Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia [3 Volumes] by Brunet-Jailly Emmanuel

Author:Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: ABC-CLIO
Published: 2015-07-10T16:00:00+00:00

Spanish Arbitration

In 1887, Ecuador and Peru opened negotiations, which led to an agreement known as the Espinosa-Bonifaz Convention. Under its terms, the signatories agreed to submit their dispute to an arbitration by the king of Spain (Pérez Concha 1961). The agreement provided for direct negotiations to continue concurrently with the arbitration, but when those talks failed to produce a settlement, the Spanish arbitration led to a projected award in 1910 that largely accepted the juridical theses of Peru. The projected award agreed with the Peruvian argument that the central issue was one of fixing the boundaries between provinces that had chosen at the time of independence to join one state or the other, and in accepting uti possidetis juris, it also agreed that all of Spain’s administrative acts up to the very moment of independence were applicable. As for Ecuador, the projected award rejected the 1829 treaty on the grounds that Ecuador lost its rights as a successor to Gran Colombia when it concluded the 1832 treaty, and it also ruled that the Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol lacked authenticity as well as the approval of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian congresses (Bákula Patiño 2002). The provisions of the projected award of the Spanish arbitration led to violent demonstrations in Ecuador that produced counterdemonstrations in Peru and led the king of Spain in November 1910 to decide not to pronounce his award (Zook 1964).

When the Spanish arbitration ended, Peru agreed to bring the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague; however, Ecuador insisted on a solution based on principles of equity, either through arbitration or direct negotiations, which would take into full account its self-proclaimed moral right to an exit on the Amazon River. In 1913, Peru proposed to Ecuador a process known as the mixed formula, which consisted of direct talks and limited arbitration (Pérez Concha 1961). Based on this proposal, bilateral talks resumed in 1919, leading to a new agreement, the Ponce-Castro Oyanguren Protocol, on June 21, 1924 (Bákula Patiño 2002). With the prior agreement of the United States, Ecuador and Peru agreed to convene in Washington, DC, to negotiate a definitive boundary, and if they were unable to agree, they would submit the unresolved segments to the arbitral decision of the United States (Tobar Donoso & Luna Tobar 1994). The Ponce-Castro Oyanguren Protocol aimed to reconcile Peru’s insistence on juridical arbitration with Ecuador’s demand for an equitable arbitration or direct negotiations; unfortunately, the terms of the protocol were not clear and precise. Consequently, the Washington Conference, when it finally convened in 1936, proved little more than a test of patience and an exercise in futility (Zook 1964). At the opening session, Ecuador maintained that the central issue was territorial, proposing, in effect, to negotiate the possession of the entire territory north of the Tumbes, Huancabamba, and Marañón Rivers. In response, Peru emphasized that the dispute was not one of organic sovereignty but rather one of borders, arguing that the task at hand was to determine the location of

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.