Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:06:55.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Positive Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Guy Stevens
Guy Stevens*
Affiliation:
Association of Producers of Petroleum in Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On March 27, 1928, the United States Department of State issued the following public statement:

The petroleum regulations just promulgated by President Calles constitute executive action which completes the process beginning with the decision made by the judicial branch of the Mexican Government on November 17, 1927, and followed by the enactment of the new petroleum law by the legislative branch on December 26 last.

Together these steps voluntarily taken by the Mexican Government would appear to bring to a practical conclusion the discussions which began ten years ago with reference to the effect of the Mexican constitution and laws upon foreign oil companies. The department feels, as does Ambassador Morrow, that such questions, if any, as may hereafter arise can be settled through the due operation of the Mexican administrative departments and the Mexican courts.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1929 , pp. 30 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Senate Documents: “ Investigation of Mexican Affairs,” Report of Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 66th Cong., 2d Sess.,pursuant to S. Res. 106, p. 3121.

2 Ibid., p. 3152.

3 Ibid., p. 3153. “ The subsoil from which the products are to be secured, and which is the basis of such contracts (for the exploitation of petroleum), does not belong, according to said law, to the owner of the surface lands, by virtue of the nationalization imposed by the text referred to.”

4 Legislacidn Petrolera, published by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Labor of the Mexican Government, Vol. I, p. 102 et seq.

5 Senate Investigation of Mexican Affairs, ibid., p. 3154.

6 Ibid.

7 Legislation Petrolera. Vol. I, p. 154.

8 Legislation Petrolera. Vol. I, p. 159.

9 From “ International Conciliation,” published by the American Association for International Conciliation, June, 1923, p. 417 et seq. Reprinted from texts furnished by the Department of State of the United States.

10 From “ International Conciliation,” published by the American Association for International Conciliation, June, 1923, p. 457 et. seq. Reprinted from texts furnished by the Department of State of the United States

11 Ibid., pp. 432 and 433.

12 Ibid., pp. 470 and 471

13 Reprint ofi“ Correspondence Exchanged between the American Embassy at Mexico City and the Mexican Foreign Office, etc.,” as released for publication by the Department of State of the United States, May 8, 1926, p. 23.

14 Proceedings of the United States-Mexican Commission convened in Mexico City, May 14, 1923. Department of State, Washington, D. C., p. 47 et seq.

15 Proceedings of the United States-Mexican Commission convened in Mexico City, May 14, 1923. Department of State, Washington, D. C., p 49.

16 Diario Oficial, January 21, 1926.

17 Reprint of “ Correspondence exchanged between the Governments of the United States and Mexico, regarding the Two Laws regulating Section 1 of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution,” as released for publication by the Dept, of State of the United States on April 10, 1926, p. 3.

18 Reprint of “ Correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Mexico,” as released for publication by the Department of State of the United States on November 24,1926, p. 33.

19 English translation of this decision is printed in this Jouhnal, Vol. 22, p. 421.

20 Correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Mexico, released April 10, 1926, p. 18.

21 Correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Mexico, released Nov. 24, 1926.

22 Correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Mexico, released April 10, 1926, p. 30.

23 Correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Mexico, released Nov. 24, 1926, p. 3.

24 Novisima Recopilaci&n, Book IX , Title X X , Law I.

25 Reales Ordenanzas Para la Mineria de la Nueva Espana, Title 5, Art. 1. See Legislation Petrolera, Vol. I, p. 2.

26 Ibid., Title 6, Art. 22, loc. cit., Vol. I, p. 6.

27 Novmma RecopUacidn, Book IX, Title X X , Law II.

28 Ibid., Law IV.

29 Ibid., Law VI.

30 Votos de Vallarta, Vol. 2, p. 140. “ Amparo applied for against the decision of a civil judge who declared that the denouncement of a coal mine situated on land owned by another party is legal.”

31 Law of Dec. 14, 1883, amending Sec. X of Art. 72 of the Constitution of 1857.

32 Cdigo de Minas de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Nov. 22, 1884.

33 Ley Minera de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, June 4, 1892.

34 Ley Minera de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Nov. 25, 1909.

35 Estudios Juridicos; Petroleo y Carbon de Piedra. Academia de Jurisprudencia y Legislacidn,(1905). Mexico, 1921.

36 Estudios Juridicos; Petroleo y Carbon de Piedra. Academia deJurisprudeneia y Legislation,(1905). Mexico, 1921, p. 63.

37 U. S. Senate Investigation of Mexican Affairs, p. 3154.