¹ For example, succinctly in Kunz, J. L., “Guatemala vs. Great Britain : In re Belize,” 40 A.J.I.L. 383-390 (1946)Google Scholar ; historically in Humphreys, E. A., “The Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute,” 24 International Affairs 387-404 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; juridically in Bloomfield, L. M., The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute (Toronto, 1953)Google Scholar ; and polemically in Mendoza, J. L., Britain and her Treaties on Belize (Guatemala, 1947)Google Scholar.

² Great Britain, International Court of Justice, Declaration by His Majesty ‘s Government . . . Misc. No. 11 (1946) : Cmd. 6934 (1946).

³ Art. 7 reads: “With the object of practically carrying out the views set forth in the preamble of the present Convention for improving and perpetuating the friendly relations which at present so happily exist between the two High Contracting Parties, they mutually agree conjointly to use their best efforts by taking adequate means for establishing the easiest communication (either by means of a cart-road, or employing the rivers, or both united, according to the opinion of the surveying engineers), between the fittest place on the Atlantic coast near the settlement of Belize and the capital of Guatemala; whereby the commerce of England on the one hand, and the material prosperity of the Republic on the other, cannot fail to be sensibly increased, at the same time that the limits of the two countries being now clearly defined, all further encroachments by either party on the territory of the other will be effectually checked and prevented for the future.” Printed in Bloomfield, op. cit. 30; Mendoza, op. cit. 137-138.

⁴ The declaration reads: “I , Ernest Bevin, His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, declare on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice that for a period of five years from the date of this Declaration they accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning the interpretation, application or validity of any treaty relating to the boundaries of British Honduras, and over any questions arising out of any conclusion which the court may reach with regard to such treaty.”

⁵ As argued in Belize, W. J. Bianchi: the Controversy between Guatemala and Great Britain over the Territory of British Honduras in Central America 92-103 (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; but Bloomfield (op. cit. 111-115) disagrees.

⁶ For these arguments see Bloomfield, op. cit. 116-119.

⁷ See ibid. 78-96.

⁸ This contention is disputed in part by the Mexican Government, which claims that Mexico inherited the northern half of British Honduras from Spain, Guatemala inheriting only the southern half. This claim is fully expounded in Belice, I. Fabela: Defensa de los Derechos de México (Mexico, 1944)Google Scholar. The boundary between British Honduras and Mexico was fixed by an Anglo-Mexican treaty of 1893, and Mexico since then has made no claim to the territory as against Britain. The Mexican Government has, however, made it plain on several occasions since World War II that, in the event of a change in the status of British Honduras, her interest in the northern half of the territory would revive. See, for example, Fenwick, C. G., “The American Committee on Dependent Territories,” 44 A.J.I.L. 368 (1950)Google Scholar, and U.N. General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Fourth Committee, 333rd Meeting, Oct. 14, 1953, par. 11; 10th Sess., Fourth Committee, 472nd Meeting, Oct. 6, 1955, par. 39; 10th Sess., 541st Plenary Meeting, Nov. 8, 1955, par. 175; 13th Sess., 771st Plenary Meeting, Oct. 6, 1958, par. 110.

⁹ The Anglo-Guatemalan Convention was in fact one of a series of treaties executed by Britain along the lines of an unratified agreement of 1856 with the United States designed to clear up disagreements which had arisen between the two countries over the interpretation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. On this point see Humphreys, loc. cit. 393-395, or, more fully, Williams, M. W., Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy 1815-1915, Ch. VIII (Washington, 1916)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The Guatemalan contentions may be studied in Mendoza, op. cit., and in Guatemala, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, White Book: Controversy between Guatemala and Great Britain relative to the Convention of 1859 on Territorial Matters (English edition, Guatemala, 1938), and Continuations of the White Book Series I and II (English editions, Guatemala, 1939-1945).

¹¹ See Bloomfield, op. cit. 86-95.

¹² “New Light on the Belize Dispute,” 52 A.J.I.L. 280-297 (1958).

¹³ Professor Clegern’s article was reprinted under the title “Nueva Luz sobre la Disputa de Belice,” in Bevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales de Guatemala, Epoca VI, No. 4 (1958), pp. 90-112, and was clearly the inspiration for an important series of articles by David Vela, entitled “Centenario de la Convención Anglo-Guatemalteca de 1859,” which appeared in the newspaper El Imparcial on April 27, 28, 29, 30, May 1, 2, 4, 5, 1959, and were reprinted in Eevista de la APG (Asociación de Periodistas de Guatemala), No. 10 (July, 1959), pp. 26-48.

¹⁴ In a review in 54 A.J.I.L. 204 (1960).

¹⁵ For this interpretation, see Humphreys, loc. cit. 396-399, and Bloomfield, op. cit. 97-106.

^15a It should also be noted that Professor Clegern has subsequently published a document (“A Guatemalan Defense of the British Honduras Boundary of 1859,” 40 Hispanic American Historical Review 570-581 (1960), which suggests that the Guatemalan negotiator had some doubts about the validity of his country’s claims to sovereignty.

¹⁶ In Latin American parlance this term refers to the whole territory of British Honduras as well as to the town of Belize.

¹⁷ It is very frequently mentioned in Guatemalan writings on the subject: see, for example, J. L. Mendoza to Editor, Jan. 28, 1948, 24 International Affairs 317 (1948) ; Carlos Garcia Bauer, La Controversia sobre el Territorio de Belice y la Procedimiento Ex Aequo et Bono 15 (Guatemala, 1958).

¹⁸ As in 1936, when part of a Guatemalan proposal for solving the dispute involved Britain handing over a strip of territory which would have linked El Petén to the sea (see Humphreys, loc. cit. 402; Bloomfield, op. cit. 55), and in 1958, when the implications of the possible discovery of commercially exploitable reserves of oil were being considered (see 11 Hispanic American Report 76 (1958); 12 ibid. 79-80 (1959); A. Prats, Visión Actual de Belice, Ch. XV (Mexico, 1958)). In this connection it may be noted that the form in which Guatemala in 1947 proposed that the dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice would presumably have allowed geographical and economic factors to be taken into account in deciding the case.

¹⁹ For negotiations regarding transit, see Sec. IV below.

²⁰ W. J. Bianchi, op. cit. 137.

²¹ The Guatemalan declaration reads : “The Government of Guatemala declares that, in accordance with Article 36 (2) and (3) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, it recognizes as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, and for a period of five years, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes. This declaration does not cover the dispute between England and Guatemala concerning the restoration of the territory of Belize, which the Government of Guatemala would, as it was proposed, agree to submit to the judgment of the Court, if the case were decided ex aequo et bono, in accordance with Article 38 (2) of the said Statute.” 1946-1947 I.C.J. Yearbook 219.

²² Guatemala brought the matter up repeatedly at Inter-American Conferences (for a summary of action on the hemispheric level, see Carlos Garcia Bauer, op. cit. 72-80), and at the United Nations (see U.N. General Assembly, 2nd Sess., Official Records, Fourth Committee, 36th Meeting, Oct. 3, 1947; 4th Sess., Fourth Committee, 114th Meeting, Nov. 3, 1949, pars. 25-32; 5th Sess., 280th Plenary Meeting, Sept. 21, 1950, par. 144; 5th Sess., Fourth Committee, 181st Meeting, Nov. 17, 1950, pars. 26-33; 6th Sess., Fourth Committee, 207th Meeting, Nov. 21, 1951, par. 24; 7th Sess., Fourth Committee, 255th Meeting, Oct. 27, 1952, pars. 34-35; 8th Sess., Fourth Committee, 333rd Meeting, Oct. 14, 1953, par. 1; 10th Sess., Fourth Committee, 472nd Meeting, Oct. 6, 1955, pars. 36-38; 10th Sess., 841st Plenary Meeting, Nov. 8, 1955, pars. 167-170 ; 13th Sess., 761st Plenary Meeting, Sept. 26, 1958, par. 127, and 772nd Plenary Meeting, Oct. 6, 1958, pars. 51-57; 14th Sess., 805th Plenary Meeting, Sept. 23, 1959, and 809th Plenary Meeting, Sept. 25, 1959, pars. 240-242).

²³ See Smithers, Peter, “Central America,” 23 International Affairs 505-507 (1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bloomfleld, op. tit. 131-133, 139; 7 Hispanic American Report, No. 2, p. 14 (1954); 8 ibid. 395, 446 (1955); 9 ibid. 413 (1956); 11 ibid. 237, 529 (1958).

²⁴ A typical Guatemalan statement of the time was: “My Government have never been opposed . . . to the Court’s considering the juridical aspect of the controversy, and to its taking this into account when rendering its decision. What my Government are opposed to, because they consider it unjust, is that it should be this aspect, solely and exclusively which the court should consider, to the exclusion of all aspects of another order, such as the antecedents of the case and the historical, political and moral circumstances within which the facts developed. . . . If the British Government have any confidence in the validity of their arguments the remedy lies in accepting the oft repeated offer of my Government to allow the dispute to be resolved by the International Court through an ’ex aequo et bono’ procedure . . . ” (from a Note of May 27, 1949, printed in Bloomfleld, op. cit. 196-197); and a typical British statement was: “The Guatemalan Government claim that His Majesty’s Government have not fully carried out the terms of the Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty of 30th April 1859. This is manifestly a legal matter. . . . His Majesty’s Government are unable to understand why then the Guatemalan Government are not prepared to allow their claim to be legally adjudicated upon . . . The people of British Honduras are entitled to an assurance that any claim affecting the territory in which they live shall be decided on a legal basis . . . For that reason His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to accept a reference to the Court ex aequo et bono which would mean that the Court could override the legal rights of the parties and give a decision on the basis of the view of expediency or policy.” (From a Note of Sept. 8, 1949, printed in Bloomfleld, op. cit. 199-201.)

²⁵ Bloomfleld, op. cit. 138-139, 140, 142.

²⁶ Carlos Garcia Bauer, op. cit. 143-155.

²⁷ The resolution reads: “Be it resolved that it be placed on record that the people of British Honduras are unalterably fixed in mind that their national status as loyal British subjects and the position of their country as a component part of the British Empire shall remain unchanged.” Printed in British Honduras, Legislative Council, Minutes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council of British Honduras for the year 1948, No. 1, March 16, 1948.

²⁸ Statement in House of Commons by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, June 2, 1948, Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), Official Reports, Fifth Series, House of Commons, Vol. 451, cols. 998-999. See also statement quoted in note 24 above.

²⁹ See, for example, Notes of May 27, 1949, Oct. 23, 1951, and Feb. 21, 1952, printed in Bloomfield, op. cit. 198, 203-205, 210-214.

³⁰ See Great Britain, Colonial Office, British Honduras : Report of an Inquiry held by Sir Reginald Sharpe Q.C. into allegations of contacts between the People’s United Party and Guatemala (Cmd. 9139, 1954).

³¹ Statement by Colonial Secretary of British Honduras, reported in Belize Billboard, Dec. 21, 1957.

³² For this incident see The Times (London), Nov. 28, 29, 30, Dec. 2, 4, 9, 18, 20, 21, 1957; British Honduras, Government Gazette, No. 63, Dec. 3, 1957; statements in House of Commons by Secretary of State for the Colonies, Nov. 27 and Dec. 3, 1957, Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), Official Reports, Fifth Series, House of Commons, Vol. 578, cols. 1159-1162 ; Vol. 579, cols. 192-194.

³³ The resolution (which was passed on Dec. 17, 1957, and was supported by Price) reads: “Having regard to the recent developments which culminated in the breakdown of the financial, economic and constitutional discussions which were being held last month in London between representatives of the Government of British Honduras on the one side and of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom on the other side, be it resolved that this House: Rejects any claim by any other Government than the Government of the United Kingdom to sovereignty over British Honduras in accordance with the wishes of the people of British Honduras, who are the rightful owners of the country and who will decide its future destiny; Declines to have anything to do with any plan for the incorporation of British Honduras in any other country; Desires to be on friendly terms with all its neighbours and welcomes the closest economic relations with all countries which desire to trade with this country to the mutual benefit of all; Declares that its aim remains the achievement of self-government for British Honduras; Expresses its confidence that self-government can be achieved for British Honduras in cooperation with Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom as it has elsewhere; and Reaffirms its loyalty and allegiance to the British Crown and to the person of Her Majesty the Queen.” Printed in Belize Billboard, Dec. 18, 1957.

³⁴ One of these, Nicholas Pollard, significantly stated that he had been prepared to exploit the Guatemalan dispute as a weapon against the British, but could not join Price in seriously promoting association with Guatemala (statement of March 8, 1958, printed in Daily Gleaner (Kingston, Jamaica), April 28, 1958).

³⁵ See, for example, 11 Hispanic American Report 248 (1958) ; Press Release by George Price, Party Leader of the People’s United Party, Belize, July 15, 1958 (mimeographed); Daily Gleaner (Kingston, Jamaica), Dec. 31, 1958.

³⁶ Among the President’s statements were one that “Belice will be ours by right or might” and another that Guatemala would take Belice “by reason or force” (see 11 Hispanic American Report 195, 599 (1958)).

³⁷ Great Britain, Colonial Office, Report of the British Honduras Conference held in London in February, 1960 (Cmnd. 984, 1960), p. 7.

³⁸ Embodied in “A Joint Declaration and Agreement by the People’s United Party and the National Independence Party of British Honduras,” signed in London, Feb. 17, 1960 (printed in Belize Billboard, Feb. 28, 1960).

³⁹ See editorials in all three Belize newspapers : Daily Clarion, July 4, 1960 ; Belize Billboard, July 6, 1960; and particularly the PUP newspaper, Belize Times, July 6, 1960 (all reproduced in The British Honduran (Government Printer, Belize), No. 7, July, 1960).

⁴⁰ Smithers, op. cit. 506-507.

⁴¹ Written answer by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Dec. 5, 1957, Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), Official Reports, Fifth Series, House of Commons, Vol. 579, cols. 81-88. See also Great Britain, Central Office of Information, British Honduras: the Guatemalan Claim (R 4641, June 1960), pp. 6-7.

⁴² Guatemala did in fact consistently protest against the inclusion of British Honduras in the Federation from 1945 (when planning of the Federation began), on the grounds that Britain was not entitled unilaterally to alter the status of a territory that was sub judice; but Britain has consistently refused to accept this argument (see Bloomfield, op. cit. 72, 76-77, 214-216).