Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:35:58.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anglo-Guatemalan Territorial Dispute over the Colony of Belize (British Honduras)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

P. K. Menon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The subject of this study is the controversial territorial claim concerning British Honduras or Belize,1 a coastal strip some 174 miles long and about 70 miles broad at its widest point, lying on the eastern seaboard of Central America between 15° 54' and 18° 29' north latitude, and 88° II' (or, including the offshore islands, 87° 28') and 89° 13½' west longitude. 2 Its area of 8,867 square miles is roughly equal to that of Wales or twice the size of Jamaica. It is the second smallest political division on the American continent, being slightly larger than El Salvador, the smallest Latin American State.3 It is bounded on the north and north-west by Mexico, the boundary following the Hondo river; on the south and west by Guatemala, the southern boundary being the Sarstoon river; and on the east by the Carribbean Sea.4

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , November 1979 , pp. 343 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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 By an act of the colonial legislature, the official name of the country British Honduras was changed to Belize, which was the name of its capital city, on I June 1973. See Government of Belize, Ordinance No. 13 of 1973 (30 June 1973). In order to avoid the risk of historical anachronism, the old and new names have been used throughout the study wherever appropriate.Google Scholar

2 Waddell, D. A. G., British Honduras: A Histor:cai and Contemporary Survey (London, Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 57.Google Scholar

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Caiger, Stephen L., British Honduras: Past and Present (London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1951), p. 17.Google Scholar

7 In 1524, Hernán Cortés made his memorable march almost in a straight line from Vera Cruz to Truxillo in order to punish the rebellious Cristobal de Olid who had proclaimed the independence of Spanish Honduras. Ibid., p. 18.

8 Waddell, op. cit. supra, note 2 at pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

9 Caiger, op. Cit. supra, note 6 at p. 18.Google Scholar

10 Sherlock, Philip, Belize: A Junior History (London, Collins, 1969), p. 36.Google Scholar

11 Ibid.

12 Burdon, J. A., Archives of British Honduras (LondonSilton Praed, 1931), I, 48, as cited in Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at p. 20.Google Scholar

13 The name buccaneer was derived from the ‘buccan’ meat or boucan which became their staple provender while away from home. Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at p. 24.Google Scholar

14 Ibid. p. 31.

15 Waddell, op. cit. supra, note 2 at p. 8.Google Scholar

16 Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

17 Bianchi, William J., Belize (New York, Las Americas Publishing Co., 1959), p. 18.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., pp. 20–21.

19 Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at p. 53.Google Scholar

20 For the text of the treaty see British and Foreign State Papers (hereafter BFSP), I, 646; Martens, Recucil de Traités, 1, 31.Google Scholar

21 For text of the treaty see BFSP, I, 649; Martens, Recueil de Traités, III, 541.Google Scholar

22 For text of the convention, see BFSP, I, 656; Martens, Recucil de Traités, IV, 133.Google Scholar

21 Bianchi, op. cit. supra, note 17 at pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

24 Waddell, op. cit. supra, note 2, p. 12; sec also Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at pp. 99–100; Bianchi, loc. cit.;Google ScholarBloomfield, Louis M., The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute (Toronto, The Carswell Company Ltd., 1953), p. II.Google Scholar

25 BFSP, I, 292; Deschamps, Baron and Renault, Louis (eds.), Recucil international des iraitx du XXe siecle (Paris, 1901), p. 204.Google Scholar

26 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 57 George III (London, 1817), p. 183; 59 George III (London, 1819), p. 148; See also Bianchi, op. cit. supra, note 17 at pp. 41–6.Google Scholar

27 Humphrcys, R. A., The Diplomatic History of British Honduras 1638–1901 (London, Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 18.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., p. 59.

29 For text of the declaration see BFSP, II, 1823–4.Google Scholar

30 The United Provinces included all the states in the old Captaincy-General of Guatemala except the province of Chiapas which was given the option of uniting with Mexico.Google Scholar

31 These two districts - Peten and Verapaz - comprise the much disputed territory of Belize. Giles, Bryant Whitmore, ‘The ‘Belize” Question: A Problem of Anti-Colonialism in the New World’, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1956, p. 27.Google Scholar

32 Cukwurah, A. O., The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (Manchester University Press, 1967), p. 112.Google Scholar

33 Scott, J. B., ‘The Swiss Decision in the Boundary Dispute between Colombia and Venezuela’, American Journal of International Law, 16 (1922), 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Goldie, L. F. E., ‘The Critical Date’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 12 (1963), 1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Cukwurah, op. cit. supra, note 32 at p. 190–1; Jones, Stephen, Boundary Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners (Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), pp. 13, 47–8.Google Scholar

36 Cukwurah, op. cit. supra, note 32 at pp. 190–I.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., pp. 191

38 Giles, op. cit. supra, note 31 at p. 28.

39 Ibid., p. 29.

40 In 1841 the British proclaimed the ‘Mosquito’ protectorate, and in 1849 they occupied Tigre Island in the Bay of Fonsec. See Kunz, Josef L., ‘Guatemala vs. Great Britain In Re Belise’, American fournal of International Law, 40 (1946), 384.Google Scholar

41 For text of the treaty see Miller, Hunter (ed.), Treaties and Other international Acts of the United States of America, v (Washington, Government Printing Press, 1931–1948), 671.Google Scholar

42 Humphreys, op. cit. supra, note 27 at p. 52.Google Scholar

43 Manning, Williams R., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter American Affairs 1831–1860 (Washington, 1932), 7, 63.Google Scholar

44 Statement of Lord Clarendon for Mr Buchanan, 2 May 1854. BFSP, XLVI, 267.Google Scholar

45 Remarks of Mr Buchanan, 22 July 1854, in reply to Lord Clarendon, in ibid., p. 295.

46 Oppenheim, L., International Law (ed. Lauterpacht, , 8th ed. rep. 1970), 1, 316.Google Scholar

47 Article 34.Google Scholar

48 Reports of international Arbitral Awards, II, 850.Google Scholar

49 P.C.I.J., Series A. No. 23 (1929), pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

50 For text of Dallas-Clarendon treaty, see BFSP, XLVII, 661.Google Scholar

51 Humphreys, op. cit. supra, note 27 at p. 59.Google Scholar

52 Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at p. 59.Google Scholar

53 For text of the treaty see BFSP, XLIX, 7. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged on 12 Sept. 1859.Google Scholar

54 Bianchi, op. cit. supra, note 17 at p. 79.Google Scholar

55 Under the supplementary convention of 5 Aug. 1863 Rritain agreed to pay Guatemala £50,000 in five instalments. The first payment was to follow immediately ott ratification. The remaining instalments would be paid when predetermined portions of the road were completed to the satisfaction of British engineers. Guatemala was to be held responsible for completing the road in four years and, thereafter, for keeping it in good condition. Giles, op. cit. supra, note 33 at p. 48.Google Scholar

56 See note 53, supra.Google Scholar

57 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, pp. 929, 943, 944.Google Scholar

58 Article 60, para. I.Google Scholar

59 A material breach consists in: ‘(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or (b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty’. Ibid., para. 3.

60 Writings on treaty interpretation are numerous. For example, Fairman, Charles, ‘The Interpretation of Treaties’, Grotius Transactions, 20 (1935), 123;Google ScholarGordon, , ‘The World Court and the Interpretation of Constitutive Treaties’, American Journal of International Law, 56 (1965), 794;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGottlieb, Gidon, ‘The Interpretation of Treaties by Tribunals’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1969), p. 122;Google Scholar Leo Gross, ‘Treaty Interpretation: The Proper Role of an International Tribunal’, ibid., p. 108; Hogg, , ‘The International Court: Rules of Treaty Interpretation’, Minnesota Law Review, 43 (1959), 369;Google Scholar and ibid. XLIV, 5; Jacobs, Francis G., ‘Varieties of Approach to Treaty Interpretation: With Special Reference to the Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties before the Vienna Diplomatic Conference’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 18 (1969), 318;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFalk, Richard A., ‘On Treaty Interpretation and the New Haven Approach: Achievements and Prospects’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 8 (1968), 323;Google ScholarLauterpacht, H., Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties’, British Yearbook of International Law, 26 (1949), 48;Google ScholarMcDougal, , Lasswell, and Miller, , The Interpretation of Agreements and World Public Order (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 432–89;Google ScholarSchachter, Oscar, Interpretation of Ambiguous Documents by international Administratwe Tribunals (1964);Google ScholarSchwarzenberger, G., ‘Myths and Realities of Treaty Interpretation’, Current Legal Problems, 22 (1969), 205;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSinclair, , ‘The Principles of Treaty Interpretation and Their Application by the English Courts’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 7 (1963), 508;CrossRefGoogle ScholarStone, Julius, ‘Fictional Elements in Treaty Interpretation — A Study in the International Judicial Process’, Sydney Law Review, (1955), 344;Google ScholarWhiteman, Marjorie M., Digest of International Law, (Washington: Government Printing Press, 1970), 353–409. While the controversies over the principles of treaty interpretation are still continuing, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) has broadly accepted the textual approach and has adopted a set of three principles: (1) good faith; (2) ordinary meaning; and (3) context.Google Scholar

61 Emer de Vattel, Droit des Gens, Book II, sec. 263.Google Scholar

62 ICJ, Reports (1952), pp. 196 and 199.Google Scholar

63 ICJ, Reports (1950), p. 8.Google Scholar

64 Falk, Richard, op. cit. supra, note 60 at pp. 332–3.Google Scholar

65 PCIJ, Series A/B No. 50 (1932), p. 383.Google Scholar

66 Fitzmaurice, Gerald, ‘The Law of Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretations and Certain Other Treaty Points’, British Yearbook of international Law, 28 (1951), p. 3.Google Scholar

67 Harvard Law School, ‘Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties’, American Journal of International Law, 29 (Supplement) (1935), 937.Google Scholar

68 Hyde, Charles Cheney, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (Rev. 2nd ed.Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1945), II, 1468–71.Google Scholar

69 McDougal, Lasswell and Miller, op. cit. supra, note 60 at p. xix.Google Scholar See also critical comments by Gottlieb, Gidon, ‘The Conceptual World of the Yale Law School of International Law’, World Politics, 21 (1963), 108;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFitzmaurice, G. C., ‘Vae Victis or Woe to the Negotiators. Your Treaty or Our Interpretation of It?’ American Journal of International Law, 65 (1950), 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 As summarized by Falk, Richard A., op. cit. supra, note 60 at p. 341.Google Scholar

71 Lauterpacht, op. cit. supra, note 60 at p. 75.Google Scholar

72 Ibid., at p. 73. Sir H. Lauterpacht strongly advocated the thesis in the proposals he submitted to the Institute of International Law in 1950. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, XLVIII (1950), 371 et. seq.

73 Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra, note 66 at p. 2.Google Scholar

74 The phrase ‘emergent purpose’ is used ‘to describe a still more extreme and dynamic form of the teleologicall approach, according to which the notion of object or purpose is itself not a fixed and static one, but is liable to change, or rather develop as experience is gained in the operation and working of the convention’.Google ScholarFitzmaurice, , ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954: Treaty Interpretation of and Other Treaty Points’, British Yearbook of Internal Law, 33 (1957), 208.Google Scholar

75 Jacobs, op. cit. supra, note 60 at p. 320.Google Scholar

76 Ibid.

77 Harvard Law School, op. cit. supra, note 67; and see, generally, McDougal, Lasswell and Miller, op. cit. supra, note 60.Google Scholar

78 Fitzmaurice, op. Cit. supra, note 74.Google Scholar

79 Humphreys, op. cit. supra, note 27 at p. 78.Google Scholar

80 Wyke to Malmesbury, 31 Mar. 1859, F.O. 15/106, as cited by Humphreys, op. cit., p. 81.Google Scholar

81 ‘Memorandum by Sir Charles Wyke for Mr Layard's use should any debate take place in the House of Commons relative to the grant of £50,000 demanded for the Construction of the Guatemala Road’, Foreign Office, n.d., F.O. 15/144A, ff. 157–61,Google Scholar cited by Clegern, Wayne M., ‘New Light on the Belize Dispute’, American Journal of International Law, 52 (1958), 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Bloomfleld, op. cit. supra, note 24 at p. 50; Giles, op. cit. supra, note 31 at p. 52.Google Scholar

83 Caiger, op. cit. supra, note 6 at p. 205.Google Scholar

84 As cited by Bianchi, op. cit. supra, note 17 at pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

85 Humphreys, op. cit. supra, note 27 at p. 166.Google Scholar

86 Bloomfield, op. cit. supra, note 24 at p. 56.Google Scholar

87 Guatemalan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, White Book: Belize Question (Guatemala, 1938), p. 427.Google Scholar

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid., p. 428.

90 Continuation of the White Book (Guatemala, 1941), First Series, III, 134–6.

91 ibid., pp. 138–9. The issues contained in the British proposal of compromis are as follows: I. Is there still any practical method by which the original obligations laid down in Article 7 can be effectively carried out? 2. If the answer to i is in the negative whether, and if so, to what extent, His Majesty's Government are responsible far failcre to carry out the mutual obligations in Article 7? 3. Having regard to any responsibility which may devolve on His Majesty's Government for failure to carry out the mutual obligations imposed by Article 7, by what method, applying all relevant legal and equitable principles, shall His Majestys Government now discharge their obligations under this Article?

92 Blausten, and Flanz, , Constitution of the Countries of the World (New York, Oceana Publications, 1973), 5, 51.Google Scholar

93 For text of the draft treaty, see Institute of International Relations, Documents on International Relations in the Caribbean (Trinidad, 1970) (hereafter cited as Documents on International Relations), pp. 688–95.Google Scholar

94 Article I, para. 2.Google Scholar

95 If the members were unable to appoint a seventh member, they should request the Government of the United States to make such an appointment.Google Scholar

96 Article 9, para. 4.Google Scholar

97 Ibid.

98 See, generally, Menon, P. K., ‘The Right to Self-Determination: A Historical Appraisal’, Revue de Droit International, 52 (1975), 183–200, 272–82.Google Scholar

99 United Nations, Charter, Article I (2).Google Scholar

100 Chap. XI of the United Nations Charter contains the declaration regarding non.self-governing territories; it imposes upon member nations the duty to develop self-government, ‘to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions’. Chap. XII deals with the international trusteeship system. One of the basic objectives of the system is ‘to promote the progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’.Google Scholar

101 According to Article a of the Declaration of Human Rights, ‘no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether to be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty’. UN., Doe. A/810 (1948).Google Scholar

102 The International Covenant of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 is more emphatic. Article I of the Covenant of Human Rights states that ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination’. See United Nations, Annex to the General Assenibly Resolution 2200 (XXI).Google Scholar

103 See, generally, Menon, P. K., ‘United Nations Special Committee and Decolonization’ The Indian Journal of International Law, 9 (1969), 19–46.Google Scholar

104 Statement by Linbergh Rogers, Minister of Internal Affairs, to the United Nations Trusteeship Committee (4 Dec. 1967). See Documents on International Relations, p. 680.Google Scholar

105 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 1514 (XV), 14 Dec. 1960.Google Scholar

106 As to Sloan, who has written a learned article on the binding force of General Assembly Resolutions, ‘… there is an inherent power in the General Assembly as the most nearly representative organ of the international community to impose its will in limited fields. In those areas and on those matters where sovereignty is not vested in a Member State, the General Assembly acting as the agent of the international community may assert the right to enter the legal vacuum and take a binding decision’. See ‘The Binding Farce of a Recommendation of the General Assembly of the United Nations’, British Year book of International Law, xxv (1948), 24. This might be found in the subsequent decision of the General Assembly on 27 Nov. 1961 when it established a 07-member Committee to make recommendations for the implementation of the declar. ation. Several resolutions passed by the General Assembly and decisions taken by the Security Council in subsequent years against States who acted against the declaration provide added weight to the assumption that the declaration has a binding force. Incorporation of the principles of self-determination with reference to the declaration in the 1966 International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights further justify the above assumption.Google Scholar

107 Message sent to the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations by the Premier of Belize on behalf of his government. See United Nations, Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, VI, Doc. A/9623/Rev. I (New York, 1976), 123–4.Google Scholar