• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Opinion and judgment of the special...














Group Title: In the Guatemala-Honduras boundary arbitration ; opinion and judgment of the Special Tribunal on the Preliminary Question
Title: In the Guatemala-Honduras boundary arbitration
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075442/00001
 Material Information
Title: In the Guatemala-Honduras boundary arbitration opinion and judgment of the Special tribunal on the preliminary question. En el arbitraje de límites entre Guatemala y Honduras; opinión y fallo del tribunal especial sobre la cuestión previa
Alternate Title: Guatemala-Honduras Boundary Arbitration
Physical Description: 1, 10, 10 p. : ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Special Boundary Tribunal (Guatemala-Honduras Boundary Arbitration)
Hughes, Charles Evans, 1862-1948
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: Washington D. C
Publication Date: 1932]
 Subjects
Subject: Boundaries -- Guatemala -- Honduras   ( lcsh )
Boundaries -- Honduras -- Guatemala   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Cover-title: Guatemala-Honduras boundary arbitration ... Arbitraje de límites entre Guatemala y Honduras.
General Note: Signed January 8, 1932 by Charles Evans Hughes, president, Luis Castro-Ureña, Emilio Bello-Codesido, arbitrators.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075442
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000126626
oclc - 24467159
notis - AAP2608

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Opinion and judgment of the special tribunal on the preliminary question - Opinión y fallo del tribunal especial sobre la cuestión previa
        Page 1
        Page 1a
        Page 2
        Page 2a
        Page 3
        Page 3a
        Page 4
        Page 4a
        Page 5
        Page 5a
        Page 6
        Page 6a
        Page 7
        Page 7a
        Page 8
        Page 8a
        Page 9
        Page 9a
        Page 10
        Page 10a
Full Text








GUATEMALA HONDURAS

BOUNDARY ARBITRATION


OPINION AND JUDGMENT
OF THE
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
ON THE
PRELIMINARY QUESTION


-0--


ARBITRAJE DE LIMITS

ENTIRE GUATEMALA Y HONDURAS


OkiNION Y FALL
: DELI
TRIBUNAL ESPECIAL
SOBEE LA
QUESTION PREVIA




WASHmmlTON, D. C.
1932




SsC41
,^---''PIP













UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARY















In the Guatemala-Honduras Boundary Arbitration


OPINION AND JUDGMENT
OF THE
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
ON THE

PRELIMINARY QUESTION



------------



En el Arbitraje de Limites entire Guatemala y Honduras


OPINION Y FALL
DEL

TRIBUNAL ESPECIAL
SOBRE LA

QUESTION PREVIA




32 7. 7,2 1/

S 71 op




IN THE GUATEMALA-HONDURAS BOUNDARY
ARBITRATION
Opinion and Judgment of the Special Tribunal on the
Preliminary Question.

Both Parties have attested the sincerity of their desire
to settle the controversy pending between them with re-
spect to territorial boundaries. By their Treaty of July
16, 1930, they have agreed to submit the question to arbi-
tration, and have established this Tribunal for that pur-
pose. But they differ as to the capacity in which this
Tribunal shall act in deciding the question; that is, whether
it shall be decided by this Tribunal as the International
Central American Tribunal created by the Convention of
February 7, 1923, which the Parties agree is in force be-
tween them, or by this Tribunal as a Special Boundary
Tribunal.
The Treaty of July 16, 1930, accordingly constitutes the
arbitrators therein designated as a Special Tribunal to de-
termine the preliminary question whether these arbitrators
shall act as the International Central American Tribunal,
or as a Special Boundary Tribunal in deciding the Bound-
ary Question. In either case, the stipulations of the Treaty
of July 16, 1930, are to control.
This preliminary question is thus stated in the Treaty
of July 16, 1930:

"Is the International Central American Tribunal
created by the Convention of February 7, 1923, com-
petent to take cognizapce of the boundary question
pending between Guatei~ila and Honduras?"
With resji't.t'6'the action to be taksnifollowing the de-
cision of 'this preliminary question, the Treiy of July 16,
1930, 'jpovides (Artice I) '-a4 if6l0T>g: ".'.












EN EL ARBITRAJE DE LIMITS ENTIRE GUATEMALA
Y HONDURAS

Opinion y Fallo del Tribunal Especial sobre la Cuestion
Previa

Ambas Partes ban demostrado la sinceridad de su deseo
de arreglar la controversial sobre limits territoriales que
tienen pendiente. Por Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930 han
resuelto someter esta cuesti6n al arbitraje y han establecido
este Tribunal con tal objeto. Pero discrepan acerca de la
capacidad en que habrA de fallar la cuesti6n, o sea, sobre
si este Tribunal la resolverd como Tribunal Internacional
Centroamericano creado por la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero
de 1923, que ambas Partes consideran vigente entire si, o
como Tribunal Especial de Limites.
De conformidad con el deseo de las Partes, el Tratado
de 16 de julio de 1930 constitute a los Arbitros, que design,
en Tribunal Especial para decidir la cuesti6n previa de si
actuarAn con el carActer de Tribunal Internacional Cen-
troamericano o con el de Tribunal Especial de Limites, en
la resoluci6n de la controversial de limits. En ambos casos
se observaran las estipulaciones del Tratado de 16 de
julio de 1930.
Esta cuesti6n previa esta formulada en el Tratado de
16 de julio de 1930, como sigue:

"ITiene competencia para conocer de la cuesti6n de
limits pendiente entire Guatemala y Honduras, el
Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano creado por
la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923?"

Acerca del procedimiento ulterior al fallo de la cuesti6n
previa, el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930, en su Articulo
I, dispone lo siguiente:

1


772/9









"If the decision of the Special Tribunal denies the
competence of the International Central American
Tribunal to take cognizance of the pending boundary
question, the same Tribunal, as Special Boundary Tri-
bunal, shall proceed to take cognizance of the frontier
dispute which is maintained by the High Contracting
Parties.
"If, on the other hand, the Special Tribunal recog-
nizes, in its decision, the competence of the Interna-
tional Central American Tribunal, the said Special
Tribunal shall take cognizance, as International Cen-
tral American Tribunal, of the boundary question
pending between Guatemala and Honduras, and will
sit at the said City of Washington.
"In both cases, the stipulations of the present
Treaty shall be observed."

Constituted as the Special Tribunal to decide the pre-
liminary question, we observe:

First. The International Central American Tribunal is
not a permanent tribunal with a definite personnel and con-
tinuous existence. It is a tribunal created by the Conven-
tion of February 7, 1923, in the sense that that Convention
provides for its constitution, determines its competence,
defines its functions, and prescribes its methods. As a
particular tribunal, composed of designated persons, it
comes into existence when constituted in the prescribed
manner for a particular purpose; that is, to determine a
particular controversy as provided in that Convention.
When so constituted, the tribunal is a special institution
by virtue of its organization as provided in the Convention
of February 7, 1923.
The Convention of February 7, 1923, was signed by the
five Central American Republics. It is not competent for
two of them to change its provisions or to alter the consti-
tution of, or the method of constituting, the tribunal for
which it provides. While two of the parties, as for ex-










"Si el fallo del Tribunal Especial niega la com-
petencia del Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano
para conocer de la cuesti6n de limits pendiente, el
propio Tribunal, como Tribunal Especial de limits,
entrari a conocer del litigio de fronteras que sostienen
las Altas Partes Contratantes.
Si, al contrario, el Tribunal Especial reconoce en
su fallo, la competencia del Tribunal Internacional
Centroamericano, dicho Tribunal Especial entrari a
conocer, como Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano,
de la cuesti6n de limits pendiente entire Guatemala
y Honduras y tendrd su asiento en la misma ciudad
de Washington.
En ambos casos se observaran las estipulaciones
del present Tratado."

Constituidos en Tribunal Especial para resolver la
cuesti6n previa, observamos:

Primero. El Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano
no es un tribunal permanent, con personal determinado y
existencia continue. Es un Tribunal creado por la Con-
venci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923, en cuanto dicha Conven-
ci6n provee a su constituci6n, determine su competencia,
define sus funciones y prescribe sus m6todos. Comienza
a existir, como tribunal determinado, compuesto de personas
sefialadas, cuando se lo constitute, de la manera prescrita,
para un objeto tambi6n determinado, o sea, para resolver
una controversial determinada, conforme lo dispone dicha
Convenci6n. Asi constituido, el Tribunal es una entidad
especial en virtud de su organizaci6n conforme a lo dis-
puesto en la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923.
La Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923 fu6 suscrita por
las cinco Repiiblicas Centroamericanas. Dos de ellas
carecen, por si solas, de competencia para variar sus
estipulaciones o alterar la constituci6n o el m6todo de
constituir el Tribunal que estatuye. Si bien la Convenci6n
de 7 de febrero de 1923 no impide a dos de las Partes,










ample, Guatemala and Honduras, are not precluded by the
Convention of February 7, 1923, from making an agree-
ment for the determination of a controversy pending be-
tween them, and they may constitute or select a tribunal
for that purpose, that tribunal will not be the International
Central American Tribunal, unless it is constituted as pro-
vided in the Convention of February 7, 1923.

Second. In deciding the preliminary question sub-
mitted, we must, of necessity, first ascertain and define the
meaning of that question, and the Treaty of July 16, 1930,
confers upon us the requisite authority. The Treaty pro-
vides in Article XII:

"The High Contracting Parties confer on the Tri-
bunal the necessary authority to settle by itself any
difference which may arise with regard to the inter-
pretation or carrying out of this Treaty and the deci-
sions of the said Tribunal."

The "Tribunal", described in Article XII, is the Tri-
bunal constituted by the Treaty in whatever capacity it
acts, and the authority thus conferred relates to every pro-
vision of the Treaty.
In this instance, there is no International Central Ameri-
can Tribunal competent to take cognizance of the Boundary
Question, unless the Special Tribunal, established by the
Treaty of July 16, 1930, can be considered the International
Central American Tribunal for the purpose of determining
this controversy. The Parties recognize this fact by their
recital in Article I of the Treaty of July 16, 1930, that
"they have decided to establish in the City of Washing-
ton a Special Tribunal constituted in the form prescribed
by the Convention for the establishment of an Interna-
tional Central American Tribunal." If the Special Tri-
bunal is not competent to act as the International Central
American Tribunal, it cannot, in the capacity of the latter
Tribunal, take cognizance of the Boundary Question.










Guatemala y Honduras, por ejemplo, concertar un acuerdo
para resolver una controversial pendiente entire ellas, para
cuyo fin pueden constituir o escoger un tribunal, 6ste no
serA Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano si no se lo
constitute conforme a lo prescrito en la Convenci6n de
7 de febrero de 1923.

Segundo. Al resolver le cuesti6n previa planteada,
debemos, necesariamente, determinar y definir su signifi-
cado, y el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930 nos confiere las
facultades requeridas para ello. Su Articulo XII dispone
que:

"Las Altas Partes Contratantes confieren al Tri-
bunal facultad bastante para resolver por si mismo,
cualquiera diferencia que pueda surgir en cuanto a la
interpretaci6n o ejecuci6n de este Tratado y a las
resoluciones del mismo Tribunal."

El "Tribunal" descrito en el Articulo XII es el Tribunal
constituido por el Tratado, cualquiera que sea la capacidad
en que actfie, y las facultades en 61 otorgadas alcanzan a
todas las prescripciones del Tratado.
En el caso que nos ocupa no existe un Tribunal Inter-
nacional Centroamericano competent para conocer de la
cuesti6n de limits, a menos que se conceptie como tal,
con el objeto de resolver esta controversial, el Tribunal
Especial establecido por el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930.
Las Partes reconocen este hecho cuando expresan, en la
relaci6n del Articulo I del Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930,
que "han convenido en constituir en la ciudad de Washing-
ton un Tribunal Especial, integrado en la forma pres-
crita por la Convenci6n para el establecimiento de un
Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano." Si el Tribunal
Especial carece de competencia para actuar como Tribunal
International Centroamericano, no puede conocer de la
cuesti6n de limits con este carActer.










We cannot interpret the Treaty as submitting a purely
hypothetical question as to the competence of a hypotheti-
cal International Central American Tribunal, which has
not in fact been constituted. The question presented is
whether the arbitrators designated by the Treaty of July
16, 1930, were they to assume to act as the International
Central American Tribunal, would constitute a body author-
ized to exercise the judicial powers conferred by the Con-
vention of February 7, 1923.
As the Treaty of July 16, 1930, specifically provides that,
if the Special Tribunal answers the preliminary question
in the affirmative, the Special Tribunal shall take cogni-
zance, as the International Central American Tribunal, of
the Boundary Question, it follows that the Parties intended
that in deciding the preliminary question, the Special Tri-
bunal should decide, because necessarily involved in that
question under the Treaty, its own competence to act as the
International Central American Tribunal.

Third. In order that the International Central Ameri-
can Tribunal shall be competent to take cognizance of a
controversy, two things are essential: (1) That the Tri-
bunal shall be constituted as the Convention of February
7, 1923, prescribes; and (2) that the controversy comes
within the terms of that Convention as one to be submitted
to the Tribunal so constituted.
The difference between the Parties, with respect to the
second of these conditions, has been elaborately and ably
presented by the representatives of the respective Gov-
ernments. It grows out of the fact that on August 1, 1914,
the Parties signed a Boundary Treaty (which was duly
ratified) providing a method for establishing the boundary
between the two countries and for the arbitration of dis-
puted points. That Boundary Treaty was to endure for
ten years, and it expired by limitation in 1925, without any
settlement having been made or any submission to arbi-
tration as therein provided. At the time of the signing of










No podemos interpreter el Tratado en el sentido de que
present una cuesti6n puramente hipot6tica sobre la com-
petencia de un Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano,
tambi6n hipotetico, y que, en el hecho, no ha sido consti-
tuido. La cuesti6n planteada es la de si los Arbitros desig-
nados en el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930 constituirian
una entidad facultada para ejercitar las atribuciones
judiciales estatuidas en la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de
1923, caso de que resolviesen actuar en el caracter de Tri-
bunal Internacional Centroamericano.
Como el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930 estipula, taxa-
tivamente, que si el Tribunal Especial resuelve la cuesti6n
previa en sentido afirmativo, el Tribunal Especial, como
Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano, conocerA de la
cuesti6n de limits, result que la voluntad de las
Partes era la de que, al resolver la cuesti6n previa, el
Tribunal Especial resolviese, por ir necesariamente incor-
porada en ella conforme al Tratado, su propia competencia
para actuar como Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano.

Tercero. A fin de que tenga competencia para
conocer de una controversial, el Tribunal Internacional
Centroamericano debe lenar dos requisitos esenciales: (1)
que se constituya de acuerdo con lo prescrito en la Conven-
ci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923; y (2) que la controversial sea
una de aquellas que, dentro de los t&rminos de esa Con-
venci6n, deba someterse al Tribunal asi constituido.
La divergencia de las Partes acerca del segundo de estos
requisitos ha sido detenida y hibilmente presentada por
los Abogados de los respectivos Gobiernos. Fluye de la
circunstancia que las Partes suscribieron, el 1 de agosto
de 1914, un Tratado de Limites (que fu6 debidamente
ratificado), en el cual estatuian un procedimiento para
determinar el limited entire ambos paises y el sometimiento
a arbitraje de los puntos en discusi6n. Ese Tratado de
Limites debia permanecer en vigencia durante diez afios,
y dicho period expire en 1925, sin que se hubiesen










the Convention of February 7, 1923, the Treaty of August
1, 1914, had not yet expired by limitation. The Conven-
tion of February 7, 1923, was signed at the last plenary
session of the Conference on Central American Affairs
held in Washington, and immediately after that Conven-
tion, and the other pacts negotiated at that Conference,
had been signed, the Chairman of the Conference and the
Delegates of Guatemala and Honduras, respectively, an-
nounced that the Governments of these Republics had
agreed to submit their boundary dispute to arbitration by
the President of the United States. These announcements,
however, did not bear fruit. The agreement announced
was not embodied in any treaty or convention of arbitra-
tion appropriately signed and ratified.
As the Parties manifestly expected at the time of the
signing of the Convention of February 7, 1923, that there
would be no occasion to submit the Boundary Question to
arbitration under that Convention, the question arose
whether that dispute fell within the exceptions stated in
Article I of that Convention which described the contro-
versies to be submitted to the International Central Ameri-
can Tribunal. On the one side, it is insisted that the
Boundary Question was excepted from that Convention by
the terms of Article I, and on the other side, that, despite
the expectations and plans entertained at the time of the
signing of the Convention, nevertheless, when these expec-
tations and plans came to naught, and the Boundary Ques-
tion survived other means for its solution, the terms of the
Convention of February 7, 1923, operated to embrace it.
In support of the latter view, attention is directed to the
authoritative Spanish text of Article I of that Convention.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon this phase of the
controversy in view of the situation created by the Treaty
of July 16, 1930, in the establishment of the Special Tri-
bunal.










producido ningin acuerdo ni sometimiento a arbitraje,
conforme en 61 se preveia. El Tratado de 10 de agosto de
1914 no habia expirado ain cuando se celebr6 la Convenci6n
de 7 de febrero de 1923. Esta fu6 suscrita en la filtima sesi6n
plenaria de la Conferencia sobre Asuntos Centroamericanos,
celebrada en Washington; e immediatamente despu6s de
haberse suscrito dicha Convenci6n y los demis pactos con-
certados en la Conferencia, el Presidente de aquel congress
y los Delegados de Guatemala y de Honduras anunciaron
que los Gobiernos de las respectivas Repfiblicas habian
convenido en someter su controversial de limits al arbitra-
mento del Presidente de los Estados Unidos. Estas mani-
festaciones no fructificaron, sin embargo, en resultados.
No se incorpor6 dicho acuerdo en un Tratado o Conven-
ci6n de arbitraje, debidamente suscrito y ratificado.
Como estaba de manifesto que, al suscribirse la Con-
venci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923, las Partes esperaban que
no habria ocasi6n de someter la controversial de limits al
arbitramento estatuido en esa Convenci6n, surgi6 la dis-
crepancia sobre si dicha cuesti6n estaba comprendida entire
las controversial que deban someterse al Tribunal Inter-
nacional Centroamericano. De una parte se insisted en que,
por los t6rminos del Articulo I, la cuesti6n de limits qued6
excluida de los efectos de la Convenci6n y, de la otra, en
que, a pesar de las esperanzas y proyectos acariciados en
la 6poca de la firma de la Convenci6n, cuando tales
esperanzas y proyectos fracasaron y la controversial de
limits sobrevivi6 a esos otros medios de resolverla,
quedaba sujeta a lo dispuesto en la Convenci6n de 7 de
febrero de 1923. En apoyo de esto iltimo se llama la
atenci6n al texto espafol, finico que tiene valor para las
Partes, del Articulo I de dicha Convenci6n.
En vista de la situaci6n creada por el Tratado de 16 de
julio de 1930, con el establecimiento de este Tribunal, no
estimamos necesario pronunciarnos sobre este aspect de
la controversial.










Fourth. After describing the controversies which are
to be submitted to the International Central American Tri-
bunal, Article I of the Convention of February 7, 1923, con-
tinues as follows:

"2. The Parties agree that the decision of the In-
ternational Tribunal established by the present Con-
vention with regard to the questions submitted to it
shall be regarded as final, irrevocable, without appeal,
and binding upon the countries submitting disputes,
should such decisions be rendered within the time stip-
ulated in the protocol or in the rules of procedure ap-
plicable to the case as prescribed in Article XIX. The
judgment of the International Tribunal established by
the present Convention shall be null and void, and any
one of the Parties, which may have an interest in the
controversy may refuse to comply with it, in the fol-
lowing cases:
"a. When the tribunal shall not have been organ-
ized in strict accordance with this Convention.
"b. When in summoning the Parties before the
Tribunal or in the presentation of evidence, the pro-
visions of this Convention or of the Rules of Pro-
cedure contained in Annexes A and B shall not have
been observed. ."

The Convention of February 7, 1923, provides two
methods for the submission of a controversy to the Inter-
national Central American Tribunal: (1) by agreement, or
signed protocol, as prescribed in Article VII of that Con-
vention, and (2), where there is no such protocol, by notice
and the procedure prescribed in Article VIII.
There can be no question that the Special Tribunal es-
tablished by the Treaty of July 16, 1930, has not been con-
stituted as prescribed in Article VIII of the Convention of
February 7, 1923, and we need consider only the require-
ments as to the protocol set forth in Article VII of that
Convention as follows:










Cuarto. DespuBs de describir las controversial que
han de someterse al Tribunal Internacional Centroameri-
cano, el Articulo I de la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923,
agrega:

"2. Las Partes convienen en que las decisions del
Tribunal Internacional establecido en la present Con-
venci6n serAn, en cuanto a los puntos sometidos a su
conocimiento, definitivas, irrevocables, inapelables y
obligatorias para los paises litigantes si fueren dic-
tadas en el tiempo sefalado en el protocolo o en las
ordenanzas de procedimiento aplicables al caso, de
acuerdo con el articulo XIX. La sentencia del Tri-
bunal Internacional establecido en la present Con-
venci6n serA nula y cualquiera de las Partes que
hubiere intervenido en la controversial podrd negarse
a cumplirla en los casos siguientes:
"a) Cuando el Tribunal no hubiere sido organizado
de estricto acuerdo con esta Convenci6n;
"b) Cuando en la audiencia de las parties o en la
prueba no se hubieren observado las prescripciones de
esta Convenci6n o de las reglas y ordenanzas anexas
marcadas con las letras A y B ."

La Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923 prescribe dos
metodos para el sometimiento de una controversial al Tri-
bunal Internacional Centroamericano: (1) por acuerdo, o
suscrici6n de un protocolo, conforme lo dispone el Articulo
VII de dicha Convenci6n, y (2) cuando no hubiere tal pro-
tocolo, mediante la notificaci6n y el procedimiento esti-
pulados en el Articulo VIII.
Es indudable que el Tribunal Especial, creado por el
Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930, no ha sido constituido de
acuerdo con lo prescrito en el Articulo VIII de la Conven-
ci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923 y, por consiguiente, s6lo
necesitamos considerar los requisitos del protocolo
estatuido en el Articulo VII de dicha Convenci6n:









"Article VII.
"Whenever, in conformity with the provisions of
Article I, it should become necessary to convene the
Tribunal instituted by this Convention to take cogni-
zance of any dispute or disputes which one or more of
the Contracting Parties may wish to submit to its de-
cision, the following procedure shall be pursued:
"a. The Contracting Party which may desire to
have recourse to the Tribunal, shall advise the Party
or Parties with which it proposes to enter into litiga-
tion, so that within sixty days following the date when
they may have received this notification they should
proceed to sign a protocol in which the subject of the
disputes or controversies shall be clearly set forth.
The protocol shall likewise state the date upon which
the Arbitrators must be appointed, and the place where
they shall meet, the special powers which may be given
to the Tribunal, and any other conditions upon which
the Parties may agree.
"b. After the protocol shall have been signed, each
Party to the Controversy shall select an Arbitrator
from the permanent list of jurists, but it shall not
name any of the jurists whom said Party may have
included in the afore-mentioned list. Another Arbi-
trator shall be selected at will and by common accord,
by the interested Governments; should the said Gov-
ernments fail to agree on the selection, the third Ar-
bitrator shall be chosen by the Arbitrators already
appointed. If said Arbitrators should also fail to
agree, the afore-mentioned third Arbitrator shall be
designated by lot, to be drawn by the Arbitrators al-
ready appointed. Save in the case of agreement
among the interested Governments, the third Arbi-
trator shall be chosen from the jurists, on the list re-
ferred to in Article II, who have not been included in
said list by any of the interested Parties. Whenever
the third Arbitrator should be chosen by lot, he shall
be of a different nationality than that of either of the
other two.










"Articulo VII
"Cuando, de conformidad con lo convenido en el
articulo I, llegare el caso de convocar al Tribunal
establecido en esta Convenci6n para que conozca de la
cuesti6n o cuestiones que una o mas de las Partes
Contratantes desee someter a su decision, se procederi
de la manera siguiente:
"a) La Parte Contratante que desee ocurrir al
Tribunal lo comunicarA asi a la Parte o Partes con
quienes se propone entrar en litigio a fin de que dentro
de los sesenta dias subsiguientes a la fecha en que
reciban ese aviso procedan a firmar un protocol en
el cual se exprese claramente cual o cuales son las
cuestiones o controversial. Tambi6n se har6 constar
en el protocol el tiempo en que debe nombrarse a los
arbitros y el lugar en que deben reunirse, las facul-
tades especiales que se le confieran al Tribunal y
cualesquiera otras condiciones en que las Partes
convinieren;
"b) Una vez firmado el protocolo, cada una de las
Partes litigantes escogera un arbitro de entire la list
permanent de jurisconsultos; pero no podrA nombrar
a ninguno de los que la misma Parte hubiere incluido
en dicha lista. Otro arbitro sera escogido libremente
de comfn acuerdo por los Gobiernos interesados y
cuando 6stos no se pusieren de acuerdo en ese nombra-
miento, el tercer 6rbitro sern escogido por los Arbitros
nombrados. Si 6stos tampoco se pusieren de acuerdo,
dicho tercer arbitro sera designado mediante sorteo,
verificado por los arbitros nombrados. Salvo el caso
de acuerdo entire los Gobiernos interesados, el tercer
arbitro seri escogido de entire los jurisconsultos de la
lista de que trata el articulo II, que no hayan sido
incluidos en tal lista por ninguna de las parties
interesadas. Cuando el tercer Arbitro sea escogido
por sorteo, dicho Arbitro debera ser de nacionalidad
distinta de la de los otros dos.
"Cuando dos o m6s Estados litigantes tuvieren un
interns comfin en la controversial, se les considerara









"Whenever two or more powers in litigation should
have a common interest in the controversy, they shall
be considered as constituting a single Party in the
matter for the purpose of the organization of the
Tribunal."

It is apparent that these provisions of Article VII have
not been strictly pursued in the present instance. The only
question then is presented whether these provisions should
be treated as mere matters of form and the Treaty of July
16, 1930, should be regarded as in substance, although not
in form, the equivalent of the protocol prescribed in Ar-
ticle VII, and the designation of arbitrators by that Treaty
as the equivalent of the selection of arbitrators at the time
and in the manner required by Article VII. The declara-
tion of the Parties in the recital of Article I of the Treaty
of July 16, 1930, that they have decided to establish "a
Special Tribunal constituted in the form prescribed" by
the Convention of February 7, 1923, cannot be regarded
as binding upon the Special Tribunal in determining the
issue of jurisdiction.
It must be observed that Paragraph 2 of Article I of the
Convention of February 7, 1923, above quoted, covers all
cases of submission to the International Central American
Tribunal, whether by protocol under Article VII, or by
notice and consequent proceedings under Article VIII. And
Paragraph 2 of Article I provides explicitly that "the
judgment of the International Tribunal established by the
present Convention shall be null and void, and any one of
the parties, which may have an interest in the controversy,
may refuse to comply with it" when "the Tribunal shall
not have been organized in strict accordance with this Con-
vention."
In view of the grave importance of the controversy and
the intention of the Parties as evidenced by the Treaty of
July 16, 1930, to settle the controversy by obtaining from
this Tribunal a final determination, not open to any ques-
tion with respect to jurisdiction, we do not feel at liberty










como una sola Parte en el asunto para el efecto de la
organizaci6n del Tribunal."
Es claro que, en el present caso, no se han seguido
estrictamente las disposiciones del Articulo VII. En
consecuencia, s6lo resta determinar si estas disposiciones
deberian conceptuarse como de mera forma y si cabria
considerar el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930, en el fondo
ya que no en la forma, como el equivalent del protocolo
prescrito en el Articulo VII, y tener la designaci6n de
Arbitros en ese Tratado como equivalent a la selecci6n
de Arbitros en el moment y de la manera exigidos por el
Articulo VII. Al fallar esta controversial sobre juris-
dicci6n, el Tribunal Especial no esti ligado por la declara-
ci6n de las Partes en el Articulo I del Tratado de 16 de
julio de 1930, de que han convenido "en constituir un Tri-
bunal Especial, integrado en la forma prescrita" por la
Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923.
Cabe observer que el pirrafo segundo del Articulo I de
la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923, antes citado, com-
prende todos los casos de sometimiento al Tribunal Inter-
nacional Centroamericano, sea por medio del protocol
estatuido en el Articulo VII, o mediante la notificaci6n y
procedimientos subsiguientes prescritos en el Articulo VIII.
Y el parrafo segundo del Articulo I dispone, taxativamente,
que "la sentencia del Tribunal Internacional establecido
en la present Convenci6n sera nula y cualquiera de las
Partes que hubiere intervenido en la controversial podrA
negarse a cumplirla" cuando "el Tribunal no hubiere sido
organizado de estricto acuerdo con esta convencidn."
En vista de la seria importancia de la controversial y de
la intenci6n de las Partes, evidenciada en el Tratado de
16 de julio de 1930, de resolver la diferencia mediante
un Laudo definitive, que no deje ninguna duda sobre la
jurisdicci6n de este Tribunal, no nos consideramos con
facultad para desconocer o declarar inaplicable la dis-
posici6n explicit de la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923
referente a la constituci6n del Tribunal. La circunstancia










to ignore, or construe as inapplicable, this explicit provi-
sion of the Convention of February 7, 1923, as to the con-
stitution of the International Central American Tribunal.
The fact that the Parties were entitled to depart from the
provisions of Article VII in establishing a tribunal for ar-
bitration of the Boundary Question, or that, in so doing,
they could follow some of the provisions of Article VII
and depart from others, does not affect the question
whether the Tribunal as actually established is qualified
to act as the International Central American Tribunal. It
may be a valid Tribunal without being the International
Central American Tribunal, which, as has been said, is a
special institution constituted in a particular manner, as
prescribed by the Convention of February 7, 1923. This
view does not in any way impair the efficacy of the Con-
vention of February 7, 1923, or the power of the sovereign
States to make their provisions for peaceful settlement of
controversies. It simply deals with the question whether
the Tribunal created by the Treaty of July 16, 1930, is the
International Central American Tribunal,-constituted, as
such a Tribunal must be constituted, in strict accordance
with the Convention of February 7, 1923.
If the Special Tribunal, established by the Treaty of
July 16, 1930, should undertake to act as the International
Central American Tribunal, it would be possible for either
party, dissatisfied by its award, to insist that the award
was null and void because the Special Tribunal had not
been "organized in strict accordance" with the Convention
of February 7, 1923. Instead of the determination of the
present dispute, there would thus be another dispute based
upon the express words of that Convention.

Therefore, upon due consideration, acting as the Special
Tribunal established by the Treaty of July 16, 1930, we
answer the preliminary question submitted by that Treaty
in the negative. This Special Tribunal, not being consti-
tuted strictly, as it is not, according to the Convention of










de que las Partes tuvieran derecho a apartarse de las pres-
cripciones del Articulo VII, al establecer un Tribunal
para arbitrar la cuesti6n de limits, o la de que, al proceder
asi podian cefiirse a algunas de dichas disposiciones y
apartarse de otras, no influye sobre la cuesti6n de si el Tri-
bunal, conforme se halla establecido, es id6neo para actuar
como Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano. Puede ser
un Tribunal vAlido sin ser el Tribunal Internacional Cen-
troamericano, que, como ya se ha dicho, es una entidad
especial, constituida de una manera determinada, conform
a lo preceptuado en la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923.
Este parecer en modo alguno menoscaba le eficacia de la
Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923 o el derecho de los
Estados soberanos para resolver lo conducente al arreglo
pacifico de controversial. Se refiere, tan s61o, a si el Tri-
bunal creado por el Tratado de 16 de julio de 1930 es el
Tribunal Internacional Centroamericano, constituido, con-
forme tal Tribunal debe serlo, de estricto acuerdo con la
Convenci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923.
Si el Tribunal Especial establecido por el Tratado de
16 de julio de 1930 actuara como Tribunal Internacional
Centroamericano, seria possible a cualquiera de las Partes,
que estuviese descontenta con el Laudo, insistir en que
6ste era nulo y sin valor porque el Tribunal Especial no
habia sido "organizado de estricto acuerdo" con la Con-
venci6n de 7 de febrero de 1923. En lugar de fallarse la
present controversial, se suscitaria, asi, otra fundada en
las palabras express de la Convenci6n.

Por lo tanto, habida consideraci6n de los antecedentes en
autos, y como Tribunal Especial establecido en el Tratado
de 16 de julio de 1930, nos pronunciamos por la negative
sobre la cuesti6n previa planteada en dicho Tratado. No
estando este Tribunal Especial constituido, como no lo
estd, de estricto acuerdo con la Convenci6n de 7 de febrero
de 1923, no tiene competencia, como el Tribunal Interna-
cional Centroamericano creado por dicha Convenci6n, para










February 7, 1923, has not the competence, as the Interna-
tional Central American Tribunal established by that Con-
vention, to take cognizance of the Boundary Question be-
tween Guatemala and Honduras; but it has, and assumes,
complete jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide that
controversy as Special Boundary Tribunal as provided by
the Treaty of July 16, 1930.
The Parties shall accordingly submit to this Special
Boundary Tribunal their respective pleas, proofs and docu-
ments, relating to the Boundary Question, as provided in
Article IV of the Treaty of July 16, 1930.

Done at the City of Washington, District of Columbia,
United States of America, this eighth day of January, nine-
teen hundred and thirty-two, in three copies, in Spanish
and English, one of which is to remain with the documents
of the Tribunal, and the others to be delivered to the Agents
of the respective Parties.



CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, President.



LUIs CASTRO-URENA,



EMILIO BELLO-CODESIDO, Arbitrators.




ATTESTED:
B. COHEN,
Secretary of the Tribunal.










conocer de la cuesti6n de limits entire Guatemala y Hon-
duras; pero si tiene y asume plena jurisdicci6n para en-
tender en esa controversial y definirla, como Tribunal Es-
pecial de Limites, conforme al Tratado de 16 de julio de
1930.
En consecuencia, las Partes someterin a este Tribunal
Especial de Limites sus respectivos alegatos, puebas y
documents referentes a la controversial de limits, de
acuerdo con lo prescrito en el Articulo IV del Tratado de
16 de julio de 1930.

Hecho en la ciudad de Washington, Distrito de Columbia,
Estados Unidos de Am6rica, este octavo dia del mes de
enero de mil novecientos treinta y dos, en tres ejemplares,
en espafiol, e ingl6s, de los cuales uno quedara en el ex-
pediente del Tribunal y los otros serAn entregados a los
Agentes de las respectivas Partes.



CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, President,



Luis CASTRO-URENA,


Arbitros.
EMILIO BELLO-CODESIDO,





CERTIFICA:
B. COHEN,
Secretario del Tribunal.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs