‘The Assembly of Heads of State and Government solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence’.

9. De Paredes, Santamaría, A Study of the question of Boundaries between the Republics of Peru and Ecuador. Trans, by van Dyke, H. W., (Washington, 1910) p. 270.Google Scholar

10. Uribe, A. J., Anales diplomáticos y consulares de Colombia, (Bogota, 1900–1920) i.82Google Scholar. 11. Article 7 read inter alia as follows: ‘The Republics of the Confederation recognize, as a principle based on law, the uti possidetis of 1810 for the determination of their respective boundaries and in order to demarcate such limits, where they are not natural and clear, agree that the Governments of the two Republics concerned will name commissioners, who having examined the disputed territory, shall fix the boundary between the two Republics according to the water-sheds, the thalweg or other natural-boundaries, as far as the terrain would permit …’.

12. See de Lapradelle, Paul, La Frontière: étude de droit international, (Paris, 1928) pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

13. Infra, p. 276.Google Scholar

14. R.I.A.A., i. 228Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 320.

15. Affaire de Limites entre la Colombie et le Venezuela, Réplique de la République de Colombie, Consultation pour le Gouvernement de Colombie par M. Alejandro Alvarez, p. 185.Google Scholar

16. Stuyt. No. 249.

17. 105 B.F.S.P., p. 574.Google Scholar

18. Lapradelle, . op cit., pp. 86–81;Google Scholar

19. For instance the Arbitral Tribunal in the Guatemala-Honduras Arbitration (1930) held that the Royal Cedula of 1745 was a grant of military authority which did not demarcate boundaries or dismember territories: R.I.A.A., ii. 1324Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 393. The boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru offers another example of this. The Royal Cedula of 1802 has been submitted to conflicting interpretation by both parties: see del Perú, Memoriaen el arbitraje sobre sus límites con el Ecuador presentada a S.M. el Real Arbitro, (Madrid, 1905), iii. 33Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 149.

20. See Fisher, , 27 A.J.I.L. (1933), p. 416.Google Scholar

21. See Otero, José María Quijano, Memoria histórica sobre límites entre la república de Colombia i el Imperio del Brasil, (Bogota, 1869) p. 426.Google Scholar

22. In the Argentina-Brazil Boundary Arbitration (1899) the Argentine Republic observed: ‘The politics of usurpation of territories pursued relentlessly, during four centuries by the Portuguese Crown by Portugal against Spain, and continued by the Brazilian Empire, after the Independence of the Hispanic Republics against the Argentine Republic, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay and others, ought definitively to be contained, within the limits established by solemn treaties: Alegato de la República Argentina sobre la Cuestión de Límites con el Brasil en el Territorio de Missiones, (Washington, 1894) p.6; Stuyt, No. 157.

23. Waldock, , 25 B.Y.I.L., (1948) p. 325Google Scholar; see also Lapradelle, , op. cit., p. 86Google Scholar; Fisher, , 27 A.J.I.L., (1933) p. 415Google Scholar; Boggs, , International boundaries: a study of boundary functions and problems, (New York, 1940) p. 289Google Scholar; Prescott, , Geography of Frontiers, (1965) p. 116Google Scholar; Blum, , Historic Titles in International Law, (The Hague, 1965) pp. 341–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bloomfield, , The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, (Toronto, 1953) pp. 92–94Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , 51 A.J.I.L., (1957) p. 309 at pp. 320–321.Google Scholar

24. Lapradelle, , op. cit., p. 87.Google Scholar

25. See Westlake, International Law, (Cambridge, 1904) i. 346–347Google Scholar; The Times, 10 02, 1896.Google Scholar

26. 89 B.F.S.P., p. 57Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 207.

27. 99 B.F.S.P., p. 930Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 240. Fauchille has criticized this Award as being based on a principle which had been introduced into international law only in 1885 by the Berlin Act; 12 R.G.D.I.P., (1905) pp. 45–49Google Scholar. Cf. Jessup's criticisms of the Award in The Palmas Case, (R.I.A.A. ii. 829) in 22 A.J.I.L., (1928) p. 735 on pp. 739–740.Google Scholar

28. Stuyt, No. 293.

29. See Award in 26 A.J.I.L., (1932) pp. 390–391Google Scholar. For observations see Waldock, , 25 B.Y.I.L., (1948) p. 325 at p. 329.Google Scholar

30. Manning, W. R., Arbitration Treaties among the American Nations, (New York, 1924) p. 211Google Scholar; to the same effect see Article V of the Treaty for the Arbitration of Boundary Disputes between Bolivia and Peru (1902): Manning, , op cit., p. 332Google Scholar; see also Article 2(4) of the Convention for Settling the Boundary Disputes by a Mixed Commission with ultimate Arbitration between Honduras and Salvador (1895): Manning, , op. cit., p. 217.Google Scholar

31. R.I.A.A., ix. 37Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 224.

32. See Alvarez, , 10 R.G.D.I.P., (1903) p. 673.Google Scholar

33. See Award of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for the Arbitration of a controversy between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile concerning parts of the Boundary between their Territories (1966)Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as the Award of 1966; Stuyt, No. 431.

34. The Times, 30 09, 1967.Google Scholar

35. Great-Britain-Venezuela Boundary Arbitration (1897).

36. Brazil-France Boundary Arbitration (1897).

37. Generally see Santamaría de Paredes, op. cit.; Zook, D.H. Jr., Zarumilla-Maranón: The Ecuador-Peru Dispute, (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; de la Barra, Felipe, Tumbes, Jaen y Maynas: estudio integral de la controversia limitrofe peruano-ecuadoriana hasta el Pacto de Rio de Janeiro y su renuencia por el pais del norte, (Lima, 1961)Google Scholar; Donoso, Julio Tobar and Tobar, Alfredo Luna, Derecho territorial ecuatoriano, (Quito, 1961)Google Scholar; Maier, Georg, The Boundary Dispute between Ecuador and Peru, 63 A.J.I.L., (1969) p. 46.Google Scholar

38. Infra, p. 285.Google Scholar

39. Infra, p. 287.Google Scholar

40. Infra, p. 289.Google Scholar

41. International Legal Materials, (1966), p. 764.Google Scholar

42. Colombia in tact made a proposal to that effect in reply to Peru's invitation to the Congress at Lima (1864): Congresos y Conferencias Internacionales en que ha tornado parte el Perú, colleccionados sus trabajos por Ricardo Aranda, publicación oficial del ministerio de relaciones exteriores, (Lima. 1909–1920) i.366. Cf. ‘The normal appeal of the Greek states, during the days of Hellenic freedom and even in Hellenistic times was to another Greek city’: Tod, , op. cit., p. 96.Google Scholar

43. Sec Alvarez, , Le Droit international américain, (Paris, 1910) p. 255Google Scholar; on the general issue see Hoijer, , La solution pacifique des litiges internationaux avant et depuis la Société des Nations, (Paris, 1925) p. 112.Google Scholar

44. Cf. the repercussions of President Alcorta's Award in 1909 in the Bolivia-Peru Boundary Arbitration: Arbitraje argentino en la cuestión de límites entre las Repúblicas del Perú y Bolivia, Azul, Libro, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, (Argentina, 1909) p. 127Google Scholar. In 1910 the Brazilian Rio Branco declined the office of umpire to which he was appointed by the Colombia-Peru Convention of 13 April, 1910. He gave as his reasons that Brazil was an immediate neighbour of the two Republics and it would be impolitic for a Brazilian umpire to give a decision which could effect its relations with either Republic: Boletín del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, (Lima, 1904) vol. 40, p. 73.Google Scholar

45. E.g. see the Treaty of 1880 between Honduras and Salvador submitting the question of boundaries to the President of Nicaragua: Manning, op.cit., p. 116; also the Protocol of 1895 between Bolivia and Peru submitting the question concerning reparation for injuries committed by Peruvian troops on Bolivian territory to the Government of Brazil: Manning, , op. cit., p. 239.Google Scholar

46. The following passage from the Protocol of 1886 between Colombia and Venezuela illustrated this point: ‘likewise it is to be remembered that the selection of the Spanish Government as Judge on this case was particularly due to the circumstances that Spain had been the former owner of the territories which the two Republics hold in dispute, and that there exist in the archives of Spain the documents from which the claims both arise; and further, that the Peninsular contains many men who have distinguished themselves in American questions’: Protocol between Colombia and Venezuela, respecting the Interpretation of Article 1 of the Treaty of September 14, 1881 (Arbitration of the Spanish Government in the question of Boundaries between the two Republics) 15 February, 1886: 77 B.F.S.P., pp. 1012–1013.Google Scholar

47. See Connell-Smith, , The Inter-American System, (London, 1966), passim.Google Scholar

48. This occurred in 1896, 1965 and again in 1971, when by an Agreement for Arbitration of 22 July, 1971 the Argentine Republic and Chile agreed to submit the Beagle Channel controversy to arbitration. In accordance with the terms of the General Treaty of Arbitration of 28 May, 1902 concluded between the two Republics Her Britannic Majesty was appointed arbitrator. The members of the Court of Arbitration were chosen from among the judges of the International Court of Justice: Dillard, H.C., SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, Gros, A., Onyeama, C.D. and Petren, S.: 10 I.L.M. (1971) p. 1182Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 435 and infra p. 281.Google Scholar

49. President Monroe's famous message of 1823 contained the following passage: ‘The Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of un unfriendly disposition toward the United States’: Moore, . 6 Digest of International Law, Section 936.Google Scholar

50. U.S. For. Rel., 1895 i. 15.Google Scholar

51. Ibid.

52. See for instance U.S. For. Rel., 1928 i. 529.Google Scholar

53. Alvarez, , op. cit., p. 46.Google Scholar

54. A notable exception occurred when Honduras and Nicaragua submitted their boundary dispute to the International Court of Justice. They based the jurisdiction of the Court on their acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction in the Pact of Bogota (Article 31) and they also agreed to resort to arbitration as provided by the Pact of Bogota (Article 35) if, as a result of the application of the judicial procedure, all phases of the dispute concerning the Award of 1906 had not been definitively settled. See The Washington Agreement of 21 July, 1957: U.N.T.S., no. 4005.

55. See Argentine-Chile Boundary Arbitration, Report presented to the Tribunal appointed by Her Britannic Majesty's Government ‘to consider and report upon the differences which have arisen with regard to the frontier between the Argentine and Chilean Republics’ to justify the Argentine claims for the boundary in the summit of the Cordillera de los Andes, according to the treaties of 1881 and 1893, p. 72, supra, p. 269 note 11.

56. del Perú, AlegatoEn el arbitraje sobres sus límites con el Ecuador presentado a S.M. el arbitro la Reina Regente de España, (Madrid, 1905) p. 81.Google Scholar

57. Arbitration, Costa Rica-Panama: Argument of Costa Rica before the Arbitrator Hon. Edward Douglass White, (Washinton, 1913) p. 29Google Scholar; Stuyt. No. 298.

58. For an instance of Chile's attitude to obligatory arbitration at the end of the nineteenth century see Minutes of the International American Conference. United States Senate Documents. 51st Congress. 1st Session Vol. 13, (Washington, 1890) p. 709. Chile seems to be no longer an opponent of compulsory arbitration. She made no reservation to the Pact of Bogota of 1948 and indeed was against later attempts at revising the Pact: see Inter-American Juridical Yearbook (1955–1959) p. 96.Google Scholar

59. See Arbitration, Peruvian-Chilean: The Memorial of Peru, (Washington D.C. 1923) pp. 171–176; Stuyt, No. 349.Google Scholar

60. Ibid: The Counter-Case of Chue, pp. 379–389. For Protocol see 116 B.F.S.P., p. 275.Google Scholar

61. Cf. General Treaty of Arbitration of 21 November, 1901, between Bolivia and Peru. By Article IV it was agreed that the arbitration should be carried out by the Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration to be established by virtue of the Agreement adopted by the Second International American Conference. See 95 B.F.S.P., p. 1818.Google Scholar

62. Spain's claim to her territories in the New World was perhaps based either on conquest or occupation. On this topic see generally Lindley, M.F., The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, (London, 1926)Google Scholarpassim; de Victoria, Franciscus, De Indis et de Jure Belli Relectiones being parts of Relectiones Theologicae XII, (ed.) Nys, E., The Classics of International Law, (Washington, 1917) p. 127Google Scholar er seq; Grotius, , Mare Liberum, (London, 1916) p. 13Google Scholar, a translation; Gentili, Alberico, De Jure Belli Libri Tres, The Classics of International Law, no. 16, (Oxford, 1933), vol. IGoogle Scholar, text, vol. II, translation, Book I. Ch. XIX; Lawrence, M.A., The Principles of International Law, (London, 1910) p. 15Google Scholar; Westlake, John, Chapters on Principles of International Law, (Cambridge, 1894) p. 141Google Scholaret passim; Westlake, , 23 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, (Brussels, 1891) p. 243Google Scholar; Oppenheim, , International Law, sixth edition, 1.507Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , International Law, (London, 1957) i. 296.Google Scholar

63. For the views held by Great Britain and France in regard to the North American Indians see Snow, A.H., The Question of Aborigines in the Law and Practice of Nations, (Washington, 1919) p. 16Google Scholar. Sec also Cayuga Indians (Great Britain) and United States: R.IAA. iv. 173 on p. 176Google Scholar; Hyde, . International Law, (Boston, 1945), i. 24.Google Scholar

64. In the Guatemala-Honduras Boundary Arbitration the Republic of Honduras alluded to certain relics of Mayan civilisation to support her territorial claims to the contested zone: de límites, Arbitraje entre Guatemala y Honduras (English and Spanish) Replica de Honduras, (Washington. 1932) p. 61.Google Scholar

65. The British Guiana Boundary: Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela, The Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, (London, 1898) p. 88.Google Scholar

66. Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela before the Tribunal of Arbitration, (New York, 1898) p. 52Google Scholar. It is interesting that in recent times it has been alleged that the Venezuelan authorities were stirring up the Amerindian tribes to issue a statement that they would prefer Venezuelan sovereignty. See The Times, 19 07, 1968.Google Scholar

67. British Guiana Boundary Arbitration with the United States of Brazil, The Case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty, (London, 1903) p. 88.Google Scholar

67a. Brésil, Frontières du et anglaise, de la Guyane: questïon soumise à l'arbitrage de S.M. le Roi d'Italie, Second Mémoire Brésilien (Paris, 1903) p. 391.Google Scholar

68. Manning, , op. cit., p. 211Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 180. For other instances see the Boundary Convention (1895) between Guatemala, and Honduras, , 87 B.F.S.P., p. 530Google Scholar, Stuyt, No. 185 and the Treaty of Peace (1829) between Colombia, and Peru, , 16 B.F.S.P., p. 1237.Google Scholar

69. See for instance, Article 3 of the Gamez-Bonilla Treaty.

70. Text of treaty in 1 A.J.I.L., (1907) Supp. 416Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 266.

71. See Articles II and IV of the Petropolis Treaty; see too the Boundary Treaty of July 15, 1916 concluded between Colombia, and Ecuador, , 110 B,F.S.P., p. 826.Google Scholar

72. Cf. the Peru-Bolivian Boundary Commission which was created in 1910 to give effect to the Award of 9 July, 1909 and the Boundary Treaty of 1909.

73. Generally see Lapradelle, , op. cit., pp. 144–171.Google Scholar

74. Uribe, , op. cit., i. 192.Google Scholar

75. Ireland, , Boundaries, Possessions and Conflicts in South America, (Cambridge, Mass., 1938) p. 214.Google Scholar

76. 110 B.F.S.P., p. 829.Google Scholar

77. Affaire de Limites entre le Venezuela et la Colombie; de Venezuela, Premier Memore, p. 27Google Scholar; de Venezuela, Réponse au Premier Mémoire de la Colombie, p. 31Google Scholar; de Venezuela, Réplique, pp. 159, 161.Google Scholar

78. The Award observed that: ‘les traités successifs conclus entre les Parties depuis 1833 ont contenu le principe que les procès-verbaux et les plans dressés par les Commissions des deux Pays doivent, lorsqu'ils sont concordants, être considérés comme faisant partie du traité et comme “ayant les mèmes force et valeur que s'ils y étaient inserés”’: R.I.A.A., i. 281.Google Scholar

79. For Award see R.I.A.A., ix. 37.Google Scholar

80. Ibid., pp. 37–38 For Report see ibid., p. 39.

81. For map see the Award of 1966.

82. Ibid., p. 55.

83. Certain important provisions of this Protocol are cited on pp. 57–58 of the Award of 1966.

84. Ibid., p. 57.

85. The Argentine Republic referred to the resolutions of the Mixed Boundary Commission as Acts whereas Chile referred to them as Minutes.

86. On 15 September, 1964 the Government of Chile addressed a Note to the British Government invoking the General Treaty of Arbitration of 1902: 95 B.F.S.P., p. 759Google Scholar. This Argentine-Chile treaty contained this rather interesting and very significant provision:

‘in default of agreement either of the Parties shall be empowered to invite the intervention of the Arbiter, whose duty it will be to determine the Agreement, the time, place, and formalities of the proceedings, as also to settle any difficulties of procedure as to whi;h disputes may arise in the course of the arbitration’. (Article 5).

The two parties were prepared to leave the determination of the Agreement (Compromiso) to Her Majesty's Government in accordance with the above Aritele. The Arbitration Tribunal consisted of Lord McNair (President), Mr. L.P. Kirwan and Brigadier K.M. Palworth. Professor D.H.N. Johnson was appointed Registrar of the Court. It must be noted that the General Treaty of Arbitration of 1902 has now been replaced by the General Agreement on Judicial Solution of Disputes concluded between the two Republics on 5 April, 1972: 11 I.L.M. (1972) p. 691Google Scholar. This instrument provides for the submission of disputes to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Thus the role of the British Government as arbitrator in the disputes between the Argentine Republic and Chile has come to an end. Supra, p. 275.Google Scholar

87. Argentine-Chile Frontier Case, Court of Arbitration, Memorial of the Government of Chile, p. 335.

88. Argentine-Chile Frontier Case, Court of Arbitration, Memorial submitted by the Argentine Republic, p. 232.

89. Argentina's final position was that the decision of the Mixed Boundary Commission had more than mere probative value it amounted to a settlement of the boundary: see Award of 1966, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

90. Award of 1966, p. 73.Google Scholar

91. Ibid., p. 74.

92. Ibid. Cf. these observations of the Tribunal which are of general significance: ‘The making more precise of a boundary line that has already been settled is after all one of the principal purposes for which a boundary commission, such as the Argentina-Chile Boundary Commission, is set up’.

93. Judge Urrutia Holguín (ad hoc judge appointed by Nicaragua), Dissenting Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1960, p. 223.

94. See 94 B.F.S.P., p. 527Google Scholar. The same type of provision is found in Article XVI of the General Arbitration Treaty of 1899 between Argentina and Paraguay: 92 B.F.S.P., p. 485Google Scholar; in Article XII of the General Arbitration Treaty between Bolivia and Peru of 1901; Manning, , op. cit., p. 297Google Scholar; in Article XVI of the General Arbitration Treaty of 1902 between Argentina and Bolivia: Ibid, p. 316; in Article XIII of the General Arbitration Treaty of 1902 between Argentina and Chile, Ibid. p. 327; and Article 9 of the Treaty for the Peaceful Solution of Disputes between Venezuela and Brazil of 1940: 144 B.F.S.P., p. 232.Google Scholar

95. 100 B.F.S.P., p. 804Google Scholar. For a further example see Article IV of the Convention for the Arbitration of all Boundary Disputes between Colombia and Costa Rica of 25 December, 1880: Manning, , op. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar

96. For Treaty see Darby, W.E., International Tribunals, (London, 1904) p. 380.Google Scholar

97. The International Conference of American States (1889–1928). A collection of the Conventions, Recommendations, Resolutions, Reports, and Motions adopted by the first six International Conferences of the American States, and documents relating to the Organization of the Conferences. Edited with an introduction by Scott, James Brown, (New York, 1931), p. 61.Google Scholar

98. Hudson, M.O., (ed.) International Legislation: A Collection of Texts of Multipartite International Instruments of General Interest, (9. vols. 1919–1945) iv, no. 211.Google Scholar

99. It is noteworthy that the provisions with regara to the revision of arbitral Awards in the Pact of Bogota were much more restricted than those in the Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure which was submitted by the International Law Commission. In this instrument Articles 35–38 dealt with the validity, annulment and revision of arbitral Awards. See 53 A.J.I.L., (1959) p. 239.Google Scholar

100. Judge Urrutia Holguín (ad hoc judge appointed by Nicaragua), Dissenting Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1960, p. 225.

101. E.g. the Awards in the Bolivia-Peru Boundary Arbitration and in the Argentine-Chile Boundary Arbitration (Award of 1902).

102. The Awards in the Colombia-Venezuela Boundary Arbitration and in the Colombia-Costa Rica Boundary Arbitration are instances.

103. See Case Concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December, 1906 (Honduras-Nicaragua): I.C.J. Reports, 1960, p. 192.

104. The Guyana-Venezuela boundary controversy is the case in point. Infra, p. 288.Google Scholar

105. See Lapradelle et Politis, Recueil des arbitrages internationaux, ii. 415–421; Cavaré, , Droit International Public Positif, (Paris, 1951) ii. 182Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 54.

106. The Award declared inter alia; ‘Nous décidons, d'accord avec notre Conseil des ministres et après avoir entendu l'avis de notre Conseil d'Etat tout entier’. et Politis, Lapradelle, op. cit., pp. 414–415Google Scholar. Such a criticism seems excessively technical and without substance, since whenever a Head of State is appointed as arbitrator the work is generally done by experts appointed by that Head of State or Ministers of the Government. Cf. Hoijer, , op. cit., pp. 114–115.Google Scholar

107. See Affaire de Limites entre le Venezuela et la Colombie, Premier Mémoire du Venezuela, p. 22Google Scholar; Mémoire responsif de la République de Colombie, pp. 79–80; Fauchille, , 27 R.D.G.I.P. (1920), p. 181Google Scholar; also Dissenting Opinion of Judge Urrutia Holguún, I.C.J. Reports, 1960, pp. 221, 225.

108. R.I.A.A., i. 227–290Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 121.

109. See however, Carlston, , The Process of International Arbitration, (New York, 1946), p. 104.Google Scholar

110. Costa Rica also held that the execution of the Award was abandoned to an ulterior understanding between the litigant Governments by the terms of the Note of the French Foreign Minister, M. Delcasse. For Note see U.S. For. Rel. 1910, p. 774.Google Scholar

111. Alvarez, . ‘Des occupations de territoires contestés à propos de la question de limites entre le Chile et la République Argentine’, 10 R.G.D.I.P. (1903), pp. 651–690 on p. 678Google Scholar. In the Award of 1966 between the same two Republics it has also been observed that the greater part of the disputed zone was granted to the Republic of Argentina whereas Chile received that part of the territory where most of her nationals had settled: The Times, 20 09, 1967.Google Scholar

112. Alvarez, , R.G.D.I.P. (1903), p. 678Google Scholar: contra Castberg, Hague Recueil (1931, 1), pp. 416–417Google Scholar: Politis. La Justice internationale, pp. 65–70; On this point Balasko pointed out: ‘… nous estimons qu'il fallait comprendre le compromis dans le sens que l'arbitre était tenu d'appliquer la disposition du traité de 1881, seulement dans le mesure possible. Du moment que la ligne de faite et celle de partage des eaux ne coincidait pas, l'arbitre devait avoir compétence pour tracer une ligne intermediaire lui, semblant juste, et dans l'esprit du traité: Balasko, , Causes de Nullité de la Sentence Arbitrale en Droit International Public (Paris, 1938), p. 307.Google Scholar

113. I.C.J. Reports, 1960, pp. 212–213.

114. For Award see 105 B.F.S.P., pp. 572–578.Google Scholar

115. See ‘El Arbitraje entre las repúblicas de Bolivia y el Perú’, documentos diplomáticos, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Bolivia, 1909), p. xxvi.Google Scholar

116. Article I of the Treaty of Arbitration for the Settlement of the Boundary Question between the Republics of Bolivia and Peru which also embodied the uti possidetis of 1810 read in part as follows: The High Contracting Parties submit to the judgment and decision of the Government of the Argentine Republic, in the character of Arbitrator (and) judge of right (Juez de derecho) the question of boundaries pending between the two Republics: 100 B.F.S.P., p. 803.Google Scholar

117. Article IV declared that where the royal enactments were not clear, ‘the Arbitrator shall decide the question equitably, keeping as far as possible to their meaning and to the spirit which inspired them’. For a discussion on the use which the arbitrator made of this provision see ‘Arbitraje argentino en la cuestión de límites entre las Repúblicas del Peru y Bolivia’, Libro Azul, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Argentina, 1909), p. 127.Google Scholar

118. The Argentine Government appointed a Commission to study the question of limits between Bolivia and Peru.

119. Article V provided that ‘the rights over a territory exercised by one of the High Contracting Parties shall not be a bar to or prevail against titles or royal dispositions establishing the contrary’. There is not much force in the Bolivian contention since the object of this provision was solely to emphasis that the principle which governed the arbitration was the uti possidetis de jure and thus no significance whatever was to be attached to possession: see supra, p. 7. In the same sense see Castberg, , op. cit., p. 419Google Scholar; contra Balasko, , op. cit., p. 303.Google Scholar Further see Carlston, , op. cit., pp. 160–163Google Scholar, Fiore, , 17 R.G.D.I.P. (1910) pp. 225–256Google Scholar; Renault, , 16 R.G.D.I.P. (1909), pp. 368–372Google Scholar; Weiss, , 17 R.G.D.I.P. (1910) pp. 105–136.Google Scholar

120. 105 B.F.S.P., p. 578.Google Scholar

121. Ibid., p. 580.

122. See U.S. For. Rel. 1911, p. 573.Google Scholar See too Jessup, , El Chamizal, , 67 A.J.I.L. (1973), p. 423.Google Scholar

123. See U.S. For. Rel. 1911, p. 587.

124. 58 A.J.I.L. (1964), Suppl., p. 336.Google Scholar

125. For Award see 108 B.F.S.P., pp. 439–464.Google Scholar

126. See supra, p. 285.

127. Article 1 of the Convention for the Settlement by Arbitration of the Boundary between the Republics of Costa Rica and Panama had stated inter alia: that the arbitrator was to determine: “What is the boundary between Costa Rica and Panama under and most in accordance with the correct interpretation and true intention of the award of the President of the French Republic made the 11th September, 1900: 103 B.F.S.P., p. 404.Google Scholar

128. However, the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Arbitral Convention stated: “In order to decide this the arbitrator will take into account all the facts, circumstances, and considerations which may have a bearing upon the case, as well as the limitations of the Loubet Award expressed in the letter of His Excellency M. Delcasse, Minister of Foreign Relations of France, to His Excellency Señor Peralta, Minister of Costa Rica in Paris, of the 23rd November, 1900 that this boundary line must be drawn within the confines of the territory in dispute as determined by the Convention of Paris between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia of the 20th January, 1886’. There may therefore have been an inherent conflict within the provision itself since it will have been difficult to give effect to the terms of M. Delcasse's letter without rendering significant parts of the Award null and void.

129. The Award of 1891 in the arbitration between Colombia and Venezuela, the Award of 1900 in the arbitration between Colombia and Costa Rica and the Award of 1906 in the arbitration between Honduras and Nicaragua.

130. See 16 A.J.I.L. (1922) p. 428Google Scholar; further see Lapradelle et Politis, 28 R.G.D.I.P. (1921), pp. 107–121Google Scholar; De Visscher, , 3 R.D.I, légis. comp. (1922) pp. 463–479Google Scholar; Fauchille, , 27 R.G.D.I.P. (1920), pp. 181–216.Google Scholar

131. See Verzijl, J.H.W., 8 Ned. Tijdschr. v. Int. R. (1961), p. 122Google Scholar; Johnson, D.H.N., 10 I.C.L.Q. (1961) pp. 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

132. Cf. the Argentine-Chile Boundary Arbitration of 1902, supra, p. 285.Google Scholar

133. Both parties had accepted the decision and it was regarded as a ‘chose jugée’ for some forty years. However, in 1944 a document, the so-called Mallet-Prevost disclosures was published alleging that pressure was brought to bear on the American judges to accept the line designating the boundary east of the mounth of the Orinoco. The whole issue was then re-opened by Venezuela. This Republic first broached the subject in 1951 and in 1954 it was the theme of a Venezuelan declaration in the Tenth Inter-American Conference. The matter reached the United Nations in 1962 when Venezuela launched a full-scale attack on the Award of 1899 in the 17th Session of the General Assembly both in its Plenary Meeting and in the Special Political Committee. The British Government was prepared to open tripartite discussions on the boundary question but observed that that offer was not a proposal to engage in substantive talks about the revision of the frontier. These discussions led to the conclusion of the United Kingdom-Venezuela Agreement concerning the Frontier between British Guiana (Guyana) and Venezuela (Procedure for Resolving Boundary Dispute) at Geneva on February 17, 1966 (the so-called Geneva Agreement): 5 International Legal Materials, No. 4, July 1966, p. 764. Some two months after the Agreement came into force British Guiana became an independent nation with the name of Guyana on 26 May, 1966 and so became a party to the Treaty under Article VIII. This Agreement provided for the creation of a Mixed Commission whose object was to seek a settlement to the dispute. By Article V the parties agreed to preserve the status quo by putting in abeyance all existing claims while the Agreement was in force. If no solution to the controversy could be arrived at after a period of four years Article IV provided for recourse to the means of peaceful settlement embodied in Article 33 of the U.N. Charter ‘until the controversy has been resolved or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted’. Little progress was made in these meetings of the Mixed Commission. There followed a serious deterioration in the relations between the two States. However, on 18 June, 1970 the two countries signed the Protocol of Port-of-Spain. The main significance of this instrument is that it reactivates Article V of the Geneva Agreement and is designed to remain in force for an initial period of twelve years with automatic renewal for further periods unless one of the parties decides to bring it to an end by giving notice at least six months before the date on which an initial period or of any period of renewal will terminate. (Article V). The Protocol of Port-of-Spain suspends the operation of Article IV but if the Protocol were to cease to be in force the functioning of that Article would be resumed. (Article III). See Schoenrich, , 43 A.J.I.L. (1949) pp. 523–530Google Scholar; Child, , 44 A.J.I.L. (1950), pp. 682–693Google Scholar; Dennis, , 44 A.J.I.L. (1950) pp. 720–727Google Scholar; A/SPC/SR. 348–350; La Cuestión de Límites entre Venezuela y la Guyana Británica (Caracas, 1962)Google Scholar; Guyana/Venezuela Relations, Ministry of External Affairs (Georgetown, 09, 1968).Google Scholar

134. See A/SPC/SR. 348, 349.

135. Ibid., p. 348

136. La Cuestión de Límites entre Venezuela y la Guyana Británica, p. 25.Google Scholar

137. A/SPC/SR. 348.

138. 8 Ned. Tijdschr. v. Int. R. (1961), p. 126Google Scholar; to the same effect see Simpson, and Fox, , International Arbitration: Law and Practice, (London, 1959) p. 258Google Scholar; Carlston, , op. cit., p. 65Google Scholar; Lisboa, , 4 R.D.I, légis, comp. (1902), p. 63.Google Scholar In the Case Concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December, 1906 the Court observed: ‘Finally, the Court considerd that, having regard to the fact that the designation of the King of Spain as arbitrator was freely agreed by Nicaragua, that no objection was taken by Nicaragua to the jurisdiction of the King of Spain as arbitrator either on the grounds of irregularity in his designation as arbitrator or on the ground that the Gamez-Bonilla Treaty had lapsed even before the King of Spain had signified his acceptance of the office of arbitrator, and that Nicaragua fully participated in the arbitral proceedings before the King, it is no longer open to Nicaragua to rely on either of these contentions as furnishing a ground for the nullity of the Award’. I.C.J. Reports (1960), p. 209.Google Scholar

139. Instances of corruption have been rare. One of the few instances was the arbitral proceedings of the Mixed Commission between the United States and Venezuela which was held under the Convention of 25 April, 1866 and which was impeached for fraud. See Moore, , History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a party, (Washington, 1898). ii. 1660–4; Stuyt, No. 78.Google Scholar

140. Pufendorf, Samuel, De lure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo, vol. 2, The Translation of the Edition of 1688 (Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar, Book V, Chap. XIII, p. 828. See also Twiss, , The Law of Nations, (Oxford. 1884).Google Scholar ii.8; Calvo, , Le Droit International Théorique et Pratique, (Paris, 1896), iii.485Google Scholar; Bonfils, , Manuel de Droit International Publique, (1914), p. 659Google Scholar; Acremant, , La procédure dans les Arbitrages internationaux, (Paris, 1905), p. 163Google Scholar; Suarez, S. Planas, Tratado de Derecho Internacional Público (Madris, 1916), i.441Google Scholar; Hall, , A Treatise on International Law, (Oxford, 1924)Google Scholar; Balasko, , op. cit., pp. 118–120Google Scholar; Castberg, , op. cit., p. 441Google Scholar; Simpson, and Fox, , op. cit., p. 356Google Scholar; Carlston, , op. cit., pp. 53–57Google Scholar; Oppenheim, (7th edition), ii. 17; Schacter, , 54 A.J.I.L. (1960), p. 1.Google Scholar

141. Article 27 provided: ‘La sentence arbitrale est nulle en cas de compromis nul, ou d'excès de pouvoir, ou de corruption prouvée d'un des arbitres ou d'erreur essentielle’, (italics added); Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International (1877), p. 133.Google Scholar

142. Article 35 declared that: ‘The validity of an award may be challenged by either party on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) That the tribunal has exceeded its powers.

(b) That there was corruption on the part of a member of the tribunal;

(c) That there has been a failure to state the reasons for the award or a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure;

(d) That the undertaking to arbitrate or the compromis is a nullity’. See 53 A.J.I.L. (1959), p. 239.Google Scholar

143. Balasko, , op. cit., p. 119Google Scholar; see also Castberg, , op. cit., p. 441Google Scholar; Merighnac, , Traité théorique et pratique de l'Arbitrage International, (Paris, 1895), p. 514Google Scholar; Calvo, , op. cit., p. 485.Google Scholar The Projet of 1875 specifically stated as a ground for nullity ‘corruption prouvée’. A few publicists have suggested, it would seem, a lower standard. For instance Bluntschli has remarked that the decision of the arbitral tribunal could be considered null, ‘en cas de déloyauté … de la part des arbitres’; Bluntschli, , Le Droit International Codifié, (Paris, 1881), p. 289.Google Scholar Weiss was prepared to accept as a ground of nullity ‘corruption ou … la mauvaise foi de l'arbitre’; 17 R.G.D.I.f. (1910), p. 122.Google Scholar

144. See Individual Opinion of SirSpender, Percy, I.C.J. Reports, 1960, pp. 219–220Google Scholar; Johnson, D.H.N., I.C.L.Q. (1961), p. 336.Google Scholar

145. Supra, p. 289.

146. This principle of preclusion or estoppel would also prevent Venezuela from now relying on the fact that the Award was not motivated or that no reasons were given for the Award. Moreover in 1899, the date of the Award, it was not yet settled doctrine that an arbitral Award could be nullified on the ground that no reason was given for the Award. See in particular Politis, La Justice Internationale, (Paris, 1924), p. 88Google Scholar and Balasko, , op. cit., p. 126Google Scholar: This question was debated in The Hague Peace Conference of 1899. De Martens was the principal supporter of the view that ‘non-motivation’ should not be considered a ground for nullity: see Conference internationale de la paix (La Haye, 18 Mai-29 Juillet, 1899), p. 147, Antoine, trans., 1885, ii. pp. 642–643Google Scholar; Hoijer, , op.cit., p. 277Google Scholar, Castberg, , op. cit., p. 389Google Scholar, Carlston, , op. cit., p. 50.Google Scholar

147. Cf. Dennis, , 44 A.J.I.L. (1950), p. 720.Google Scholar

148. I.C.J. Reports (1962), p. 34Google Scholar; The Award in the Grisbadarna also made the point that ‘it is a settled principle of the law of nations that a state of things which actually exists and has existed for a long time should be changed as little as possible’. Hague Court Report, p. 121 on p. 130;4 A.J.I.L. (1910), p. 226 on p. 33Google Scholar; Stuyt, No. 288.

149. 30 A.J.I.L. (1936), p. 61Google Scholar; André, , De l'Arbitrage obligatoire dans les rapports internationaux, (Douai. 1903), pp. 39, 63, 73Google Scholar and Kunz, , 27 Texas Law Review (1948–1949), p. 182Google Scholar; Connell-Smith, , op. cit. p. 304.Google Scholar

150. The following are cases of boundary arbitrations with dates of compromis: Argentine Republic-Brazil (7 September, 1889); Argentine Republic-Chile (17 April, 1896): Stuyt, No. 198; Argentine Republic-Chile (2 November, 1898): Stuyt, No. 224; Argentine Republic-Chile (1 April, 1965): Stuyt, No. 432; Argentine Republic-Chile: The Beagle Channel Controversy (22 July, 1971): Stuyt, No. 435; Argentine Republic-Paraguay (3 February, 1876): Stuyt, No. 111; Bolivia-Paraguay (21 July, 1938): Stuyt, No. 407; Bolivia-Peru (30 December, 1902): Stuyt, No. 249; Brazil-France (15 April, 1897): Stuyt, No. 209; Brazil-Great Britain (6 November, 1901): Stuyt, No. 240; Chile-Peru (20 July, 1922): Stuyt, No. 349; Colombia-Costa Rica (25 December. 1880): Stuyt, No. US; Colombia-Venezuela (14 September, 1881): Stuyt, No. 121; Colombia-Venezuela (3 November, 1916): Stuyt, No. 320; Costa-Rica-Nicaragua (24 December, 1886): Stuyt, No. 147; Costa Rica-Nicaragua (10 January, 1896); Costa Rica-Panama (17 March, 1910): Stuyt, No. 298; Great Britain-Venezuela (2 February, 1897): Stuyt, No.207; Guatemala-Honduras (16 July, 1930): Stuyt, No. 393; Honduras-Nicaragua (7 October, 1894): Stuyt, No. 180; Mexico-France: Clipperton Island (2 March, 1909): Stuyt, No. 293; Mexico-United States of America (24 June, 1910): Stuyt, No. 300; Netherlands-Venezuela (5 August, 1857): Stuyt, No. 54.

151. This remarkable phenomenon may constitute a very useful precedent for the newly emancipated States of Africa. For some discussion on certain boundary controversies in Africa see Bipoun-Woum, Joseph-Marie, Le Droit International Africain (these pour le doctorat en droit), (Paris, 1970), p. 261et seq.Google Scholar

152. Chile-Peru (1922); Guatemala-Honduras (1930); Bolivia-Paraguay (1938); Argentine-Chile (1964); Argentine-Chile (1971).

153. Of course this phenomenon reflected a universal tendency, on which see Sohn, , 108 Hague Recueil (1963)Google Scholar, i.9. et seq; Verzijl, , The present stagnation of interstate adjudication causes and possible remedies, 2 International Relations, (1963) no. 8, p. 480CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Report of a Study Group on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, (Davies, David Memorial Institute of International Studies, 1966), p. 106.Google Scholar Most recent examples of bilateral arbitration treaties in Latin America are: Treaty for the Peaceful Solution of Disputes between Venezuela and Brazil, 30 March, 1940: 144 B.F.S.P., p. 230Google Scholar and the Treaty of Arbitration between Brazil and Uruguay, 5 September, 1948: 155 B.F.S.P., p. 128.Google Scholar

154. Article 32 of the Pact of Bogota endowed the Court with obligatory jurisdiction, when conciliation procedures had failed to solve an inter-American dispute.

155. For treaty see 30 U.N.T.S., p. 449.Google Scholar

156. By Article V the compulsory provisions of the Pact might not be applied to matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. The question as to whether a controversy was within or outside the domestic jurisdiction of a state was to be submitted to the International Court of Justice as a preliminary matter. Article VI excluded from the application of the Treaty ‘matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty’. The right of diplomatic protection was removed from the operation of the treaty by Article VII.

157. Some American Republics made fundamental reservations to the Pact. One of the reservations of the United States in particular went to the heart of the compulsory features of the treaty. It read as follows: ‘The United States does not undertake as the complainant State to submit to the International Court of Justice any controversy which is not considered to be properly within the jurisdiction of the Court’.

158. In fact the paucity of ratifications led to attempts at revising this instrument: see ‘Esfuerzos hacia su revisión (Pacto de Bogotá)’, Inter-American Juridical Yearbook (1955–1957), p. 96.Google Scholar

159. The States that have deposited instrument of ratification of the Pact of Bogota are: Brazil. Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay, Chile, Peru and Paraguay.

160. Sohn. Report on the Changing Role of Arbitration in the Settlement of International Disputes, Report of the Fifty-Second Conference of the International Law Association, (Helsinki, 1966), pp. 327–328.Google Scholar

161. Sorensen, (ed.). Manual of Public International Law (1968), p. 697.Google Scholar

162. Cf. Articles 17 and 21 of the Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 28 April. 1949, (71 U.N.T.S. (1950)) p. 102.Google Scholar Also see Articles 1 and 19 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, 29 April. 1957. (320 U.N.T.S. (1959) ) p. 244.Google Scholar

163. Generally see ‘Report on the Changing Role of Arbitration in the Settlement of International Disputes’, Report of the Fifty-Second Conference of the International Law Association (Helsinki, 1966), p. 341Google Scholaret seq; De Visscher, Hague Recueil (1954, II), p. 542.Google Scholar

164. For similar doubts as to the general application of arbitration see Chapal, , L'Arbitrabilité des différends internationaux, (Paris, 1967), p. 21Google Scholar, n. 54; also cf. these observations of MrsFox, Hazel: ‘This more flexible conception of arbitration has found some support among European jurists but recent bilateral arbitrations have made little use of such extended powers’: Report of a Study Group on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, p. 103.Google Scholar