Memorial of Honduras (Jurisdiction and Admissibility)

MÉMOIREDU HONDURAS
(COMPÉTENCEETRECEVABILITÉ)

MEMORIALOFHONDURAS
(JURISDICTIONAND ADMISSIBILITY) Volume 1

INTRODUCTION

1. -n -~ .lulv 1986. the Re~u.lic of Nicaraeua filed an Aoolic..ion in the
Rcgibtry <,fihe couri iii*tituiin+ pr<,<cc.ling, ;sg;,inst ihc Kepuhlic ~bftlondu-
rd, rcgirilin~ ,111.~llr~:cddisputr. hciuccii tltctu,rSt;ites In itrdcr id I<)undihc
iuri\diction tif the Couri Ihc Ai~i>l~iilti~~iri~fvrred Ihc provisioiis 01 ~\rlicIc

~XXI of the Pact of Bogota :id the declarations made by the Republic of
Nicaragua and by the Republic of Honduras, respectively, and to Article 36
(1) and 36 (2) of the Statute of the international Court of Justice and relied
on consent io the jurisdiciion hased upon those instruments, either jointly or
separaiely.

2. By ;tnote of 29 Augusi 1986 (Ann. 42), filed in the Registry of ihe
Court, the Minister of Foreigri Relations of the Government of Honduras
appointcd the undersigned as ils agent in accordance with Article 40 (2) of
the Rules of Court and maiiitained that with regard to jurisdiction the
Government of Honduras considered that the Court had no jurisdiction over

the maiters mentioned in the Application submitted by the Republic of Nica-
ragua. Consequently Honduras asked the Court to confine al1 preliminary
pleadings exclusively to the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, in accor-
dance with established precedent.
3. By an Order of 22 Octobcr 1986, in accordance with Article 79 of the

Rules of Court, the Court laid down a time-table for submissions by the Par-
ries rcgarding ihc qucriiiinh iif juri\Jiiiion .inJ .iilnii~~il>ilii). Iri .iccorJ;mcc
wiih th.<i Order .iiid u,ithin thc pcriud 1;iiiI down Iiy ihe Couri. thc Ciovcrn-
nicni oi Ilondur:i> ruhmiis ihis S1cmori;il cuni;gininil ihe niliiier> of Iÿci and
law upon which its objections to the jurisdiction of CheCourt and the admis-

sibiliiy of the Application filed by the Republic of Nicaragua against the
Republic of Honduras on 28 July 1986 are based.
4. Nevertheless. before settine out the facts and legal arguments. the
<i,oicrnm~.ni <if Hiinduras \rishc, IO p<!lni out tu,<>~irclimin.irv r<ni;iil<\ con-
cerning ihc daic <,f Nirsr.ieu.i'% Appli~~tiori. lir,rl) the 4pplic3iioii \v..filcd
in ihc Kcei.irv of ihc <:ouri itn 2h Jul\. I<l.tlciiilv on< month iificr tlic JuJg-

ment on th~ ~ ~ ~s in the case concernine ili ira&ancl Paromilirarv ~ciiviii~s
in and againsr Nicaragua'. Il seems, as-will be stated later, that'~icara~ua
considers thai the present case is simply a continuation of the previous case
against the ~nited'~tates of ~inerica:
Secondly, il is surprising that on the day before the filing of the Applica-

tion, 27 July 1986,Daniel Ortega, the President of the Republic of Nicaragua,
stated in an interview with the Spanish Television Network of the United
States (SIN) that "we do not have any problems wiih Honduras. We have
problems wiih the United States." These declaraiions, a transcription of

' Miliiary o,td PnrorniliioryAcrii,iiiesin and ngainsrNicnrogita(Nicaroguor. Unired
SroresoJAmerica),Merirs,Jr~dgrnenIrC . J. Reporis1986. p. 14.12 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

which is appended hcreto as Annex 28, were also reported in the press. On
that occasion. Prcsidcnt Daniel Ortega also cxpressed his full support for the
Contadora peace process in Central America.
If the orocess of oeaceful settlement conducted bv the Contadora Groun ~r
dcserves io be supp~rtcd. il is certainly surprising thai il should be prejudiced
hy Nicaragua, which submitted an Application 10 the Court on 28 July 1986
a-üinst Honduras and. on the same dav. aeai.st .osta Rica. sincc both Nica-
13gU;i:ind thc i\ro respond:nt St:iieh ;ire p;iriie, tu ihc.~~~ttlcnicnp truc:<lurcb
tihich :ire stiII h:ine. ii1nJu~1c.Jb!.the C<,nt;id.)ra(iroup II is ;il><>urliri*.n!:
ih:,i Ili< I'r~~i.l~(111N~<:irogu.~<,IIJI~*.iy.<)I27 JuIy l')>O.1h:itthcrc tscrc no

prohlciii* hit\i~,cn hi%countr, ~nd I-lond~r I*.iiiJi1i:it.un iiic i.,ll<iiviJ.i!.
in c,,mplc.tc conir;idiciii,n ul th:ii ,i;iiciiienui ihr.tI~..id<ifSiiiic..Sic;ir;iru;i
in~tituir.d rir<icccJiiir. :ir.tinbt Il<inil~r:is in thc <:<iurt 'Thisconir;iJicii<~ir
even more flagrant when il is borne in mind that. according to Nicaragua's
Application, the lacis in the dispute submitted to the Court allege that
Honduras is responsible for a breach of international obligations relating,
bircr dia, 10 non-intervention in the interna1 affairs of Nicaragua and to the
prohibition of the threat or use of force against that Statc.
5. This contradicti>ry behaviour on the part of Nicaragua is relevant in
Iaw. Firstlv. it should he observed. as the Court acceoted in ils Judement of
27 June 1986 iiithe case concerning Milirnry and ~~ra,nilirary ~czvities Li

alid againsr Nicaragiiri. that statements made by representatives of States.
including those made at press conferences or in-intërviews and reported by
the local or international press. pariicularly when they are made by high-
ranking political figures
"are of particu1;ir probative value when they acknowledge facts or con-
duct unfavour;ible to the Statc reprïsented by the person who made

them. Thcy may then be construcdas a form O-fadmjssi~n."~
It should be observed lhat such staiements are of greater weight in relation
10 the previous conduct of a State. if they confirm that conduct, as is the case.
for example; where the non-existence of a dispute. according to a statement

made by a Head of State. is confirmed by the absence of genuine prior nego-
tiations 10 resolve the dispute.
Secondly, as the Court itself adniitted in ils Judgment of 27 June 1986,
statements made by high-ranking representatives of States "may involve legal
effects. some olwhich it has defined in previous decisions"'.
Without reproducing these previous decisions of the Court. it should be
pointed out that the legal effects of a unilateral declaration by a State. in its
relations with oiher States. are based on good faith'. Consequently. in the
view of the Government of Honduras. by virtue of the declaration made by
the President ol Nicaragua on 27 July 1986and the preirious conduct of that
State in relation 10 tlonduras, Nicaragua is precluded (rom invoking before

the Court the existence OS a dispute, such 11sil alleges in ils Application of 28
July 1986. In any evcnt. cven if it is admittcd that those circumstances do no1
have this juridical effect. the principle of good faith requires thai Nicaragua's
conduct before the Court should be considered in relation io other processes
of settlement in progress. in which Nicaragua is pariicipaiing together with

ICI. tleporrr 1986.p.41. para.M.
Ibid.. p. 43.para.71
' Niiclenr 'Ièrr(Alrsirnliv. France).Jir<lg»renrof 20 Becetriber1974. 1.C.J.Reporrr
1974,p.268, para.46. Costa Rica and Honduras, and in relation to the previous case between Nica-
ragua and the United States of America. As will be explained below. al1these
circumstances show the artificial nature of Nicaragua's present Application.
In the vicw of the Government of Honduras. the Court should refrain from
exercising ils judicial function in these proccedings.
6. The structui'c of this Menlorial is rcl;itively simple. Part 1 provides the
background of ihc dispute and consists of two chapters. The first chaptcr places
the preseni dispute mithin the widcr. gencral conllict in Central America. Il
demonstrates that it is the interna1 conflicl within Nicaragua itself which lies
at the origin of what is now a generalized, international conflict;and that this
widenine of the conîiict results from Nicaragua's own conduct iowards ils
nci2hhoÜrs. H,inJur:ii iisclf lins suifcrcd frein m:iny. ninii) milii:try iiiv:bsi<ins
of 115territory h? Sic;irlieunn I,>rccs ï'hcrc h~vr hem :iitcmpt\ ti>rcsol\c iIii\
c,,nflict. ai ;ihil;iicr;il It,\cl iniii;illy. ;iiid i:il iiiiultil:iicr.tl Ic\.cl. via the
OAS and coniinued. from 1983onwards via the Contadora process resuliing
from the initiative of the Foreign Minisiers of the Contadora Group. The
Contadora process has heen accepted as a "special procedure" wiihin the
meanine of Article II of the Pact of Boe016. This s~ecial orocedure involves

consult~tion, negotiation and mediationon a rnultil:iteral basis, and ii is the
very antithesis of a bilateral, legal dispute. Yct Nicaragua, despite formal and
binding cornmitment to the Contadoin process. has seen fit ïo emb;irk on a
unilateral Aoo..cation to the Intcrn;itional Court. In this. andother wavs. Nica-
r;lgu.l hds sou$lit 10 frlisir.itr, ih'. ~~~11tn~l~>r.icc\\.
7 Chaptcr Il .in:iI!>cs iIii>1in11:itcr;il i<ar;igua~i~\pplic:~l~,>n 'l.'hc,\ppI~-
c;<ii<m IS ûoiccc of nolilie,il <innorturiisni.filcJ 31, afiir 1hr,Ci~uri z.liiJc-
ment of 27'~une 1986.and drsigned to make political capital oui of the .ludi-
ment of the Court. It attempts to isolate from the general conflict in Central
America an alleged bilateral dispute (or, indced. two such disputes if regard
is had to the siinilar Applicatioii against Costa Rica) andso produces a quite
artificial claim. The artificial character of the claim is aggravated by ils vague-
ness and incompleteness. Thesc: charzicteristics of artificiality and vagueness
arc in themselves grounds upon which thc adniissibility of thc Application
ought to bï denied.
8. Part II of this Memorial addresscs the question of the competence of

the Court. The lirst chapter in this Part. Chapter III. examines two separatc
and further objections to thc admissibility of the dispute. The first of lhese
arises from the legal obligation coniained in Article II of the Pact of Bogoti
no1 to submit to the International Court (a procedure established in the Pact
of Bogoifi) any dispute unless. in the opinion of the parties. it cannot be sct-
iled by dirçct negotiations. This is a truc condition precedent to any jurisdic-
lion of the International Court. and it has not heen met in the nresent case.
The sciiind iih,cciiun ici:iJiiiissihiliiv Icms irom the iurther i,hiig:ili<in.cm-
I;XIIIVLin r\r~~clc [\' oi thc l':ici. n~tIO conlnILn<c,ln\ oth',r ~ll~~~cdt.r(ci c .
rc:tiurw to tlic C'ciuit) uiitiltlic prc~.c.I~ir~li<r,~iiitii.titi -..Ihc \p~ii.il pro-
cedurc of the Contadora process) h;is hcen concluded. Ànd ~oniadora'has
rio1 bcen concluded. To lhis ob.icction, b;ised on the express terms of Article
IV. musc he added an objection derived from clcmentary considcrations of
eood kiith. namclv that Nicaraguzi.havine accenied a bindin~ cornmilment to
ïhe Contadora process. cannoinow bc aï~owedto embark Üpon a unilateral
Application 10 the Court which involves diîierrnt procedures. different par-
ties. differcnt aims and. inevitablv, different resulis
'1.(:linpicr IV i, c<inir.rnccl uiili i>hjccti<,ns lai ilic )urisJicti<~n oi ihc

C'i~iirlt.ind Si.riiiin Io1 th15Ch:ijlicrc\:iniiiics ille ubjcciion\ drriving l'romthc14 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED AIXIONS

Statutc of the Court itself. Honduras maintains that ils declarations accepting
the Court's jurisdiction under Article 36. paragraph 2. of the Statute of the
Court arc made pursuant to the obligation now assumed by Honduras under
Article XXXl of the Pact of Bogoth. Thus Article XXXl of the Pact and
Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute rcfcr to the sanie basis of jurisdiction.
It thereforc follows that the currcnt reservations of Honduras. contained in

ils declaration of 22 May 1986, apply for purposes of bath Article 36. para-
graph 2. arid Article XXXI And the tcrms of that declaration exclude froni
the jurisdiction of ihe Court the dispute allcged by Nicaragua.
It is equally clear that the "conventional" basis of jurisdiction, based on
Article 36, paragraph 1,of the Statuie of ihc Court is inapplicable in this case.
For Article 36. paragraph 1. of the Statute is expressly linked to Article
XXXll of the Pact of Bogoti. so that this jurisdiction would only arise wherc
conciliation had been tried and failed. and whcre the parties had failed to
agree on arbitr:ition. Neiiher of these two conditions is met in this case.

1~. ~ ~tion II of Chanter IV examines the comoetence of the Court more
Ironi the st:inrlpoini of ihc pro\ision> i)Ithc I':ictof Hogoii II cmph:isizcs
ih:it. ii ihcreI>;in! ciinIlicl Iici\iccn ihc l':ici;inil III<pr<ivi\i<in> ihi UniicJ
S.itii,ii\Ch.irtcr ((ilwhich thc Si:~iuic i>I ihc Court 1.:an inir-.r;il r>..rt~i.hc
latter will prevail.'ln fact. however, thcrc is no conflict.
Thc tïxtual. and logical, interpretatioii of Articles XXXl and XXXll con-
firms the interpretaiion rcached in Section II. Thai is to say, Article XXXl
combines with Article 36. oaraeraoh 2. of the Statute to oroducc one hasis
of jurisdjction; and ~rticie'x~kli is a separatc treaty or conventional hasis

of iurisdiction, subieci to satisfaction of the two prior conditions of failure of
conciliation and lack of agreement to arbitrate: However. certain doctrinal
writings have linked Articles XXXl and XXXll. concluding that Article
XXXl is. in iiself. a sufficient acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court undcr
Article 36, paragraph 2.of the Statute. bui only when the Iwo prior conditions
of Article XXXll have heen met. The discussion of "automatism". of the aim
of the Pact to lead inevitably to peaceful settlement. should not lead to the
assunipiion that the jt~risdictionof the Court is inevitable. On the contrary, as

Article XXXV makes clear. it is arbitration which in that sense is the ulti-
mate, inevitable technique of sçttlement.
II. In any çvent, whichçver interpretation of Atticlcs XXXl and XXXll is
adont,d~~.he b~nd. or link. between Article XXXl and Article 36. oaraaranh , -. .
2. oi lhc Siaiuic 1. .iicht1i.11:in!,rc\r.rb:iii,inii,thc~lurirdicliiin mtisl .ipply io
hoih t\ny oihcr zi,iiiiruition ai,iild rcndcr a St.itc 5~hicci ici ihi iuri*dicii<,n
under different conditions, according ta whcthcr jurisdiction is based on one
instrument or the other. In the preseni case. in order to avoid any misunder-
standing. Honduras confirmed its inteniion 10 make its new reservations of

22 May 1986applicable equally to both the Siatute of the Court and the Pact
of Bogotd hy cxpressly communicating that intention to al1 memhers of
the OAS. Neither Nicaragua nor any other member State ohjected to that
expression of intenticin.
This Memuri;il therefore concludcs by listing the Honduran objections to
hoth admissibiliiy and jurisdiction. PART1. THE BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

CHAPTER 1

THE PRESENT I>ISPUTE AS PART OF THE GENERAL CONFLICT
IN CENTRAL AMERlCA

Section 1. The Causes of the Cnnilict in Central America

1.01. The general conflict in Central America is centrcd on Nicaragua. the
applicant State in the present case. In the case concerning Milirary (rl onr-
nzilirrrryAcriviries in 11,zd<igrrl iamigitn, alihough the dispute submitted
to the Court related solely to cvents in Nicaragua suhsequent to the fall of the

governmcnt of I'rïsidcnt Somoza in July 1979and ;ictivities of the Govern-
ment of the United States in ri:lation 10 Nicaragua since that lime', various
aspects of the gencral conflict wcre raised beforc the Court. Consequently,
for the purposes of this Memorial il is not necessary to set out the facts herc
in detail. and only ceriain relevant facts must be mentioned.
1.02. Firstly. it must be borne in mind ihat the origin of the conflict dates
from before July 1979,since the fall of the government of President Anasta-
sio Somoza was the result of an initial interna1 armed conflict in Nicaragua. In
fact.the murder of the leader of the Nicaraguan opposition and editor of the
newspaper LII Prensu. Pedro Joaquin Chamorro. which occurred on 10Janu-
ary 1978,gÿve rise to a wide popular movement which brought closer colla-
boration between various political and social forces whose general objectivïs
wcre the replaceinent of the government of President Somoza and the instal-
lation of a democratic régime in Nicaragua.
In Scptember 1978 the opposiiion Io Prïsidcnt Somoza's government
-rcnlv took the l'ormof o.~r~ar insurrïction in various towns and villa-es in
Nicaragua which was strongly suppressed by the government. This insurrec-
tion inevitnbly produced the first effects of the intcrnal conflict in Nicaragua
on neighbouGng Statcs. since luge groups of Nicaraguans who were fighïing
against the government of President Somoza sought refuge in Honduras,
where they were welcomed no1 only for humanitarian rcasons but also be-
cause of the profound fraternity existing among the peoples of Central
America.
On that occasion. within the scope of ils limitcd resources. Honduras
provided aid for the Nicaraguan refugees in the form of accommodation.
food and medical care. Later. the same humani1ari;in and fraternal feelings,
regardless of any political considerations. induced Honduras 10 provide
assistance of the same kind to the many pcrsons who had sought refuge in ils
territorv from Nicaraeua after the fall of the covernrnent of President Somoza
on 19 july 1979, andit should be observedlhere that the subsequent armed
conflict inNic;ir;tgua against the government of the Sandinista Front also

'ICJ. Xrporr.19M. p.20.para. 18.16 BORDER ANI) TRANSBORDER ARMEDACI'IONS

gcncratcJ ldr~c tiiil\cmcntj of pcr3oiir fruiii ?4i~.rr;i~.u:tiu tli~ndur:is. Such
wns ihc c.ise uith ihc iiiass c.xoJus #ifthr, \liskit<>~~~n[~ul.itio<f~Nniciir:iguiiln
I'JXIiind l'M. which tuok ol;lce IIIctriniclv Jifiicult condiiions. ai h3s hccn
reported by international brganizations foi the protection of human rights
andthe press (Ann. 47A and 6).

1.03. Secondly,it niust also be pointed out that while a situation of intcrnal
armed conflict directly affectingHonduras has existed in Nicaragua since 1978,
a situation of civil war, which still continues at present, has also existcd during
the same period in El Salvador. another ncighbouring State of Honduras.
The internal armçcl conflict in El Salvador wasiritensified in 1978and the
following years, coinciding with the coming to power of ihc govcrnmïnt of
the Sandinista Front in Nicar;igua. The Court rightly stresscd the importance
of "the ideological similaritv between two movements. the Sandiniste move-

mciit ,n ~ic.îr&ux :ind the :;rmdd opposition to thc prchcni guvcrnnicnt in 1'1
S:ilv3dor '.:a. i\'cl:ih "the consequent p<iliiic:ilinti'rcil of Sie:ir.igu:i in thc
weakening or overthrow of the government in power in El Salvador" as
the context of or the background to certain facts and declarations discussed
in the case in ils Judgment of 27 July 1986'. Moreover, after examining ihe
fact regarding the traffic of arms from Nicaragua to the opposition in El Sal-
vador. the Court held that

"between July 1979,the datc of the fall of the Somoza régimein Nica-
ragua, and the early monihs of 1981,an intermittent flow of arms was
routed via the tcrritory of Nicaragua tu the armed opposition in El Sal-
vador"'.

1.04. Certain conclusions rcgnrding the general conïlict in Central Amcrica
may clearly be drawn from the Iwo points that have just been mentioned.
Firsrly, il may be deduced that the origin of this conflict is thç successive inier-

na1conflictswhich occurrcd in Nicaragua before and after 19Julv 1979and that
this general conllict is alsolinked with the long internal conflictin El Salvador.
Secondly. it may be deduced thai since the government of the Sandinist;~Front
came to power in Nicaragua the general conflict in the region has increased
considerably as a result of the behaviour of Nicaragua itself towards other
Central American Stalcs. as is shown by the aid afforded by the government
of the Sandinista Front to the armed opposition in El Salvador imniediately
after the fall of the zovernmcni of President Somoza. which can be seen in the

pass3y iited :ihi)vCfro~iilhc Judgment of the Ç,>uri iif27 Junc 1YM.
??r>r<lliII ni;,!hc dcduccJ thnl ihc coiitlici in Central r\tiicricia intcnsilicd
;iltrr 1')Jul? IY7'Jduc IO thi i~:ti\~iti~conductc<l in tlic rcgiiin hy St.ite\ for-
cisn io the rcqion :iitJ h:ii.ing \:irii>u. idc\ilogi;.îl idnnc.ctic>n\uith s2p;iraii
.irmcil ni,,\.ciitciit\ iighting :ig;iln*ticri.iiri (.'cntr.il ,\nicric;in Ciiivcriiiiicnt~.
ln th: cdhc icmccrnunc h/i/!for\ ~t1~1/'~I~~I~I~I/EI,ICIILI~IC YII .III<,C~#I!I.VIC~I.
rafira the Court had the opp&riunity to examine some of the lacts'in rclation
to Nicaragua and the United States of America. However, as it admitted in

ils Judgment:
"The subject-matter of the dispute also forms part of wider issues
affecting Central America at present being dealt with on a regional
basis in the context of what is known as the 'Contadora Process'."'

'ICJ. Reporis1986.p.82.para. 150.
'Ibid. p.86.para.160.
'Ibid. pp.22-23.para.25. MBMOUIALOF H0NI)UUAS 17

Itiiuell knoii,n thai <iilicrS1.iir.riiut\iJr, <:cnrr:il ,\nic.rfc;i hinilig po11il11J
idc~il~igic:iiluiiiicciion, wiih ihr. qiivc,riiiii,fthc S.inJiiii*ia I:ri>iith;i\.;ilai
contributed considcrablv to intelisifvine the Drcsent conflict in this reeion
Fo~rrrhly.it may bc deduced thit the iniensificaiion and cxiensi& of the
conflict in Ccniral Anicrica have resultçd in the inicrvcntion of various inter-
national bodies and, as thc Court mentioncd in ihç passage cited abovc, have

given rise to a proccss of peaccful settlement of a gencral nature witbin the
framework of the Organization of American States and the Pact of Bogota,
known as the "Conladora process", which, in thc view of the Court iiself,
constituies an effort "which merits full respect and considcrdtion as a unique
contribution to the solution of the difficult situation in the region"'.

Section II. The Position of Honduras in the Central American
Conflict

1.05. In the conicxt of this general conflict in the region. the Application
filed by Nicnraguti against Hondurzis on 28 July 1986constitutes a deliberaie
distortion of the facts in favour of the applicdnt State. This distortion com-
menced in thc prcvious case against the United States of America and is

being used also against Costa Rica.
Reference niust, thcrefore. be madc. albeit hricfly, Io the position of Hon-
duras in the context of thc gçneral conflict in Central America. The following
comments will enable the Court Io evaluatc from ZIwider perspective the
facts and allcgatii,ns sct out by Nicaragua in its Application and will show
that ihcy are devoid of foundation.
1.06. At the outset. il must be borne in mind that Honduras is a neigh-
bouring Statc of El Salvador and Nicaragua, i.e.. the Iwo States in which

internal armed conflict has prcvailed since the 1970s. Due IO ils geographical
position in Central America. Honduras has ineviiably suffered from the
consequences of those Iwo interna1 conflicts.
With regard to the land fri~ntier beiween Honduras and El Salvador.
66 per cent of iis total lengih is delimiied by the Gencral Peacc Treaty con-
cluded betwccn thc two States in Lima, Pcru, on 30 October 1980.Rçgarding
the remaindcr of the land frontier, a disputc has cxisiçd belween thc two
States sincc the ninciccnih century and, together with a dispute concerning
islands and the maritime arcas of both countries. has been submitted Io the

Court by El Salvador and Honduras by means of a spccial agreement of
24 May 1986.notificd to the Court on II December 1986.
In various seciors of the land frontier in resncc-.~f~which El Salvador and
Honduras are in dispute. access is difficuli and ihc population is small.
Moreover. ihese sectors are demilitarized by virtue of aareements concluded
betwecn the two Siates after the armed conflict of 1969.in view of these facts
ii isiinddrci.indat>lc iIi.iIlic intcrn.11ariiicd cnnili.? iiiF.1S:~lv.idi>rli;i;iffcr-
tcd iliobc .ecii,r. :ind h:is iir,>v<ikc.iliIli~nly iii#i\.ciiicnisoi pcrscrn. \ccktiig
refuge in Honduras but aiso. on occasions,~incidcnts of a certain degree 07

gravity derivcd [rom that internal conflict, such as those border incidents and
terrorist actions dçscribcd in paragraph 1.08(iv) bclow.
1.07. With rçg;lrd to thc land fronticr betwccn Honduras and Nicaragua, il
is delimited in ils cntircty. It is delimitcd in the scclor between the Gulf of

1.C.J.Reporrr 1986.p. 145.para. 29118 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Fonseca. in the Pacific Occan. tu the Portillo de Tcotecacintc by Agreement
on the Records of the Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Boundary Commission of
1900-1901,and froni Portillo de Teotecacinte tu thc Atlantic Occan, at the
mouth of the Rivcr Wanks, Coco or Segovia. by thc Arbitral Award of H.M.
King Alfonso Xlll of Spain of 23 December 1906, the validity and cnforce-
ability of which was confirmed by the Couct in ils Judgmcnl of 18November
1960'.
In thc dcclaiatioii madc by the Minister of Foreign Relations of Nicaragua

on 24 Anril 1984and submitted tu thc Collrt in the case concernine. Milirarv
UI!~ /',~r~t!~tt/tfurt.li~.f!ctr tttqctttt?r .\'ic.cir,~g<i ~c~~gr:qiIiic,iJliifi-
culi> uf {x~irolltngthe t'r<)nt~cr c~pl;r~ncd follo~~~:
.Nicnr;igu:i'r Ironiicr with H<lnJurns. ihc norih. is 5311kili,nictrcs

long. .Mi1\1of il 1sch.ar;icicrizcd Ijy rupgcrl ni<>unt:iin\or rcmotc 3nd
dcnx iunelcs Mosi of il115hordcr :arc.<i, inacccssihlc bv ni<>tiiri~~.d
land t;ansiort and simply impossible to patrol."
In the view of the Ciovernment of Honduras, this description is correct in
genera12.However, il must be observed. in view of these gcographical circum-

stances in the fronticr area and. in particular, in the sécond of the sectors
mentioned ahovc. thal most of the statemeni of facts set out in the Nicara-

tiér exist in relation 10 Nicarauua. ~~cessarilv. therefore~.the same di~~~-~l-
ties mus1exisi for Honduras.
1.08. The ccinsequences for Honduras of being a ncighbouring State of
two countries in which interna1 armed conflict has ~rcvailed since the seven-
ties and of having a frontier with those States with the feaiurcs that have been

mentioned must be described brieily. The followine.aspects are ihosc which
are the most iniportant:
(i) The conflicts iiithe neighbouring States have causcd, at various times.
the oresencc in Honduras of refueees from El Salvador and Nicaragua. As
has &ady been mentioned. ond dur aad tu provide shelter and humani-

tarian assistance. withoui discrimination. for refugees from Nicaragua on suc-
cessive occasions. irresnective of their oolitical affiliation 1Ann46).
(ii) Alter 19July 1Y79there was an'illegal traffic in amis from Nicaragua
to El Salvador, which the Court regarded as fully cstablishcd, at least until
the initial months of 1981.In view of the geographical position of Honduras.
between ihe two St;iics, its territory has been uscd. and viulated, by the
government of the Sandinista Front, on various occasions. to permit such
traffic. An example of this was the capture on 17January 1981. 16kilometrcs
from the town of Comayagua, in the centre of Honduras. ofa van containing
a large consignment of arms and military equipmeni intcnded for the guer-
rilla forces inEl Salvador. which had entered Honduras at the crossing-point

al El Guasaule. The consignment consisted of M-16. G-3 and FAL rifles, M-1
carbines, 50 mm machine-guns. mortar grenades. ammunition and commu-
nication cquipnient (Ann. 12. p. 115. infras. ubmitted tu thc OAS in 1983).

Case concerning1heArbirralAwnrdMode by rheKitlgo/S/>uion2.3 Decrrnber1906
(Hondi~rar v. Nicnragi<o/.CI R.eporrs1960,p. 192.
' The Honduras-Nicaragwan border is more than735 kilometrcslong. so here the
referencr of Ministçrd'Escotr>isto the north-ras1srciorof thç hordrr,from theEl
ParaisoDepartment of Hondurastothe AtlanticOcean. MEMORlAL OFHONDURAS 19

Another example is the faci thzii on 7 April 1983 troops of the Eleventh
lnfantry Battalion of Honduras, bascd in Choluteca, captured another van
which was carrying 7.62 mm and 55 mm ammunition and a large quantity of
materials intended for the Organizacion del Puïblo en Armas (ORPA)
(Armcd Popular Organization) in Guzitcmala. The van had come from Nica-
ragua and had eiitercd Honduras through the same crossing-point as that
used in the ~revious case. However, il is obvious. in view of the conditions al
the fronticr:that the traffic in arms has been of much wider scope, both over-
land and through waters under the jurisdiction of Honduras in the Gulf of
Fonseca. .

(iii) Since July 1979 the Honduran territory has also hecn used by the
govcrnmcnt of the Sandinista Front for the passage of insurgents to El Salva-
dor. In an incident that look plziceon 26 March 1983 in Las Cueviias, in the
municio,litv,of N~ ~ome. in the orovincc of Valle in the soulh of Honduras.
aîter an exchange of fire. a ~(iiduran military patrol captured a group of
ruïrrill;is on their way to El Salvador with a large quantity of military equip-
&ni. Among the documenis seizcd were Iwo notebooks ion1;iining infoima-
tion rcgarding the routes for the movement of persons and arms through
Honduras to El Salvador (Ann. 12.p. 115, infra).
(iv) The internal armed conflict in El Salvador. which has been intensify-
ing since 1978, and the support given io the guerrillas in that Statc by the
governmcnt of the Sandinisia Froiit since July 1979 have provoked various
incidents in Honduras which have threatened public order. Persons con-

nccted with the movement opposing the Government of El Salvador and with
the dominant movcment in Nicaragua participated direcily or indirectly in
these incidents. The numbcr of poli1ic;tl kidnappings of persons and bank
rohberies betweeii 1980and 1982w;is large. In 1980the offices of the OAS in
Tegucigalpa were occupied and a rcprescntative of the Organization was held
as a hosiage. Two Honduran aircraft of the SAHSA airline wcrc hijacked in
March and August 1981.The officïs of the Chamber of Comnierce and Indus-
try in San Pedro Sula were attackcd in September 1982during an Economic
Policy Seminar and more thaii 100 persons, includingtwo Ministers, the
Presideni of the Central Bank and Icading industrialists of Honduras; were
hcld as hosiaees. Various installations and enterorires wiihin the territorv
and abroad ha& been the subject of terrorist acts.'~he atiack on the ond du-
ran diplomatic mission in Boaoth on 14April 1982was particularly brutal and
the d on dur a consul was sëriouslv iniured. In most of ihese incidents and

tcrrorist acts the internal armed éonfiict in El Salvador was projected into
Honduras since the purpose of those actions wzis io obtain the release of
persons connected with thc guerrill;~forces in El Salvador (Ann. 12. p. 116,
iliJ'r<r).
(v) Certain border incidents, <rf ;dilferent nature. along the fronticr with
Nicaragua have heen more serious. These incidents were reported by Hondu-
ras 10 the Orpani7ation of American States at the time. and related to en-

raeuan irooos. Of fields and rural roads on the frontier beiween~onduras
:iiid Siiar;ipua. in which pcr\onc \ver< killcd and scriouily injurcd. .<it:tck>on
Il<indur.in hcli;,>pic'r\ ovcr tl~)ii~lur;iiitcrritor!:II:~it;~ckkiii;iHi,ndur:in
hclici~plcr in thc (iuliOI Fonsr.;;i.iicnr th^.ci,;iof '1ic:ir~cu;tIIIu.lii;h cirhi
h on dur a officiaisand crew niembcrs were killed, and Garious attacks-on

Honduran frontier and cusionis posts along the frontier with Nicaragua
(Anns. 48.49, 50 and 51).20 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACrIONS

(vi) Incursions hy Nicaraguan armed forces into the territory of Honduras
commenced in 1979 and continued up to 1986. Some of these acts. attribu-
table to the Govcrnmcnt of Nicaragua. were examincd hy the Court in the
case concerning Milii<zry<:!idParar,iilita- Acrivitirs iri anrli~grii~tr icnrogira,

and in its ludginent ,if27 June 1986the Court stated that "while no1 as fully
informed on the question as it would wish to be". ilconsidered as estahlished
"the fact that certain transborder military incursions into the territory of
Honduras and Costa Rica" were "imputable to the Government of Nicara-
gua"'. Ttic invzisions of Honduran territory in March and December 1986
were. in this context, extremely serious (Anns. 48. 49. 50 and 51).

1.09. The ahove lis1 of facts is set out solcly hy way ol illustration. The
Government of Honduras reserves the right 10expand it and to submit appro-
,riate evidence to the Court. if necessarv. 11has hcen set out in this Memorial
Jcsling <ilcl) wiih ihc questions coi~ccrnin~ihc ~urisdiclion the (:<buri.ind
ihc ;idnii~çihiliivof the Applic;iiit)ii. firstlv. hcidux 11is ncsc>*.irvlu r.mpli:i-
size to the CO& that. due to its eeoerauhical oosition. ~ondums has been
directly alfected hy the gcncral c&flirt i; ~ent;al Amcrica originating from

the interna1 conflicts in the two neighbouring States. and, secondly. because.
although this generzil conflict tak& the form of incidents connected with
bilateral relations between two States in the region. to treat it as a matter
concerning rclationships between individual States is artilicial and leads
inevitably to a failure to deal with the real substance of the prohlem, to the
detriment of the propcr administration of justice. It is the second considc-
ration which Honduras would wish to emphasize and 10 cxplain fully to the
Court. For this is no1 a case in which Honduras simply sccks to cxclude from

the iurisdiction ol the Court a case nrooerlv broueht bçlorc the Court. relvine
on ihe technicalitics of ils reserv'atio'nsio thc;urisdiction. lndeed, if'the
objections to the jurisdiction were merc tcchnicalities. Honduras would give
serious consideraiion to waivine them. However. the ohiections of ~ondÜras
:ire lund;im~ni:il :ind QI ii,ihr wliiilc,quc\iii,n of uhcihcr ibis .ciicr.il .ind
\criou> c,,nfiici cnn bc prripcrly aiid ju\ily rcsulvcd hy ihc prr'juJiii:iI \CICL'-
lion i>fconipiiiicnis <ifihc gcncr:il nrublcni. as ilthe\ wcr? zuit:ihlr. for isol:i-
lion as purély legal issue~.~a~~ro~;iatefor suhmission to the Court. It is for
this reason that Honduras wishcs to place the facts fully hcforc the Court. so

that therc will he no misunderstanding of the reasons why Honduras opposes
iurisdiction in this case.

within the franicwork of the Organization of Americsin Statesand, in particu-
lar, the so-called "Contadora process".
This examination is relevant with regard to the arguments which will be
set ou~ ~~ ~r conccrnine the iurisdiction of the Court and the admisîihilitv -~~~~~
- , ~ ~ ~
of Nicaragua's Application. In fact. Nicaragua has no1 only endeavoured Io
frustrate the efforts 10 achieve an amicable settlement but has also suddenly
decided. for political reasons, to suhmit two simultaneous Applications to thé
Court. on 28 July 19%. against Costa Rica and Honduras. which are both
parties. together witli Nicaragua. to the Contadora negotiations which are
still in progress and which it claims to support.

'I.C.J.Rcporrs 1986.p. 87,para. 164 MEMORIALOF HONDURAS 21

Sectiun III. The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes wilhin the Framenork
of the OAS

1.11. The efforts to institute a system for the peaceful settlement of intcr-

national disputcs in America date [rom the ninetcerith century. Howïver, it
wss $11the inter-American conff:rences of 1947and 1948that the systcm was
consolidated by nieans of three intern:itional instruments: the Inter-Ameri-
can Treaty for Rcciprocal Assistance of 1948,the Charter of the Organization
of Amcrican States of 1948,and the Inter-American Treaty for the Pcaceful
Settlement of Disputes (the Pact of BogotA) of 1948. In view of these agrec-

ments and the various resolutions adoptcd by the organs of the OAS in this
field. il is no1surprising that Sir Humphrey Waldock considered that:
"Among the political organizations the most highly developed

machinery for the settlement of disputes is that of the Organization of
Amcrican States."'
1.12. It would undoubtcdly bï out of place here to set out the details of the

inter-Americnn system for the peaceful scltlcmcnl of disputes. Nevcrthçlcss.
it is nccessary to mention certain general aspects for the purposcs of the
present examination.
Firsl~. cach of the three main instruments of the system emhodies the
general obligation to resolve an! dispute by pcaceful means contained in Ar-
ticle 2 (3) of theCharter of the United Nations and recognized by "customary
international la^''^. In fact, the principlc is contained in Articles 3 (8) and 23

of the Charter of the OAS. Article I of the Pact of Bogota and Article 2 of the
Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.
Srcor~illy. in the inter-American systeni the peaceful settlement of dis-
putes is closely rclated Io collective security and. as has becn rightly pointed
out. this rclationship. "stemming from the (OAS) Charter, and the Rio
Treaty. scems even greater in practicc"'. This was made clear with regard 10
the general conflict in Central Anierica with the convocation of Septcmher

1978 of the XVtlth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Rela-
tions, which. on 23 June 1979, adopred Rcsolutioii II relating to thc situation
in Nicaragua (Ann. 1). which the Court cxnmined in earlier proceediiigs'. It
has been evident in the meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Relations and in
the debates that have taken place alter 1979 in the Permanent Council and
the Assemhly of the OAS. The various resolutions relating to the Contadora

peace process. from Resolution 675 (Xlll-0183) of 18November 1983to that
adopted recenlly at the meeting in Guatemala in November 1986. may bc
mentioned as cxamples of that consideration by the OAS (Ann. 29).
1.13. Firiiillv,the Pact of BogotA plays a central role in the inter-American
svstem for the oeaceful settlement of disoutes. In fact. il is eencrsillv acce~ted

'Sir Humphrey Waldock. "The Report". in Internorional Dispirres- The 1.egol
Asprcü. London, 1972.p.28.
' ~.~.J.He,>or.. .. ..., .45..r... .- -
' F.\'. C;.irckl.A~>~,#'l,.>nt,/Yu,/~~tr~r.,1tt~~~r~~.,<~!t.1.thri Il.Sccrci:,r~:ii~r
I.ce:$lA1f:iirr. CivtiiSc~irri3ri.i,,l ihc Oi\S I.<inJ<in~I<<~nictS\'eourk1933,p 200
*1C/ /îe'{,#,Ivw. 1, 1.;)par:,,261!q,f.wq22 BORIIERANDTRANSBOROER ARMED ACTIONS

settlement of aay dispute between American States should be achieved within

a reasonable period.
However, the Pact of Bogoth contains a special provision with regard to
the settlement proccdurcs that may be used by the parties to a dispute. By
Article II. if a dispute cannot be settled bv nenotiation throueh diolomatic
channels, the to the Pact undertake "to usc the procedur& esiablished
in the prescnt trcaly" (good offices. mediation, investigation, conciliation,
iudicial or arbitralprocedures). However, rccourse to oïhcr ~rocedures for
pr..icr.lul ictilciiicnt is perniiiicd. .in<L th^.p;~t<rihc Jiipuii ni*\ ad,>pi
":iliern:iii\cl!. \u>/,raiilpr~irc.<l~r.!S.iithcir opin.un. aillpermit thcni tu
arrive at a solution" (emphasis added).
This wide scope with regard to recourse to various settlement procedures

is combined with the principle of freedomof choice embodied in Article III.
However once the parties have chosen a settlement procedure governed by
the Pact of Bogoti or a special procedure. the principle laid down in Article
IV applies and prohibits the adoption of any other mcthod:
"Once any pacific procedure has been initiated. whether by agree-

ment betwecn the parties or in fulfilment of the present Treaty or a
previous pact. no other procedure may be commenced until that proce-
dure is concluded."
As will be cxplained later, these provisions are juridically relevant with re-

gard to the jurisdiction of the Court in the prescnt case, since Nicaragua is
invoking provisions of the Pact of Bogota.

Section IV. The Efforts Io Achieve Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict:
from Bilateral to Mnltilateral Prncedures

1.14. As has bcen mentioned above. the conflict in Central America inten-
sified after July 1979. when the government of the Sandinista Front came to
power in Nicaragua, and because of the behaviour of that government and the
geographical position of Honduras. the serious consequences of the conflict

began to be felt in Honduras.
In order to climinate these conseouences and to strenethen oeace in the ~~
region, between 1979and 1982 o on dira cosnducted vario& dipl&natic nego-
tiations with Nicaragua which should be mentioned. However, from 1982.
with the extension 07 the conflict and the increase in tension in the reeiu ,
Honduras proposcd :Igeneral procedure for a settlement, with the participa-
tion of al1the States of Central America. This initiative was the origin of the
Contadora peace process.
1.15. Nicaragua refers in point 9 of its Application to the meeting held at
the Cuasaule frontirr-post on 13 May 1981 between the President of Hon-
duras. General Policarpo Pa7.Garcia, and the Co-ordinaior of the Junta for

the National Reconstruction of Nicaragua. Commander Daniel Ortega. and
states that at that meeting Honduras undertook certain obligations which
were later violated (point 10 of the Application). However. the wording of
the joint declaration issued at the end of the meeting (Ann. 2) clearly shows
the circumstances in which it took place and demonstrates that the scope
which Nicaragua tries to give it is misleading.
With regard to the circumstances, it is sufficient to rccall the events prior
to May 1981which have been set out above in Section II of this chapter. The
declaration corroborates the Honduran version of these circumstances when MEMORIALOF HONDURAS 23

it rcfcrs to "potential hijackers of aircraft or ships" and mentions contempo-
raneous events. However. thcre was another im~ortant circumstance. i.e.. the

rcpc)rtiiipof tlio~c ~.\cnt>anlhd n1:(11;> an.1:II$,>r~fvarIt#u\ st;itcmcnt- maJc h!
lc:~Jcr\ oi th: ~LKLIII~III pt,wcr IIIS~c,ir:~~u.i,\%horcpc:~icctl! rcterrc.1 18)
the ~OSSIIIIII~\ 01 :lrliicJ c01t111cu t~ih tlo~~~liir~t~ 'l'.hcIOIIIIdc~.Iar~tioii. tlicrc-
fore; referred to an "apparent degree of mistrust" beiween the two countries,

and the media were asked to exercise moderaiion. although there was cer-
rainly no exercise of moderation on the part of the leaders of the dominant
~ - ~ent in Nicarae~-~~~emselves.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The subject of themeeting held in Guasaule was ccrtainly "the problems

that have arisen alonp. the frontier between the two countries". But in a self-
servine descriotion in-ils Aoolication. Nicaragua claims to connect the border
incide;ts with'those mentihned in points 3 tg 7 and II to 13 and to attribute
responsibility to Honduriis. Hciwever, il is obvious that frontier incidçnts

cituscd hv ~icaraeuan armed forces are included amone thc fronticr incidents
tIi.,t<ic~urr~.Jhdi.,rc II:i! I.I~I \lorc<~\.cr. ilicr~ ::iiihc nt, quc,ii<in :in!
rc\pa~n%ihilii\ on ilic p;iri oi il on dur:^.. .i\ n<,ii. :illcgcd h! Sii;<r;igu.i in 11.;
t\i>i~licition .incc ihc dccl:ir;ition issuiJ attcr thc nicdiinr ;icknoii.ledic.. th:ii
thk'border problems were '.independent of the wishes of The~overnments of

Nicaragua and Honduras".
1.16. On the other hand. in its Application to the Court. Nicaraeua does
not mention the various dinlomatic actions taken suhscauentlv bv Honduras . .
in iullilnicnt ut ille ;Igrcenicnts ,.iincliidcd .IIthe meeting in C;u:~r;iulc. In hici.

:i x.ts t.itcd IIIthe joint Jc;l:ir,iiii,iiihc P,irtics ;,grccd ta) hold two inc~.ting\.
'Th<: Iirht. hct\rccii ih~ \linirt.~r> iii T,iriipii Rclaii~~n~. I<I c\ch:inrc \ici\\
'rcgirditii: ilic Iiiicrii:iti~iiiI1,iliiis.<l *itu.rii,in .~iidr;l;iti~i~ialt~~iiIictu~cii the
Ina~ \i\lcr .'t!~ntric\'',\\.I, llc.~l111'l'eguclc.~lp.~ III1\11rlI IYQ. ,lfIc,r thc :]cc-

tions in Hondurzis and thc installation of a-new c<institutional governmcnt
(Ann. 4). The second look place al the border post of La Fraternidad in May
1982.bctween the Ministers of Defence and Chiefs of Staff. to prepare "plans
for combined action in ordcr to eliminate the risks of further incidents in the

frontier zone" (Ann. 5: note of accreditation of the Honduran high-level mili-
tary delcgation).
In July 1982. because of the particular importance and increase of inci-
dents in the maritimc zones. a special meeting of Heads of the Naval Forces

of both countries took placï in Corinto, Nicaragua.
Morçover, as the report prcsented to the National Congrcss by the Hondu-
ran Minister of Foreign Rclations on 15June 1983shows (Ann. S), the discus-
sions were continued during 1982-1983by the Ministers of Foreign Relations

of the two States on sevcral occasions al various venues. The Honduran Mi-
nister of Foreign Relations paid a i'isit lo Managua in November 1982, when
the increase in the number of hcirder incidents and statements made by Nica-
raguan leaders had caused a deterioration in the relations hetween the two

countries. On ihat occasion, as mentioned in the report. the Minister hzid a
full exchange of views with thc Co-ordinator of the Junta for the National
Reconstruction of Nicaraguii. Commander Daniïl Ortega. who stated that:

"there were no truc and insuoerable oroblïms between Honduras and
Nicaragua and that his ctinccrn was to achiïvï ;in arrangement with the
United States of Amïrica by means of bilatcral discussion".

This declaration, togethcr with others, is relevant for the purposes of the

presenl case.
On 18 February 1983. the Minister of Foreign Relations of Honduras24 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

iniircd the Ministcr of Foreign Kel;iiii,n> <ilNic.ir:iguiiio iii:ike;iluini in.pcï-
tioiiiifthc hor'lcr z<iiie.in airdcr to ucrify the accusiilion, ;ig.iin>ithe 11<ilicoyi
nr.utr:~litv<iftliiHondur;iii Cui,criimcnt I,\nn. 71.l'hc C;o\crnmcni i~fNii;i-
ragua di; not accept this offer.
1.17. The initiation of a multilateral solution to the conflict is contained in
the "Plan to iiiternationalize peace in Central America", presented to the
Permanent Council of the OAS on 23 March 1982by the Honduran Minister

of Foreign Relations (Ann. 3). This plan was discussed at a meeting with the
Nicaraguan Ministcr of Foreign Relations in Tegucigalpa in April 1982.but,
as was stated in ihe abovc-mentioned report to the Honduran National Con-
gress:
"Although the Nicaraguan Minister did not rejeci the plan comple-

tely. he replied by submitting a list of proposais aimcd at the establish-
ment of exclusivelv hilateral negotiations between Honduras and Nica-
r;igu;> 'l'hcsepri>pi~ç:il\somplctcly disrrgnrdcd Ihc multil.iicr;il ;i\prLts
of ihc Ccntrnl ..\iilcric;in crihi, ;liiil hcldihc ui1im;itc~~~~ ~f~r',srilving
ihc in1erii:il pri>hlcnisof Nicnr;icu;i uiih uhich II w.i\ .ilre:idv faied nt
that lime, leaving in existence tLe interventionist practices oi~ana~ua
and military imbalance in the region."'

The necessity of a general solution on a regional basis was rciteratcd by Hon-
duras in a note to the Nicara~ua- Foreign Mi-istrv of 23 Aoril 1982(Ann. 4).
The Ministcr actually said:

"1 understarid, as was verv clearlv cxo.aine. hv Your Excellencv.
that your proposal is of a hifateral nature and is einiçd ai improving
relations between our two countries. while the Honduran initiative is
wider in scope, of a regional nature and with perhaps more ambitious
obiectives. Desoite ihis. mv Government considers ihat ihe reeional a<.
[,ruach hhould ~>rcv:iil\.incc .ini;ijor [ilrof Ihc problcmb ci~nfri~nicdhy
ihe (:ential ,\iiiericnn counirie, <IIhcvond ihi. oo\sihilitv of :iI~ilntcr:il
-.
solution."
In October 1982a meeting look place in San Joséde Costa Rica between
representatives of Belize, Costa Rica. Colombia. El Salvador. the United
States of Amcrica. Janiaica and Honduras. with the observer from the Do-

minican Reuublic. with the aim of establishine a "Peace Forum" (Ann. 6).
Sicilr3pua rcIuscJ 11)piirticip.itc in th15mcctiiig. giviiig ;is uiici~f itrrc;i,iinl
ihc p:lrti~ip.iii<in<II~~prcs~iitat~vco ~f the (:nlterl Si:iii\ <>f,\mcrir:i.
Ncverthçless, the need for a multilateral procedure was stressed again at
the meetine of thç Permanent Council of the OAS in Anril 1981.when Hon-
dur.,, ,uhniiiicJ s drdfi rcsuluriori (Arin lui. I>iicu.\i~iii,ii ihis r~~roluti<iri
w;is >uapen<lcd.\riih ih~..isrr.r.nicnt of I1ondur;is. su th:ii ihc iniii:iti\c t.ikcn
h! the Foreign hlinistcrs uf ihc C'oni;idur:~Group \incc '1J:iiiu:iry I'1S.3ci)iilcl
procccd 'l'hcCiroup suh\cqu~iiily vi\iicd the c:~pit;ils of thc St.itc\ <ilC:cntr;il
Ai1ieric:i2nd hcld furihcr mcrting, IIAl~ril;ilid M:iy 19x3.'l'hc\iiu:iii<inprr..

v;iiIiii< in Ccntr:il Americ:i :ind thc 3CIl\.lllC1of the Cunindi~r:, Group arc
described in various documents annexed hereto (Ann. 9 and Anns. 131827).
After the so-called "Cancun Declaration" issued by the Presidenis of Colom-
bia, Mexico. Panama and Venezuela on 17 July 1983. supporting the ini-
tial negotiations conducted by the Contadora Group (Ann. 13). Nicaragua MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 25

agreed to participatc in this proccdurc for a general settlement on 19 July
1983(Ann. 14).

Section V. The Contadora Negotiations as a "Special Procedure"
within the Meaning of Article II of the Pact of Bogota

1.18. The efforts made from 1983 10 the prescnt day within the scopc of
the Contador;~ Proccss have been praised by most States, in particular the
member Statcs of the European Communities, the Movement of Non-
Aligned Countrics, and thc Gencral Assembly of the United Nations. but
perhaps the greatcsi recognition of the valuc of these efforts was that ex-
pressed by the Court in ils Judgment of 27 June 1986'.
In ils Judgmcnt of 26 November 1984 in the Milirary ond Porumilirory
Acrivirirscase. the Court examined the nature of this process in relation to a
plea of inadmissibility bascd on Article 52 (2) of ihe Charter of the United
Nations. Therc the Court rightly rejected the plea and stated that it

"docs not consider that the Contadora orocess. whaiever ils merits. can
propcrly he regarded as a 'regional a;rangemcnt' for the purposes of
Chapter Vlll of thc Charter of thc Uniicd Nations"'.
Previously, in iis Order of 10May 1984, the Court had statcd, in relation to
the crisis in Central America:

"Thosc matters are the subiect of a reeional dinlomatic effort. known
as the 'Contadora Process'. <hich has bien cndOrsed by the Organiza-
lion of Amcrican States. and in which the Governnient of Nicaragua

1.19. In the tex1of the joint declaration issued by ihe Foreign Ministers of
Colombia. Mcxico, Panama and Venezuela alter ihc meeting held on the
island of Contadora. Panama, on 8 and 9 January 1983. they stated thcir
objective of reducing tension and establishing "the basis for a lasting climate
of friendlv relations and mutual resoect" amonri the States of Central
Lerica "ihrciih rlirrlr,grreand negoiiriiir(emphasis addcd) (Ann. 9). Thc
declaralion sttiting the ohiectives of the Central American negotiations on
9 September 1983'(Ann. 16) contains the following passage:

"The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Ccntral American coun-
tries. with the narticination of the couniries in the Contadora Grouo. .
have he& ncb;otiati&s with the aim of prcparing for the conclusion of
the agreenients and the establishment of the niachinery neccssary to
formdize and dcvclop the objectives containcd in this document. and to
hring about the establishment of appropriate verification and monitor-
ing sysirms. To that end. account will be taken of the initiatives put
forward ai the meetings convened by the Contadora Croup."
In fact. the negotiations related10 the gcncral conflict in Central America.

As was mcntionïd in the declaration made by Commander Daniel Ortega on

'I.C.J.Hcporrr1986.p. 145,para.291.
Mi1iiar.voiiil 1'~rnritAycrivirierinand ogaimt Nic<ir<,t.i<risdiclionoridAdnrir
si hi l^,t<tgt~ienrI,.C.J.Reports 1984,p. 440. 107..
'Milirn- <in,/t'or<rt,iilAcrivitie~iand nguit,.srNicrrrugi~ol.'ruvisiunal ~lleosi<res.
OrderoJIOMay 1YiY4I,.C.J.Reporlr 1984.p. 183.para.33.26 BORDERAND TRANSBORDErR tRh.IEDACTIONS

19July 1983. when this procedurc for the settlement of the general conflict
was accevted, these negotiations hecame multilatcral in nature (Ann. 14).
1.20. ~lthough emphasis is placed on the negotiation of agree'ments which
will cnable a general settlement of the conflict Io be achieved. the Contadora
process is in fact more than this. It is. firstly. a forumor body for consultation
and dialogrie amone the States of Ccnlral Amcrica. as is mentioned in the
declaration of 9 1a<uary 1983. Secondly. as a procedure of n~iilrilnrernezo-
rinrion.it has produced various vroposals made by Central American States
regarding initiatives presented by the Contadora Croup or of an autonomous

nature, distinct from those initiativcs.
Thirdly. the Contadora process is a ~?ie<liorionprocedure to resolve the
gcneral conflict in Central Amcrica. In lact. thc documents rclating to this
proccss draw a distinction betwccn. on the one hand. the group of Foreign
Ministers of the Central American States and, on the other hand, the
Contadora Group of Foreign Ministers. thus cmphasizing the status of the
latter as third parties in the proccss. Thc work of the Contadora Group con-
sistsof constant mediation. since the Foreign Ministcrs of thc Group submit
proposals for agreement to the Foreign Ministers of the Central American
States for their av~roval.
Finally. accordAg to the "Declaralion of Objcctivcs~' issued by Central

American countries under the auspiccs of the Contadora Group. if agree-
ments are concluded ensurine veace and stabilitv in the reeion. the ..machin-
ery necessary" to verify thci; /mplemcntation should he &tahlished, includ-
ing appropriate verification and monitoring systems. This shows that the
process conducted by the Contadora Group goes heyond mere mediation
and constitutes the enibryo of a sysrerrlro rr~oriirurnn<lverifvpeuce in Central
America, which reflects the close connection between peaceful settlement
and the mainteiiance of peace in the inter-Aniçrican system.
1.21. The combination of consultation. neliotiation and mediation attri- ~~
buted to the Contadora Group makcs this pro'ccssof settlement unusual and
pcrhaps unique. In fact, these functions are no1 scvaratc or succçssivc, as is

the cisc with the various vroccdurcs laid down in ihe Pact of Boeoti for the
peaceful settlement of disputes. The Contadorzi proccss amoints 10 the
simultaneous use of various methods of settlement within a single procedure.
Moreover, the inter-American naturc of this process of intirnational set-
tlement should be borne in mind. Both thc Ccntral American States and the
Slatcs of the Contadora Group and the Support Croup' are members of thc
Organization of American States. This direct connection with the Organi-
zation's system of peaceful settlemcnt and. in particular. with the Pact of
BogotA. ils main instrument. was emphasized. firsrlyby the endorsement of
the Contadora process by various organs of the OAS and. in particular. by its
General Assembly (e.g.. the various resolutions adopted by the General As-

sembly from November 1983 to November 1986; Ann. 29) and. secondly, by
the fact that the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Group have informcd
thc OAS pcriodically of the rcsults of ils work and the progressachieved. The
resolution adopted by the OAS in Novcmber 1986 illustrates this point. In
paragraph 4 the General Assembly asks the Contadora Group and the Sup-
port Group ta suhmit a report regarding their peace-making efforts to thc
17th ordinary session to takc placc in 1987.

'The SupportGroupiscornpusrdof thc Minisicrsof ForeignRelationsof Argentina.
Brazil.PeruandUruguay. MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 27

1.22.The agenda approved for the multilaterÿl negoliations in May 1983.

later reflected in the declaration of objectives zipproved by the five Central
American Governments in September 1983,was as follows:
"1. Conceptual framcwork:

fa) Princi~les and rules of International Law
[hi ~ond;lii>ns for peaceful co-existciicc
(c) Strengthcning of democratic political institutions
2. Political and security problems:

(II)The ;irms race
(b) Foreign advisers
(c) Traffic in weapons
(11)Pol~ ~ ~l actions and destabilization actions
icj Human rights and related matters
(fl Tension and incideiits between frontier and non-frontier States
3. Economic and social objectives:

(a) Sub-regional co-operation and interchaiige
(h) Latin American regional support
(cj Internati<in;il co-operation for developnient
((1)Refugees
4. Impleinentation and control of agreements adopted."'

1.23.The meetings bçtwecn the Conladora Group and representatives of
the Central American States have been conducted within a framework of
multilateral negotiation. lndividually or in association,the Central American
States have prescnted proposals and discussed them. They have studied pro-
posais submitted by the representatives of the Contadora Group and partici-
pated, by agreement. in the activities and drafi texts which have resulted from

their discussions.
1.24. Foreign Ministcrs, dçputy Ministers or special delegates, representa-
tives of nation~ ~ ~ ~ies. such as the armed forces. national leeislatures and
-'çlcctoritl Iribunals". and plenipotentiaries appointcd for a sp&ific purpose
have participzited in the process and in the meetings al various levels. The
delegations of thï Govçrnmçnt of Honduras have presented proposals, texts
and observations al each stage and at every meeting.
1.25. The Contadora process has covered a wide and comprehensivc pro-
gramme of ncgotiations which is reflccted in the various sections of the
draft Treaty of Contadora which resulted from those negotiations. This pro-
gramme may be summarized as follows:

"1s progr:iniriie des nCqoc~at~<~p ~isric sur ~.oiiflit>iillcrii~%.l>ila-
1ir;iux cl ri.gi<in;iuci \ur iL.rlxqui prC\cnIcnl un c;ir;icii.rc m<,nili:ll.II
comprend en outre des questions politiques. fconomiques et sociales.
La o.rti~ no.~tiau,~~~..obe les droits de l'homme. les ~rocédures
Cl;ct~~r:iles:tiii\quc I;ii~i~inciliati~iiin<tiion.ilc J:inIc..p:i!s ou IL.\
cornniun;iui;.\ sc ir<iu\r.iit pr~if~,nil;iiieiil Ji\isCcs p.ir suite Jcs lutirr
armées zi~ ~ ~ ~es on se livie dans ces Etats. En matière de sécurité.le
programnie'ahorde la limitation. la réduction et Ic coiitrôle des arme-
ments et effectirs militaires, la réglementation des manreuvres mili-

taires natioiialçs ou internationa1es;lc départ des conseillers étrangers.

'See Ann. 8. infile28 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

l'interdiction de tout soutien en faveur des forces irrégulières, les
mesures antiterroristes, la subversion, le sabotage et le trafic illégal

d'armes. Sous l'aspect économique, il traite de la situation des réfugiés
et des personnes déplacées,des projets de coopération économique et
sociale ainsi que de la coopération internationale aux fins du dévelop-
pement économique et social de nos pays."'

S~ ~ ~ ~ ~--.e~-trations are ba~e~ ~n~ ~e consent of al1of the five Central
Ant~r~c:~n cctu~ttrl~,tt~tl~cII~~DL.L~U thcLC~. nt:~d<~r:p~r~!~'c\\m:Iy hc rcg.1r.1~~1
;i.\pc;1.11pr<x~Jur~''niihin ihc m2;inint <,fAriicl~,II oi the I'act otLlogtiti
As thé is still in progress, the participants must continue to fulfil
their understanding, must endeavour to complete their negotiations and musc

refrain from resorting tu procedures which paralyse or frustrate the objective
of those negotiations. (See paras. 3.12 and 3.13 below.)
1.26. The nature of this agreement tu conduct multilateral negotiations
has been recognized in various documents issued by this regional forum.
On 7 September 1983, the "Document of Objectives" (Ann. 16) laid down

the broad guidclinçs and, as its titlc indicates, the agreed objectives of the
process. It was approved at a joint meeting of the Central American Foreign
Ministers and by letters signed by thc Presidents or Heads of State of the five
Central ~m-~i~a~ ~t~t~s- ~ ~ ~ ~
On 8 January 1984 provisions wcre approved for the implementation of
the Declaration of Obiectives, and a technical group and three workine, com-
-.
mittees were established tu prepare a comprehensive international Instru-
ment (Ann. 17).
The declaration issued by the ioint meeting of 1 May 1984(Ann. 18) con-
tains the following final pa;agraphs:

"Pour leur r)art. les ministres des relations extérieures des uavs
d'Amérique ceRtrale ont réaffirméleur conviction que le processis de
négociation engagé par le groupe de Contadora constituait la meilleure
fohule et le moyen le lus appro~rié uour résoudre les conflits que
.. . .
connaît actuellemént la ;égion.
11 est par conséquent indispensable que les Etats d'Amérique
centrale poursuivent leurs efforts en vue de parvenir à une solution né-
gociée dç la crise qui sévit dans la région au moyen de négociations
politiques et diplomatiques menées dans un esprit de sérieux et de sin-
cérité,en s'attachant à maintenir leur volonté d'entente et de concer-

tation et en respectant les procédures et moyens de négociation qu'ils

'lorge Ramon Hernjndez Alcerro,AFDI, 19%. p.273. Trotislotion:

"The programme of negotiationsrelates tubilateralandregionalinterna1conflicts
and Ioglobal conflicts.Italsoincludespolitical,economic and socialquestions.
The political section includes human rights. electoral processes and national
reconciliationin cauntries in whichsocietyis profoundly dividedhy thç interna1
armed conflictin suchStates.With regardto security,the programmeincludesthe
limitation,eductioiiandcontrol ofarmamentsandtroops.theregulationofnational
or internatioiialrnilitarymanmuvres,thewithdrawal offoreignadvisers,thcprohihi-
tionofanysupportforirregularforces.anti-terroristmasures, subversion, sabotage
and illegalarmstraffic.Theeconomic sectiondealrwiththesituationofrefugeesand
dirplacedpeisons,economic and socialco-operationprojccts,and international co-
opcratian for the purposes of the econamic und socialdevelopment of our coun-
tries." MEhIORlALOF HONDURAS 29

ont eux-mêmesconvenus, ;[lin d'aboutir à la conclusion d'un traité de
paix régional."'

The second version of a drafl Contadora Act for Peacc and Co-operation
in Central America was issucd on 7 Septeinber 1984 (Ann. 19). On 20 Octo-
ber the Governments of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Honduras presented a
reviscd version with their commcnts. On 13 Septembcr 1985 the Contadora
Groun nresented the third version of the draft treatv2 (Ann. 21).

~ie'dcclaration issued by the Contadora Ciroui r&arding a meeting of
Central American plenipotentiaries on 21 Novernber 1985(Ann. 23) contains
the following pragraph:
"4. The plenipotentiary rcpresentatives of the countrics of the Con-
tadora Group will submit a report on the present status oc the negotia-

lions to their Ministers of Foreign Affairs, so that the course of diplo-
matic action and of the proccss of making pcace in the rcgion may be
determincd. It will also coiivey to them the rcqucst by the Central
Amcrican govcrnments 1h:tt the negotiations he continued within the
Contadora frame until a final agreement is reached."
1.27. In January 1986 thc Conlzidora negotiations were oriented to create

the conditions necessary to fin;ilize the negotiations regarding the Treaty. in-
cluding the operational aspects of ils system for verificztion and control. Thus
in the Declaration of Caraballeda of 12January 1986(Ann. 24). signed by the
four member countries of Contadora and the fourmembers of a recentlv con-
stituted Support Group of Latin American countries, recommendation; were
submilted to the countries conccrned to develop a scries of ;ictivities

"10 generate a climate of tnutual trust that will revive the spirit of nego-
tiation and reflect the political will to achieve effective support for the
foundations laid down in order to attain thc ultim;tte objective of the
signing and entry into force of the Contadora Act on Pcace and Co-
operation in Central Anierica".

1.28. The meeting of Central Amcrican Presidents hcld in Esquipulas.
Guatemala. on 24 and 25 May 1986is particularly important in this respect.
On that occasion. President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica. President JoséNapo-
léon Duarte of El Salvador. Presidcnt Vinicio Cerezo of Guatemala. Presi-
dentJosé Azcona H. of Honduras ;ind President Daniel Ortcgi of Nicaragua

signcd the Declaration of Esquipulas (Ann. 26). of which the following para-
graphs are pertinent:

"For thrir part, the Ministçrsof ForeignRelationsof the c<iuniriesof Central
Amrricarraffirmtheir conviction that the procesosfnegotiationestablishedbythe
Contadora Group conslitutesthç bestformulaand themostap~~opriatemethad for
resolvingtheconflictrinthe rcgion.
Ilisthrreforevitalthst theCentralAmericanStatrsshould continue thcirefforts
to.achievea negotiatedsalutiaiitothe crisisprevailinginthe rçgbynmeansof po-
titicaland diplamaticncgotiiitionsconductcdseriouslyand sinccrelyand thatthey
procedureandmethodsofnegotintionwhichtheythemrrlvrshaveagrred.withtheervethe
ultimateabject ofconcluding:iregionalpsacr trraty."

Documents alaopublishedby thçC)rganiratioof AmericanS1;itcsand by thcUnited
Nations:A1391495-S11674 A2l,34630iindA1401737-S117549.30 HORIIERAND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACrIONS

"Having mielai Esquipulas. Guatemala. on 24 and 25 May 1986.the
Central American Presidents state that they have held a useful meeting
marked by the frankness with which they dealt with the problems of
Central Ainerica. In thcir discussions, thcyanalyscd the areas of agree-
ment and thc diffcrcnces which persisted in their ideas about lifc and
the structure of power in a pluralistic democracy.
They agrcc that thï best political forum which is al present available
to Ccntral Amcrica for the achicvement of pcacc and dcmocracy and

the reduction of tensions produced in countries of the region is the
Contador;~ oroccss soonsored hv a number of Latin American countries
and recogn(zcd hy the internation col munity. Thcy agrce to continue
their dialoguc on those issues and others no1 taken up on this occasion.
~ccordTngly.
THEY DECLARE

1. That they have decided to hold meetings of Presidents on a regu-
lar basis as a necessarv and ao.. .riate forum for analvsi,e the most
urgent problems facing the area with respect to peace and regional de-
velopment and for seeking appropriate solutions to those problems.
............................
2. That they arc willing to sign the 'Contadora Act for Peace and
Co-opcration in Ccntral America', and agree to comply fully with al1
the undertakings and proccdures contained in thc Act. They recognize
that some ;ispccts remain outstanding. such as militiiry manieuvrcs, arms
control and thc monitoring of cornpliance with thc agreements. Today.
however, in this dialogue among the leaders of lraternal peoples, they

find the various proposais put lorward by the countries to be sufficicntly
productive and realistic to facilitate the signing of the Act."
The Central American Presidents also decided to givc high level political
encouragement to ihc agreements cmbodied in the draft and dcclared that it
was nccessary

"to undertake cl'forts aimed al understanding and co-operation and to
back them up with institutional machinery for strengthening dialogue,
joint development. democracy and pluralism as hasic factors for peace
in the area and for Central American integratioii".

For this purpose. il was decided that il was necessary Io
"establish the Central American Parliament. The nicmbcrs of the Par-
liament shall be frcïly elected by dircct universal suffrage in keeping
with the principle of participatory political pluralism."

1.29. Desoitc imoortant difliculties. the meetinesc~f ol,nio,tcntiaries of
Cr.iitral ,\mcric:in cuunlrics suscccdcd in m;ikiii~soiiic pr<)src\\. ;:iiourili
drafi of ihc'l'rc:iiy of <:ont;iJ,>rau:i, cl:iborltcd and puhl~\hhydthe Foreign
Minivers ofthc Cuniadi~r;~Ciriiup inJunc I'JSh(>cc Anii 27).

Section VI. Nicaraguan Responsihilities for Blocking the Contadora
Process

1.30. Nicaragua started the multilateral procedure of negotiations by pro-
posing, in October 1983. four different trealies, of which only one was of a
general naturç. ihcrealtcr considered as an appropriale working papcr. In a MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 31

devious approach. one clearly interventionisl draft trealy was on Salvadoran
problems, and w;is therefore strongly rejectcd by the Covernment of El Sal-
vador and thc othcr participants.
Later on, Nicaragua announced ils adhcrence to the 1984second draft of
the Contadora Act, ;iware of the fact that the Act was subject to observations,
and perhaps sntisficd becausc it did no1 cont;iin provisions regarding arma-
ment reduction or nny rcal mechanisms for verification and supervision of the
commitmcnts contained in the Act. which arc essential (or an effective solu-
tion to the general conflict in Central America.

1.31. On 13Scptemher 1985. as mentioncd in the declaration issued aftcr
the joint meeting of the Central American Foreign Minisiers and the Cont;i-
dora Croup hcld in Panama. it was agreed that ihe negoiiations regarding the
third draft Treaty of Contadora were to bc concentrated on the following
matters that wcrc pending:

"(O) control and reduction of armamcnts. (b) implementation and
follow-up nicchanisms with regard to security and political matters, and
(c)military manlruvres".
At that meeting a period of 45 days was fixed for completion of the negotia-

tions. (See Ann. 21. Point 4 of the Report of the Unitcd Nations Sccretarv-
~eneral.)
This tirne-limit was not observed because Nicaragua refuscd Io accept veri-
fiable arrangcincnls rcgarding the limitation and rcduction of armaments,
troops and installations and concerning the provisions dealing with political
matters. Nicar;igua's ncgative position on thesc matters is amply reflectcd in
the note which Prcsident Daniel Ortega Saavedra sent to the mçmbers of the
Contadora Groiip on II Noveinber 198.5.This ums widely distributcd and is
~~oroduced in th~ ~ ~ ~d Nations do~~-ent Al401894(Ann. 221.
1.32. The Nicaraguan position caused the negolialions to be virtually sus-

uended for six months. and when 6 June 1986was adopted as the datefor the
conclusion of thc linal agreement. Nicaragua agiin prevented the negotia-
tions from achicving a successful conclusion. on various grounds. and endea-
voured to reopen matters already negotiated and Io withdraw from agrce-
mçnts acceptcd at the above-mentioned joint meeting of September 1985.
In contr;ist. oii 18May 1986the plenipotcntiarics of Costa Rica. El Salvü-
dor,Guatemala ;ind Honduras declared the will of thcir countries to nieet the
need for a valid and hindine commitment on disarmament. the reduction of
troop strength ;ind Ihe regdation and limitalicin of military manoeuvres, as
well as to achicvc a national balance in the limits (or military development in

the area. Thcy likcwisc reiterated their will:
"3. To fulfil their contractual commitmcnts once the Act cornes into
force:
4. To submit Io international control and supervision;
5. l'o gither for the signing of the Act on 6 June 1986."'

1.33. In addition to what has been said above. it should bc observed that
the Govcrnmcnt of Nicaragua has dangcrously escalated the arms race in
Central America by im.orti.nelar.e qu~..itics of war materials and commu-
~II;.,I!C~~~quipn,~~ ii.r~~i<ihc p:i>isc~cn )c.ir%.Thc IIII~II:~~ \cr?i,.c1~g1hI.t-
tion h.15Ibccncni~ir~.cJ tiitlicrr;iirr .iriiiiicsr. iliu* incrc;i\!iie tlic niimh$il

'Ann.25.32 BORDISR ANI) TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

soldiers. militia and reservists at an even greater pace. The leaders of the
Sandinista Popular Arniy have constantly and recently renewed their threats
against Honduras. and on ai least two occasions. in March (Ann. 50) and
December 1986 (Ann. 51). that Army invaded Honduran territory.
1.34.The Nicaraguan Application 10 the Court against Honduras. which is
analysed below. appears. in this context, as an extremely ncgalive measure
designed to irnpede the proccss of multilaleral negofiafion, preciscly one
month after the prescntation 01 the fourth draft Contadora Act and two

months after the Presidcnts' mccting in Esquipulas. This attitude cvokcd
numerous criticisms and calls for rcason at the 16th General Assemhly ol the
OAS held in November 1986. CHAPTER II

ANALYSIS OF THE NICARAGUAN APPLICATION

2.01. The Application of the Republic of Nicaragua instituting proceedings
before the Court refers, according to ils own wording, to an alleged contro-
versy or to alleged controvcrsics with the Rcpublic of Honduras, the State

against which the claim is brought (Rules of Court, Art. 38). Nevertlieless. it
immcdiately becomes apparent that this case is no1 simply of an exclusively
bilateral nature consisting of a controversy between two States. The faci that
that is not the position emerges bath from the wording of the Application
itself and from other facts and circumstances that need to be taken into consi-
deration.
2.02. Firsdy, what is strikiiig about the Application of the Republic of
Nicaragua is that il does no1 refer only to matters connected with the State
agÿinst which the claim is hroiight, the Republic of Honduras. A third State.

the Unitcd States of America. is also repeatedly reierred Io in the Applica-
tion. Those references appear no1 only in the Statement of Facts (points 12.
17. 18 and 20) but also in the Legal Grounds on Which the Claim 1s Based
(point 22).
As regards this feature of the Application, it is necessary to point out that
on 9 April 1984 the Republic of Nicaragua filed with the Registrar of the
Court an Application instituting procerdings against the United States of

America. The decision in that c;ise has been delivered by the Judgrnent of the
Court of 27 June 1986.Even so, il must be borne in niind that in that casc ihc
Court did not merely examinc certain facts appertaining Io the activities of
the Unitcd States in Nicaragua but also examined octs performed by Nicarn-
dua in relation to other States ol Central America. »arlicularlv Costa Rica. El
Sa1v:idor;inil Ilondurds ,Morci~i.r.r.;is a cons~.quence <iftlic i;icis :ind alle-.
lions (ifthe P;iriies in th;ii c.isï.:ip;irt ;inJ indccd :i large p;irt. of the Jild~.
ment <iittic L'ourl 81127 Juiic IOShis ci~iiccrncd uith ~irciim\t;iriscs :~nd c'un-

ii.lcr;iti<~nsc<inncrtcil \\,il1C<i>t.iRi2.i. 1.1S:ilv:iJ<>ranJ il on dur;^^'.
.Si.~!!~illj.II\ 13 I>cni,icd tIi.itiiilthe \Ii~~r.p;ici.,if30 J:,!. fdI1 hctuccn
III',Jii~J,!~iic~tit the C.'c>ilrt 1h;iiL.$,C.aiid the la!Jcinc III[II: K:ci$trv ,nfIlic
Court by Nicaragua of two Applications. one a&in;t Costa ~yca ;ad the
other against Honduras. This fact is certainly unusual in the world of applic;i-
lions by States to the International Court of Justice. Therc are no precedents
for such conduct in the practice of the present Court or its predecessor.
2.03. The two features of the Nicaraguan Application that have jus1 been

indicated cannot in any way bc considered as fortuitous. As regards the rela-
tions existing between the facts of the case concerning Milirary and Prrr<i,~iili-
1rrr.vAcriviries iiirrnd ngnitlsr Nicor~igi~aand thc facts of the present cascs
against Costa Rica and Honduras, it is obvious that al1of the said facts forni
part of the gencral conflict existing in Central Amcrica. However, in the
cascs brought bg Nicaragua against Costa Rica and Honduras in 1986,thcre is

'See. for exarnplc.I.C.J.Rel~urü 1986.pp. 70-92 and 119.127, paras.126.171 and 229-
249. MEMORIALOF HONDURAS 35

The overall result of this behaviour on the pari of Nicaragua constitutes in
the ooinion of Honduras.an artificial and arbitrarv dividine un o" the eeneral
conflicr existing in Central ~kerica. Moreovcr. t$s result may have Ggative

conscquences for Honduras as a defendant State before the Court. since ic
affectithe guaranice of a sound administration of justice and undermines the
principlc Inid down in Article 59 of the Statuic of thï Court.
2.07. In fact, ihc successive Applications lodgcd by Nicaragua have pre-
sented to the Court, for Nicaragua's conveniencc, somc facts forming part of
the general conïlici in Central America. But il is obvious that some othcr
appertaining to the same general conflict. are inevitably absent
facts, while
from the proccedings before the Court.
The power granied to the Parties under Article 80 of the Rules of Court
does not totally rcmove this negative conscquencc; for iiis possible for the
State against which the claim is brought no1 to appear before the Court. as
occurrcd in the case concerning Milirary arrd P[irniriilirirryAcriviries in and
againsr Nicaragiril afier the Judgment of 26 Novcniber 1984.In this situation.

the Court faccs a grcat difficolty in the detcrmin&ition of the facts, as was
acknowledged in the Judgment of 27 June 1986'. But as regards subscquent
disputes bcforc the Court forining part of the sanie general conflict in the
Region. if the fzicts in the previous case affect othcr States, the defendant
States iilater procccdings will Sindthcmselves obligcd to fiIlin previous gaps
or to out other intcroretations on the samç facts.~non~ of which would aooear , ,
to hc iic.,ntiirniiiy \rith ih~.r~,~uirc~nieni01 ilsnund ;iJmini\tr:~iion oi JUI~ICC.

On tlir~itli~rhand. th< *uccc\sii'e <\pplicati~n, Ia)rlged 1))Sic:~r.igu>froni
l')Saonu,;irilsh;i\c .ini>tlicrnrr.iuJi~i:il c.ifr.ciïor thc dcfcnd;ini Si:itcin I,ilcr
proceedings, as is the case of the Republic of Honduras. This negative conse-
quence arises from the assessment of facts in previous procecdings. thosc
facts forming pari of the same general conflict exisiing in Central America:
and it may gravely undermine the principlc of rclativity of international

adjudications laid down in Article 59 of the Statutc of the Court.
A number of examples concerning the relationship in the assessment of
facts betwccn thç prcsent case and the case conccrning Milirary and Puramili-
rary Arfiviries irrand againsr Nicaragr~crarc worth pointing out.
This connection occurs in regard to the considcrations put forward by the
Court in ils Judgnicnt ni27 Julie 1986relating to Ihc ilrigin, the organization.
the financing. the dcpendence and the aciivities of the contra force2. These

matters occupy a considerable place in the Applicationssubmitted by Nicara-
gua against Costa Rica and Honduras. And having regard to tbese Applica-
tions. the question emcrges whether the new dcfcndant States mus1 go back
to discussing those facis or whether, on the contrary. they must base their
assertions on ihc assessments contained in the Judgment of the Court in the
nrevious case.
r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~
Another striking example of the same connection occurs in relation to the
allegations DUC ïorward by Nicaragua in the vrevious case aeainst the United
tacs of Àmcrica conc&ning th: military 'm;inrcuvres cairied out by thai
State "joinily with Honduras on Honduran terrilory nesir the Honduras/Nica-
ragua fronticr"'. Notwithstanding the statemcni of the Court in ils Judgment
of 27 June 1986ihat the said mannuvres, in the circumstances in which they
werc carried oui, did no1 constitutc a breach. as ngainst Nicaragua. of the

'I.C.J.Reports 1946.pp. 38-45p, aras.57-74.
iIbid.. pp.53-68 p,aras.93-121.
'Ibid..p.53. paru.92. MEMORIAI. OF HONDURAS 37

Section II. Vagueness of the Application

2.10. The foregoing considerations show that the present Application is of
an unusual nature. eiven that it raises issucs linked to others that have been
-
.Icciilc,l t>yor :ire tcn,lin- hci,>rc ih~.C<iurt. I'his c<innciii<in h:i\ prcjudici;il
ciicct\ noi <ml!. iin ilic piiritioii aitili~. Kcliuhli; of IIoiiJuras rcq>~>i~JciiI
Si:iic hui :il*<,:i>.irc,uli <iiihc connccli<,ii. oii thc nr~ivi\i$iiir<)ii\riiclr. 59tif
the Statute of the Court and on the requiremenlS of due administration of

international justice. 11is thercfore to be hoped that the Court will refrain
frum exercising its judicial function in the present case.asis requestcd by the
Government of Honduras.
Another unusual aspect of the present case emerges upon cxamining the
facts alleged by the Repnblic of Nicaragua in ils Application instituiing pro-

ceedings against the Republic of Honduras. For the request is no1 merely
artificial. It is also vague and unclear. In particular. there is a marked absence
of any rïference to previous negoiiations between the Parties which directly
affects the definition of the subject-matter of the present dispute and ils
crystallization in time. In the opinion of the Government of Hondursis. this

state of affairs means that the Application of Nicaragua is inadmissible.
2.11. An examination of the facts put forward by Nicaragua in ils Appliczi-
lion leads to vsirious important coiiclusions for the purposes of the foregoing
allegation.
Firsrly.il is to be observed tliat a large number of the matters put forward

bv Nicaraeua do not constitute concrete acts or omissions. identifiable bv
réferenceïo place and to time. In reality. those matters are concerned with
indeterminate situations or with opinions about intentions. For example. there
is the imnrecise reference to Honduras as the State where the cor;rr<iforce
wughi rviugc :inJ ir<iiii iihcnce iiIliun~licd :iriiicd ~it.t;kr :ig;iiiisi ilic terri.

icBry oi Xic;trs~gu:t(puin1 2 c!f th< ,\ppIic.iti~,n) ,\nc,ihcr c~;~inplc;ippc;tr, .il
rioint 3 01thc r\iinlic:iiitiiirhish :ir:iin uiiuh~t:ini~,~t~~dr.L~l:itti~the iiiiii.iI
irmed attacks &'the conrra force. onnccted with the assertionUrnadein the
precïding point.
Moreovcr il is significant th;it the rcfcrences made in points 14. 15. 16,17

and 18 of thc Application to declarations or opinions of certain persons and
authoritiçs of various nationalities are made without any indication what-
soever of the mcans of communication used and without. in most cases.any
indication of the date of the said declarations or ooinions. This attitude is to
be contrasted with the reservcd attitude adopted bb the Court towards infor-

mation in the press as evidence of thc facts in an international case'. t.lcnce
the assertionscontained in Nicaragua's Application of themselves render
themsclvcs unsustainable.
Secotr<lly, itwill be found that another large group of matters put forward
by Nicaragusi in ils Application c«nsists of m;ittcrs containing only a refcr-

encc to the ycar in which they ;illegedly look place, without any gcogrziphicnl
location on the tcrritory on which thcy occurred. That is inadmissible. be;ir-
ing in mind on the one hand that such matters ;ire used as a basis for ;illcg;~-
tions of a very grave nature, which range from intcrvcntion in the intcrnal
affairs of Nicaragua to threats iof or the use of force against Nicaragua.

The lack of any geographical location is also inadmissible bearing in mind
that. on the othçr hand. the precise location of the geographical place in
which the allegcd facts took place is al1 the more necessary in view of the

'I.C.J.Reports 1986.p. 40. para.62.38 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMEI) ACTIONS

circumstances existini? alone the frontier betwccn Honduras and Nicaraeua.
which havebeen very"clcar6 indicated by nonç other than the Foreign M~S-
ter ol Nicaragua'. Il niakes the task ol Honduras in conducting ils own inves-
tigation intoihç alleeation virtuallv imoossible.
-such is the case as-regards the fafts p;t forward by Nicaragua in points 4.6,

13 and 21 of ils Application. The lack of any geographical precision mcans
that the assertions containcd therein do no1s;b;ta$iaÏe the matters that they
are purportedly supposed to support.
Finally, if will also be found that Nicaragua's Application dclibcrately
confuses facts of a diffcrent nature and which can he attributed to diffcrcnt
c:iurcs. l'lic purpow (BIth,\ ir ic,..riil\a :cner:il :illc~;iiionoi :irrnid ailncks
:tnd of rnilii;jr! :i~~i~t:i111ihe c<,ntriif<irsc.For r.x.implr..in point IYihcre
:ire IIic isct, :ipiisrt;iii10ni~icidcni~oii ? 0c1,ilir.r1'~s ;nd 1451.1r:li I'JX6.
solelv attrihutahlc to th; conrra force. and vct which are alleecd to bc con-
nectéd with activitics of the armed forces of Honduras. Furthermorc,-~ in its

search for incidents that might support gencral allegations against Honduras.
Nicaraeua eoes so far as to introduce ln10 ils staiements ii ooint 19 of ils
~~~licàtio~froiitier incidents concerning the control of fishinirights. such as
the incident that occurrcd on 18 April 1985.
2.12. Nevertlieless. of even grearer imporlancc. in the opinion of the Gov-
ernment of Honduras. is the abience of ahy reference in ~icaragua's Applica-
tion to any previous negotiations betwecn the Parties on the facts to which
the controversy relates. As has been said by n distinguished jurist, a former
President of the Court:

"Undoubtedly, direct negotiatioiis arc always resorted to first, and
thcv arc indisoensablc for dctcrminine the existence of a disoutc. for
deffning the issues on which the particTare divided and for estihlishing
the methods through which the dispute could bc settled."i

11is to bc notcd. with surprise. that in Nicaragua's Application, al1thal one
finds is a mention of certain diplomatic notes on matters prior to 1981(point
5) and a mention of the meeting of the Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua
in that year (point 9). with a distortion of thc wording of the joint declaralion
of that meeting. as caii he seen from the document in Annex 2. If most of the
facts put forward arc subsequent to 1981, and given that such facts justify,

according tu Nicaragua. the allegations that it puts forward against the Re-
oublic of Honduras. il reallv is difficult10 undcrsland how it comcs about that
Nic:ar.igu:g'\preccni cncrsy ln buhmiiting thi. ;;,SC 16,the C<IL~h ~.1, n<>ihccn
~ i i i h II ni c c n h II. \\'IiyiIiJ Nic:ir.isua iii)irc;,t
lhcw rn:iticrs :ilthc ~uhiec1 of :adi\pute svith I ~ (i<>veriirn~nl<IIIl<)nCIur~ ~s
Whv did il no1 seck a neeotiated soiution with H~ ~ ~as?
fie truth is that the Lgueness and the unclear nature of the matters put
forward clearly show the political purpose bchind the submission ofthe present
Application th the Couri. ~oreover: when it comcs to serving that Grpose.
facts and allegations Iose al1the relevance and precision that. strictly spcaking.

thcy should possess in procecdings before thc Court.
It is true that Article 38. ~araeraph 2. of thc Rules of Court onlv rcuuircs
an Application to contain a ~ucci~ct'statcmcnt of the facts and legai gr&nds.
Neverthelcss. as is geiierally admitted, a Iack ofclarity in thç facts containcd

I.C.J. Reports1986.p.XI.para. 147.
EduardoJim6ncz de Aréchaga" .InternationalLaw inihe Pasi Thirdofa Cenlury"
Academy ofIn1ernaiion;ilI.aw.CollecredCoirrve.V.ol.159.1978-1p .. 147. ,MEMORIALOF HONDURAS 39

in the Applicaticin. togcther with the absence of any relerence to the previous
negotiations between the Parties concernine those lacts, are circumstances
rcnilcrini! IIirnpurrihlc 10 crt;~hli\li h-fore tLc Cdurt u,h:it thc sul>,~,ct-iii;tttcr
,iithc ioiiirov~.rs! ;illdgcdly \uhtnittr.d ttr 11dcci\i<,n 1,..inilali:ii thr, \p~.cilic

nulnt, of itict <>r I.I~ :,t1s~~b ~c~tuc:n thc I'.,rtlc>IIIthc JI~I>.II~tire. 1\11oi
ihis should ncccssnrily lcad to a ruling that the prcsïnt ~~~iication is inad-
missible.

Sectiun III. Conclnding Remarks

2.13. The loregoing consideralions have cmphasizcd the consequences

that arise from the artificiality and vagueness of Nicaragua's Application.
Nicaragua has. by arbitrarily dividing up the general conflict existing in Cen-
tral America. by means ol successive Applications tu thç Court, created a
procedural situation between different disputes which could adversely affect
the requirements of the due administration of justice. PARTII. THEQUESTIONOF

THECOMPETENCE OF THECOURT

INTRODUCTION

The Republic of lionduras denies the conipetence of the Court in the
present case on grounds ofboth admissibiliiv and iurisdiction. The distinction
-
Iieiveen ihcse i\\,i~scp;ir:iic ~,itcs<irie\ i)f ohlecii<inï ii~ihc conipcicncc i>fthe
('ourt vas rciugiii/cJ in the Judgiiicni <if ihc Cour1 ci!26 Suvcmhcr I'H4 in
lhc L..ISL.O~LY~IIII~ ?#tlt~t,rtO,,,/l'or1~~~111~1,Io LrIIVIII~,IJIotid ,I<OI,Z.S,\'KI-
ramia. There the Court coriectlv characterizid certain of the eroinds of ob-
jeciion by the United States of ~merica as objections to adrnzsibility rather

than to jurisdiction'. The distinction bctwcen the two has been examined in
earlier kises behre the Court' and broadlv amounts to a distinction between
ohjr.~ii<in\ io c<)~iil>~tc~iic\1111ihJ<>nui .iri>i iri~m .in inicrpreititi~iii <if ihc
cunipritniirsiir! ~I:IUFC ianJ th<w uliich J.i ro ;iriw 'I'hii, cihjrcti<,nh ahich

invoI\c denibl of IoL.I~$~1,tt!,lur ;tlIc~~lic~n~ ~d I:~ilurc1,) c~xltxu~tlo.yal rcnte.
dies. or sirihr. I;icki,I..pr~iliririy' in .ircfi.rc~ncr icithe C'i>uri. invi>ltr. q~cs-
lion\ of .idmissihility. In contrt~st. i,hjcci~on\ ivhirh 5er.k io sliosr ilttii ilic par-
liculiir diiliutc dot, nui ksll wiihiri ttic ternis uf ihc c<,nipr<iini,\i>rv il:iusc-
bc it a tr&tv or a unilateral declaraiion under Article f6.2 of the.~tatute -

invol\r. qucsiiori.; of juriidiciiiin In the chtipiers thni foll~ow 11 IS~irtalioscdio
r.hantiiic. firslly. Ihc i)hlr.cti~iii\ of Ili~ndurns tu iltc ;iJniissihiliiv ihe di\-
pute and. secondly, ils objections to jurisdiction

'1.C.J.Ke/>orir1984, p. 429. para. 84.
See. for example. ihe separate opinion of JudgeSir Gerald Fiizmauricein the case
cancerning thcNorrhernCameroo!is(Cnmeroon v. UriiredKirtg<lonzJP,relimin'iryOhjrc-
rions.Jtt<Igmetiol f2Decernber 1963, /.CI. Kcjx~rci1963.pp. 102-103. C:HAPTER III

OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OFTHE DISPUTE

3.01. Both Honduras and Nicaragua arc partics to the Pact of Bogota'.
The core obligation of ihat Pact is set out in Article II:

"The High Contracting Parties recognize thc obligation to settle in-
ternational controversies bv reeional vacific orocedures before refer-
ring them to the Security Cbunc'ilof the unitid Nations.
Conscqucntlg. in the event that a controversy arises between two or
more sie&itorvStates which. in the opinion of the varlies. cannot be
settled by diréct negotiations through the usiial diplornatic channels,
the partics bind themselves to use the procedures established in thc
prcscnt Trcaty, in the manner and under the conditions provided for in
the following articles, or, altcrnativcly, such special procedures as. in
their opiniort, will permit thetn to arrive al a solution."

3.02. Although the first paragraph of this Articlc refers to the obligation
to use regional proccdurcs of pacific settlcment bcfore referring them to the
Sccurity Council (an understandable provision given that Article 1 rcferrcd
to the obligation to rcfrain [rom the threat or usc of force. or other means of
coercion2) the central obligation to use the procedures of the Pact contained
in Article II isriorconfined 10such disputes as may otherwise be referred to

the Sccurily Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter (i.e..
disputes "the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peacc and securit).. . ."Article 33 (1)). On the contrary, the
category of disputes embraced by the Pact of Bogot6 is quite general. Nor can
it be suggestcd that the procedures containcd in thc Pact operate only as
alternatives 10 refercnce 10 the Security Council. and do not apply when no
such refcrciicc is contïmplated or actually made.
3.03. Thus, the obligations of Article 11.and of thc Pact generally. apply
with cqual forcc when what is contemplated is a refcrcnce to the Interna-
tional Court of Justice. Indeed. since reference 10 the International Court is
itself one of thc proccdures provided in the Pact. it is clear that the Pact. and
al1the obligations contained in the Pact. apply in rcspcct to a reference of a
case to the 1ntern;ttional Court between States parties to the Pact. Reference
to the Court is expressly covered by Chapter IV. Articles XXXI-XXXVII. of

the Pact. It is. thcrcfore. a "procedure established in the present Treaty", in
the terms of Article II, and the use of this procedure must be "in the manner
and under the conditions provided for. . ."This lcads to the first ground of
objection to the admissibility of the dispute.

'Anns. 34.35anrl36. Honduras ratifiedthe Pacton 7Pchruary 19511a,ndNicaragua
on26"Article1.Thç tligh ContractingParties.solemnlyresffirniingtheir comrnitments
madeioearlier intçrnationalconventionsanddecla raeliosnsh esharter ofthc
United Nations.sigrceto refrainfrointhe threaor theuse offorce.or fromanyother
means of coerciunfor the settlemenof their controversics.and to havrrcaurseal al1
times topacifiprocedures."42 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACI'IONS

Section 1. The Kequirement that, in the Opinion of the Parties,
the Dispute Cannot Be Settled by Direct Negutirtiuns

3.04. Article. II st;ites. in express terms, that the disputes or controversies

which the partics bind themselves to submit to the procedures established in
the Pact - including, as wc have seen, reference to the Intçrnational Court -
are thosc which, in the opinion of the parties. cannot be settlcd by direct
negotiations through thç usual diplornatic channels.
Thus there is zi rcquirernent, as a condition prcccdcnt to reference to the
Court or. indeed. to any of the Pact's procedures, that both parties should
have manifcsted the opinion that the dispute was no1 susceptible to settle-

ment by direct negotiations. It is important to emphasi~e that. in the structure
of Article II. this is an essential pre-condition. the fulfilmcni of which is a
matter for the parties.
3.05. It mav be notcd thüt Article 11of the Pact of Boeota is worded dif-
fcrenily friiiii ihc comprc,mi\\ory cl:iusc\ uith which ihc Ctiuri Jcnli in ihc
I)~l~lr»tiririiit~tiii <I<,ti~r,le.rYru/fc:iw' ,Briil> IYS3 Judgiiiciii in ihc c:i>ccon-
ccrninc ,Afi/!1,!r),t!,d l'~rr~rrrirIr~,,r\ri\ rrreIII O!:,/uc~t!!1\1.\'!ct~r~rcr,trl'n huih

those cases th; ~orn~romissor~clauses in the trcaïies in questron made no
reference to the opinions of the parties on the question whçther the dispute
could, or could not, be satisfactorily resolved by diplomatic means. For exam-
plc, Article XXlV (2) of the United StatesiNicaragua l'rcaty of Friendship,
Commerce and Naviçation reads as follows:

.An! diapuic hciaccii tlic Pdrtici :I>ICI ihc inicrprci~tiiiui <>r<tppIic:~-
iii~ii,ri tlic procnt '1'rd:giy.rit~t~;iii~ki~t~~riI~vJ]u.I~J h! dipl~~rii;ic~.
sh;ill hc suhmiiicd tii Ilic Inlcrn;iiii,ii:il Cc,ur<ri Ju.iix. unIr.%< ihr. I'.ir-
tics agree to settlement by some other pacific means."

With such a clause. the phrase "not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy" is
simply a description of the type of dispute covered by the clause. As such. it is
for the Court. objcciively. to determine whether the dispute is of that charac-

ter. and the Court did so in both the cases referred to'. The distinction is well
made in the separate opinion of Judge Ago when he said:
"1 would emphasizc, in this conneciion. that Article XXlV (2) of the

FCN Treaty does not rnake use of the wording to bc found in other
instruments which formally requires diplomatic negotiations to have
been cntcred into and pursued as a prior condition for the possibility of
instituting procecdings . .."'

But where, as Iiere, the parties agree that the question whether the dispute is
of a character to be subniitted to the procedures of the Pact is a question for

'UnitedSraresI~iplo»i<ir< icl!ClonsiilorSroJJin7èltra11 Ji,r<I,qnie,i. .J.Reporrs 1980.
pp. 26-28.paras. 50-54.

I.C.J.Rrporrr1984. pp. 428-429.paras. 82-83.
'Further. in theI>iplonanri cnd C"nsii1urSiuJJcase.ihcCourinotedIran's rcfusal to

~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'I.C.J.Reporn- 1684.p. 515. para.4. MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 43

rhdr opinion. and not for objective evaluation by the Court. then we have a

genuine pre-condition to justiciability and not a mere description.
3.06. What is so striking in the present Application by Nicaragua is that
no prmf of any kind is ofïered that the matters at issue. as described in the
Application. could not bc settled by direct negotiations through thc usual
diplomatic channels. It is not cven a case in which thi was the opinion of one
nartv. but not~ i~~the othcr'. Nicaragua offçrs no cvidcnce of the ooinion of
r ~ ~2~ u
cither Party that complaints against Honduras - esscntially. tolcration of the
establishment of Niciirapuan insurgents in Honduras, hostile Io the Nicara-
euan Government: invGion uf Nicaraeua bv Honduran armed forces: and

u
became multilateral it was not bccause these specific complaints against Hon-
duras could not be settlcd by negotiation. The shift Io rnultilateral negotia-
lions. as we have sçcn. occurred for quite difïçrent reasons.
To conclude on this ooint. thcrefore. it is the view of Honduras that the

Section II. The Ohligition iin Parties, Having Opted for a "Special
Prucedure" fur the Settlement uf Any Cuntruversy, Nnt to Ci~mmence
Any Other Pri~cedure until lhat "Special Pruîedure" Has Been

Cuncluded

3.07. Artic~ ~ ~ rnakcs clcar that the Parties bind themselves to use the
~rocedures established in thc Psct "or. alternatively. such spccial procedures
as. in their opinion. will oermit them to arrive at a solution". Moreover Ar-

ticle IV provides:
"Once anv oacific nrocedure has been initiatcd. whether bv ayree-
ment betwcen'the pa;tics or in fulfilmcnt of the present Tre~ty>r a

previous pact. no other procedure may be commenced until that proce-
dure is concludcd."

The term "special proccdure" is not a term of art and ils mcaning is simply a
procedure specially dcviscd for the purposcs of thc piirticular controvcrsy. As
has been shown in Chapter 1,Section V, above, paragraphs 1.18to 1.29. the
Contadora process is clearly$1"spccial procedure" in this sensc. bcing designed
snecificallv for the solution of the comolex crisis - involvine a series of contro-
versies~- 2in Central Arnerica. -

3.08. It cannot be suggestcd that the complaints now made by Nicaragua
against Honduras in ils Application Io the Court fall outside the Contadora
process. or the solutions currently envisaged as part of the process. It will be
recalled that Nicaragua makes essentially three complaints: support by Hon-
duras for Nicaraguan forces hostile to the Sandinista governrncnt of Nicara-
gua on Honduran territory (Application. paras. 2-6. 7. 14): invasion of Nica-

Insuch acase theargumenimight be madethat.there beingn dispute ovcr the clar~
sificationofthedispute.theprcliminiiryquestionofclassificationmust itsçlhç suhrnilted
10 theCourt as adisputc.
See Chapter 1Section IV.sihovr:.44 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

raguan territory by Honduran forces (paras. 7, 19);Honduran logistical sup-
port to the conrras (para. 19). Yet, clearly, the scope of the Contadora pro-
posais is designed specifically to cover such complaints. If regard is had lo the

fourth draft of the Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central
America of 7 June 1986' then it will be seen that they contain the following:
(i) Chapter 1, General Commitments. paragraph 2:

"(n) They shall refrain from any action ... aimed against the territorial
integrity, political independence or unity of any State, and, in par-
ticular from any action involving the threat or use of force.
............................
(d) They shall respect the existing intentional boundaries bçtween
States.

............................
(g) They shall take such action as is nccessary to secure their frontiers
against irregular groups or forces operating from their territory
with the aiin of destabilizing the Governments of other States.
(h) They shall not permit their territory to he used for acts which vio-
Iate the so\,ereign rights of other States. and shall see to it that the
conditions obtaining in their territory do not pose a threat to inter-
national peacc and security."

(ii) Chapter III, Commitments with regard to Security Matters, Sections
3, 6. 7:

"(a) Commitments to close down al1 foreign military bases. schools or
installations in their respective territories. (Para. 25.)
(b) Cominitments not to authorize in their respective territories the
establishment of foreign bases, schools or other installations of a
military nature. (Para. 26.)
(c) Cominitments to refrain from eivi- - ,. nolitical. militarv. f,n,n-
cial or other support Io individuals, groups, irregular forces or
armed bands advocatine the overthrow or destabilization of other
Governmeiits,and to by al1means at their disposal, the use
of their territory for attacks on another State or for the organiza-
lion of attacks, acts of sabotage, kidnappings or criminal activities
in the territorv of another State. (Para. 33.)
(d) ~otiiriiitnient; to exercise strict control o;er their respective bor-

ders, with ;Iview to preventing their own territory from bein~ used
to carry out any military action against a neighbouring ~tate;l~ara.
34.)
To deny the use of and dismantle installations. equipment and
facilities providing logistical support or serving operational func-
lions in their territory, if the latter is used for acts against neigh-
bouring governments; (Para. 35.)
To disarm and remove from the border area any group or irregular
force identified as being responsible for acts against a neighbouring
State. Once the irregular forces have bccn disbanded, to proceed.
with the financial and logistical support of international organiza-

Sec "Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation inCentral America", Annrx II to
UN doc. A/4O/l13h, S/13184,2 July 1986. MEMOItIAL OF HONDURAS 45

lions and Governments interested in bringing peace to Central
America. to rclocate them or return them to their respective coun-

tries, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Govcrn-
ments concerned. (Para. 36.)
(e) Commitments 10 refrain from giving political. military. financial or
any other support for acts of subversion. terrorism or sabotage in-
tended to destabilize or overthrow Governments of the region: (Para.
7x
To refrain from oreanizine. instieatine or oarlicinat.ne iu acts of
tcrrorisrn. subversion- sabYolagern anithe; State. or acqiiiescing
in orgariizcd activities within their territory directe* towards the
commission of such criminal acts:' (Para. 39.)

Patcntly. thereforc, the solutions towards which the Contadora process has
been workine cover no1 onlv the kind of alleeations which Nicaraeua makes

hi wav of eni6inine thc P;irtics to undertake. or to refrain from~ccrtain Qat-

via three main Ci~ninii(tccs fo; the cxccution and follow-up of the commii-
ments çntered in the Act. Thzit is:

- an Ad Ilnc Committcc on Political Matters
- a Verification and Control Commission for Security Matters
- an Ad Hoc Committcc on Economic and Social Matters.
Thev will in turn be sunnorted bv the ~olitical and other mechanisms of the

anv ,ud.ment which the Court rnieht issue
3.110 'lhu.. iic:tn hc :is.;crtc<liC,ithc<iiiliJciicc th;ii thc ('<intndi>r;iprixcb
i\ ii<lonl! :ispcci:il pro ce dur^,"u,ithiii thc mc;iniiis<ilAriiclr. II tltc l':ici
01'Il<ie<it:i.huiiiis oiic ;iccciitcJ ;inJ iiipp~~richv h<itliI'nrtics :ind >~c~.ili-
cally designcd to covcr exaitly thç type Of allegitions now made hy'~ica-
ragua. This specizil procedure has already reached the stage of a draft Act.
embodying detailcd rules of conduct and machinery for the verification and
enforcement of the commitments to be undertaken hy the Parties.
3.10. Il rîmains, finally, 10 he <ibsçrved that Article IV of the Pact pre-
cludes resort to zinyother proccdure - including referencc to the Court -
until such lime as the spçcial pri~cedure adoptcd by the Parties has been con-
rlrirlrdIl cannot seriously he conicndcd that the Coiitadora process has been
"concluded". The letter dntcd 26 Scptcmbçr 1985from the Foreign Ministcrs
of the Contadora Gr~iup. addressed to the Sccretary-General of the Unitcd
Nations1 spccifically ïnviszigcs furthcr meetings until the final signing of the
Act is achicvcd. In thï Finiil Act of the Luxembourg Conference of 11and 12

November 1985(Ann. 31) bctwcen the EEC, the Contadora Group. and the
Central Amîricaii States. including hoth Honduras and Nicaragua. express
reference was mzidc10 "the Coiitadora Croup. ivhich isconriniring ir.~ [email protected] BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

co bring abotrr <peacefrrl sol<rcicmitr Cenirat Anterica . ..".Thc Forcign Minis-
ter of Mexico. addressing the Third Plenary Session of the OAS on 3 Decem-
ber 1985, stated that "the Contadora Croup will persevere in mediation
which rigorously excludcs any form of partiality or prefcrence"'. And in No-
vember 1986 the Assembly of the OAS requested the Contadora Croup and
the Support Group to report to its XVIIth ordinary session on the progrcss of
the work. As recently as January 1987the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora

Group and of the Support Group. following their visit to al1Central Amcri-
can capitals in the comp;iny of the Secretaries-General of the OAS and the
United Nations, issucd a communiqué in Mexico in which they staicd:
"All the Heads of the Central American Stateshave exprcssly statcd

to the Mission that the forum of Contadora continues tn bc the niost
adequate instrument to rcach a negotiated solution to the regional con-
flict?andwe juclge it to be fundamentalthat we continue Ourefforts for
peace in the arïa. . .''2

3.11. The fact that some Stntcs. like Honduras itself. have askcd Io com-
IIICIL IC~O~I.I~I<I~~<insonic pciiding issue\ ronscriiiny itic Jriifi ,\ci pri~pii.eil
hg ihc (:oni.iJor;i Ciroup. Iieiorc ciimmiiiing ih~.niicl\~cs laisigiiins the Act. ii
not etidcncc ui the i;iilurc or icrmin:~ti<in <if tlir<'ont;id<,r:iproccrs On ihc
contrary. it is evidencc that the process continues and that the Statcs dircctly
involved wish 10 ensure that the Act is fully effective in meeting thedemands
of the situation. The Foreign Minister of Honduras. addressing the General
Assembly of the OAS on 13 November 1986 explained that Honduras was
ready to subscribe tothe Act, but wished to see it strengthened hy techniques

to verify its observance, cspccizilly in matters affecting the security and thc
democratizalioii of the countrics concerned (Ann. 32).
That aoo,,red to be the ~osition of Nicaragua itself. In Mav 19x4.Nicara-
CU;- cand(.'ost:iR1c.i\ignc~I :;j~ttntdc;Iar.iti,~n 'inu111;iiIXNII l'.;rtic\ -rc,!lf1r111
ihcir tru\i IIIthe r.lti,rt~,ii thc Coni;iil~ir;iGr,>upaiiJ ihr. ncccrr.t! ut lii\aiur-
inr direct ~l~nlt>auh cet\\cen n~>thStiitui' j.,\nJ in 113\1ciii~>11.d1i\ttcd 30 Jun~.
1Y84presented-to this Court in ils case against the United States of America.
Nicaragua gave a detailed chronology' of Nicaragua's participation in the

Contadora process. Il approved the document of objectives in September
1983. and made its own proposals to the Contadora Group in October 1983.
and again in December 1983. In January 1984 Nicaragua signed the Con-
tadora statement on Measures to Be Taken to Fulfil the Commitmcnts Under-
taken in t~ ~ ~ ~ment of Oh~ec-iv,~. And in Mav 1984Nicaraeua siened th-
1niiit J~cl;ir:itioii \r,iih C<>st:iKic:~r~fcrrcd 10 311<;\.c.il :nl-.cti~~$111 i'ilnitm.i
ivith the Dcliut! FiBrcignMiniters of thc (:<,nt;iili,r:iCir\>uli.,\nd :i, rccenily ;is
I;i\ I'Jht,.th< I'rciiilcni ul Kic;ir.irux siriicd ilic I)csl3rati<i<ifIr\uuir>iil;isin
wh&h he expressly agreed u u . .

"that the best political forum which is at present availablc 10 Central
America for the achicvcnicnt of peace and democracy and thç rcduc-

'OEAlSer. P.AGIACI'A 4 (XIV-€185). 3December1985. p. 7.unofficinlirnnsl:ilion
into Englishfromthe Spanishoriginaltext:"El Grupo de Contadorapersevcra çn una
mediacian queexcluyerigurosameniecualquierparcialidad oprefcrcnci;~."
Ann. 33.
'Memorial of Sicarasua inthccaseconcerning iMilitaryn»d PororliilirrrryAc1ivirie.rin
and <igui,zrtiVicoroptro.3June 1984,Exhibit H.
'Ihid..Exhibit K. MEMORlAL 01' HONDURAS 47

tion of tensions produced in countries of the rcgion is the Contadora
process ...'".

3.12. Therc is. therefore, no douht that Nicaragua frecly and repcstedly
accepted tlic Cimiadora process, in such a manner that it entered into a com-
mitment Io that process on whiçh the other Ccntral American States wcrc
entitlcd to rcly. Even apart from the specific legal obligation under Article
IV of the hict of Bogota not to initiale any other procedure of scttlemcnt
until the proccdure already choscn - the special procedure of Contadora -
had been completed, it is clear that Nicaragua would be legally hound to
maintain its commitnient to tlic Contadora proccss. Elementary considerations

of good faith dictetc that. oncc Nicaragua had accepted a commitnient to
Contadora. as it clearly had. and the othcr States involved had relied on that
commitment and adiusted their own oositions (as well as exoendinr enormous

-.
Nircleor Tc.sl,case the Court said:

"One <ifthe basic principlcs governing the creation and performance
of legal ohligations. whatever their source. is the principle of good faith.
Trust ;ind confidence are inherent in international CO-operaiion. in par-
ticular in an age where this co-opcration in many fields is bccoming

increasingly essential."'
l'hi>scw81rJs;ire p.irriciil;srly:i(>(>o,ircI<Ithe io-.ipr.r:#tion rr.<(uirc01f:IIIp:ir-
tic, I<Ithe Cciiitii~lor.tpri,cc% Iiiih.11c:iic the C,,uri hc1J I:r;inrc 1,)hz htiiind

by a purely unilaterai declaration. A Jorriori, the principle mus1 apply 10 a
solemn dcclaration. jointly made by Hcads of State. The declaration statcd
expressly that "they agree" on the use of the Contadora process. It was an
agreement on which al1parties relied. and which was interpreted as a hinding
commitnicnt. Thc binding nature of thai conimitment can bcst be illustrated
by contcmplsting what would have 1i;ippencd if Nicaragua had refused ils
agreement Io that proposition ahout the usc of Contadora. The position of al1
the other oartics would have bee~ r~ ~czillvtransformed. Thur. bv virluc of
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
the Esquipulas I>eclaration. Nicaragua entercd into a commitment with
which ils present unilateral Application to the Court is plainlv incompatible.
11is this breach of a commitmënt hv Nicaraeua " - a commitment bascd both
on Article IV and on elementary principles of good faith - which has tcmpo-
rarily checked the further prog~.ss of the Contadora effort towards a solu-
tion:
3.13. An application to the Court against the United States did not. of
course. clearly involve Contadora as here. since the United States w;is not

a party to that process'. But 1-Ionduras is a party. so that an Application
against lionduras dircctly raise:; this hre;ich ofcommitment hy Nicar;igua. To
argue that ihere can be no inîompatihility hetwccn the Contadora proccss
and a refcrcnce to the Court is facile. Such an iirgument overlooks thc specific
obligation of Article IV of the Pact of Bogota. Il also overlooks two impor-
tant elemcnts of the Contadora approach. The first is that the Contadora

......-...
Ni<cle<iTc.~rr(Ai<simlinv. fince). Jii<Ig»renrof20 Deceinber 1974, I.C.J.Heporrr
1974. p. 268.para.46.
'Nor. indecd. isthe UnitedStates a pariy 10ihc PactolBogoti.48 RORDER AND TRANSBORDER AKMED ACrIONS

approach was not confined to a simple resolution of lcgal claims: il cmbraces
agreements on legislaiive programmes. on military nianmuvres, on levcls of
armaments, on forçign military bases, on arms traffic. cconomic and social
matters. refugees. and the establishment of new organs of supervision. The
second is thai even Io Ihc exient ihai the proposed Act will deal with the very
issues which are the subject of the present claims hy Nicaragua (or the inevi-

table countcr-claims by Honduras), il cannot ncccssarily be assumcd that
therc willbe completç identity between what the Act niight contain, and what
a further judgment of the Court might contain. For, almost inevitably, to be
acceptable 10 al1 parties thc Act resulting from the Contadorzi process will
have to involve clcmcntS of compromise. Such clcmcnts are Foreign to the
Court's judicial task. and thus no necessary identity of treaty (the proposed
Act) and judgment can be assumed. If that is so. there arc only Iwo possible
conclusions. Either thcre will he an inconsistency betwecn the treaty and the
iudpment. so that one or the other will be reiccted: or clse the conclusion of
ihe~ct $11 have to wait on thc judgment and then be so drafted as to accord
fully with the judgment. The latter course, in effect, precludes compromise.
so the chanccsof~eciiring agreement to such a trealymust be minimal.
This brief excursus in10 the likely results of any attempts 10use the Court
and the Contadora proccss simultaneously sufficcs to show the wisdom of
Article IV of the Pact of Bogoti. The prohibition of thç simultaneous pursuit
of different proccdurcs of settlement of the samç disputc was adoptcd for
very good rcasons. This concludcs the examination OSthe second ground of
the inadmissibility of thc Nicaraguaii Application.
3.14. The ahove two grounds of inadmissibility dcrive from the obliga-

tions of the kict of Dogoti. Therc are further grounds of inadmissibility
which derive from the requircments of justice and the due administration of
justice.These are the political motivation of the Nicaraguan Application. the
artificiality of the Application (in particular. the division in10 separate cases
of what is essentially one. general conflict. to the prcjudicc of the States cited
as defendants). and the vagueness of the Application. l'hcse Surther grounds
of inadmissibility have been amply set out in Chapter II of this Memorial and
require no lurihcr elaboration here. They supplement ihc two grounds of
inadmissibility dealt with irithis chapter. and rcinforcc the submission of
Honduras that this Application should be declared inadmissible. CHAPTER IV

OBJECTIONS TO THE: JURlSDlCTlON OF THE COURT

Section 1. The Statute uf the Cniirt

4.01. The Court cen onlv be validlv seised with iurisdiction in conformitv
liiih il5,iwn Si:iiiiie ,\riiclc 30 i>I111~S1;iiuie vii\.ii;icci ltlur sip:ir.itc 11ii~~~r.s
Ih uhich oii ihc ti:isij i>i~.i,n,cnhy Ir.iilporti~.,.the (:i>uri ~iiihc sci>c.J\i'iih
j"risdiction. These are:

(i) Under Article 36. paragraph 1.where the consent is specific 10an actual
dis.ute (\s in thc case of ;i s~ecial aereernent or cor1inrorrii.s)or is con-
tained in a specific treaty or'convenïion in force. In 'the 1;itier case no
other lenal instrument or declaration is necessary: the consensual basis of
jurisdic~on is to be found iiithe treaty or convention as such and no fur-
ther act or declriralion vis-à-vis the Court is required.

It is on this basis that such jurisdiction must be distinguishcd from jurisdic-
tion arising under Article 36. paragraph 2. of the Statute - the sti-called
"Optional Clause". As Rosïnnt: says:

"That such ;I trïntv is in force crcates as betwccn ifs oarties the
necessary elements of mutuality and reciprocity . . . However, that
compulsorv iurisùiction will be based on Article 36 (1) of the Staiute
andnot on ~rticle 36 (2) .. ."'

(ii) Under Arriclc 36. p~ragraph 2. where the consent is contained in the uni-
lateral declaration of cach party. and where the jurisdiction of the Court
"is conferrcd on the Court only to the extent to which the two Declara-
tions coincide in conferring it"'. Although jurisdiction under Article 36,
paragraph 2. is norrn;illy based on unilateral declarations. il is possible 10
conceivç a link betwccn this provision of the Stiilule and ;iirealy. There
might be a trcaty obligation to make a unilateral dccl;ir;ition under Ar-
ticle 36, paragraph 2; or. alternatively. a treaty provision might be de-
siened as a form of collective dcclaration for thç ournoscs of Article 36.
paragraih2. In the formcr cziseit would be the ~titci decl;irati<iiiwhich
is the source of jurisdictii~n. Where a dcclaration is niade pursuant to a

orior trçatv comniitmcnt. it is the declaration which defincithe cxtent of
ihe accept,~nceof the jurisdiction, and the prior trcaty is irrclcvant to that
question. There may wcll remain a question beiween the parties 10 such
orior treatv as 10 whcthcr. in rnakine its unilateral declar;ition. the State
h.iz iullv pcrfi,riiicd lis ~ihlil;niii,nsunJc,r !lie irctii)' Hui ih15a qu;\iii>n
#tire[~<rni~ q.iic scp.ir.iic irimi thc iluehtioii \rlilch ihc Ci,uri rn:i) Jccirlc.
iiiIhe :icIu;il lurisd~ri~onc<~nferr~. JIIII~L.C~>urih\ Ihc ternis $11(hi\ uni-

'Rosenne. Tlie 1.o~ ott<I'ntcticrofllre Inrernrrrionl oirrl(l965).Vol.1. p. 334.
Angiu-Ir<irtio,rOil Co. case (lirrirdic~ion).Iiidgmenr of22lrrly19.52,ICI. Reports
1952.p. 103. BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
50

4.02. In the event ihat pursuant to the treaty. States consider il useful to
make individual deckirations. perhaps including reservations. and thc power
to do so is not excluded by the treaty. the Court is bound to give effect Io
those declarations'. klowever. a treaty engagement may restrict the powcr of

a State to makc such reservations. Yet. for the Court. the question whether.
in attaching reservations to a unilateral dcclaration under Article 36, para-
grvph 2, a Statehas violatcd a prior treaty engagement is a separatc qucstion
from tha~ ~f--h~~~-~ ~l iurisdiction confcrred on the Court bv such a unila-
tcral declaratioii. This lattcr qucstion is conclusively governed hy thc tcrms of
the unilateral declaration itsell',together wiih any attendant rescrv;itions.
4.03. Although the distinction between jurisdiction based on a trcaty or

convention in force under Article 36, paragraph 1, and jurisdiction hased
upon a unilateral declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, is thus clcar, il is
obvious that where States makc unilateral declarations under Article 36,
paragraph 2. pursuant 10 a lrcnty commitrnent. there does arise a risk ofcon-
fusion over whether. under thc ierms of the Statute. jurisdiction is to he based
on paragraph 1,or paragraph 2 of Article 36: Le., is the jurisdiction a corrvor-
rional iurisdiction or an onlionri1c1~11isie urisdiction? That uuestion can onlv

he ancwered by looking it thc evidencéof how the parties'themsclvcs havi
characterized iheir actions vis-&vis the Court. Since iurisdiction rests on con-
sent, whatever itsstatutory bÿsis. it mus1be for the will of the parties to deter-
mine the particular statutory basis of any expression of consent. Thus. when a
party has clearly evidenced its intention to accept the jurisdiction of the
Court under the outional clause. il is not conccivable that the Court will dis-
rcp:ardth:gtclci~rc\~rl<ticcot llitcnt .ln.) f~rid.ccmtr:ir[,)the St:itc', i~it:nt~o~i,

thai thcrc 1.; 3i~~~i\cnli.~n.ijlu!i.;J~ct~c~n~t.lcr ,\rt~iIih. p.~r.~gr.~l~1li.
(iii) Undcr Article 36, paragraph 5, there is the provision. to which al1States
parties to the St;itutc consent, that declaralions made under Article 36

of the Statute of the Pernianent Court shall be deemed to bc acccplancc
of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court for the period
which the) shall have to run and in accordance with thcir tçrms.
(iv) Under Article 37 there is a oarallcl orovision urovidine for the "inheri-
1:incr."h\ the Iiilcr~i~titiiiCourt <ii ,111coit\~ciition.iljuri~<liclionestah-
li,hed by J.tr~,;iiairci,n\cntli,n pro\,iJiiiifor refrrence ut disputes 10 thc
Permanent Court.

Of these four separate modes by which the Court may be seised with jurisdic-
lion. the mode re1ev:int to any dispute between Honduras and Nicaragua,
whether pursuant ln Articlc XXXl of the Pact of Bogoti or to the dcclara-
lions of the two States vis-à-vis the Court, is the second of those described

above, the so-called "Optional Clausc".

A. ARTICLE36. PAKAGKAPII 2. OPTHESTATUTEOFTHECOUKI
AND THEDBCI.ARAI'IONM S ADETHEREUNDER BY
HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA

1. Tl~ePosirion of Hondiiras

Of course. the"attachmçnt" ofreservationscan be sirnultaneouswiththelilingolthe
unilateraldeclarationor aspartof ilstrrrnsoritmaybeby way of subscqucnlnolification. MEMORIAL 01: HONDURAS 51

under Article 36. paragraph 2. Acting pursuant to an authorization of the
Honduras National Congrcss of 19 December 1947.Honduras filed a formal
declaration accepting the Couri's jurisdiction undcr Article 36. paragraph 2.
on 2 February 1948in the following tcrms:

"Hereb ,leclores:
That it recoenizes as comoulsorv ia,. facto .nd without s~ecial
;igrccmcni. in rclation 10 :in).(>thr.rStiitc ;ic:cpiing thc s:inic i~hlig:iiion.
the jurisdiciii~nof ihc Intcriiati<in.ilCaiuol Juriicc in ;illc~;iIdi,puies
concerning:

(a) the interpretation of ;Itreaty:
(b) any qucstion of interrtational law:
(c) the existence of any kict which, if established. would constitute a
breach of an intcrn:itionnl obligation;
(d) the nature or cxtent of the reparation to be madc for the breach of
an international obligation.

This declaration is madc on condition of reciprocity and for 2 period
of six yezirs (rom thc d;itï of the deposit of the declaration with the
Secretary-Gcnernl of the Unitcd Nations."

4.05. During the Ninth Intcr-American Conference in 1948, Honduras
tahled a rcsolution on 21 April 1948recommending 10the Amcrican States
that al1States which had no1 hitherto made declarations under Articlc 36 (2)
of the Statutc of the Internatioiial Court should doso with the minimum de-
lay'. Consistently with this npproach. Article XXXl of the Pact of Bogoti.
signed nine days latcr on 30 April 1948.began with the preambular phrase "ln
conformity with Article 36. paragraph 2. of thc Statute of the International
Court of Justice. the High Coniracting Parties declare . . .".
4.06. Whereas Honduras had previously actcd to define the extent of ils
obligation assumed under Article XXXl with regard to the Court's jurisdic-
tion under Article 36. paragraph 2. and was thus in the same position as States
like Brazil (bound as from 12 March 1948). Colombia (from 30 October

1937). Dominican Repuhlic (from 4 November 1933), El Salvador (from 29
August 1930).Guatemala (froni 27 January 1947).Mexico (from 23 October
1947). Nicaragua (from 24 Scptember IY29), Panama (from 14 July 1929).
Paraguay (froni II May 1933) and Uruguay (from 27 September 1921). for
other States the necessary acts of definition of their obligations la). in the
future. Thus Bolivia deposited a dcclaration on 16July 1948,and Costa Rica
only on 5 Februciry 1973.
4.07. Honduras rcnewcd ils dcclaration for a further six ycars on 19April
1954 inthe following tcrms:

"Thc Executivc Powïr of the Republic of Honduras. having been
duly authorizcd by the N;itional Congress under Decree No. 77 of 13
February I'J54.10renïw thc Dcclaration referred to in Article 36 (2) of
the Statute of thc Intcrnzitiotial Court of Justice.

Ilerchy ~lec11rre.s:
That il rcnews the Declaration which it made on 2 February 1948.
recognizing as conipulsory ipso facto and without special agreement. in

'Documents ofthe Third C«rnmission.NinihConference. p.79:Doc. CB-330iC. 111-
Sub A-6.52 I3OKDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACI'IONS

relation to any other Staie accepting the same oblig~tion. the jurisdic-

tion of thc Court in al1legal disputes concerning:
(n) the intcrpretalion of a treaty:
(b) any question of international law:
(cJ the existence of any fact which, if established. would constitute a
brezich of an international obligation;
(d) the neturc and extcnt of the reparation to bc made for the breach of
an intçrnational obligation.

This declar;itiuii of rcnewal is made on condition of reciprocity. for a
period of six years, renewable by tacit reconduction. from the date on
which it is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations."
And. on 20 Fehruary 1960.on the expiry of that declaration. Honduras again

renewed its declarütii~nin similar terms:
"The Governrncnt of the Republic of Honduras. duly authorized by
the National Congress. under Decree No. 99 of 29 January 1960.10 re-
new the Declaration referred to in Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the
lnternational Court of Justice, hcreby declares:

1.That it renews the Declaratioii made by il for a period of six years
on 19 April 1954 and deposited with the Secrctary-General of the
Unitcd Nations on 24 May 1954,the term of which will expire on 24 May
1960: reccignizing as compulsory ipso focro and without special agree-
ment, in rïl;iti«n to any other State accepting the s;ime obligation, the
jurisdiction of the lnternational Court of Justice in al1 legal disputes
concerning:
(a) the interpretation of a treaty;

(b) any question of international law:
(c) the existence of any fact which. if established. would constitute a
breach of an international obligation:
(cl)the nature and extent ofthe reparation to he made for the breach of
an international obligation.
2. This new Declaration is made on condition of rcciprocity. for an
indefinite tcrm. starting (rom the date on which it is deposited with the
Secreiary-Gencral of the United Nations."

This last declaration continued in force unlil modificd by the current decla-
ration, dated 22 May 1986.in these terms:
"The Govcrnment of the Republic of Honduras, duly authorized by
the National Congress under Decrce No. 75-86 of 21 May 1986 10 modify

the Declaration made on 20 February 1960concerningArticle 36 (2) of
the Statutc of the lnternational Court of Justicc,
tfereby ~/ec/ure.s:
That it modifies the Declaration made hy it on 20 February 1960 as
follows:

1. It recognizes as compulsory ipso fncro and wiihout special agree-
ment. in relatioi10 any other State accepting the sanie obligation. the
jurisdiclion of the lnternational Court of Justicc in al1 legal disputes
concerning:
(a) thc intcrprctation of a treaty:
(bJ any question of international law; MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 53

,c. thc cxistcnce of anv fact which. if established. would constitutc a
brcach of an international obligation:
((0 the naturc and extent ofthe reparation to he madc for the brcach of
an international obligation.
2. This Declaration shall not apply. howcver. to the following dis-
putes to which the Republic of Honduras may be a party:

(a) disputes in respect of which the parties have agreed or may :igrce ta
resort to othcr nicans for the pacific settlement of disputes:
(h) disputes concerning niatters subject to the domcstic jurisdiction of
thc Rcpublic of Honduras under international law;
(c) disputes relating to facts or situations originating in armcd conflicts
or acts ofa similar nature which may affect thc territory of thç Rc-
public of Horiduras, and in which it may fiiid itsclf involvcd directly
or indircctly;

(d) disputes rcferring to:
(i) territorialqucstions with regard to sovcreignty ovcr islands,
shoals and keys; interna1 waters, bays, the territoriiil sca and
the legal status and limits thereof;
(ii) siIrights of sovereignty or jurisdiction concerning the Icgal
status and limits of the contiguous zone. the exclusive cco-
nomic zone and the continental shelf:

(iii) the airspace over the territories. waters and zones refcrred to
in this subparagraph.
3. The Government of Honduras also reserves thc right al aiiy time
io supplcment. modify or wiihdraw this Declaration or the rcservations
contained thcrein by giving notice ta the Secrctziry-Gcncral of the
United Nations.
4. This Declaration replaces the Declaration madc by the Govern-
mcnt of Honduras on 20 February 1960."'

4.08. Nicarsigu;~.hzivingsigncd ihc 1920 Protocol of Signature of the Sta-
tute of thc Pcrni;incnt Court, made a declaration under Article 36. par;igraph
2, of the S1:itutc of the Court in the following terms:

"On hch;ilf of the Republic of Nicaragua I recogni~e ;is conipulsory
unconditi«ri;illy the jurisdiction of the Permancnt Court of Intcrna-
tional Ju~ticc."~
The Court has suhscquently held. in its Judgment of 26 Novemher 1984.that

this was a valid acccptancc of the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court (and
thus of the International Court by virtue of Articlc 36. pirngraph 5. of the
Statutc) notwithstanding the fact that Nicaragua had ncvcr formally ratified
its signature of thc 1920 Protocol. or at least had never communicated such
ratification 10 ihc League of Nations.

makercserv;iliulis.
This text.n translation [rom flic French,irgiven ;ilICJ. Rrpor1,s 1984. p.399.
para. 15.thedeclarati<inisdaled 24 Septembcr 1929.54 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

There is no evidence that Nicaragua has made any other declaration to the
Court under Article 36, Daraeranh 2. and. in the 1984oroceedines before the
Court. Nicaragua has hein concent to rely on ils 1929'declarati& as a valid,
binding dcclaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, in relation to the present
-u-.ir..
4.09. For the sake of completeness, reference should also be made to the
positions adopted by both Honduras and Nicaragua, on this prïcise question

of the cffect of the 1929Nicaraguan declaration. in thç dispute between these
Iwo States in 1957«ver the applicability of the arbitral award niade by the
King of Spain in 1906. In ils pleadings before the International Court of Jus-
tice. Honduras founded ils claim on a dual jurisdictional b;isisl. The first basis
was the special agreement of July 1957 (clearly an agreement within the
meaning of Article 36, paragraph 1,of the Statute) (Ann. 38): and the second
was the two declaralions under Article 36. paragraph 2. of the Statute.
namely the then current Honduran declaration of 1954and the Nicaraguan
declaration of 1929.

Although Nicaragua. in ils own pleadings. failcd to address this second
ground of iurisdictioii alleged bv Honduras (exceot to describc il as "inad-
;ertence"):and althoudh the Court in its ~ud&mci;tdid ~o~ comment on this
\x~nd ~illcgcd ~:I<IS,,i jur~~dict~tmi.t c:ihe 3;11dths,! Hondur:n ccrta~til! San
thc t\r<dccliirntiuiisas \:ilid unJ~.r ,\rticlc36. p.irii~lr.~ph2, :inJ Sic.ir;iru;i
must be deemed 10 have takcn that view of ils own d&liration if its oo~icon
hefore the Court in 1957and 1984is to be consistcnt.

3. The Effecr of (lie Keservarions Made by Nicaragira a,ld Honrlirrrrsro rtie
Jlrrisdicrion of the Coiln

(a) Nicar<~gr,rrY "rescrvorion"

4.10. Although Nicaragua's 1929 declaration was unconditional, when
Nicaragua signcd the Pact of Bogoth it made the following declaration:

"The Nicaraguan Delegation. on giving ils approval to the American
Treaty on Pacifie Settlement (Pact of Bogoth) wishcs to record ex-
pressly that no provisions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice
any position assumed by the Government of Nicaragua with respect to
arbitral dccisioiis the validity of which il has contested on the basis of

the principles of international law, which clearly permit arbitral deci-
sions to be attscked when they are adjudged ti)he nuIl or invalidated.
Consequcntlv, the sianature of the Nicararum Deleeation to the Treatv
in ianiiot bë alleged as an accepïance of ah arbitral decisin&
that Nicaragua has contested and the validity of which is no1certain.
Hencc the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterites the statement made on
the 28th of the current rnonth on approving the text of the above men-
tioned l'reaty in Committee III."

The significance of this reservation is important in the context of the present
case. As explained above. in the 1957dispute between the Iwo States Hondu-

'Thehistory of thisjiirisdiclion areiroutendetailhyJudgcAgoin hisseparate
opinioninI.C.J. Kepr,rr.1984,pp.528-531, paras.32-39.For theHonduranclairn. secthe
Mernorial of Honduras. paras.36-40.in caseconcerningtheArbirral Award Made bytl~r
King of Spaiii o23Deceniber1906.I.C.J.Pleadingr1960.Vol. 1.pp.59-61 MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 55

fore, it has to béassumed ihat ~iciragua saw no basis lor the jurisdiction of
the Court in Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota. For. if Article XXXI
already provided a valid basis of jurisdiction. therc was no need whatever for
a special agreemcnt. The question is, therefore, why did Nicaragua (and also
Honduras. for that matter) no1 regard Article XXXI of thç pact as a valid
basis of jurisdiction in 1957?
4.11. The onlv ~ossible answer is that Nicaraeua assumed that its"reser-

vation" to thc ~aci precluded sny jurisdiction oithe Court. However, if the
iurisdiction of the Court under Article XXXI was a conventional jurisdiction
Ünder Article 36. paragraph 1. of the Stalute. and quite separate from any
jurisdiction under the optional clause, based on thç two declarations of Hon-
duras (1954)' and Nicaragua (1929), there was no reason whatever why a
treaty reservation, operating under Article 36, parügraph 1, of the Statute,
should have any effect on a consensual jurisdiction established by tuzo valid
declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2. Rrrtthe Nicuragrianposition obvi-
orrslyassi~medthiir the Nicaraguan reservationro the Pacrof Bogotuoperated
eqirallyasa reservarionunder the Optional Clurrse,Article 36, paragraph 2, of

the S[U[IL[C~.
If that is so. then the converse must equally be true: that is to say, any
reservation under Article 36, paragraph 2, applies equally to a jurisdiction
asserted under Articlc XXXI of the Pact of Bogota. This is. in fact, the view
which Honduras holds, and which it now urges on the Court, namely that
Article XXXI is linked to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. It envisaged
one basis of jurisdiction, the precise extent of which would be established by
thc dcclarations made hy States under Article 36, paragraph 2, or any rçser-
vations they might have attached to Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota.

(b) Reservarionsof Honduras

4.12. It was for this same reason that Honduras communicated the text of
its new declaration of 22 May 1986 not only to the Sçcretary-General of the
Unitçd Nations, IOr the purposes of Article 36. paragraph 2, of the Statute,
but also expressly notificd thc OAS that the changes introduced in the new
declaration were equally applic;ihle with respect to Article XXXI of the Pact
of Bogota'. Honduras has consistently taken the view that declarations pur-
suant to Article 36. paragraph 2. were linked Io the obligation assumed under
Article XXXI of thç Pact: these declarations defined the limits within which
the State accepted the jurisdiction. Indeed. it seemed inconsistent 10have one
set of conditions yoverning the Honduran acceptancc of the jurisdiction of

the Court vis-a-vi; the woÏld at large (i.e., other States gene;ally accepting

'This.it munt brrrcalledwar withoi~ eservationscxcept asIoreciprocity.
'The Honduran position was no1inconsistentwiththis.TheHonduranMernorialsim-
plyarguedthat theCourthadjurisdiction on the dualhasiof the 1957SpecialAgreement
and on the hariofthe twodeclarations(Honduras, 1954,Nicaragua,1929)underArticle
raguanarsservalionand thequestionwhetherthisoperatedhoth underthe PactseofBogotia-
andArticle 36,paragraph2, of the Statute: MemorialofHonduras, /oc cit.paras.37-40.
This was pursuantIoDecrre No. 79-86ofthe NationalCongress of Honduras.dated
22May1986 (Anri.39).ThecommunicationIothe OAS was hyIçtterDSM-206186d.ated
26May 1986(Ann.40A). MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 57

as a "special procedure" under the Pact precluded reference Io the Court at
this stage. before the completion of the Contadora process. Absent their
commitments to the Pact, it would have been possible for the Parties to take
thcir dispute before the Court by special agreement.

13. ARTICLE36, PARAGRAPH1,OFTHESTA'rUTl!OFTHECOURTAND
ITSRELATION TO TllE PAC~OFBOGOTA

4.16. Thcre is an express reference to Article 36. paragraph 1. of the
Stzitute of the Court in Article XXXll of the Pact of Bogota. This provides
as follows:

"AUTICLE XXXII. When the c«ncili;iti«n proccdure previously
cstablishcd in the present Treaty or hy zigrcemcnt of the parties does
no1 lcad to a solution, aiid the said pzirtics have not agreed upon an
arbitral procedure, either of them shall be cntitled to have recourse to
the Internzitional Court of Justice in the manner prescribed in Article
40 of the Statute thereof. The Court shall have compulsory jurisdiction
in accordance with Article 36. paragraph I. of the said Siatutc."

It was hccause of this provision that the Pact was quite properly listcd in the
I.C.J. Yeirrbook 1947.1948 amongst the "other Acts" envisaging the jurisdic-
lion of the Court. The correct view would seem 10 bc that il is. therefore.
Article XXXll (and not Article XXXI) which is the basis of the convenrionnl.
or treaty-based, jurisdiction of the Court'. And the reservations of Honduras
to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36. parzigraph 2, of the Statute
would be inapplicable to a casein which jurisdiction was based on Article 36.
paragraph 1.ccimbined with Article XXXll of the Pact.
4.17. The rcasons why Nicaragua has no1sought to invoke Article XXXll
arc apparent from the terms of the Article itself. Any invocation, by way of
unileteral application, of the compulsory jurisdiclion of the Court presup-
poses that two conditions precederit should he met:

(i) conciliation, either under Chapter Threc of thc Pact or ziscstablished by
agreement of the parties, sliould hüvï heen attempted and demonstrably
failed; and
(ii) the parties should have failed Io agree on arhitration.

In the prcscnt case neither pre-condition is satisficd, and Nicaragua quitc
properly does not seek to invoke this compulsory jiirisdiction. What Nicara-
gua does seek to do is to pervert the intention bchind Article XXXI of the
Pact. so as to convert that provision into a conventional basis of jurisdiction
- somcthing it uas never intended to be -and thereby to avoid any neces-
sity tosatisfy these two pre-conditions of Article XXXII.

Section II. The Sysiem of the Pacl of BogotP

4.18. In the opinion of the Republic of Hondurzis, Article XXXI of the
Amcrican Treaty on Pacific Ssttlement, known as the Pact of Bogoti. on
which the Application of Nicaragua is allegedly bascd in the prcseiit case,

'11hnsio hïndcledthat,insomeof thedoctrins~lomnieniariesunthc Pact of Bogotzi.
;Idiflçrenviçw harheen iaken,linkingArticlesXXXI andXXXll of thePact;thisview
isexplorrd inihrsectionthatfollows.58 BORDER AND TRANSBORDERARMED ACTIONS

does not provide any hasis for the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice. For that Article cannot be interpreted or applied in an isolated fash-
ion, and this conclusion emerges just asclearly from~an analysis of the provi-

sions of the Pact of Bogota as it does from the analysis of the Court's Statute
in the previous Section.
The correctness of this conclusion can be ascertained hy examining succes-
sivelv (i) the conditions for the articulation of the oeace orocess laid down hv
that ;egional treaty together with the system laid iown, a'tworldwide level, i;

the Charter of the United Nations and in the Statute of the International
Court ofJustice; (ii) the general spirit and the structure of the Pact; and then
(iii) the provisions thcrcof which arc rclevant in the present case. For it
emerges from such ail examination that the effect of the reservations accom-
uanvinr the dcclaration hv Honduras acknowledeine the iurisdiction of the

Article 36, paragraph 2. almost word for word. therehy emphasizing 'their
correspondence as one basis of jurisdiction.

4.19. The qiiestioii of the rclationship hetween regional agreements for
the settlement of disputes and the system laid down hy the United Nations
Charter has been considered by the International Court of Justice in ils Judg-
ment of 26 November 1984 as to its competcncc in the Milirary and Para-

milirary Acriviries case in terms which will be considered later. However, it
should be noted froni the outset that the legal context in which that question
arose in that case is very different from the context in which it arises in the
present case.
In the Application against the United States, although Nicaragua was able
to refer to a bilateral treaty of friendship, trade and navigation betwecn itsclf

and the United States. it was unable to invoke the Pact of Bogota, to which
the United States is not a party. In the present case, on the contrary, both
States have ratified that multilateral reeional instrument for the settlement of
differences. This instrument exists witlhin an over~ ~. ~ormativ~ an~ ~ns~itu- ~~
ii<,n;alfr.~nicai,rk c,ial~lislir.JI>!.tlic ;i>untricr ,)i L:itiii~\iii~ri<.Juriiiy tlic
vcars ii1ii:liollo\i~-J the ScioiiJ \\'orlJ \\'dr. Thc rc.i.im h)r c~t.ihli~hinii1h.i~

framework was Io develop and strengthen understanding and co-operation
amongst the countries of the continent, and the framework was created soon
after the establishment of the institutions and procedures created by the
United Nations Charter and by the Statute of the Court which is annexed to
the Charter'.
4.20. Therefore. the relationship between those Iwo systems - the re-
gional system and the worldwide system for the settlement of diffcrcnccs -

ire chaiacterized by complemenra~iry and srrbordinarion.
11should he noted that the characteristic of complemenr<rriryresults firstly

The regionalinter-Americansystem wasdestinrd to be hased i>nthrçç treaties: the

Charter of the 0rganiz;ition of American States, the Inter~Amcrican'i'reaty on Reci-
procalAssistance (or Trçaiy al Rio)of 2December1947, and finallythe AmericanTreaty
on PacificSettlement, knownas the Pactof Bogot.4. hlEMORlAL OF HONDURAS 59

from Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that none of
the provisions of thc Charicr
"precludcs the existence of regional agreements or agcncics for dcaling
with such niatters relaiing io the maintenance of international peace
and security as arc appropriate for regional action, providcd that such
arrangements or agcnciïs and their activities are consistent with the
Purposcs and Principlcs of the United Nations".

Paragraph 2 of thai Ariiclc continues:

"The Membcrs of the United Nations entering into such arrange-
ments or constiiuting such agencies shall makc every effort to achieve
pacific seitlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements
or bysuch regional agencies before referring them to the Security Coun-
cil." (Emphasis added.)
4.21. These provisions are laithfully echoed in the Latin American re-
gional systcm. Thus Article 23 of the Charter of the Organization of Ameri-
can States provides:

"All intcrnational disputes thatmay arise between Amcrican States
shall be submitted to the peaceful procedures set forih in ihis Charter.
hefore being rcfcrrcd 10 the Security Council of the United Nations."
(Emphasis ziddcd.)
For its part, the Inter-American Treaty on Reciprocal Assistance, signed at
Rio de Janeiro on 2 September 1947provided

"The Hieh Contractine -arties undertake Io submii anv controversv
that may anse bctwecn (hem to the methods of peaceful'solutii~n, an2
undertake to attempt to resolve the same between themselves by means
of the orocedure in force in the lnteramerican svstem. hebre-submit-
ting an; such controversy to the General ~sscmbly or toihe Security
Council of the United Nations." (Emphasis added.)

Finally. Article II of the Pact of Bogota declares:
"The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation 10 seille in-
ternational conttoversics by regional pacific procedures before reierring
them io ihc Sccurity Council of the United Nations." (Emphasis added.)

4.22. Thus, a comp~rison of the relevant provisions of the United Nations
Charter with the rïlïvant provisions of the threc Latin Anierican Convcn-
tions reveals the clearly affirmid intention to encourage the mïmber States
of the regional systeni to seek jïrsrly a peaceful solution io their differences.
within the framework of the procedures most specifically laid down for such
purpose and established by the regional agreements.
It is moreover the case ihat that intentionis wholly in line with the think-
ing behind the uu>rdingof the mure general provision conccrning the settle-
ment of differçnces. namely Ariiclc 33 ol the United Nations Charter:

"1. The oariies to anv disoutc. the continuance of which is likelv to
endanger the niaintenaace ;>finternational peace and sccurity, shall.
firsi of 011.scck a solution bv negotiation, enquiry. niediaiion, con-
ciliation. arhiiraiion. iudicial séttlement, reso1-0r-rio~i<ilirwenciesor
arrange,,ienrs. or othcr pe;iceful means of their own choice." (Emphasis
added.)60 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

4.23. One could even be led to take the view. adhering to a literal interpre-
tation of the vilrious Articles quotcd above. that thosc Articles cstablish a
priority of recourse Io regional procedures over the methods of settlement
laid down in the United Nations Charter itself. However. that would be going
too far, as is shi>wiihy what happens in practice and by the majority doctrinal
opinion. The complcmcntarity and the co-ordination of the regional and
worldwide systems for the settlement of disputes. while they clearly encour-
agï the prior use of thç rçgional procedures. do no1 proliibit rïcourse to the

soecific ~~~~~~~- ~-ttlement laid down bv the United Nations Charter. That is
notably the essence of the conclusion; reached by two of the mort well-
respected authors on the subject, J. M. Ruda' and E. Jiniénez de Aréchaga'.
4.24. The latter author. in~particular. points out that. apari from the possi-
bility of having recourse Io the United Nations provided for in Article 35
thereoi, Article 103 of the Charter provides:

.III tlic ci~ciiis?confliit hctwccn thc aihlic.itii~nsi~i th^.Icmhcr, i~f
thc Uniicd X:itiiIn\ undcr ihc prr.,c.ni Chtirtcr and ilicir <ihlic;iiic,ii,iindcr
any oiher internaiional agreement. thcir obligations unde; the present
Charter shall prevail."

.lhub ihc c~.~-,~:Jin;it~t,~>nflh~!.ICIII~1,acco~itpan~:d hy 211 ull~~i~~A~tI,/~>~</I-
,r~i~to!oi ont ,IIihc i\rtc~iii\ (tlic-rc,q:on;il\!\i;m~ i<iihc othcr (th', i\<i:lJiiidc
system).
Howevcr, this subordination, which is the ultimate guzirzinice of the har-
niony between thc tu,o, only operates in the event thnt some incompatibility
emerges bctwcçn the regional system and the worldwidç systçm.
This is what Mr. Jiménez de Aréchaga says in his above-mentioned study,

where he statcs:
"Pour définir les obligations des Membres des Nations Unies qui
sont parties ii des accords régionaux. en ce qui concerne les obligations

suscepiihles de limiter l'accès direct aux organcs des Nations Unies. il
faut se fonder exclusivement sur les dispositions de la Charte de San
Francisco. Ou hien les dispositions dcs accords rCgionaux corrcspon-
dent à celles de la Charte des Nations Unics. ou bien ellcs sont en
conflit avec la Charte. et en ce cas elles sont dépourvuesde valeur."'

That observation would appear to be wholly in line with the one made by
the Couri itsclf in iis Judgment of 26 November 1984, whçrç it said:
"Furthïrmore, il is also important always Io hear in niind that al1

regionzil, hilatïral and even multilatcral, arrangçniçnts thzii the Parties

J. M. Ruda."R~lncionçsde InOEA y laONU en cunntiialmantçnimiçnto delapaz y
lasecundadinternacionales".SeparatadeKevistaJirri<licnrlIe~iirr~or~lires.961-1-1p.27.
E. Jiménezde Aréchaga. "La coordination des systèmesde I'ONUel de I'Orga-
nisationdes Etats américains pourle règlement pacifiquedcs diflérçndrel la sécurité
collective".Kccitirildescoitrrde I'Acadé!niede druir ir~rerritirioileLn Hoye, 1.111
(1964).
'Jiménezdc Aréchnga . p.cil.p. 433.Translaiiuii

"ln ordert<definethe obligationsofthemernbrrsul the UniicdNationswhich are
partiesto regionalagrernients. asregardsanyobligationsthat mightlirnitdirect ac-
ccssto iheorgansoflhe United Nations,reliancr mus1 he placcdexclusivcly on Che
provisionsof thç Charter of San Francisco.Either thç provisions cilthe regional
agrermrntsciirrïspondtothosr ofthe UniiedNationsCharlçr.or theyareinconflict
withthe Chniter. in whichcnsc they areof no value." MEMORIAI 01' HONDURAS 61

to this case may have made. touching on the issue of settlement of dis-
putes or the jurisdiction of thc 1nicrnaiion;il Court of Justice. mus1 bc

made always subject Io the provisions of Article 103of the Charter . .."'
4.25. Il clearly rcsults froni the rcaffirmation of ihis rulc of subordination
that a State placed in the legal situation of Honduras. which is at the same
lime a party to thc regional systcm and a pariy to the worldwide system for
the settlement of disputes. cannot be faced agiiiist ils will with a basis for the

jurisdiction of the Couri ihat differs depending on whether the Court bases ils
jurisdiction on the rcgional treaty or on the Statuie annexed to the United
Nations Charter. It is obvious that. should such a difference exist. the re-
gional basis could not be made Io prevail over the basis provided by the
worldwide system.
In other words. if il were the case ihal Ariicle XXXl of ihe Pact of Bogoti
granted jurisdiction to the Court in circumstances incomp;itible with those
laid down by Article 36 of thc S1;itute of the Court. the Statutc would ulti-
matelv vrevail over the Pact. and no1vicc vcrs;i.
4.26.'Once this statement of principlç has bcçn made. il will be foiind that
in reality thcre are no differences in this instancc betwecn the provisions of
the rcgional Pact and the provisions of ihc gçncr:il system concerning the

establishment of the jurisdiction of the Cour!. What is morc, an exaniination
of the general spirit of the P;i<:t.and then of Article XXXl itsçlf, will show
that the intention of its author!; w;is io ensurc th;it thç extent of the jurisdic-
lion that il rrünts to the Court would bç idcntic;il io the exteni or iurisdiction
granted by Article 36, paragraph 2, of ihc Statute of the Court. It &;is indeed
precisely for that purpose that the Paci of H»gr.tAfollowcd thç wording of-the
Statute so faitlifiiilv.

B. THE GENEKALSI'IRIT AND THEULI'IMATB PURPOSE
OFTHEPACI' 01' BOGOTA

4.27. The idea of the pcaceful settlcmcnt of disputes owcs a great deal 10
the efforts of the countries of Latin Amcrica. Evcii if ihey have not always
been able to put it inio practicc. ihey emcrge as forerunners on this subject in
the history of modern internationsil law. The quesi for peace through law
seems to have animated them sincc thcir independence. and perhaps the faint
echo or feeling IIInostalgia for Bolivar's grcat dreani of the unification of the
sub-continent. In 1826.the l'rcaty of Union, Lcaguc and Perpetual Confede-
ration. signed at Panama under ihc inspiration of Simon Bolivar himself.
alreadv contained orovisions for the solution of disouies bv means of concilia-
tion (Arts. 13and'l6)~. Fronl 1889 lo 1890.whcn'pan-Aileriean endcavours
were renewed by the institution of the first international Amcrican coiiference.
there have been more and morc ireaties coni;iinins ~rovisions on ihe settle-
-.
niciiioi disl>uic,.<IJc\otc<l cniircl! ihcr..i<i 'l'hcyh;iw niuliiplicitithe p~iini
i\.hcrr.the). Ii~ra Jcnsc ;inJ \onic\rh;it ci~mplcxiictui,rk of iiitcr~riiiciiohliga-
iions and procedures.
4.28. Withoui going inio an exhaustive analysis. mention should be made
of the Arbitration Treaiyadopted hy the Second Inter-Amcrican Conference

'ICJ. Reporr.~1984,p.440, parti1117.
'Sec F. Ga10 Leoro. "Liircl<~rm;dielir;!iii<~trnericnnode solucione paciïicas o
Piicto deBogotA".Atiirorioji~idicoiiil<:m,i,c'rici,.81,p;irticulapp. 31-34,62 BORDERANDTRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

(1902) and the Gondra Treaty of 3 May 1923 for Avoiding and Preventing
Conflicts between Anierican States, which establishcs proccdures of enquiry
and two conciliation commissions, whose conclusions. without being hinding,

result in a pcriod of suspension of al1hostile acts bctwecn the parties to the
dispute'.
Then came the General Convention on Inter-Amcricsin Conciliation, at
the same lime as the Geiienil Trcaty on Inter-Amcrican Arbitration, both of
which were adoptcd ;il the Washington Conference on 5 January 1929. The
latter Treatv alrcadv limited the subiect-matter of arbitraiion to the settle-

tice2.
In 1933 came the "Antibellicose Treaty of Non-Agtression and of Con-
ciliation". known as the Saavedra Lamas Treaiy. aficr thc name of the
Argentinian statrsrnan who sponsored it. During thai same year the Addi-

tional Protocol to the above-mentioned General Convention on Conciliation
of 1929was also adopted.
Moreover. three ycars later, alongside two new treaties, one of them on
zood offices and me<liation. the other on the orevention of controversies.
ilierc r.incr3r.d Ihc iir5i ell<irt h!. nic.îii\oi irc;ii\ 1% )c<)orJiii:iid. .implifv and

cnlurc the .1s~i~iiipli~liiiic1 1it thc irc;iti~<c.u*ting ;Imiins ihr. I.:iiiii,\iiicri-
c.rn S1;itzs".'1'hr.c thrd~ lrC311c<arc d:al-.il23 I>CCCIII~?IC S)~.?h.
'l'lic\ci i,i rc2iun:ii trc:Itic. ln LCYISICII;~ JIJ ni)[ prc$cni tlic Ili.i]~)rII!.<~i
tlic I..~iin,\iiicri;.iii Si.itc\iri,iiheiii-.Ii.ari!111 ilidSI:itul~ ,il tlic I1crm;inent
Court of Intcrnntional Justice.
4.29. Th~ n-ed tos~m~lifv and to harmoni~e t~e networks of oblieations
, .
:enJ ,ii ilic $.,riou\ pr<iccdurcs laid doun in ihesc Jiflcrcnt in.truincnt\ niade
itsclf fcli c\cii Ociorc ihc Second \\'<irld\\'sr. ,\ilci 1915 lli~iiiecd \i.i>fcli ;III
the more keenly. and the efforts at regional level were simulated by the
movement which. al worldwide level. had led to the esiÿblishing of a new
legal order founded on the institutionalkation of CO-operation within the
United Nations.

At the "Inter-American Conference on thç Problems of War and Peace"
held at Mexico in March 1945. Kesolution XXXlV stresscd that the Intcr-
American Legal Committee on Peace should

"coordinale the continental instruments for the prcvention and peace-
ful solutioii of ccrntroversics in a manner such that the gradua1 and pro-
gressive application thereof shall necessarily result in the achicvement
of the dcsired ends'".

4.30. Thus in the tcrms of relerence given Io Ihe Committce. rwo of the key
irlens had appearcd which werc to inspire the drafting. in successive draft
texts, of what was to become some three years later the Pzictof Bogoti:

- First. the attemot to establish a rationalized svsreffi lor the settlcment of
disputes in the iight of the lessons learnt f~om'attem~ts made in previous
treaties. which were heterogcneous. over-numerous and which had, for
the most part. remained dead letters

'Sec J.J. Caicedo Cariilla."La Organizacion dc losEstados Amcricanos". Escuela de
funcianariosiniernacionalcs, Ci<rros,v co,iJerenciu.1955-56.11 M.adrid 1957.p. 199.
'Ide,,,.
'See F.Galo Lcoro. op. cil.p. 33. MEMORIAL OF HONDURAS 63

Scsi~nJ.aiid Ihi\ perh.ip\ cwn rnorc rcnijrk;ihlc. ihc ;irsigniiic10 wcli :I
sysicm IIIihc uliim;iic purposc of rcndcring ci~iiipuls<iry.;in:i>it ner:
irrcrcrsihlc. ihc r<.c<iLrsctu ~<ilutioiiiIhai c<iuldml\' bc nc:i~riul Suc:i
system would offer. at the free choice of the States. iwidc range of proce-
dures for resolving disputes.

431 t'rc~d~mi ~,r:gs~rcl,thcIIIC.I~Ibu1 ;XI,~I>IILJ'I;IUrc+trdh thc rc\ults
IV hi. .,ht;iinc.l. ahi%:th th: scttlciii~~<iic\inirci\<i,ics h\ pe.iiilnic.lii\.
such was the approach adopted in the work of the lnter-Amcrican Juridical
Committec until the Confercnce of Bogoti. Was this lcgal cdifice to be crowned
by the crealion of an Inter-American Court of Justice? The example Io be
found in the old Central American Court of Justicc and the desire to achievc
organic integration of the legal order at regional level were pointers in that
direction. The temptation to create such a court was momentarily felt amongst
the members of the Cornmittee and even witbin certain govcrnmental delega-
tions at the Conference of Bugota'.
However. thc feeling fairly easily prevailed thal the inter-American re-

gional movement should not have any adverse cffçct on the system of the
United Nations but should. in conformity with the spirit of Article 52 of the
Chartcr, mentioned above, be in harrnony thercwith and contribute to the
strengthening of thç role and aiithority of the new International Court of Jus-
ticc, which had hccome a court of worldwide jurisdiction, cvçn more than ils
predecessor, the Permanent Cciurt of lntcrnational Justicc.
4.32. Such were the rcasons for which the authors of the Pact of Bogoti
drew up a trezity characterized by the fact that it constituled:

(i) a systematizcd set of procedures for settling disputes, running from
eood offices to iudicial nrocedure:
(ii) a sel of provisio,~ leaving freedom of choicc to the parties to the disputes:
(iii) a set of provisions the ultimate efficacy of which was to be euaranteed
by what has sometimes been called. nodoubt improperly. an"automati-
ration" of ihc compulsory peaceful solution of disputes. This was to be
achieved hy a two-fold means of legal protection. surprising in many
ways, as will be seen. and consisting of both the ;icknowledgment of
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Arts. XXXI and

XXXII) aiid the institution of compulsory nrbitration in the event thsit
the 1ntcrn;itiunal Court ni Justicc were Io dcclare itself incoinpetent
(Art. XXXV).
The relevani provisions should now be examincd in greater dçtail

C. EXAMlNATlOSOF THE RELEVANTPROVISIONS
OF THE PACI OF BOCOTA

4.33. Articles II and IV of the Pact. alrcady encountered previously in the
examination of thc conditions for the admissibility of Nicaragua's Applica-
tion. should first be cxamined. before the methodical study of the role of
Articlc XXXI in relation to the other provisions of Chapter IV, which is
devoted to judicial procedure.64 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

1. ilrticles IIand IV of rhe Pact of Br~gorh

4.34. 11haï alreadv been seen abovc that the first~o~raeraoh of Article II
of the Pact is to be placed in parallel with the corresp~ndiG provisions of the
Inter-American Treaty on Rcciprocal Assistance and of the Charter creatine
thr Oreauizati<in of AmericanStates. to the extcnt that il imooses on the
1Iig.hCoiltr.ictin~ Partlc\ lhc! 8~t~Iig.iti~~~lrc,~~Iv,.tlicir ~nIc!riiat~.~n.d ~il\-
piit~,\\ilthihc .?id #if[hi. rc$ii,n.il pc;iciiul prslscd~res hciori Ii;i\iny i:<aiur>c
t<,the Sccuritv CC~IIB:II ltIl:$,lk.~.nc~t:fil~l~~l~t1;,1 tl1.<~~IIL;I~I d,c,c,IICBI

mean that théregional procedures have absolute priority oveAhe procedures
laid down in the United Nations Charter, particularly undcr Article 103 of
the Charter (see para. 4.25 ahove). Nevertheless, as has also been stated
above (seepara. 4.15 above), itremains the case that within the framcwork of
the Pact itself. in application of the combined effect of Articles II and IV
thereof. where the parties have selected a proccdure for thc settlement of
their dispute, rvhethçr the said procedure is one of those established in tlic
Pact itself or whether il is a "special procedure" (Art. II), they must follow it

to its full cxtent. This means that the partics must do everythiog possible. in
"ood faith.10 carrv out the orocedure to ils conclusion. with a view to achiev-
ing a peaccful sol;tioii. '
As has been noted ahovc, the Contadora Group procedure obviously now
constitutes, between the Statesparty to the Pact. a "spccial proccdure" within
the meaning of Article II. Therefore, that procedure must be followçd fully
prior to any recourse to another procedure offered by the same treaty. even a
judicial procedure. As has been seen, this already constitutes sufficient reason

for excluding the application of Article XXXI in the present case.
Nevcrtheless, the application of Article XXXI should he examined metho-
dically from the point of view of the question of the compctence of the Court.
since Nicaragua claims that the jurisdiction of the International Court of Jus-
tice is based on Article XXXI, together with Article 36 of the Statute of the
Court.

2. Siruorion of Article XXXl wiihin Chnpter IV of the Pact

of Bogorh
4.35. Articles XXXI to XXXV of the Pact of Bogoti have given risç to
abundant commentaries by Latin American and other learned writers in

international law, despitc the fact that, in practice, those provisions have
never really been followed. There are a number of reasons for this interest.
The main reason no doubt is to be found in the fact that those provisions
constitute what one might cal1the spearhead of the system established by the
Pact. That system consists al one and the same time of the product of the long
period of gestation of legislation whose history has been outlined above, and
of the accomplishment, in the minds of its promoters. of a qualitative leap as
comparcd with the attempts made in the earlier treaties.

It is in cffect Articles XXXI to XXXV that hold the system in place and
guarantee, in principlr, that a peaceful solution is Io be inevitable. Upon
closer examination, however, it will be found that the system is not, it seems,
held together so absolutely securely as its promoters had wishcd.
An analysis of these provisions should be approached without any prccon-
ceptions, and the spirit of the general context in which they are situated
should be borne in mind. The treaties prior to the Pact have already been
referred to. as has thî evolution of the thinking that took place during the

work carried out by the Inter-American Legal Committee. Articles XXXI Io MBMOKIAL OF HONDURAS 65

XXXV must now bc considcred in the general contcxt or the treaty. prior to
considering them one by one from the point of view of their intrinsic nieaning
and of the inter-relations betwccn them.
4.36. As has already bccn noted. in Chapter IV of the Pact. devotcd to
judicial procedure (which is onc of the procedures which may bc chosen by
the parties 10 a dispute with a view to pacific settlemcnt), the jurisdiction of
the Internationtil Court of Justicc is based on two alternative grounds.

(ci) The first ground consisis of the system of thc "optionzil cl;iusc", which
is offeredto Stzitesby Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court. Article XXXl
of the Pact of Bogot.'imakcs express reference thcreto, thus definiiig at the
same Lime.in language takçn word for word from Article 36 (2) of the Sta-
tute. the extent of the Court's jurisdiction. Moreover, this "optional clause",
in Article XXXI, contains a jurisdiction which can be morc prccisely defined,
by means of a unilateral declaration. by al1 the St;iles which are parties to
the Pact. Honduras was among thc first three of such States to do so. Article
XXXl of the Pact authorizcs e;ich State. in accordance with ;Iny declaration

made hv that State bcforc the occurrence of a disnute. 10 scise the Court
uiiil:itcr;illy. Il<iacic'r. in 1h.itc;i.icthï \coiitlicS't,iirisol Liiiirscsuhjccl
io 1t.ctcrin, in ivhisli ilic lurid.ciia,)iilic Court Ii:i,hccn :ickn<iwlr'il~cdhv
the parties to the disputCr l'hus. in the present case. the rcscrvations iccom-
panying the Honduran declaraiion of acknowledgment of the Court's juris-
diction prevent the Court from being validly seised by Niciiragua's unilateral
Application (see pirzts. 4.44 et seq., below).
(b) The second basis for th,: Court's jurisdiction is distinct from the first
basis. as can be secn from a literal reading of the provision which contains it,
which is Article XXXll of the Pact. This Article docs no1 hase the jurisdic-
lion of the Court on the systcni of the "optional clausc" of Article 36, para-
graph 2. of the Sfitute. but rather on the system of seisin of the Court by

means of a treaty or convcntion. as provided for by Article 36. paragraph 1.of
the Statute of the Court. Under Article XXXll of the Pact. seisin of the Court
by one of the two parties to the dispute is. however. subject to the dual condi-
tion that. first. aprior conciliation attempt has failed and. second. that therc
has been a failure 10choose an arbitral procedure. However. as has been seen
in the Dresent case. neithcr of ihese conditions has heen fulfilled.
4.3f. The abovc interprctation is at once the most simple. thc most logical.
and the most consistent with the literal wording of the Pact. It takcs fullaccount
of the difference betwccn the references made. rcspectively. by Article
XXXI of thePacl to Article 36. paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, and
hy Articlc XXXll of thc Ptict tu Article 36, paragraph 1.of thc Stattite. It is
supported by State practicc. iiot:ibly by that of Hondurtis, and lias becn

adopted by several ;iuthors including. in particular, Ann van Wyncn Thomas
and A. J. Thomas,Jr.. in a work published in 1963 entitled Ttie Orgntlizution
of'Ai~rericanSl<ire,s n speaking of Article XXXl of the Pact of Bogoti, they
note as follows:
"This Article and the bllowing Articles attempt 10place the Ameri-
can States under some legal compulsion to submit thcir intcrnational

legal disputes to the Court for binding decision. and in this the Treaty
marks some advancc. However. it must be remcmbcred that in the first

disputes to somc pzicific procedure. but they arc given complete dis-
cretion as to what proccdurc they shall agrce upon. l'hcy mziyagree to66 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Arhitration, Good Offices and Mediation, Investigation and Concilia-
tion. or some other pacific procedure of thdr ehoice rather than Judi-
cial Procedure. They may agree on the latter, but there is nothing to
hind them to do so.
However, if the <lispirtantssubmir IO the prucedrrre of Conciliation,
uncf if th& procedrrre does no/ lead to o soliirion ancl if the parries have
not agreed an Arhilral Procedure, thcn either party is entitled to have

recouse to the International Court of Justice. In the event that this
particular pattern becomes reality, the Court's jurisdiction is compul-
sory in accordance with Article 36, Paragraph 1, of the Statute oc the
Court. and one party ta the dispute unilaterally may require the other to
submit to Judicial Procedure."' (Emphasis added.)

4.38. However, it must be noted that a greater numher of authors, who in
fad represeiit the majority doctrine on the subject. analyse Article XXXI
of the Pact in a mariner which in some respects is different, hy linking it
indissociably to Article XXXII.
This analysis differs in certain respects from the first in seeing the two
Articles not as autonomous, but as complementary provisions: as in the case
of the first aooroach. these aut~~rs note that Article XXXI of the Pact. in
rr.lcrrin~ icr-\rt~:lc 30. p.îrd3r:iph 2. oi ihc St.ltuic inc C'ourt. dcicrniiii,.,

III<cxi~ni ,>tth< C'<~utt'j\uri.~I~;i~o~ri.~tu,tt,,!n!~8t,,, ou~,!cr. .~c:ortiln~1%)
tlii,w:c~nd 3nnrwch. ,\rticIc XXXI i, ,15~,/c<m\td~rc..l.1, .n.lecl;i~.%tio6~
acknowledgkkt, made collectively, of the ohligatory jurisdiction of thc
Court. Nevertheless, it is indissociable from Article XXXII, which deter-
mines thc procedural conditions for seisin of the Court. Under this interpre-
talion of the Pact. Article XXXI. havine no autonomv. offers no access to the
Court other than that provided for in the following Articles; and, as has been
noted above, in Article XXXll such access is subiect to the two prior condi-
tions that conciliation should have failcd and thaï an attempt to establish an

arbitral procedure should have heen unsuccessful. Given the authoritative
status and the number of the authors who dcfend this thcory, il is not without
interest to cite certain of their most illustrative writines. and then to concen-
trate on determining the most important implicationsthereof; the merits of
this analysis will thus hecome apparent and it will he noted that, after depart-
ing from certain diflerent premises, it essentially results in consequences
which are very close, if no1exactly identical, to those resulting from the more
simple interpretation outlined earlier.

4.39. It was, firstly, the Secretary Gencral of the Organization of Ameri-
can States who. upon presenting the work accomplished by the Conference,
commented on the most important part of the Pact in the following terms:

shorrld it be the cas; thar the pakes have nor ugreed 10 sithmil the mirter
ro urhitration, either party has the right to lodge an Application hefore
the 1nternation;il Court of Justice, which necessarily has jurisdiction
under Article 36.2 of its Stat~te."~ (Emphasis added.)

'Ann van Wynen Thomas and A. JThomas, Jr.The Organiznrion ofAmrricon Srutes,
1963, SouthernMçthodistUniversity Press,Dallas,p. 290.
'See Report of the SecretaryGeneral ofthe Organization of AmericanStates 1949,
op. cir,p.48 (Ann. 37). MEMORIAI.OF HONDURAS 67

4.40. Morcover, to cite a fcw instances out of an abundant literature.
Mr. William Sanders. Alternale Delegate on the Delegation of the United
Statcs al the Conference of Bogota. observed. shortly alter the end of the
negotialion of the Pact. when commenting on the draft which linally pre-

vailed in the defitiitive version of the treaty

"in thcory no dispute could escape settlement. either by acceptance by
the ~arties of the results ofCood Offices. Mediation. Investie a1i.on or
~onciliation. or Jirilitig si'ch occeprance. hy a binding awardureached
through judicial or sirbitral scttlement of al1 disputes. whether legal or
tton-ligai in chririicter"' (emphasis added).

Hcrc again it is tu he noted that the two necessary prerequisites lu an
Application Io the Court arc the failurc of conciliation and of arbitration pro-
cegdings.
4.41. In an article on "L'é\~olution des idées en matière de rCglemcnt

pacifique dcs contlits" which appearcd in the Reviie gén4rnlede droir itirerrrfi-
rion<rlprihlic in 1951, Prolcssor Louis Delbeï adopted an analogous inter-
pretation2. In dcscribing, in thnt ;trticle, the system established by the I'act, hc
said:

"Normalement, la voie est la suivante. En premier lieu, la procédure
des "bons «Iliccs ci de la médiation". En cas d'échec, la procédure
d'"enquête et de conciliation", qui se déroulc devant une commission
d'enquête et de conciliation. qui devra donner son avis dans les six
mois. En troisième lieu. procédure devant la CIJ. Si la procédiire de

conciliariotr échoie. dispose l'article 32. l'une quelconque des parties
"aura le droit de porter la question devant la CI1 de la fason établie par
son statut. La compétencede la Cour sera obligatoire conformément au
paragraphe 2 de l'article 16 du meme statut"! Er voilà la Cour chargée
de reprendre er (le ~~,ir<iclieveIr'<~rtvre de In c,>n~iiirsionde concilinri»~i."'
(Emphasis added.)

'William Sanders. T)trOrgi?nizolir,n ojA»rcriconSiotes in Inrem~lioi~nC loriciliatioii.
.QA...,, .~-.~... r...,.-......rnAni
. 1'1,~<tp~nn.~cdul',ol~mc>lr>clhc, t, ~.cri:i~n.v~rxi LC~;OL th~; l~~nd~ n~>nncc-
th," I~~taccn .Iun~l;~t~rA.~lplk'~i~u CIthc {.duct ;,ntprdr t.>~lurc~>it'<tn:111:~ and snf
rc~.uiii,cio ,\rh6ir.ii.<iiLI I~IC \\.I101U~LC~I ttI.ML rdcJ \L.L,~$1.t>i I><>1.u li>r thc
n.x.11ngIcn.1,it~cllI~,the #.Icaih.tIlhc,~: .il.L:ln~i~~t~~n~ m.icir.'nk.~>hcl*c,.rt ihc
dilicr ~>~~>xJurc il\t.e~>r<oirJ~ri\ Ch:~pi;r, II:iiiIII Yi., IIil'.<ciifIl.ipi>ii<w> ~icii
pr<>viJc islttii,.nnJ.ni.,rc.iviriIi:iinicrprci.iii<>i, iiii.iiiil>.isiihcihc prsn .~i.ii,%<ot
..\rt.<IIllin.rc$>f
' L. Delbrz. " L'6v<iluiion des idks en malibrc de reglementpocifiquî desconflits".
RCBIP. 1951.pp. 5-22. p;iriiçul~rly11. 1.'ï'r<#nslorion:
"Normally,ihï rouieis ;islollows.Firstcornesthe procedure of 'GoodOffices and
Mediaiion'. In the çvçnt of failiirç,thcreconies the 'Investigation and Conciliation'

procedurewhich takcspl;icehefore a Commission of InvestigationandConciliation.
TheCommissionhosti>dçliverilsOpinionwithin sixrnonths.Thirdlycornesthepro-
cçdureheforç the IntcrnntionalCourt ofJustice.Article 32 providesthatif~heCor,-
cilialionproceilrrrefnil~,eithcrparty'shallhavetheright Io hring thequestionbrforc
the International Court of Justice in the manner laid down by the Statute of the
Court. Ths jurisdiciion ofthe Court will he compulsorypursuant IO Article 36.psra-
graph 2. of the rame Statutc.'tience iiiiliis~iriraiionthe Courrliasihedinyofruking
over urz<lfconiplrriizgrhe iuork ofIhe ConciliniioizConznrissions."68 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

It thus cmergesthat a reading of the Pact carried out by an analyst who had
absolutely nothing to do with the Bogota negoliations is in line with the inter-
pretation of one of the persans who took part in the said negotiations.
4.42. The same observation was made by Professor René-Jean Dupuy in

his work entitled Le riorrvrau panaméricanisme, publishçd in 1956.When com-
menting on the releviint provisions of the pact, he said:

"La Cour de La Haye a profitéde l'aspiration à la juridiction obliga-
toire qui s'est manifestée dans les Amériques. Le pacte de Bogotd, dans
son chapitre IV, article 31, proclamc celle de la Cour dç La Haye. Se
référant à l'article 36. oaraera~hc 2. la iuridiction de la Cour sur lous les
diffkrends juridiques, un des Etats parties , à un litige pourra citer l'autre

devant la Cour fursqiie fa procédure de conciliation arrraéchuriéoii qi~e[es
parties n'izuroni pus convenu cl'rrn recours à I'arhitrage."l (~rnphasis
added.)

4.43. In 1966. two publications appeared, both bearing the same title. The
Inrer-Americun Systet~t, although written by different authors. Both of thcm,
however, in interpreting Article XXXI in correlation with the following

Articles, placed equal emphasis on the prerequisites for a possible unilaie-
ral Application to the Court.
Thc first of these works is of particular authority because it was prcpared
bv the Inter-Americ:in lnstitute of lnternational Leeal Studies under the

résponsibility of ils Sccretary Gcneral F. V. ~arcia-Lador. That lnstitutc
had dçcided "to bring out a publication that would contain the basic Instru-
mçnts of the lnter-~mcricàn Svstem. with annotation". After havine de-
scribed the inter-locking of the &oced;res for settlemçtit in the Pact a& thc
articulation thereof established by Chapter IV concerning judicial settle-

rncnt, the authors observed:

"The ncw system establishcd obligatory judicial settlement as the de-
finitive method for the solution of controversies. The said setllcment
was ta be achievcd through the International Court of Justice and in
accordance with its Statute. Arbitration, on thc other hand. would only
be obligatory when the Court declared itself to bc without jurisdiction

10hear the controversy. Therefore, when examining the gcneral outline
of the system for peaceful settlement established in the Pacl, as is done
here. il should be oointed out. above all. that bv virtuc of Articlc XXXI

ipso facto, without the necessityof any special agreement so long as the
present Treaty isin force, in al1disputes of a juridical nature that arise
among them concerning . . .'Therc follow the four categories of dis-

'R.-J. Dupuy, Le noirveau pananréricanisme.Iëvulrrtion dit sysrèmeirrter-aniéricoiti
verrle fédéroli.~m eedoiie. 1956.p~~ 172.173. Trunslation:

"The Court at The Hague has profitedfrom the dcsire for acompulrory jurisdic-

.~~- .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ r.~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~- ~
conciliation procr<li<rehas failed or wlienrheparties have riotnpreed trpon recoime to MEMORIAI. OF HONDURAS 69

putes listcd in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statutc of the Interna-

tional Court of Justice. In this scnse. the oact itsclf constituics an un-
.x~nditi~~ii:~JlccI.ir:iti~~ii oi ilic t,Iurc~ccti ln thal article.
'l'lie l,>rr'&c~i~n~~t\t~th,i:indinqt,he c~>nlpuI\c~ry n:otur~.of th< judi~.i~~I
~~~~I~IIIcI I~>ul~j:ct.1%) l)c prc:ax. tu th^!:!ci I~I:!lhc C~~nc~l~:ilic~ Irw
wdurc zstiihlirhcJ iii tlic l';ici itr h! the il;ci\ii<ilthc p;irii~.> h.i\ii<it

Icd 1,) ;twItiti<~n in ,dJiti\>ii, th:it thc q~id n;trtic> h,.\\II\Bqrr'cd
on an Arbitral Proccdure. 011ly in r/re.secircrr,,;srances iiriry one Üfrlie
plirrie.~ crercise i1.sriglrr rr, Irrive recoiirse ro rlre Coirrr and the other,
therïforc, he subjcct to its jurisdiction (Article XXXIL)."' (Eniphasis
addcd.)

4.44. l'hc othcr work on the Intcr-Amcrican systcm. which appe~ired in
1966.in by Mr. Gordon Connel-Smith. Alter having dcscribed the substance
of Article XXXI. hc then notes:

"Any disputant is entitlcd to have recourse to the lntcrnational Court
itiIlle evetrr of fiiilrrrof ,f(ànciliiirionor ~rjireeinetrritpoti Arbilrnl Pro-

4.45. Somc ycars latcr. therc took placc an important international sympo-
sium on the Judicial Scttlement of lntcrnational Disoutes. oreaniïed bv the

Mau I'l;iiick Instilutc for Cilmp:ir,itii,c I'uhlic I.:i\:ilid 1nlcrii.îlii~ri;ii 1.aIl
!\,;o.ittcndcd hy \$>nie cilthc t,?p rpcci;il~sl~on Ihc \uhjcct 'l'wi, of thc pcr\on\
who or. .red Danc.s .nalvsedthc texts which are of;ntcrcst to us. and their
c<inclusionr. trhicli iicrc puhlibhcd III1'174.arc in pcricct :i$rcr'mr'nt
'l'hc firstir3s I:r:inciscu Carcia.Am;idor. :icling on th;.. i>cc;i\i<inin;ipcriai-
n:il c;ip:icii~. ,\fier incntioning the suhsi;iiicc nl Article XSXI. uhich :ickn<>iv-

Icclgcs tlirciinipul,i,r) ntilurc ol the juri~diclion of the (.'oiirl ;iccorilin~ ln Ihc
idrms 01 Article 36. p:,r.igr:,ph2. 01'~hcStliiutc. hr. i:iyr

"Chapter Four of the P;tct of BogotA pro\,ides for the so-called 'Judi-
cial Procedure'. beeinnine with ;iprovision accordine to which the H.C.
Parties .dcclarc th2 they"rccognizc. in rclation to Gy other American
State. the jurisdiction of the Court ascompulsory ip.sofacro. without the
ncccssity of any spccial aoecmcnt so long as the present Treaty is in
force. in al1 disoutcs of a turidical nature thnt arise amone thcm con-

ccrning . . .the'four c;iteghries of disputes listed in pragr6h 2 of Art.
36 of thc St;itutc of the ICJ. l'hus. the Pact itsclf constitutes an uncon-
ditional dcclaration of thc typc forcsccn in that article.
Iloivei~er, rivo co~r~lirio,~rrre ro be nier hefore cipirrry ro rhe dispirre is
oirirle~l ro /!<iverecorrrse ro rlic ICJ in the mnnncr prescribed in Article
40 of its Statute and beforc the Court has jurisdiction in accordancc

with Article 36 (1) of the said Statutc: namely, when the Conciliation
Procedure previously cstablished in the Pact or by agreement of thc
partics docs no1 Icad to ;isolution and thc said parties have no1 agreed
upon an arbitral proccdurc." (Emphasis addcd.)

'The second pcrson who delivcrcd a paper ;ilthe symposium was H~ns von
Mangoldt, who expresscd himsclf in the following terms:

' Inter-American lnstitute of Inicrniitional LegalStudics.TheInrer-AniericniiSvsreiri,
i1.Develup»ioir ritiSire,tgrl,oti>ig.1966.Occana. DobhsFerry. New York.p.79.
'Gordon Connel-Smith. ïïzcIrirer-A»ieric<itrSysre»i.Oxfnrd University Press. 1966.

p.211. MEMOKIAL OF HONDURAS 71

Hence until those conditions are met the Court itself will rcmain without
compctcncc. We shall revert later 10 the fact ihat this is of itself decisive in
the prcsent case in Icading Io the conclusion ihat the Court hasno jurisdiction

.I..ll'l'h~.:iutg,in;iii/.iii<,n. the incvii:ihilit.~ipc:icciul ~~iilcn~ciii. i>1nJcc.J
pr,i$i.lc.l fi~r hy ihc t';i:i. hul ni11in Arti.'lc XSSI th.rc,>i II 1,lurtlicr ,in. in
,\rtiilr XXSV. tI~.~ith,, .ippc:ir> \ihcr: tnc l'.ici prc,i.iJc,

"If the Court for any other reason dcclarcs itsclf to be without juris-
diction 10hear and adiudee the controversv. the Hieh Contractine Par-
ties obligatç thcmselvés submit itto arbitration.;n accordance with

the provisions of Chaptcr Five of this Treaty."

It should also be noted that if one adheres to the strict mcaning of the
ahove sentence. Arhiiration of las1resort ln01 10 be confused with the Arbi-
ir;iti<,n nicnitc,ncJ iiiAriiclr. SSXII) i, niIl!L.I <if iisclf ine\ii;ihlc.ncc:<uw II
rcni:iin, ;ii;iil:ihlci,nl\ in ihc c;xscs\vh~.rc ihc Ci)iiri h;is Jccl:irc<l itsclf i<>hc
without jurisdiction "for any orherreasons" than ihose mcntioned in Articles

~---~--~ and XXXIV'. The French tex1 of thc Trcatv is the onlv text that
extends the obl'&,ion to cmbark on Arbitration of lasi rcsort to ai the cases
where the Court ;icknowledpes that is has no iurisdiction. (Il reads as follows:
"Si poirr irneraisoti~l~relcon<lrrle a,Cour sed&lcl;irait iticompétcnte ...", which

translates as: "If /or ~iriyrelison wharsocver,the Court declares itself to be
without jurisdiction . ..".)
4.50. Howcvcr. without eoine ..to ..is sidc issue. il rernains the case that
in ;iny cvcnt il I,noi ihc Couri ii\clf whiili is ;IIihe cnJ <>Iihc proccdur.il ri,:id

pr<~viJr.Jfor hv ihc l':ici. hi11Arhiir;~iii,n. politic;il dr ~uridic;il. Jcpcnilin,: <,n
ihe nature of Chedisoute
4.51. It is irue thjt the jurisdiction of thc Couri is ..hindingV. This means
that when a party is brought bçfcire ilby another pziriy having used ils right to

submit an Application unilalerally. it cannot deny that the Court hasjurisdic-
tion. However. this docs not mean that the jurisdiction of the Court is auio-
matic. The Court will only hear the case provided ihzit therc is no reservation
excludinr iurisdiction and provided also that the Iwo conditions laid down in
Article XXXII arc mct. '

4.52. Now how docs al1 this relate to the prescnt case? Even if Nicaragua
were able to dcmcinstratc thc existence of ztdispute bctwïcn itsclf and Hon-
duras "which, in the opinion of the parties, cannoi be settled by direct nego-
tiations through the usual diplomatic channels" (Art. II). evidence of which.

as we have seen. has no1 been forthcoming. could il.beyond that. show firstly
that an unfruitful attempt at Conciliation has takcn place hetween the Par-
ties. and secondly ihai alter noting the failure of the Conciliation attempt.

'Itshould he h~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~nd that Article XXXlll reitcralesin anothcr form the rule
laid downin Article 36. paragraph6.of the Statute of Ihc Courl. accordingtu nhich: "ln
theevent of a dispuic as ti>whriher theCourt hnrjurisdiciion. thematler shallbr scttlcd
bv the decision of thc Court." Article XXXIV cavçrs ihc cascs in which the Court has
déclarçd itsçlfincompçtçntbecauseit hasrulçd ihat thç quçstioiisin disputefall wiihin
thenaiionaljiirisdiciiSotn n<tes(fprsuantioAr1iclc Vof ihc Pact).orbccauscthosc
questionshavç;ilrcady hcensettledbymeans of iin;igrçemïnt hçtwççnthepartiçs.or by
an Arbitralion Award or hy iidecisionof an in1ernation:ilcourt (Art. VI). or bccause. as

regards theprotection of the nationalsof one of the parties.thc saidnationalshaveno1
exhaustedthe inirrnal legalactionsavailableio them hçlore thç courts of theparty con-
cerned(Art. VII).72 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Honduras and Nicarzigua have failed Io agree upon recourse to Arbitration'?
Of course not!
So it is understandable that Nicaragua has carefully avoided any reference
in its Application to Article XXXII. which, however, is indissociable from
Article XXXI in the opinion of most authors.
4.53. In the view of certain other commentators of the Pact. il shniild he

miltiral agreement, without haviug first to go through the stages of failed CO"-
ciliation and failed attempt at Arbitration, as provided for in Article XXXII.
There is nothing in the body of the Pact itself that expressly permits this
possibility. Nevertheless, the reason for mentioning this possihility is that in
1949the Secretary General of the Organiration of American States was one
of the very few cornnientators on the Pact, if not the only one, who envisaged
this hypothetical case. Commenting on the right of choice offered by the Pact
between various procedures (hence he had in mind. without expressly saying

so, the rulc laid dowii in Article III) he said:
"lt might occur, for example, that from the iime of di,srrrption of di-
rectnegotintions in a given case, there might be rrgreement to submit the
dispute to arhitration or to the International Court of Justice, without

resorting to conciliation or good offices and rnediation."' (Emphasis
added.)
Once again, the difficulty that he has in admitting such an interpretation

cornes from the fact that it is not based on any express provision of the Pact.
However, supposing that ilis admissible, a supposition that merits examina-
tion, given the standing of the author from whom it emanates, that possibility.
as will be seen. would itself be subject to two conditions. neither of which is
met in the present case.
Firstly, it would be necessary. in the opinion of the Secretary General, for
negotiations to have taken place previously between the parties, and for those
negotiations to have Cailed.However. it is established that nothing of the kind

took place between Nicaragua and Honduras concerning the subject-matter
of the Application of Nicaragua.
Secoridlv, and above all. under Article III, an ao~r..ch to the Court would
hc ni:tdc ijn thch.i,i>uf .inc\ipr~,>;i~rcc~~icnt. LI>IIII>~I,I~IICI~C~ II1~1\10
\Istt~,,ln othcr \tords. suc11 ,III:~~~I~,,:I:II.innc!t:~n\i\lc~ i iii~iI:,tcr;,lApplt.
c:iiion .t\1,~ir<ir.i,lrictr in Ariiclc~.XSXI :inJ XXXII oi ih~ l'~ct. hltire<i\c.r.
a unilateral'~~~lication, as has becn amply demonstrated, requires that thé
two Stages of Conciliation and of an attempt at Arbitration should first have

failed.
4.54. It seems. in anv event. that an illustration of this flexible oractice is
to be found in the circu~stances in which the same two States, ~ohuras and
Nicaragua, were led to submit a dispute to the Court which resulted in thc

Article III readsasfollows:

See Report of thcSecrctary Gcncral of theOrganization ofAmerican States, 1949,
op. cit,p.49 (Ann 37). MEMOKIAI. 01' IlONl>URAS 73

Judgment of 18November 1960in the caseconcerningthe Arbitrril Aword Made
by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906'.

In that case. unlike the preseiit case. there evidently was a difference of a
properly bilateral character. which went back almost to the rendering of the
Arbitration Award of 1906. Hence the dispute had lasted. al the lime when it
was suhmitted to the Court, for somcwhat morc than 40 years! Il had gone
through successive phases of attempts at negotiation: North American Good

Offices (1918-1920).then renegotiations. then Tripartite Mediation (Costa Rica.
United Statesand Venezuelain 1937).l'hose different stagesare descnbed in the
Judgment of the Coun of 1960:

"Certain incidents hetwecii the two Parties having taken place in
1957, the Organization of American States, acting as a consultative
body, was led to deal with the dispute with the result that on 21 Julv
195;. Honduras and Nicaragua reached an agreement at Washington b)

virtue of which they undertook 10submit 'to the InternationalCourt of
Justice . ..'the disagreement existing betwcen thcm with respect to the
Arbitral Award hzinded down on 23 December 1906."'

4.55. It is thus to be noted that the diplomatie circumstances and the con-
ditions in which the jurisdiction of the Court wzis acknowledged hy the two
Parties were utterly different from thosc in the prcsent case. On thc contrary,
such circumstances and conditions were in linï with those mentioned by the
Secretary General in his report of 1949. In ;iny cvent. the Honduro-Nicara-

guan Agreement of 21 July 1957 (Ann. 3XA), while it invokes the application
of the Pact of Bogota, does no1 çxpressly mention cithcr Article XXXll or
Article XXXI.
4.56. The judicial procedure in thï case of the Arbitration Award was
indced set in motion by a unilziteral Application submitted by Honduras.

However, as stated by Judge Koberto Ago in his individual opinion on the
Judgment of26 November 1984in the Milinrry ori(1I'arunrilitory Activiries in
anri agoinsl Nicurrigrm case, apart from the faci that the Applicant invoked
the recoenition of the comoulsorv iuri.d,ction of the International Court of
J1i3tirc srlrnt~J h) ilicin,, si ni^,<rnIhc h:i\~r ,\IIICIC 3h. pi1r:iSr;lph2 Ir,.II

.iI.o rclicd on th: ,\~rcr.mcni of ?l Jul!, 1957 hlorcuicr .\'IC~~;I<U~.in 11s
(.'iiuiitr.r-\lc~ni<iri:ickiii>ir.I~~J~erilh;il Ilic s;iirl ,\crccmrh:sd lhr. Ice:ib1.1-
tus of a special agreement3. ~ic consensual basiFof the competenc~of the
Court was thus firmly established. and. obviously. il was established without
any reference 10 Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota.
4.57. To return to the analvsis of the imnlications of the interoretation hv
~,
majority doctrine of Article XXXI. and alter havi~g~mPhasizcd ihc fact that.
accordinp to such interpretation. Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota is not
autonomius as compa;ed with the other provisions of Chapter IV. within
which il is situated, and that ils dual function is to establish the compulsory
(no1 automatic) nature of the jurisdiction of the Court and to define its com-

petence hv .ef.rence to the terms of its Statute. it is now useful to examine in
qrc;ilcr Lir.t.iIIic i1i;iiinciiiu,lii;h. iiiiiithis intr.rprct.iti~~n. the ;irti.~ul~ti~~ii
i..cst.ihli\hr.d hetuccn ,\riiclc 10. p:ir;i+r;iph2. of tlic St;ituir. of ihr. 1ntcrn;i-
1iiiii:('c~urt ol Jiisticc ;inJ ,\rticlr. XXlI iif the Pict II iiiIIhc.no1r.dih:it thc

'ICI. Reports 1960, pp.192-218.
llbid., p. 203.
'1.C.J Reports19,P4. p.529, par.?.1574 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACI'IONS

first interprctation of the Paci, as has hein described above.

lndeed, even if, undcr this second interpretation. Article XXXI does not
necessarily mean that a unilateral declaration of acknowledgment of the
jurisdiction of the Court is made by each Party in application of the Pact,
reasons still exist which lead to the same conclusion, but which this time are
based on an analysis of the substantial bonds between Article XXXI of the
Pact and Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.

4.58. The bond between Article XXXI and Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
Statute of the Court as regards both wording and function niust be empha-
sized once again on this occasion. Article XXXI is. from both those two
points of vicw, a copy of the other, inserted into a treaty that is more broadly
devoted to the whole set of procedures for the peaccful sçttlement of dis-
putes. In particular. the expression in Article XXXI, according to which the

Member States "recoenize . . .the iurisdiction of the Cour- ~s comnulsorv
ipsofacto, without the necessity of any special agreement ... in al1disputes of
a iudicial nature. . ." (Art. 36, para. 2, says "in al1legal disputes") practically
constitutes a verbatimreoroduction of the orovision Ofthe statute Îo which ct
rcfers. The same is truc if the lisi of disputes that lend themselves to judicial
procedure. which is worded as follows:

"(a) the interpretation of a treaty;
(b) any question of international law;
/cl the existence of anv fact which. if established. would constitute the
, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
breach of an international obligation;
(dl the nature or estent 01the reparation to be made for the breach of
an international obligation."

The wording is precisely the same in the two Articles, i.e.. Article XXXI of
the Pact and Articlc 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, whether the texts be read
in the English. French or Spanish versions (Anns. 34 through 36).
4.59. This is what was observed, for example, shortly after the negotiation
of the Pact, by one of the persons who took part in the negotiations, the Mexi-

can Ambassador Roberto Cordova. a formerJudge of the Court, in an article
published in the Inter-American Legal Yearbook for 1948: "El articulo 31 . . .
no hace sino reproducir el articulo 36 del Estatuto de dicha Corte"' ("Article
31 . . docs not do ünything other than reproduce Article 36 of the Statute of
the said Court".)
In other words, whether the more literal interpretation of Articlc XXXI is

adoptcd, or the interpretation favoured by majority doctrine, Article XXXI
does not create a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court that is independent
of the recognition ihereof under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Whether one adopts the initial theory, which is preferable because it is the
most faithful ta the precise language of the tcxt of Articlc XXXII of the Pact
(which refers ta Article 36. paragraph 2. of the Statute, as opposed to Article

XXXI. which refers to Article 36. oaraer..h 1).u . whether one adoots the
theor; upheld by the majority of authors, accoiding ta whom ~rticle'~~~~
gives a definition rationenlaterinr of the jurisdiction of the Court, but remains

'Kobcrto Cordova,"El tratado americano desoluciones pacificar.Pacto de Bogota",
in Anirorioj~rridicinrern»iéricono. 1948.p. 12. MEMORIALOF HONDURAS 75

subject. in so far ;ts the conditions for unilateral seisin oï the Court are con-
cerned. to the ïulïilmcnt of the conditions laid down in Article XXXII, the
same result is rezichcd as 10 the links between Article XXXI and Article 36.
paragraph 2, oï the Statute of the Court: such links ;ire substantially links of
identity, which rerider Article XXXI completcly dependent on the conditions
of Article 36. paragraph 2. This is, moreover, what Nicaragua itself, in ac-
cordance with the second interpretation, affirmed in ils Memorial in the Mili-
rary and Prtramilirery Aciiviiie.~in <rn<lugoir~srNicorcigir<rcase', in which il

States that Article XXXI is really a declaration of acknowledgment of the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of Article 36. paragraph 2.
From a legal point of view it mus1 be recognized that nothing in the letter or
in the spirit of that Article prevents the acknowledgment of jurisdiction being
made collectively.
4.60. The languagc of Article XXXI. which repeats Article 36. para-
graph 2. word for word. and the express reference that it establishes. clearly
confirms that this collective will was indced the will of the Parties. It follows
that the scheme oï Article XXXI. which, according to majority opinion. is
indissociable [rom Article XXXll in the intern;il f~tmework of the Pact of

BogotA. is equally dependent on the scheme oï Article 36. paragraph 2. of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice and <inthe conditions on which
the optional dcclarati<ins accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
signed by the Statcs. establish ils jurisdiction. Thereforc, when a condition;il
declaration of zicceptance of the jurisdiction oï thc Court is made by a State
on the basis of Article 16. oaraeraoh 2. of the Statute. the conditions con-
cerned operate bctwccn pariies the Pact of BogolAjus1 as much as they do
with States that are no1 members of the Pact'.

D. TIIE EFFECï OFRESERVATIONS IN THECONTEXTOFTHE
ALTERNATIVEANALYSE OF ARTICLEXXXI OFTHE PACI

1. The EJfe<:r of Re.servations Io Dec1arariori.sco,~cerni,tg Articlr 36,
Parograph 2, of rhe Srortireof rhe Coirri

4.61. In the contcxt of the more literal intcrprctntion of the Pact, adopted
in the uresent Memorial al oaranrauhs 4.12 and 4.35 to 4.36 above. it has
been sien that the rcservalions niadewith respect to the unilateral decl'aration

of acknowledgmciit of the jurisdiction of the Court. niade by Honduras on

'Memorial01Nirariigua.para.93.noie 2.and p.52.
turc (the UnitedStntcshastnuiPraiifiedtheTreaty)appçarsinitselftobesuperfluous. For
the thirdmrseranh of the Reservationsales:
. .. .
"The acceniancçhvthe UnitedStatesofthe iurirdictiun ofthe InternationalCourt
<iiJusiicc.,irinil>ul~i;rp\r,f.rr, :ii~ii~li~~.ii~~ccaig:r~r.~,m.riA,.,vidrJinihir
Trc;~t!.0,II"I.ICh! ,#n!j~or~~.l~~~l o#~~thctr l~nu~t;,in~~~\111.~1#o;i~v lk:l:~r:~-
ii.,J~.p.wleJ hi,ihc lJii.lcJ Si;.ieiiiii<le!,\r36..i.i-.irr;2.iitth<Si;,iutcilth<
Court.and info;cçat the limeofihe submission ofiinycase."
Flowever. inrr;ilityihai RescrvaticinissystcmaticnllymiirlçthçUnited Statesbyway
ofprecautiooinnllthernultiliiterilltrraties ta whilisa pariyandwhichmnkeprovision
forthrjurisdictionolthçCourt. Iisin asense astylisticcl;iusOn thisAmericanpractice.
see JosephSummers."Prrsent Trends inthe Policyof theU.S. on the LegalSettlçmçnl of
InternationalDisputes". VirginieJoirriinlofInlcrtiarf~>/.<!W1963.pp.201-209.76 BORDER ANI) TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

22 May 1986.obviously apply as conditions for the seisin of thc Court on the
basis of Article XXXI or ihe Pact of Bogoti, since the declaration has the
very purpose of supplementing that Article. by accomplishing the rcquire-
ment exuressed therein.
Il one :iJopti the second :iltr.rn.iii\c ini~~rprcisti<in.t 111u\thc ~hscrvc<ltIi:it.

.n :ircbult <ifIhc ~uh\i:iiit~~clink. rvh.ch ii .il\c;ickn<iuIcdgcJ undcr th!, IIII~I-
prct;itiun. hcti\.~cn ,\riiclc XSXl aiid r\rticlc 3h. r>;ir:irrdr>h2. of the St.iiutc.
the result is thç samc. This observation is of course ofdikct relevancc to thç
present case. Indeed, it should hc remembered that Honduras rendered ils
declaration on thc jurisdiction of the International Court of Justicc on 22 May
1986 subiect to four liescrvalions. The analvsis that has been made above has

they are on the basis oï Article 36. paragraph 2, of the Statute.

2. Effecr of Reservurio~iscotlcerning rhe Pacr of Bogori

4.62. Conversely, Siate prnciice has acknowledged the bond esiablished
between. this time, the Pact and the acknowledement of the comnulsory iuris-
- ..
diction of the Court on ihe basis of its Statute.
The practice occurred in the previous case brought before the Court in-
volving Honduras and Nicaragua (the King ofSpain case). In that case. as has
becn scen. the hasis of the iurisdiction of the Court. which was acknowledecd
h<tlh h! h~c;ir:tgu.i :fiid h, bl<,riJur;i~.c<>rhi\ic<lvl Ihc Agrr~r~tiicntni:,Jc for
th:#(piIrpiSc Ii~taccii the tr\<, St.ilcr;iiiJc<rn.4uJcJ ci1?I Julv 1057
.4.11 \.tli~tu~h tlic circunl>t;ln<c\ S ~ 111:act:i,c cc~t~ldpcrh.ip. h:,r: AMI>II-
tuted grounds For a unilatcrsil invocation of the com&tcncc oï thï Court

under Article XXXll (hecause in that case there was an attempt at Concilia-
tion which failcd, and becüuse the contested Arbitration of 1906 was a1 thc
oriein of the disou.e). .he Parties nevertheless deemed il neccssarv to have
rcwur\c 1,).i <.OIII~I~IIII I.>c>rJcr v:i11.11!10 iuhnlit .in r\pplic:iiii,n to ihc
Cuurt '1li;itn;ir neccwr) 1!1or,l<,ï10 b,>'1h11 <> ,.IIIOJI!,,,I111,I.,/>.,IIIC,~>>I.
orr~~r ot III<,Ktwr,~<irrmi,>rr<<lh rl .\'ici,r.r*.rri,rli~ I1i<<-ri Hogo~,;.For ihc
very puÏpose of that ~eservation>as to $eveni an Applic~tionUio the Court
hy Honduras concerning the applicability of the Award of 1906'.

The clear assumpiion was that the elïect of the Nicaraguan Rcservation.
apart from the case oï a special agreement overriding il. automatically extcnded
to the provisions of ihc Staiute. Since the Reservation applied to Article
XXXI. il also applied. by virtuc of that very fact, to that Articlç's reference
provision. namely Article 36. paragraph 2. Hence it was that a Nicarüguan

The tex1ofthe Nic:iraguanKçservationreads asfollows:

"The NicaraguanDeleg;ition. on givingilsapprovalIothe Arncrican'l'reaty on Pa-
cificSettlement(Ricl of Boc-.A)wishçsto recordexnress.vtha, no iirovisiiincm-
tainrd inthe siiiiTrçiity rnayprcjudiceanypositionassurncdhythe bovçrnniçnt ol
Nicaraguawithrespccl 10nrhitrsitdecisionsthe validityofwhich ithascontealcd un
the basisofthe ~rinci~lesof intrrnatiunal Iaw.whichclearlv~errnitarhitraldecisiiins
to he attackcd bhcn ihcy are adjudgedIo be nuIl or invalidated.Consequçntly.the
signatureolthr Nicaragua"Uclcgationto theTreaty inqucstioncannatbe;illçgçd as
an acceptanceofanynrbitraldrcisionsthal Nicara~uahascontestedand the validiiy
ofwhichisno1cert;Ïin.
Hence the NicaraguanDelcgationreiteratesthe statementmadc on the 28th01the
currentmanth on approvingihetexi 01the above mentionedTreaty in CornniitteeIII." MEMORIAI. OF HONDURAS 77

H~~~r.rv.tiio n,) Ilip;i[i oi 131t.yiii:pirr.\r.ntr.J juri\Jiiiii>n h.ii>iithc Si,tiiiie
Siiiiil.irl\. hut ciinicrx~l)rrcn<,u,h.i\c .,Il.in.ltir.in Kc.~cr,aii.iti,thL.Sr.itut;

ii111<1Iirc\~ni, ;in\ ~~i\~ic:ll~iiit lhc P:i,ti>l 1liiiui;i i,\rtSXSIl
4.64. This ideniitv of the schçmes of ackno3edement of thecnmnetence
of the Court under ihe Pact and undcr the statut; is the only &siruetion
which avoids the risk of inconrvatibilitv between two distinct declarations
made by one and the same ~tatc'and boih establishing the jurisdiction of the
Court. For othcrwise that State would risk being exposed to the jurisdiction
under certain conditions pursuant to one declaration, and under other condi-
tions oursuant to the other dcclar;ition. Such could oarticularlv be the case

(vara. 4.24). that in the event of contradiction between the~con~ditionsfor an

-.
by the general systcm
4.65. Doubtless such a duality of schemcs of recognition is theoretically
not inconceivüble. For example, many cases exist in which, in parallel to a
declüration under Article 36. naraeraoh 2. made unilaterallv and rendered

ship and co-operation. The State conccrned does so becausç. haviig regard to
the nature of the relationship that it has traditionally had with that other
State, it takes the view that there is no point in rcstricting the compctïnce of
the Court, acknowledgcd elsewhere on the hasis of Article 36. But that is thc
difference between jurisdiction undcr Article 36, paragraph 2, and Article 36.
paragraph 1, of the Statutc. Different conditions are contemplated for juris-
diction under Article 36, paragraph 2.

3. Exnmir~rrtionof the Intenri»n of Hondirras in the Presenr Crise

4.66. The whole point here is tliat on this subject cverything depends on
the clear expression of the intention of the State concerned. because jurisdic-
tion ultimately rests on consent.
In the present case, there is rio doubt at al1about the intention of Hondu-
ras. For it is a fact that, although no lcgal consideration rendered such forrnal-
ity necessary. with a view to preventing any ambiguity as to the interpretation
of ils intention. the Governmcnt r>l the Republic of Honduras, thrriugh its
Minister of Foreign Affairs. adopted the course, scarcely four days later, of

communicating to the Sccretary General of the Organizütion of American
States the tcxt of the Hondurari declaration of 22 May 1986 altering its pre-
vious declaration and statine cxorçsslv that the new Reservations annlied to

transrnitted to'all the member States of thé~rganization of American States
by the Sccrçtary General therecif, on 30 Junc 1986.
Moreovcr. so Caras the Government of Honduras is aware. no objection,
either from Nicaragua or from any othcr country was raiscd by anv of the78 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARhlED ACTIONS

member States of the Organization upon the receipt of the new version of the
Declaration of Honduras'.

4. Conclrisions

4.67. Thus, to sunimarize al1 of the views put forward above, il must be
noted that the Pact of Bogoti does no1 offer any basis of jurisdiction in the
prcscnt case, and that il does not (as was observed al the very beginning of
these pleadings) offer any basis for the admissibility of the Application of
Nicaragua.
4.68. Under the most literal, and therefore the most simple, interpretation
of the terms of the Pact, Article XXXI, in establishing the obligatory juris-
diction of the Court. at thc same lime requircs the additional subscription.
by each of the Parties, of a unilateral declaration of acknowledgment of its

jurisdiction, as provicled for by Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court. to
which Article XXXI of the Pact makes express refercnce. The reservations
attached to such declarations, as in the case of the declaration of Honduras of
22 May 1986,therefore apply both in the context of the application of Article
XXXI and on the sole basis of the Honduran declaration itself.
4.69. Under the alternative interpretation presented above, in order Io
take into accoiint the opinion exprcssed by the majority of the most wcll-
informed authors, there are not only one but two scries of reasons for this
lack of any basis of jurisdiction. The two series of reasons are independent of
each other, and each of them would of itself be sufficient. For neither an
analysis of thc Pact as such, nor an analysis of the terms of Article XXXI,
which introduces Chaptçr 1V of the Pact, produces any ground on which the
jurisdiction of the Court may be founded in this case.

(i) Article XXXI is in itself indissociable from the other provisions of
Chapter IV. That Article renders the jurisdiction of the Court compulsory in
the case where an Application is submitted to the Court unilaterally by a
Latin American State which is a party to a dispute with another Statc having
ratified the Pact of Boeota. However. such a unilateral Aoolication is itself
rendered subject by ticle XeXXll 16 two conditions: a conciliation Proce-
dure must have been exhausted without fruitful result, and Arhitration mus1
manifestlv have been reiected. Yet nçither of those two conditions is met in
the presént case

4.70. A broad interpretation of the Pact, and in particular of Article 111
thereof, could possibly permit States in dispute to submit the matter directly
to the Court without going through the prerequisites providcd for in Article
XXXll and mentioned above. However thev could onlv do so. as aooears

a compromis. No such compromis exists in ihe present case
(ii) Moreover, the very wording of Article XXXI makes it perfectly clear
that that Articleis itself derived from Article 36, paragraph 2. of the Statute
of the lnternational Court of Justice, and that il has no autonomy whatsoever
as regards Article 36, paragraph 2. Therelore the reservations to which the

declaration by Honduras of its acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice of 22 May 1986was rendered subject are reser- MEMORIAL OF HONDUKAS 79

vations which also apply to the declaration made jointly by thc Statcs party to
the Pact of Bogoti on the basis of Article XXXl thereof. Those reserva tions.
as has been scïn above. expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the Court in
disputes having a subject-matter such as the subject-matter covered by Nica-
ragua's Application.
This identity of scheme betu,een a declaration under Article XXXl and a
declaration under Article 36. paragraph 2, of the Statute is morcover con-

firmed by the intention of Honduras, which was duly comrnuniczitedIo al1the
American States, and to which neither Nicaragua nor any other State raised
any objection.
Thus. whatevcr may be the intcrpretation adopted, bc it the more litcral
interpretation or the alternative interpretation, the Court clearly has no juris-
diction in the present case.80 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

In view of the facts and arguments set forth in the preceding parts of this

Memorial, the Government of Honduras requests that it may please the
Court Io adjudge and declare that:
As 10 Admissibiliry:

The Application of Nicaragua is inadmissible because:
1. It is a politically-inspired, artificial request which the Court should no1
entertain consistently with ils judicial character.
2. The Application is vague and the allegdtions contained in it are no1
properly particularized, so that the Court cannot entertain the Application
without substantial prejudicr to Honduras.

3. Nicaragua has failed to show that, in the opinion of the Parties, the
dispute cannot be seitled by direct ncgotiations, and thus Nicaragua fails to
satisfy an essential precondition to the use of the procedures established by
the Pact of Bogoti, which include reference of disputes to the International
Court of Justice.
4. Havine acceoted the Contadora orocess as a "soeciai oroccdure" within
the meaning of ~.rtid II of the Pact OfBogoti, ~icaraguais precluded both
by Article IV of the Pact and by elementary considerations of gond faith from
commencing any other procedure for pacifie settlement until such tirne as the
Contadora process has been concluded; and that time has no1 arrived.

As 10 Juris<licrion:
The Court is not competent Io entertain the Application of Nicaragua be-
cause:

1.The dispute as alleged by Nicaragua is excluded from the jurisdiction of
the Court by the terms of the Honduran declaration of 22 May 1986, and such
declaration applies whether the jurisdiction is alleged to exist on the basis of
Article XXXl of the Pact of Bogota or Article 36, paragraph 2, ol the Statute
of the Court.
2. Alternatively. Article XXXI cannot be invoked as a basis ofjurisdiction

independently i)fArticle XXXII, and the latter Article precludes any unila-
teral Ap. .cation to the Court except where:
(O, i<iiicili.~tic,npri,i:JurIi.ivc hecn iinJcrycinc~\\.itli,i.i><~liiii<i<i?,<I
111, inc 13;,riic;;i\.cmur ;tgrscJ un .,n :+rhiir;>lpro;cdurc

Neither condition is satisfied in the present case.
3. Jurisdiction cannot be based on Article 36, paragraph 1,of the Statute of
the Court because States parties to the Pact of Bogoti have agreed in Articlc
XXXII that a unilateral Application, bascd on the Pact of Bogota, can only be
made when the two conditions enumerated in (a) and (b),paragraph 2 above.
have been satisfied,and such is not the case with the Application of Nicaragua.

(Signed) Marin CAR~AS,

Agent of the Republic of Honduras. Volume II

ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

OF HONDURAS

Annex 1

RESOLUTION II APPROVED BYTIIEXVIITH MEETINGOFCONSULTATION
OFMINISTERS OFFOKEIGNRELATIONS OF THEORGANIZA'I'IOO NF
AMEKICAN STATES (OAS), 23 JUNE 1979

17th Meeting of Consult;iti«n of OEAISer.FI11.17
Ministcrs of Foreign Relations Dac. 40179,Rcv. 2
21 Scpteniher 1978. 23Junc 1979
Washington. D.C. Original: Spanish.

Resolution II
(Approvçd by the 7th I'lenary Session held on 23 lune 1979)

The 1711Mrering of Cot~srtlral(11rhe Mitzisrersof Foreign Relarions.

Considering:
That the people of Nicaragua are currently sufferingthe horrors ol a cruel
arms struggle which is causing immense suffering and loss of human life and
has brought the St;tte to a grsvc political and social and economicconvulsion;

That the inhuman conduct of the ruling dictatorial régime in that country.
as evidenccd by the report of thc Inter-American Commission of Human
Rights. is the fundamental cause of the dramatic situation which the Nicard-
guan people is undcrgoing:
That the spirit of solidariiy that the relations in this hemisphere inspire
renders ineluctablc the obligation of the American countries to undertake al1
efforts within thcir rcach to put ;in end to thc spilling of blood and to avoid
the prolongation of this conflict continuing to disturb the peace of thc conti-
nent.
Declores:

That thc solution to thc grnvc prohlems belongs exclusively to thc Nicara-
guan people.
That in the opinion of lhc 17thMeeting of Consultation of the Ministers of
Foreign Relations this solution should draw its inspiration [rom the following
bases:

1. lmmediate and definitive rcplaccmcof the Somoza régime.82 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

2. Installation in Nicaraeuan territory of a democratic eovernment. the
composition of which shoul~include the principal representat~vc groups which
oppose the Somoza régime and which reflects the free will of the peop~. of
Nicaragua.
3. Guarantee of the rçspect for human rights of al1Nicaraguans witliout
exception.
4. The holding of free elôctions as soou as possible, that will lead to the
establishment of a triily democratic government that guarantees pçacc, free-
dom and justice.
Resolves:

1. To encourage thc member States to take al1actions within their ability
to facilitate a durable and pacific solution to the Nicaraguan problcm on the
above-indicated basis, scrupulously respecting the principle of non-interven-
tion and abstaining from any action which would go contrary to such basis, or
which would be inconipatible with a durable and pacific solution to the prob-
lem.
2. To eng"e- ils efforts to Dromote humanitarian assistance to the DOD.-.
lation and to contribute 10 the social and economic recovery of the country.
3. Maintain open the 17th Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign
Relations so long as the present situilion subsists. ANNEXES l'OTHEMEMORIAL

Annex 2

GARCiA. AND THE CO-ORDINATOR OF THE NATIONALRECONSTRUCTION
COVERNING SUPITA OF NICARAGUA.COMMANDER IN THE REVOLUTION

DANIEI.ORTEGA SAAVEDRA AS A RESULTOFTHEIR MEETING ON 13MAY
1981ATTHEFRONTIER STATION OFELGUASAULEN , ICARAGUA1 .3MAY 1981

On invitation by the National Reconstruction Governing Junia of Nica-

ragua. the President of the Republic of Honduras, General Policarpo Paz
Garcia held n meeting with the Co-ordinator of the National Reconstruction
Governing Sunta of Nicaragua. Commander in the Rcvolution Daniel Ortega
Saavedra.
During the conversations which were held, both representatives, in an at-
mosphere of great cordialily. as is proper, between representatives of sister
countries exchanged points if view on rnatters of common interest, showing a
high spirit of Statesmanship which characterizes the two countries sharing a
common origin and destiny.
Foremost in the matters dealt with al the meeting was the analysis 01the
problerns that have arisen along the frontier between the two countries. inde-

pendent of the wishes of the Govcrnrnents of Nicaragua and Honduras. re-
sulting in an apparent degree 01mistrust.
During the meeting, both representatives agreed to cal1on the niedia to
moderate the tone and treatrnent being given 10the problerns whichad been
arising. as the best contribution which such media could make to the process
of ncorning together and peaceful solution to any problem which could exist.
They also reiterated their firm conviction that the solution to any problern
should be sought hy means of s direct dialogue in accordancc with the rulcs
laid down hy International Law.
Both representntives agreed on a programme for the following meetings:

The lirst meeting will be held in Teeuciealoa al the Içvcl of the Ministcrs
lor Foreign ~elaiitns and its objectivëwilï béthe exchange of opinions re-
gnrding the international politic;il situation and relationships bctween the
iwo sister countries.
The second nicctiog. 10 be held in Managua, will he at the Ievel of the
Ministers forDefence and Chiefs of Staff and ils purpose will be the prepara-
lion ol plans for combined action in order to elirninate the risks of further
incidents in the froniier zone.

They both expressed their intention to warn poteniial hijackcrs of aircraft
or ships thar they will no1 fi-d either in Honduras or in Nicara~ua - any
tv,e of orotection or asvlum
The ?;o-i>rtJ~n:~ioi thc X\l:ii~oiinlRcconiiructi~~ii C;ni,ernin~ Juid~i
Nic;ar:i-u.i. C<,mni;inJIIihr. I<~~~~luii~~tinicl Orlcg;i S:i;,\c<lrii.ci,rJi;illy
in\iicd the I1rc<iildn,Ithc Kcpuhlii ol Ilonduras. (;cncr;il i'<dic:irpi':ii.
Garcia. forithigh Içvcl delegation Io visit Nicaragua on the occasion'of the84 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Celehration on 19July, thc second anniversary of the triumph of the People's

Sandinista Revolution.
They both expressed their deep satisfaction al thc successfulconversations
which had heen held and expressed their wishes for the happiness of the sister
nations of Nicaragua and Honduras.

El Guasaule. Repuhlic of Nicaragua, 13 May 1981 ANNEXIZS 1'0 'I'IIEMEMORIAL

Anncx 3

OF HONDURAS TO 'THE PBKMANBN'C I'OUNCIL OF THE ORCANIZNION 01:
AMERLCAN STATES((]AS), 23 MARCH1982(EXCERPTS)

(7I.nnslnriori)

. . .Honduras is aware and iirmlv believes that Central Americ;iri ocacc

can bc achicvcd, but only if we L.«mh;nehonest will with the sincere intintion
of the interested parties to solve situations of conflict by pcaccful nieans in
order to achieve résoonsible.serious and oermanent undekiandines for o-ace.
justice and liberty.
Being fully aware of these purposes and responsibilities. the Government
of Honduras proposes. from this Forum of the Americas:

firsr. To la\, down immediatelv the bases in order to achieve eeneral disar-
mament in théregion which woukl involve no1only the cessatiorÏof the arma-
mcnts race which has broupht s<iniuch tension and disequilibrium Io Central
Amcrican and ~ontinenia1;elalionshi~s but a true reduilion in weapons and

mcnts and~c~iteri;~accented universallv an2 recocnized in anv democraiic so-
CI CIg^,wcrll:J l)!l;ju 'I'IIc~I~>;I>IIIU~ .nI+.x~n~:a~ .gr~,crilcntwith rcgrJ 11,
ihr: iypc ,if\rc:ip<io. thc Iiiiiiiaiu~nor pr<ihihiiiotiuhicli u,iulJ hc :I p.tri <ii
this gènerai disarmament plan.
Seco,~d.To agree likewise on the objective and reasonablc reduciion of
foreign. military andother advisers and any other elements which could gcne-

rate doubts and disturbanccs or denaiure the true identitv of each nalion.
Tlrird. ~ ~ ~ ~v and aeree on the mechanisms ~oo~o.. .te so that. bv inter-
national vigilanci and Supervision. 10 which Honduras has decided {Osub-
mit itself. control may be cxerciscd on the performance of commitments con-
tracicd by the governments in the Ccnirai American area. That supervision
and vigilance would be extendïd Io the countries where there are conflicts
and sensitive circumstances which could affect the peace of the rcgion such
as. for example, ports, airporis. froniicr zones and straiegic sectors. My coun-

try has the highest and most siricerc willingness to open ils territory wiihoui
reservation to any typç of intcriiational supervision and monitoring which
mighl he agreed iipon for thc bost basic purpose of finding and sirengthening
peacc.
fiitrrh. To disçuss and agrcc on the most adcquatc mechanisms and procc-
dures 10 stop arms traffic in the RL~'win.
Fffrh. To maintain absolutc rïspect for the defined, demarcated frontiers

and traditional lines and jurisdiction of the States oi the Region in order no1
to affect peace with ncw disputes which could arise in the territorial and
marine fields.
Si.rrli To define the parameters for a permanent dialogue of a rnuliilateral86 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

nature which will also permit, on the basis of this initiative and in interna1

matters, progress towards political understandings leading to the securing of
a democratic and pluralistic system ensuring respect of public freedom and
the right of peoples tu manifest their will freely.

lieve that the excessive sums invested in weaDonry should be usçd to combat
misery and poverty, to promote complete wéll-béingof peoples. to provide
technical and scientific assistance, to overcome backward conditions of the

countries in course of development and aid in the structuring of a new inter-
national economic order in ordcr to reduce tensions which heighten the dra-
matic events of Our times . . . ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 4

1 1 1 JI 1III: \Il\l\lIR til F~JKI.I(-,\ l<l..l.IO\> 01. 1lOKUi.K \5 '1'01IIK
~ I I R II I R KI r II I I 2. I I l'li?

OFFICE OF THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN RELATIONSOFTHE REPUBLICOF
HONDURAS

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 23 April 1982.

To Dr. Miguel d'Escoto B.,
Minister for Foreign Relations,

Managua, Nicaragua.

Dear Minister.

1write to Your Excellency to thank you for your kindness in replying to
the invitation which 1 extended to you by a note of the 6th instant for the
purpose of holding a meeting between us within the contcxt of the proposal
for internationalizing peace in Central America which 1 submitted. in the
namc of the Government of Honduras, to the Permanent Council of the OAS
on 23 March last.

1 am of the view that the visit bv Your Excellencv. which was made on
Wednesday last week to ~e~uci~al~~,in view of thç cordiality and frankness
with which we discussed various points in the Central American problem,
constitutes an important step in our common desire to ensure that the peace
and tranquillity to which al1peoplcs are entitled may prevail in the Isthmus.
During your welcome stay in this city, Your Excellency handed me a
proposal consisting of 7 points which, in view of the importance of clarifying
our respective positions, cal1 for certain observations on the part of my

Government.
In fact, the first point in the proposal by Your Excçllçncy talks of the "im-
mediate holding of a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff of Honduras and Nicara-
gua, adopting the Spirit of the CJuasaule Agreements". In that connection, as
we agreed, 1passed on, to the President of the Republic, Ourdiscussion regar-
ding the projectçd miliiary meeting so that il could be carried in10 effect. At
the same lime 1would remind Your Excellency that it was within the context
of the said Honduran initiative that we met in Tegucigalpa and subsequently

in Managua and we shall erideavour to meet with other Ministers for Foreign
Affairs in the area.
1understand, as was very clearly explained by Your Excellency, that your
proposal is of a bilateral nature and is aimed at improvinl: relations between
iui two countries, while the Honduran initiative [s wide? in scope. of a re-
gional nature and with perhaps more ambitious objectives. Despite this, my
Government considers that the regional approach should prevail since a ma-

jor part of the problems confronted by the Central American countries go
beyond the possibility of a bilateral solution. Sufficient to recall that the most88 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

serious of thcse is the violence orevailine i" som~ ~f them since il eeneratec ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
othcr problcrns, equally painful,'such as that of refugees. If violence were not
to occur in one of its forms, there would be no refugees. Furthcrmore, sorne-
thing which evidently stimulates the outbreaks of-violence is the traffic in
weapons existing in the area. Here it is necessary to determine where they

come fromand whom they are intended for. in order to be capable of putting
an end to this. These few examples indicate to us that it is essential to seek
regional solutions because. 1repeat. the problems are regional.
It is encouraging to find. however, that our two proposals are not neces-
sarily mutually exclusive. There are certain points in the proposal by Your
Excellency which, perhaps in an indirect mauner, are includcd in thc Hon-

duran initiative. For example, Your Excellency proposes, as a second point,
that from the meeting indicatcd the Govcrnments of Nicaragua and Hondu-
ras should subscribe non-aggression agreements. Honduras considers that
agreements of this nature arc not necessary in order to maintain peace. when
there is the legal duty and political will to do so; both Nicaragua and Hondu-
ras are members of the United Nations Oreanization and the Oreanization of

American States and the Charters of boïh these organization; specifically
prohibit the use of threats or force to solve disputes which may arise between
member States. Honduras. bv tradition and hi conviction. s&uoulouslv res-

a corresoondine will fo; observance on the "art o,~the "the; count~ies~-His: ~ ~~~.
tory also dcmonstratcs that lcgal instruments of the nature in question have
never heen an obstacle to the clearance of obscurities when the desires for
peace are sincere. But the suggested non-aggression agreements present
other difficulties of a technical and practical nature. It would he necessary to
go into the discussed problcm of the definition of aggression and specifically

into aspects which are no1 considered in the definitions eiven bv the Unitcd
~ationi nor by the Inter-American System. 1refer to tho; actions which, not
reaching a warlikc confrontation bctwecn armics, in a cunniny, underground
manner introduce subversion and diminish the institutional structure-of an-
other State. Unfortuiiatelv. this is what is takine olace in Central Americ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~
and what requires an urgént solution. A good sG;t Io achieve this could be

found in the first point of the Honduran proposa1 which reads:
"To lay dowri immediately the bases in order to achieve general dis-
armament in the region which would involve no1 only ihe cessation of

the armaments race which has brought so much tcnsion and disequili-
brium to Central American and Continental relationships but a true
reduction in weapons and military forces in order to arrive, in the coun-
tries where they have armed forces, at the levels strictly necessary for
the defence of sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the mainte-
nance of public order, subject to the requirements and criteria accepted

universally and recognized in any democratic Society governed by law.
These bases must also contain agreements with regard to the type of
weapons the liniitation or prohibition of which would be a part of this
general disarmament plan."

AsYour Excellency is aware. the need for universal disarmament has been
discussed for decades in various international forums. The arms race which
the world has undertaken since the end ofthe second world war no1only con-
stitutes a constant threat to the survival of humanity but deprives entire ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORlAL 89

people of the resources which are necessary for their subsistence and dçve-
lopment. If this is so for other richer and more advanced peoples, what could
bi said of Our neonle. ovcrwlielmed bv novertv. sickness and ienorance?
General disarma'meit in Central ~meriia Lould2be the resounding proof in
demonstrating that our dcsires for peace are real and truc and not a simple
lyrical manifestation of good intentions.
We can use the same reasoning with regard to the third point in the pro-

posai by Your Excellency wheri you suggest
"the estüblishment of a system of combincd controls al our çommon
frontiers for the purposes of preventing the activity of armed elements
who endanger the relationships betwren hoth countries".

The suzzesrion is undoubtcdlv worthwhile but 1believe chat it falls short of

be studied andagked so that, by intçrnational Supeivision and vigilance, con-
trol should be exercised over the performance of the commitment contracted
by the Governments of the Central American Area. This supervision would
not be limited to frontier zones but would also include ports, airports and
strategic sectors. In that connection 1 repeat, to Your Excellency. what 1
stated before the Permanent Council of the OAS:

"My country has the highest and most sincere willingness to open its
territory, without reservatioii to any type of international supervision
and monitoring which might be agreed upon for the basic purpose of
finding and strengthening peace."

The fourth point in the proposal from Your Excellency states:
"Dismantling of the camps of the counter-revolutionary Somoza
Bands on Honduran territory and withdrawal from the frontier zone of
any type of concentration of the Somoza elements."

With regard ta that point 1would begin by stating, Io Your Excellency, that
there are no camps of Somoza Revolutionaries in Honduras. The truth of this
assertion is proved by our willingness to accept a system of international
monitoring and supervision on our territory. However, as an earnest of the
spirit of understanding animating my Governmcnt 1am able to inform Your
Excellency that 1 have already initiated formalities with the Government
of Mexico aimed at an agreement on ils part to receive or to aid other coun-
tries to do so. those refugees who potentially, in view of the geographical
proximity, offer the greatest risk to Nicaragua. Your Excellency will recall
that, in that connection, 1evcn asked for your valued help with that Govern-

ment.
The fifth point in the Nicaraguan proposal states:
"Nol to install any foreign naval hase in any point of the Gulf of
Fonseca without the express agreement of the three countries whose
sovereignties participate in the said Gulf."

Once again 1 would stnte that Honduras does not and ncvcr has had the
intention to permit the installation of foreign naval bases in the Gulf of
Fonseca uor on any other part of its territory. In that connection 1 have to
understand that the prohibition is extended to al1 the ncighbouring States
since in the pas1il was not specifically Honduras which endeavoured to grant
a concession of that nature. Furthermore, 1 considcr that this point is also90 IlORDEK AND I'RANSUORDEK ARMED ACTIONS

entailed in the Honduran proposal since no1 only should one talk of the rion-
installation of foreign hases but also the disniantling of the military hases

operated bv foreianërs which alreadv exist in somc countrics and the training
sEhools and camp; where individual; of various nalionalilies are prepared fo?
the various techniques of subversion and guerrilla warfare.
With regard to the sixth point in the proposal by Your Excellency which
relates to the conclu~ ~ -~~-~i-ateral meetines of a oolitical. economic. di~lo-
-
matic. military and security ri;iturc, and also cultural, social, sports and other
meetings with a given frcqucncy in order ta "strengthcn the relationships be-
tween The two countries: aoaivse the oroblems and oromote ~eace:'. mv
Government indicaies ils coinplcte agreement. but - being aware of the re-
gional aspect - thev should bc entercd into no1 only between Honduras and

Nicaragia. but alsowith the participation of other countries in the arca.
The seventh and final point in the Nicaraguan proposals suggests

"proceediiig in an organized manner and with the co-operation of the
appropriate International Organizations to the eveiitual repatriation
of those indigenous lndians who voluntarily wish to return 10 Nica-
ragua".

As 1 havc stated ~reviouslv. the Government of Honduras. based on ourelv
hum;inii:irian rc.is<ini. h;i\ rcccivcil thuusdnrlilitrcfugce5 in 113icrritijry'1hc
ii1:113rityof ihesc ilrc iniiuccni p<,rs,iiis flccing from ihc vii)lcncc aifcctirie.

Ccntr:il America and sc?kinr ihc frccJt~ni <il 1-lond~r3s ruarantccd h\, .I
government which has been f&ly elected and which respeck the Law; Hbn-
duras. as is logical. would be pleased to sec the rcturnof the refugees IO their
country of origin and in that conneciion agrees 10 entrust 10 the reprcscnta-
iives of the High Commission of the United Nations for Kefugees (UNHCR),

who are taking a census of the lndians who have come to Honduras. to dcter-
mine those who wish to rcturn and. on ils entire responsibility. cffect their
repatriation. Of course it mus1be clearly established that the Government of
Honduras is no1 expelling them Io Nicaragua and that it declines any respon-
sibility for the fatc which they may encounter on their return.

The points contained in the Honduran proposal include one rclating to
the obligation to respect the frontiers eaisting between the countries of the
Isthmus and also the traditional and jurisdictional lines of the States in
the region in order ni31to affect peace by new disputes which may arise from
the land or marine aspect. 1 consider that this point could be implemented

easily and immediately. provided that the sincere wish for peace, referred to
above. exists. In any event. the Honduran proposal also considers the advis-
ability of

"10 define the parameters for a permanent dialogue of a multilateral
nature which will also permit, on the basis of this initiative and in intcr-
na1 rnatters. progress towards political understzindings leading to the
securing of a dcinocratic and pluralistic system ensuring respect of public

freedom and the right of peoples to manifest their will freely".
The extent of this point, in my view. makes il possible hy means of permanent

dialogue, with the friendlincss which should exist beiween Central American
countries, to scek adequate solutions Io the problems faced hy the region.
The valuable visit which Your Excellency has jus1 made 10 my country and
which 1 consider to h~ vc~v o~~,tive. is a clear examnle of whaf can be
achieved by dialogue. and the results hl be even more Leneficial if we suc-

ceed in including other Ministers for Foreign Affairs in future conversations. ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORlAL 91

Whilst expressing my confidence that Your Excellency will accept the above
commcnts in the constructive spirit in which they have been made, 1take the
opportunity to express my sinccre regards.

Edgardo PAZ BARNICA,

Minister for Foreign Relations.92 1iORDI:RAND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

NOTE OF THE MINIS'I'ER OF FOREIGN RELATIONSOF HONDURAS 70 THE
MINISTER OF FOREIGNREl.ATIONS OF NICARAGUA,14MAY 1982

SECRETARIA1 OF FOREIGN RELATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 14 May 1982.
Bulletin No. 289-DSM

His Excellency Dr. Miguel d'Escoto,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Managua, Nicaragua.

Mr. Minister:

1 am writing to Your Excellcncy in order to refer to the convçrsations
which we had this past Wednesday 21 April, when you came to Tegucigalpa in

response to thc invitation which 1extended to you on the basis of the Peace
Initiative presented by the Governmcnt of Honduras on 23 March of the cur-
rent year.
As your Excellency will recall, on that occasion it was agreed that a meet-
ing would be heldhy the military chiefs of Ourtwo countries,for purposes of
analysing situations and prohlems of mutual interest, in the context of the
above-cited Initiative.
As 1hroueht to vour attentio1informedthe President of the Repuhlic of
the planned keeting of the military chicfs so that in accordance withthe cor-
responding constitutional framework, he could give the instructions neces-
sa6 to permit this meeting to occur.

In consideration of the foreeoine.rmit mvself to hrine to the attention

~icaragua, beginning at 9.00 a.m. at the "Fraternidad~ustoms'~ousc, in
Honduran territory.
For the purpose of CO-ordinating in the best way the above-mentioned
meeting and for related purposes. including the participation in such meeting
of the corresponding Military Chiefs of the Nicaraguan Army, 1permit my-
self to inform you that the followingciais will participate in representation
of the Armed Forces of Honduras:

lnfantry Colonel D.E.M.
Jose Ahenego Bueso Rosa

Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
lnfantrv Colonel D.E.M.
~aniel~Bali Castillo
General Cornmiindant of the Public Security Forces ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI.

lnfantry Colonel D.E.M.
Ruben Huniberto Montoya Ramirez
General Commandant of the Navy
lnfantry Colonel D.E.M.
Rigobetto Regalado Hernandez
lnspector Gencral of the Armed Forcçs

lnfantry Colonel D.E.M.
José Wilfredo Sanchez RiIladares
Commandaiit of thc 6th Infantry Battalion
lnfantry Colonel D.E.M.
Danilo Fcrrera Suazo
Commandaiit of the 11th lnfantry Battalion.

1wish to express to Your Excellcncy that in inviting thc illustrious Govern-
ment of Nicaragua to the meeting of military chiefs to be held on the 20th of
the current month, my Governirient is motivated by the goal of finding appro-
priatç solutions that will permit the strengthening of a climate of pcaccful co-
existence, througli the mechanisms of the Peace Initiative, ol aregional and
global charactcr, which constitutes one ofthe fundamental aspects of the in-
ternational policies of the Govi:rnment of Honduras. 1take this opportunity
to reiterate to your Excellency my highest and most distiriguished considera-

tion.

Edgardo PAZ BARNICA,
Minister of Foreign Relations.94 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 6

(Translation)

'1hc Kel>rc>cnt.ii~\c,,>i the Ciii\crriniciit\ ,II th^. Kepulilici <ofBclilc.
(:i>lomhi:a.t.1 S;iIiadiii tire [Jn~tcclSl:iicb<>f ,\rli~.ric.~.ll~~ndur~~~:.III~:IIC~
;an,lC'i~st:i1li::i. .inJ ihc Ohjcr\er rclircxnlins ihc I>~iniiniC.lnIlcpuhll~. . .

Declare:

rems aid structures, marked by the common denominator which is respéct
for life, persona1 security and liberty of thought, press and religion, such as
the right to work and to fit compensation, fair living conditions, the free exer-
cise ofthe vote and other human, civil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights.
11.Its concern for the grave deterioration of the conditions of the current
economic order and international financial svstem, which leads to a orocess
CI~I~~i;ihilr/~~t~o.int,i.h :jnJ ;cm:c.rn. wlt1;h p.~rticul:~rl)i,fl:~.t. th:, ci~un-
trich h.iviiig iIeniu:r:iii~ \?>[cm<ilg~i\,crniii~,rit.IIIthi\ rcs,aritC;III>up011
ihc aiteniion iiithe rndu~tri;~liredJeiiiticr.iii: i.~irntriciu itiat the\ m.iv
increase their CO-operation with the democratic countries of this are;, with

audacious and efficient initiatives, which will contribute to the efforts of
recovery and econoniic and social dcvelopment which the interested coun-
tries in the region are themselves carrying out. As part of this collaboration,
special urgency is dernanded for the initiative of the President of the United
States of America in relation Io the Caribbean Basin, which deservcs to be
stimulated and to become a reality in al1its aspects in the briefest possible
time. In addition, the signatories recognize the effortsfor co-operation in
economic assistance undertaken by the governments making up the Nassau
Group: Canada, Col<imbia. United States, Mexico and Venezuela.
Its decision to support the existing efforts of subregional economic inte-
gration, including the common market of Central America and the Caribbean

Community, and stress the urgency of renovating and perfecting the proces-
ses of integration which are encountering critical situations. with the purpose
of giving them an appropriate political, economic, juridical aiid institutional
framework.
III. Ils conviction that to oromotç regional oeace and stabilitv it is neces-

The absolute respect for the delimited anddemarked bord&s in conformity ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 95

with existing treaties, whose observance is the ideal uzayto avoid disputes and
border incidents. respecting, where relevant, the traditional lines of juris-
diction; the respect for indepcndence and the territorial integrity of the
States. the reiection of threats or the use of forceto resolvc conflicts. the ccs-
sation of the'arms race and Ihe elimination, on the basis of full and effective
reciprocity, of factors of an external oriein which rnake il difficult to establish
a stable and durable peace. It is essentFa1for the achievement of these goals
that each country. inside and outside the region, should put into practice the
following actions:

(a) create and maintüin truly democratic governmental institutions, based on
the popular will expressed in free and reeular elections, foundcd on the
orinciile that the ëovernment is rcsoonsi6le Io the eoverned:
(h) ;espcLt human rig&s, cspecially the hght Io life andio personal integrity,
and the fundamental freedoms. including, inter alia,freedom of expres-
sion, information, assembly and religion: as well as the right ta organize
poliiical parties, unions and other groups and associations;
(c) promote national reconciliation in those cases nhere profound divisions
have been produced within the Society through the broadening of oppor-

tunities for participation within the framework of democratic processes
and institutions;
(d) respect the principle of non-intervention in the interna1 affairs of the
States; and the right of the people to self-determination;
(e) prevent the usç of their own territories for purposes of support, supply.
training or direction of terrorist or subversive elements in other States,
~uttine an end to traffickin~!in arms and munitions and abstainine from
aildirect or indirect aid to tgrrcirist or subversive activities or activzies of
another nature lcading to the violent overthrow of the government of an-
other State;
(f) to limit armainents and the size of military and security forces to levels
which are strictly nccçssary for the maintenance of public order and na-
tional defence;
(PI in conformitv with the reci~rocal and fullv verifiable conditions. to in-

Amcrican area al1 forrign inilitary 'and Gcurity advisors and troops. as

well as to prohibit the import of heavy arms of an obvious offensive ca-
pacity, through procedures guaranteeing the necessary verification.
The forcgoing actions represent an integral framework in each State which
is essential to oromote reeional oeace and stabilitv.
The signatiry States czl upciAal1peoples and governments of the region
to welcome and put in10 practice these principles and conditions as the basis
for the perfecting of democracy and thèconsiruction of a durable peace.

Register with satisfaction the efforts which are being made in this direc-
tion: and considcr that the full accomplishment of these objectives will be
able to be achicved more fully thi-ough the reestahlishment of the State of
Law, and the organization of electoral processes guaranteeing total popular
participation without any form of discrimination . . .96 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 7

NOTE FROM THE PERMANENT MISSIONOF HONDURASTRANSCRIBING THE
TEXT OF THE INVITATION THAT THE MINISTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF
HONDURASSENT TO THE MINISTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF NICARAGUA
TO VISIT THE BORDERZONE BETWEEN THE TWOCOUNTRIES,

22 FEBRUARY 1981

22 February 1983

Original: Spanish

MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS TO THE ORGANIZATION OF

AMERICAN STATES

No. 07l83IMPFIIOEAICP 22 Fcbruary 1983.

Excellency:

1 have the honor to address Your Excellency to make known to you the
invitation extended by His Excelleiicy Dr. Edgardo Paz Barnica, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Honduras, to Hiç Excellency Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, which reads as follows:

"Tegucigalpa. D.C., 18 February 1983, His Excellcncy Miguel d'Es-

coto Brockmann. Minister of Foreien Aflairs. Manaeua. Nicara~ua 052.
l<,inhcmc>rc.l16,:AICIIJIC)',,ur l:\:cllc~i.! ,i .xt1n!ai;111~i,,VI\II.
üliiiiiiirhnic.tlie liiirJcr ,<mc hr.l\icciitric~.~)uliIrio\OlIi,~!.%)II
m.<\ \CI,(\II\MU~~~UIIIIL IIIIIICtci~Jcnut>u~iiinipiiun ih,~tthc ,li$lin-
piihed Government of Nicaragua has carried on. aï an international
level, tending to put in doubt the absolute neutrality of Honduras in the

interna1 conflict your country is experiencing. Your Excellency may
indicate the soecific ooints at which encamoments of NicaraU~~~ ~oun-
terrevolutionaries supposedly exist, in the certainty thayou will thus
be convinced that the constitutional and democratic Government of
Honduras fully respects the principle of non-intervention in affairs of
other States and the right of the peoples to self-determination. In the

hope that Your Excellcncy will deign to accept this invitation, made
with the sincerc spirit of reconciliation that characterizes my Govern-
ment in its struggle in behalf of the peace of the region, 1woiild greatly
appreciate it if you would indicate a date and meeting place forking
the pertinent arrangements. Accept.Excellency, the renewed assurances
of my highest consideration. Edgardo Paz Barnica, Minister of Foreign

Affairs of Honduras."

1request that this document be distributed Io the members of the Perma-
nent Council. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 97

Accept. Excellency, thc rcnewed assurances of my highest considçra-
tion.

(SignrrlRoberto MARTINEZ ORDONEZ,

Ambassador.

His Excellency,
Dr. Rad A. Quijano,
Chairman of the Permanent Council
Organization of American States,

Washington, D.C.98 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 8

REPORT OF THE MlNlSTERFOR FOREIGNRELATIONSTO THE NATIONAL
CONGKESS OF HONDURASDATED15 JUNE1983(EXCERPT)

...................................

2. The Sitrtaiionof Nicaragua in the Central American Conrexl

(A) The sirriarioniri Nicaragrra and its repercrission on Hondrrras and the

region
As will be recalled, the Peace Pian proposed by Honduras within the OAS
was put forward at a time when Nicaragua was thrcatening Io submit a denun-
ciation against Honduras at the Security Council of the United Nations. The
immediate effect of our proposal was to makc any Nicaraguan accusation

worthlcss and to conlront the Managua Government with an initiative of con-
crete negotiation including aspects of securiiy which Nicaragua has been vio-
lating.
In the month after the submission of the Peace Plan, 1 had a meeting in
Tegucigalpa with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua. Mr. Miguel
d'Escoto Brockmann, Io whom 1explained in detail the intention and scope
of our proposal. Although the Nicaraguan Minister did not reject the plan
completely, he replicd by submitting a list of proposals aimed at the cstab-
lishment of exclusivcly bilateral negotiations betwccn Honduras and Nica-
ragua. These proposals completely disregarded the multilateral aspects of the

Central American crisis and had the ultimate object of resolving the interna1
problems of Nicaragua with which il was already faced al that time, leaving in
existence the interventionist practices of Managua and military imbalance in
the region.
A few days after the visit 1 sent Minister d'Escoto an extensive note' in
which. without refusino discussion of the bilateralroblems which could exist
between the two couniries, 1reiterated our invariable position with regard to
the priori~y im~ortance of a solution to the questions within a regional con-
tcxt:
Nicaragua always refused to tackle the problems [rom a regional perspec-

tive and accused Honduras of refusing bilateral dialogue. That assertion
lacked meaning since last year 1had conversations with the Nicaraguan For-
eign Minister in Tegucigalpa. Santo Domingo, New York and Washington.
1also had various conversations in Washington with the Under-Minister for
Foreign Relations. Mr. Victor Hugo Tinoco. Finally. when in November last
year relationships betwccn the two countries had clearly deteriorated and the
trend had grown dangerously, 1travelled on a mission of peace to the capital
of Nicaragua on the initiative of our Governmcnt. At that time, in addition to
lengthy conversations with the highest authorities for foreign policy of Nica-

'Editor'snoie:the notereferredtoisattachedheretoasAnnex 4. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 99

ragua, 1also had an ample exchange of opinions with the Co-ordinator of the
Reconstructioii Junta. Commander Daniel Ortcea Saavedra. who in essence
ic,l~lniettiüttlicrc i\,c.rngi truc .inil in,~pr.r:ihlc prohlr.rn>h~,i\iccn H<m.lur.i\
IIIJ Yic;ir;~gu.a.iiiJt11..htis c$mc:rii h,.,.1.) a;hi~,\c..ln :irr<fingcniciituiih LIIL

IiniicJ S~:jic,i#if,\nicria 1)" niL.:in,<iiIiilatcr:~i1i~~.u~\iiiii.
Honduras has also been.open for bilateral dialogue at anothcr Ievel. In
May 1982the Chiefs of Staff of the armics of both countries met at the Cus-
toms Station of La Fraternidad ;iccompanied by the General Commanders of
the various branches of the amed forces and the heads of the frontier militarv ~ ~ ~
zones. Agreements in principle were reached particularly with regard to flui-
dity of communications betweeri them in ordcr to avoid and solve vromptly
any incidents which might arise. It was also agreed that the heads of'thé

various military branches should hold separatc meetings in order to prepare
for a meeting by the hcads of the armcd forces of both countries.
The first meetine was held bctween the heads of the naval forces and this
t<,ok[ilacc inJul! inthc Piirt <>iC'i>riiit<On th;,!i>cc.i>iaiiiilic Iic.irl<iiii:iv;iI
[orcc <ifIl<riiJui;~r,iihmittr.d.tu ihr. Nicir.igu311I>r.Ie~.iiii~n;IIIinip,>rt:,ntpl:iii
i<.iiiii,iii.iritiiiie iiiciJcni. rihich incliid~.I ihc Lrcation ut dcrnilitsri~c~l/uiii\.
tolerance zones. signalling of the marine frontiers by buoys, extension of the
line dividing the waters in the Gulf of Fonseca and observance of Parallel 15in

the Atlantic Ocean. Nicaragua promised to study the plan and to give a reply at
thc following meeting which never took place owing ta lack of decision and
reply from that country.
It should also be pointed out that, during the first months of this year.
1approached the Minister for Foreign Alfairs of Nicaragua, Mr. Miguel d'Es-
coto, suggcsting that we should jointly travel along the frontier zone as an
appropriate stçp ta reduce the prevailing tensions. This invitation was rc-
jected by the Nicaraguan Governmcnt.

Considering that Nicaragua would not ncgotiate with Honduras of its own
free will, the Foreign Office began to work on certain mechanisms of a regio-
na1 nature which could back the Honduran proposal. In that connection, in
May last, the President of the Republic visited Costa Rica in ordcr to be
present when President Monge look office. In attendance wcre the Presidents
of Costa Rica. Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras and Panama, the Prime
Minister of Belize and a mcmber from the Governine Junta of Nicaraeua. and
HtmJJra, put fc,ru,irJ IL, idcsi\ ~c<.trJiii$tlic Ccritr.11~In~~r~c~\iifilu;itioii at1~1

.irraiirtJ itjr thc Jt~intC'unimuiiiqu;.isri.e.l hv the Iii~.i\lc,i St.iic jiiJ Hc:iJ\
of GOvernment, ti~recognize the ipecial value of the Honduran peace initia-
tive. The Communiqué adopted the principles postulated in our Peace Plan.
The Foreign Office also implemented a policy of approach to the new
Government of Costa Rica which is the other State having frontiers with
Nicaraeua and iointlv ~ronioted a meetine of Foreien Minislers of nine coun-
tries ih~ctob& 1985at which our peaceYplan wasldiscussed. Mexico did not
ayrce to attend and Venezuela excused itself on the second day from the com-

mencement of the meetine in a messaee from President errer a ümnins
who said. nevertheless, thaïvenezuela would adopt thc proposals of the Eon-
clave designated "Foro Pro-Paz y Democracia". Guatemala and Nicaragua
were not invite* to that first meeting; however, when it ended it was agrëed
that thev should be invited to o;irticioate in the next meetine within the orin-
ciplc* of pc;i;e ;!ni1Jciiiiicr.ic;ihich iix~ 11~~ii:igrcc.Jtlicic (:;ii;gtcni~lü3ir,.'il
to ;#ttcii~l.nc\crtliclc~\, Sic.~r.~gti~ricIii.cd ctcn t,,rcccirc ü USI~ fram the
C'<r,tsRicsn ti~rc,ieii\liiii\tr.r tirn;iiidii Vcrlii~Jiiiiciic/. nhu in\it~.J Yir:ir:i~ii.g

to join the group. Nicaragua argued that it would not participate because Ïhe100 BORDER ANI) TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

United States of America wcrc included in the group. This attitude conflicts
with what was stated to me by Commander Ortega that his principal intcrest
was that of achieving an arrangement with that country. Sufficient to Saythat
the final report of San Joséincorporated. in ils iext. the whole of the points of
our peace proposal and complemented that same.
As a result of the refusal by Nicaragua, the Foreign Office began to work
on other on.ions ~ ~ ~ ~-~~~~-nihs of Oct~ber~and November. Those ontions
were: a meeting of the {iveCentral Americcn Foreign Ministers or a meeting of
them with the oarticioation of five ocriphcral States. naniely: Mcxico. Pan-
ama. Colombia: ~enkuela and the 'Dominican Reoublic
During the United d ai ion asd OAS meetingLi myself, as Minister for
Foreiyn Relalions. devoted myself to soundiny out. with the Central Ameri-
can cGuntries and the periphe;al countries. thétwo options described abovc.

in particular with Mexico. Colombia and Venezuela. In general, the atmos-
phere was positive, particularly on the pari of the Central Americans.
Durinz thc visit of Prcsidcnt Ronald Reaean io various countries of the
region i<the month of Decembcr last. the Government of Honduras sub-
mitted to the North Amcrican reprcsentative ;tdocument containing the
most important aspccts of our vicw of ihe rcgional problems and the means
which according to Honduras should bc uscd to achievc a negotiated solution.
It containcd the proposal on the part of Honduras for a meeting of Central
American Foreign Ministers or a mccting of these Ministçrs with other peri-
'heral countries. without thc oarticioation of the Unitcd States of America.
Nicaragua which, al the biginnini, here in Tçgucigalpa in April 1982 had
accepted a regional mçeting, took $1stcp backwzirds and began to question
this mechanisni as well, arguing that fiur countrics wouldbc against one
country at the negotiating table.

(B) Thenegoriurionswirhin rhe ConrudoruGroi~p

The Foreign Ministcrs of Mexico, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela met
on the Island of Contadora 31the bepinnin~ of January 1983in order to ana-
lvse the economic oroblcms which ihcv Gere facinc and io investizate the
central American Frisis. On ihat occasion a discission took as to
whether to support or not. in an express manner. the iniiiativc of Mexico and
Venezuela fo~meetines at thc hiehcst oossible level bctween Honduras and
Vene~ucln. Si~inecoiintricç maintaincd ih:ti II thst iniii.ttiic nerc \upp<iric~l.
the ,:!me ihould :ipply io the Fora I'ro.Paz y Dcmu;racia \\.hich h;iJ ;iriSi,>-
ni1 asncii Fin;illv. ihc fc~urLountricq 1imiic.dthcmselvcs IOissulnr :idcclara-
tion shpporting ihe dialogue and negotiation as a form of reducLg tensions

and preventing conflicts in Central America.
The Honduran Governmeni had been following the Contadora Island
meetinc closelv and durine the same month of Januarv instructed ihc Hondu-
ras ~oGi~n Minister io t4vel to Panama, ~enezucla'and Colombia in order
to analyse aspects relatiny io bilateral co-operaiion but essentially r.yio-al
matter< taking - as a skcific proposal from Honduras - the urgency for
these three countries togcthcr with Mcxico and thc Dominican Republic to
promote a meeting of Foreign Ministers of Central America. This suggestion
was made not only at the level of the Minisiers for Foreign Relations but also
the Presidents of those countrics. l'hc result was verv favourahle towards the
adoption of a mechanism for negotiaiions as propo&d hy Honduras.
Furthermore. contacts were made with the Dominican Rçpublic through
our Embassy in order to request that country 10 act as host for the meeting. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORtAL 101

The Dominican Foreign Office replied in the affirm;itive, repeating the invi-
tation which to that intent 1had already made to the Foreign Minister of that
country during the 12th Ordinary General Meeting of the OAS in Novembcr.
It was only with Mexico that no direct contact was made, although the Co-
lomhian Foreign Office had undertaken to consul1 Mexico and Nicaragua.
In view of the favourable reply from the majority of countries. Honduras
instituted. in February, Iwo meetings at SanJosé dc Costa Rica of the Foreign
Ministers of El S;ilvador. Costa Rica and Honduras in order Io discuss the
matter and prepare for that eventuality.

The Foreign Ministers of Mexico. Panama, Colomhia and Venezuela met
again in Panama in thc month of March. They did not invite the Dominican
Republic Io participate, as was thc desire of that country and of El Salvador,
Costü Rica and Honduras. The Presidcnt of Colombia, Belisario Betancur,
made a visit to C;iracas. Panama Citv and Mexico Citv and aereed with the

countries of the so-called Contadora Group. It was in these circumstances
that the Ministers for Foreign Affairs travellcd to the five Central American

country and agrceing on the need for a fresh better-plained meeting.
For the second meeting, Honduras previously promotcd the realization of
a meeting wilh Guatemala. El Salvador and Costa Rica which was co-

ordinated bv the Foreien Minister of El Salvador in the absence of the other
three ~oreign ~inisterr. This meeting look place on 19and 20 May 1983and
fully discussed the procedures to he adopted al the next meeting in Pan-
ama. the mattcrs <ifinterest to the four States and the regional and global as-
pcct which they would al1support. It was also decided that, two days before
the Panama meeting, technical advisers of the four countries would hold a
frcsh meeting 10 prepare the combined action of the four States in a hetter
ma~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The achicvemeiits of the secoiid ineeting in Panama were very important to
the cause of Honduras and the other three allied countries. Firm unity of action
was niaintained between the four. In practice, Nicaragua was comoelled Io

abandon ils stubbornness and bilateral;sm. ~here werel6 hours of 'intensive
conversations between al1the nirie Foreign Ministers and no separate meeting
with Nicaragua.
Within the framework of the multilateral conversations and with the ore-

Nicaragua and to ;ilesser deerëe hetween Guatemala and~icaraeua. 1believe

that contéxt,certain bilateral questions arise among the five Central American
States. A technical working group was also created in order to agrce. as from102 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMEU ACi'IONS

16June 1983 in Panama. on the proccdural mechai~isms ta be brought into
practice at the next meeting of the nine Foreign Ministers.
The agenda approved for the negoliaiions was as follows:

1. Conceptual framework:

(a) Principles and rules of International Law
(b) Coiiditions for peaceful CO-existence
(c) Strengthening of democratic political institutions.
2. Political and security problems:

(a) The arnis race
(b) Foreign advisers
(c) Traffic in weapons
(cl)Political actions and de-stabilization actions
(e) Human rights and related matters
(f) Tendonsand incidents between frontier and non-lrontier States.

3. Economic and social objectives:
. (a) Sub-regional co-operation and interchange
(b) Latin American regional support
(c) International co-operation for devclopinrnt

('1) Refugees.
4. Implementation and control of agreements adoptcd. ANNEXES 70 THEMEMORIAL

Annex 9

DECLARATIONOP CONTADOKAISLAND UY THE MINIS'I'ERS OF FOREIGN
RELATIONS 01'COLOMBIA M .EXICO, PANAMA AND VENEZUELA,
9 JANUARY1983
(Translario~r)

In response to the invitation extended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Panama. Lic. Juan José Amado III. the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia. Dr. Kodrigo Llorcda Caicedo. Mexico. Lic. Hcrnardo Sepulveda
Amor, and Venezuela. Dr. JoséAlberto Zambrano Velasco. met on January
8 and 9. 1983.on Contadora Island.
The Forcign Ministers met with His Excellency, the Prcsident of the Repub-

lic. Lic. Ricardo de la Espriella T.. and with His Exccllency. the Vice-Presi-
dent of the Republic, Dr. Jorge Illueca.
At this cordial niccting, the strong feelings of brothcrhood, solidarity and
reciprocal undcrst;inding which the Govcrnmcnts and peoples of Colombia,
Mexico, Panama and Venezuela have traditionally sharcd were reaffirmed.
The Foreign Ministers dealt with various topics of regional intcrest, and
agreed on the need to intensifs the dialogue al the Latin American level as an
effective mcans tii deal with the political. cconomic and social problems
which jeopardize the peace, democracy. stability and development of the
countries of the hcmisphere.

They studicd the complex situation existing in Central America, as well as
the political processes which arender way in the area. their interrelation and
their cffccts on stability and peace in the region. In expressingtheir deep con-
Cern with the forcign interference - direct or indirec- in the conflicts of
Central America, and in pointing out that it is highly undesirable to place
those conflicts in thc context of the East-West confrontation. thev aereed on

tions and mutual rcspcct among thc States, through aialogue and negotLation.

Upon reaffirming the obligation of the States no1 Io rcsort to threats or
to the use of force in their international relations, they urged al1of them Io
refrain from acts which could aggravate the situation.crcatinthe danger of a
generaliccd coiiflicr that would spread throughout thc region.
Likewise. there was an account of the various peacc initiatives and their
effects. In this regard. respecting the principles of non-intervention and self-
determination of nations. the Foreien Ministers nnalvsed nnssible new ac-
tions. and pointcd out the desirabiliry of including in ihoserefforts the valu-
able contribuiion and the necessary~sup~ ~ of other countries of the Latin
American comniunily.
They reaffirmcd their decision to continue contriburing to thc ecanomic

strengthening of the Ccntral American and Caribbc~in countries through
initiatives such as thc Energy Co-operation Prograni sponsored by Mexico
and Venezuela and the Financial Co-opcration Plan advaoccd by Colombia.
They felt that thesc and other economic CO-operation measures serve the pur-
poses of political stability and social peace. BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
104

With reeard tu the uocomine mcctine of the Bureau for the Co-ordination of
the \l,i\emr.ni of ~<,n:;ili~ncY~~~ii~i~r~e> t, bc hcld in hlrliii~giiii.Siciari~$ui~.
iroiii Jniiu:nr)Iiitlir~ouch14 ,,1ihis !car. ihc F<ircign Sliniricr> cinpha\i/.cd
the imoortance of the movement tu the develooinn na.ions.
Best wishes werc expressed for the successful outcome of that meeting, in
the conviction that the final conclusions will constitute factors conducive to
balanced and constructive solutions to the reeional orublems.
-
Thcy :igrccd <in thL. impori;ini; of c\p:inrling p:irlicip:iiionof lhc I.;ilin
t\iiir.ric;in nations in the \lo\,cnieiiiiXoii-illi~~ied(:ou~ttries. tilher 3s nicni-
bers or as observers. because this would assure better svstems for consultation.
dialogue and negoti;ition. and woiild strengthen the bases of non-alignment
and political pluralism.
Upon examining international economic matters. the Foreign Ministers
noted with concern the downturns in the world economv. Thev oointed out the

an international ecoiiomic sktem which, in ils imbalanced condition. iscaus-
ing the developing countrie; serious maladjustments.
The Foreign Ministers examined the decline in world trade, the prevalence

of orotectionism in the industrialized couniries, the terms imoosed for external
cridit. and the insuf~ ~ ~ ~ '.-~~-~ ~ ~rcdit. Thev,o.inted oit that the oromo-
tion of development financing rcquires the foreign exchange obtained from
foreign trade and from other finaricial sources supplementing it, in addition
tu dimestic savings. These faciors which tire cssentlal tu the Latin American
economies, will makc it possible, tu the degree in which they materialize, to
consolidate productive investment and to ensure the creation of jobs.
The Foreign Ministers emphasizcd the importance of the periodic consul-
tations at the ininisterial level to deal with economic topics of interest in the
Latin American sphçre. In vicw of the obvious usefulness of co-ordination in
SELA. the Foreign Ministers noted the importance of the Ministcrial Meet-

ing of Latin American and Caribbean Countries. tu be held in February in
Cartagena. and the Ministerial Meeting of the Croup of 77.which will be held
in Buenos Aires next March.
To these ends. they reaffirmed their desire 10 make an effective contri-
bution su that those meetings may accomplish their purpose. which is to co-
ordinate and establish the joint negotiation position of the developing coun-
tries at the VI UNCTAD. tu be held in Belgrade. This forum should become
the driving force of ;iseries of global negoti~tions which. in the context of the
United Nations. are tu set the stnndards for international CO-operation of
development.
The Foreign Ministers agrccd on the importance of faithfully complying
with the Panama Canal Treaties. and thcy observed with approval the

progress made from the jurisdictional standpoint in the implementation of
those treaties. Nevertheless. they expressed concern over the unfavourable
effects of the use of discriminatory legal instruments in other aspects of the
Torrijos-Carter treaties which are in thc proccss of implementation.
On the occasion of the bicentcnnial vear of the birth of the Liberator
Simon Bolivar, the Foreign Ministers stressed the significance of that notable
event and the opportunity it provided to strengthen friendship and foster the
CO-operation among al1the Latin American nations.
The Ministers of Foreien Affairs of Colombia. Mexico and Venezuela ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 105

holding this meeting.which they called highly useful. They also expressed
their appreciation to the people and authorities of Panama for the many
kindnesses shown to them during their stay in the lsthmus nation.106 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 10

THE ORCANIZATION OF AMERICANSTATESHELD ON 5 APRIL1983

0EAISer.G
CPldoc.1353183
8 April 1983
Original: Spanish.

hllSSlONOP THE HEPUHI.IC OF HONDURA T0 THE ORGANIZATION OF
AMERICAN STATES

The Permanent Council ofthe Orgar~izntionof American States,
Concerned over the serious situation in the area of Central America,
where unhao~ilv. interna1 conflicts in a number of countries are causine loss

between goveÏnments, thus endangering the peace and security of the hemis-
phere;
Conscious of the obligation on the member States of the Organization of
American States 10seille their dis~utçs bv mcans of ~eaceful urocedures:

crisis in the area, and recognizing Lhat such proposais mus1 be thoroughly
studied and cxamincd by the interested countries themselves in an effort to
find a solution to the delicate Central American problem;

Taking into considernrion that a number of the Central American coun-
tries themselves have decided that dialogue, in the proper framework, is the
most suitable and most civilized means for looking globally and rrgionally at
Central America's problems and for idçntifying appropriate procedures for
settling the crisis and guaranteeing a stable and permanent peace in the area;
and
Recnlling that at the protocolary meeting of March 29, 1983,the Minister
of Foreign Aflairs of the Republic of Honduras formally requcstcd the Per-

manent Council to urge the governments of the Central American nations to
hold a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the area, in order to seek
responsible, serious and lasting agreements, through global and rcgional
negotiation. to strengthen the pcacc and restore security in Central America,
and further indicating the advisability of having a number of Latin American
countries from the Caribbcan area attend the meeting as witnesses to the pro-
ceedings.

Resolve:
1. To urge the Governments of Costa Rica. El Salvador, Guatemala, Hon-

duras and Nicaragua to hold a meçting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as soon ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL 107

as possible. in order to bcgin a process of global and regional negotiation that
will lead to responsible. serious and lasting agreements to strengthcn the

peace and restore security in Cçntral America. This meeting would he held
whenever and wherever thcsc same countries decide. bv aereemcnt. and
would be attended~bp such Latin American governments as th& &y decide
to invite to witncss the proccedings. The extent of the participation of the wit-
ncsscs will bc dctcrmhcd b, aiueetnent between the eov&nmcnts of the
Central Americnn countrics and the governments of the countrics invited.
2. To request those governmenis that are invited Io provide al1 the co-
operation they can to thc niceting and to any measurrs thit may be agreed on
there, in order to assure a sa1isf;ictory outcome.

3. To instruct the Sccrctary General Io keep abreast of the ncgotiations,
to follow the proceedings closely and report on them [rom tirne tolime to the
Permanent Council. and to provide the interested countries with siich co-
operation as thcy may ask ol him.108 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 11

INFORMATIVE BULLETIN OF THE CONTADORA CROUP,
21 APRlL 1983

In view of the worsening of the conflicts in Central America which en-
danger the peace of the entire region, the Ministers of Foreign Relations of
Colombia. Mexico, Panama and Vcnczucla, acting within the spirit of the
Contadora Declaration of Y January 1983, have carried out joint visits to
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, on 12 and 13
April, invited by the Governments of those countries.
In the course of these visits. they ascertained the express political will of
said Governments, their desire for collaboration and their criteria and view-
points to create conditions for peace. Inlight of the positive results of these
conversations. thev invited the Central American Ministers to a second

munication in ordcr to reduce tensions. and establishine the basis for a stable
and durable peace in the region.

The Ministers of the Contadora Group noted with satisfaction the positive
fact that for the first lime in the course of the current crisis, the Central
American Ministers had agrecd to engage in a common dialogue. In addi-
tion, they noted and expressed their appreciation for the wide support re-
ceived from the international community in respect of these actions.
The second round of consultations ~ermitted the understandine with
greater precision and depth of the point'of view of each Central ~merican
country,the definition of the principal thcmes of the controversy and the for-
mulation of a first diagnosis on the nature of the same.
Among the matters which in the opinion of the Ministers of Contadora rc-
quire principal attention there must be mentioned: the arms race, the control
of armaments and their reduction, the arms traffic, the presçnce of military
advisers and other forms of foreien militarv assistance. the actions intended to
destabilize the intcrnal order of Gher ~tatés,the threats and verbal attacks, the
bclligerent incidents, and the border tensions. and the repression of human

rights and individual and social guarantces. as well as the gave economic and
social problems which are at the basis of the crisis affecting the region.
The difference as to the priority, the context and the scope which each
country assigns to the different subject, as well as the order and form in
which they should be treated were the object of a careful and prolonged exa-
mination.
It was agrççd that it was necessary to avoid rigid and inflexible approaches
which could obstruct the common tx. .e of reducine te"sion and furtherine u
peaceful coexistence. For such purpose, an agreçmcnt in principle was ob-
tained on the procedures of consultation and negotiation which will have to
bc followed in the near future in such a way thaithey will takt: into account
the varying nature of the subjects, whether they be of regional scope or of a
bilateral character. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 109

The Ministers of the Contadora Group cxpressed. once again. their pro-
round conviction lhat throuah methods of ~eaceful solution and an authentic
spirit of negotiation it is Io confrbnt in a positive wa" the conilicts

prevailing in the area.
The Ministers of the Contadora Grouw reiterate that the resoonsibilitv to
obtain aerecments which euaraiitce a siahle a~d~durable neacc corres~~nd . ~ ~ ~
principany to thecentral~mcrican countrics themselves. In addition. they

made known on the basis of the çxperience and results of the actions carried
out in Panama, it is appropriatc to~m;iint;iin the process of consultation now
eslnblished, which has proved ils worth. ïfficicncy and timeliness. In virtue of
which they have agreed to nieït again in the coniing month of hlay in

Panama. The Ministçrs of Colombia, Mcxico and Venezuela, make known
their appreciation for the gencrous wclcome which once again the people and
Goi,ernrnent of Panama have ertcndcd to thcm.110 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 12

STATEMENT BY THEPERMANENT REPRESENTATIVO EFHONDURASTOTHE

PERMANENTCOUNCILOF THEOAS RELATING 70 THREATS 70 CENTRAL
AMERICANPEACE AND SECURITY ON 14JULY1981

(Translarion)

Mr. President and reprcsentatives:
We know very well that al1 the members of this Permanent Council are
aware of thc critical si~u~ ~ ~ ~f Central America. We also know that the

governments that make up this Organization, as well as their distinguished
representatives, know the efforts that thç Contadora Groui, countrirs -
Colomhia. Mexico. Panama. and Venezuela - are makine uo'find a iust and
proper solution for this delicate situation.
The Hondoran constitutional governmcnt, headed by Roberto Suazo
Cordova. thorouehl. a.are of ils duties as a membcr of this Oreanization.
li..SIVL,I~ :~i:~~iiIiniic1,)$1,~ 11,liillc$t \up[?,-.in.lc~~.~a~~~~r. 1%tlccnci-
f,>rt\$>!IIIChrothcr c~>~~r~trite h.^ ~I,I!.c up thc C#>n~.,dc~rG;tr,nip. NILIIlhc
: I ~ C~~>ICCIIV01 r~,~;Ii~rivtlir~tu,d.Ici~~li~c~dl~:~Ioduc:ontA, SSW~I nos\^-

hlc. seribus reeional ae-eements ïo reach a comoreknsive settlement io the
prihlems of thYeregion.
The key issues that characterize the Central American crisis were clearly
identified at the outset of oreliminarv contacts betwcen the foreien ministers
of Colombia, Mcxico, panka and V'enezuela and the five central American
countries, which culininated in their first meeting held in Panama City from

In the comniuniqiié issued hythe Contadora Croup after this meeting. the
prohlem areas were identified as follows: the arms buildup, the control of wea-

vons and their reduction. arms traffickine. the ~resencë of militarv advisers

and border tension.
There is~a~ remarkahle coincidence hetween this list of matters and the list
thii! ni! (g.,i.crnmcnt ~>rc>cntcili.hr,iusIit.t<,rcign Sccr:t.ir\.:IItliiOrqiiii-
7:1110icm2.3Jl~rcl~ l,lh?wh:n 11[)r.,p~~~c.,pcttcc pI,,rir*trC.'ritr~~:I\in~,r~;;~
l'lii5 :iiiri.i.lrci,iiiirni, ilic \iii:caith. \ilii:lIli,n.liir;i> lis\ :~nnro;ichcJ
..
the prohlem from the beginning.
It must also he noted that the simple act of listing the problem areas shows
that their nature is ~redominantlv multilateral. althoueh this does no1 exclude
prohlems that can be solvçd thiough bilateral negoriations and others that
are only thc concern of each country.
It is important to hring Io the attention of the distinguished rcpresenta-
tivcs the fact that the totalitarian Nicaraeuan réeimeis the main factor in thc
emergence of the regional crisis. becauSc il ha; unlcashed actions aimed at
destabilizing governnients in other Central American countries. These actions

include. among others, direct support for tcrrorist and subversive groups. To
do this. Nicaragua has the backing of anti-democratic groups and countries
that are alien to the Central American region. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 111

This behaviour has prompted a natural rejection in my country, and in
other nations in the region. These iiations havc been forced to take internal
security measures to defend thçir legitimate rights and the democratic systcm
that they freely chose.
My Governmeiit recognizes and supports the efforts being made within
the Contadora Croup to achieve the goals it set out to reach. But despite
these efforts. the incide~~s that have been occurrine since the beeinnins of its
fratcrnal endeavour show the aggravation of thç Central AmerGan situation

as the dircct and immcdiate result of the warmoneerine and threatenine atti-
tude of thc Sandinist réeimu
Nicaragua has continucd in its spiralling arms buildup. It has continued the
trafficking of weapons from several places through.its territory,.pa~ticularly
to El ~al;ador, vihlating our so\~ereignty.
The actions for the political destabilization of the area have not heen inter-
rupted; on the contrary, they h:ive been increased. 'The acts of pro\wcation
and aggrcssion against Honduras have not ceased; rather, they have flared

up. In addition, the recent massivç mobilization of Nicaraguan troops at our
southern border justifies Our alarm and apprehension that they are stepping
up their plans for a larger military aggression against our country. which
would end, once and for all, the hopes for peace and security in the Central
American region.
All this clearly shows that Central America is expcricncing a widespread
conflict provoked by Nicaragua, which has consequences for al1countries in
thc region. Therefore, this is no1jus1a bilateral conflict, as the Sandinist régime

has tried to label it.
If it is important for Nicaragua to approach its internal problem - ;iprob-
lem that sometimes oromots conflictibr situations of a bilatcral naturc with
other States - at a discussion table, it is of the highest priority for the rest of
the Central American countries to discuss the rceional prohlems created hy
Nicaragua because of its worrisome arms builduc, ils d/rect participation in
the destabilization of the othçr Central American governments, and its clan-
destine arms trafficking.
The reason that the Honduran Government had to cal1this special meet-

ing of the Permanent Council was Io explain clearly to the Latin American
governments the situation in Central America and our peace-loving attitude.
In addition to drawing your atti:ntion to the gravity of the situation, we are
expressing our hope that your çffort in achieving peace and security will, bc-
cause of the moral force it represents, prevent an armed aggression that wc
foresee will come from Nicaragua.
We hope that the OAS and tlie governments that comprise il will take due
notice of the serious Central American situation and the factors that deter-

mine it, so they can calmly analyse the possible measurçs that could he taken,
but within the parameters of the dutics and responsibilities prescribed in the
OAS Charter.
As a matter of fact, in its preamble. thc OAS Charter states that al1Our
States have signçd it with the certainty that a gcnuine sense of Latin Ameri-
can solidarity and gond-neighbourly policy can only mean the consolidation.
within the framework of democratic institutions, of a system of individual
freedom and social justicç on this continent based on respect for human

rights.
When the main objectives of tlic OAS werc determinçd. Article 2 was
formulated Io establish, among other things, the strcngthening of peace and
security on the continent, the prevention of possible causes of difficulties. the112 BORDER ANI3 TRANSBORDER ARMED AmIONS

euarantce of oeaceful solutions of conflicts betwecn memher States. the orea-

.
may ariie between them.
In Article 3. the Charter pointed ta the following principles; international
law is the norni of conduct of thç States in their reciprocal relations; inter-
national order is essentiallv characterizcd bv resoect for the individualitv.
ri^. n iiiJpndi~c i il S. .ln.lthi. i,l>lig.ati.,n.~~i:ihli\hcJ
ln irc:~tlc\ ;ind ln c>iIicrwurce, ct1intcrn;~l~c~n~ ;IlUinu.1 h~ l:litliiull~ nici
C;\i,,J iiiihIIIU%Igui.lc,r~,l.ii~,l.iini>nl:(hi.St.ttc\.l hc so11d.triiy 111cI-aliri
,\nicri;:in Si.it~..in.lthe Ii,ity gi';iI*pur>ucil hy ihciii Jcni.inJ ih.ititicir pdli-
Ii:.iI<,rg.inil.i118,h\L,h;i\rJ <il1 .iciiccli~~~ c,.\crLi,c.,lrzlrre\cnl.~iivc Jciiiir-

cracy. The Latin American States condemn a war of aggression; victory gives
no rights. An aggression against one Latin American State is an aggression
against al1 the other Latin American States, and any international contro-
versy that may arise betwecn two or among more Latin American States mus1
be solvcd through peaceful means.
By reading these articles, 1 am leaving no doubt about the OAS obligation
to contribute, through its direct effort and that of its mcmber States, to a
peaceful settlement of conflicts, and to dcfend the right of our people to orga-
nize dcmocratically. These articles also cal1for solidarity with member States

that are hent on defending their institutions in the face of covert or direct
aggression by sectors or countriçs that want to destroy the frccdom of men.
In our analysis of the incidents occurring in Central America, with which
most countries are faniiliar. we warn that our contincnt is facing a war without
borders that is encoiiraged, promoted, supported, and, at times, even lcd by
foreign Marxist forces that are trying to impose, through the armed struggle,
their totalitarian political-social system on us.
The names of thc groups that comprise this international terrorism are not
important. What is relevant is that the characteristics of their terrorist actions
for social and economic destahilization are the samc. The sources that supply

them with weapons and destructive equipment and give them training and
lo~istical suoport are also the same. The interconnection and ~ublic sumort

Although these efforts for destabilization have not found a favourable
echo among the Honduran people, we understand that the threat of the de-
struction of our way of life and government hangs over us like Damocles'
sword. This is shown in the following incidents and actions.
Regarding increasçs in the Nicaraguan Armed Forces, the Sandinist govern-

mçnt currently has at least 129,200armed men. However. London's Interna-
tional Institutc for Stratcgic Studies gavc a higher figure for al1branches of
the Sandinist Armed Forces for the 1982.3983period. This figure does no1in-
clude lnterior Ministry troops. This lnstitute established ihat the total number
of Sandinist troops is 136,700.
WCmust admit that the Sandinist government has cunningly surprised the
international public. It made certain media believe that Nicaragua is the one
that could be victim of a large-scale military aggrçssion by Honduras. 1 am
sure, MI. Presidçnt, that if WC compare the data 1 have supplied about the
Sandinist government's military strength, confirmed by London's Interna-

tional Institute for StrategicStudies, with the number of troops that make up
the Honduran Armed Forces - which is no more than 16 per cent of the ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 113

Sandinist figure - we will see that the ill-intendcd charges that the Nica-
raguan régime has been making against Honduras are increasingly unbe-
lievable.

Nicaragua has upsct the Central American region's military balance. In
only 4 years, ils armed forces have grown by 1,300 per cent. Thesc forces
numbered 10.000 men in 1979. How can thev iustifv s,.h dis~.ooortionat. .
3rc>\iih 'Su211 .i I;~rgc:irmcJ I;rrcc .,i~l~l wrtc 161\~hjcii V.;:I~:IÇU:I~\ 10 ihc
<irJc.r\criihc ncii &ii\criiiiicni. I~IIr! :iiiJ iiiipi~\11.~iiil~ti~il.incl tcimciiiii;
moJcl on iicichh.,uriiic ~iiiiiitric,or ici Iiigiiinir.r\snii.~iii\riiilit;l;id\c.n-

The size of thç Sandinist Armed Forces is much greater than the total of
the military troops in the rest <if the Central American countries. This fact
alone justiiies the conccrn. the insecurity. and the threat that Nicaragua's
neighbouring States feel.
The rapid growth of the Sandinist Armed Forces has been accompanied by

an arms buildup of unbclievablc prooortions for Central Amcriczi. Thev have
weapons that akc not only intended ior Nicaraguan use, but are sent to.costa
Rica, El Salvadcir, Guatemala, and Honduras for subversive purposes.
In the pas1few years. the Nicaraguan Army has been equipped with very
important anti-aircraft weapons. anti-tank arms, and field artillery, including
152-mm howitzers and multiple rocket launchers with 40 barrels and a range

of 20.5 km. ranks end arniourcd vehicles, aircraft such as MI-8 helicopters
and Soviet cargo planes, amphihious tanks, patrol boats, field packs, and hun-
dreds of military trucks for troop transport.
One hundrcd und twcnty Nicaraguans were sent to Bulgaria to undergo
pilot training for MlG planes, and 40 more are being traincd a! the Punta

Clara Academy in Cuba. Why is Nicaragua prepariiig itself in this way?
Your Exccllencies mus1 no1 ignore that this quaniity of troops and this
diversity of offensive weapons gives rcason for alarm throughout the region
and prompts us to prcparc ourselves for our legitimate defence. because that
is the responsibility of any State.
You will be able to observe these proportions graphically in the material

that has been distributcd to vou.
Ai ihc anle tome, WC iiiu>i note thai whilc tli~Cuni,aJor:n cfl<>rts;ire und21
w:i\,.thc C~,iitr;il Aiiicric;!picturc h:ic c<intinucJ IL)ch;in>?c.In ihc 1i:isici\,
months, the shipment of arms and ammunition to Nicaraiua has increased.
Everyone knows that on 16April of this year the Brazilian Govcrnmcnt seized
three Ilyushin planesand a C-130 that were carrying 2,000tons of wcapons and
munitions intcndcd for thç Sandinist government. The Nicaraguan leadçrs

nubliclv admitted that thcsc shii~ments were destincd for thcm. Colonel
~u'ammar al-Qadhafi also made iublic remarks admitting that although the
shipment had becn stupped. he would continue to supplv al1..e .eapons the
~andinist régime wantéd.
A few days after the seizure of the Libyan planes. Costa Rican officials

discovered a 500-ton Pariamanian-flag ship that wzis carrying wcapons and
explosives for Nicaragua.
On 3 June. a Bulgarian ship unloadçd Soviet tanks al El Bluff port. On
5 June. a ship that had sailed froni the GDR unloaded 100 rnilitary trucks
and several tons of weapons and war material at Corinto port. On 8 lune,
authorities of Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, searched the hold of the Soviet ship

Nnrlezh<in Krrr/i.~kayn and foiind that is was carrying scveral hclicopters
intended for the Nicaraguan Govcrnment.
On 15 June ilwas Icarned that the Nicaraguan Navy had trzinsported two114 BORDBR AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

gunboats built at the Esterel shipyard ncar Cannes,France. On the same day,
il was said lhat the Marxist government of South Yemen was negotiating the
sale of a certain number of MIG-17 fighters with Nicaragua. This information
was confirmed by Miguel Bolanos Hunter, a deserter of the Sandinist coun-
terintelligence forces, who said here in Washington that Nicaragua was in the
process of acquiring a Soviet anti-aircraft defence system and 80 MIG planes.
The Hondurzin Government also knows that early in June the Nicaraguan
Government also received at El Bluff port 20 BTR-152 armourcd personnel
carriers, 5BRDM vehicles, 4 BM-21 multiple rocket launchers, and other
vehicles of lower tonnage whose exact quantity has not been confirmed. The
destination of 5,000 boxes of ammunition found inside the Cloird is still un-
known. This ship, which was found in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean with-
out a flag or crew but loadcd with 122-mm shells exclusively used by Soviet
cannons, was towed to the Venezuelan Coast.
How can it then be said that the Sandinist government is acting in good
faith in the negotiatioiis begun within the framework of the Contadora Group.
when in the past month alone Nicaragua has received no less than seven large
shipments of wcapons?
1sNicaragua preparing to make peacc or to wage war? Can it be believed
that Nicarag"a is willin" to reach anv kind of aer-ement on disarmament
when it is arming itself cxcessively? 1s it willing to reach agreements on the
reduction of troops when the size of the Sandinist Armed Forces is constantly
growing? In fact; ils most prominent leaders have publicly stated that they
hope to have weapons for 200.000 Nicaraguans.
A few days ago, oii 6 July, Commander Humberto Ortega Saavedra told
300 militia chiefs that Nicaragua will continue modernizing ils army, and that
il will create the territorial militias in order to distribute units with bctter
manŒuvrability and weapons throughout the territory.
According to an AFP report, Ortega Saavedra stressed that tbousands of
civilians have joined the infantry reserve battalions, the permanent army
units, and the self-defence groups in cities and towns, particularly those on
the border with Honduras and Costa Rica.
It is uscless to claiin that such disproportionate quantities weapons are
intcnded for use in a direct confrontation wiih any of the large world powers.
Nicaragua's preparation for war has been constant.
From 1979to 1983. it has built a~oroximatelv 30 new militarv installations

an offensive opcralion in the north Gainst our territory. .. -
Nicaragua currently has three airbases capable of receiving MIG-19 and
MIG-21 planes. The Montelirnar, Puerto Cabezas, and Bluefields installations,
as wcll as Managua's Sandino Airport, have been reconditioned. All their
landing strips have been extended to more than 2,000 metres.
At present. the San Ramon air installations are being built with Cuban

assistance. These installations willhave two runways for the landing and take-
off of iets.
The Nicaraguan Government has also built several strategic roads, includ-
in$!that of Managua-Puerto Cabezas, which serve three Durpohes: to exercisc
mfiitary control ;ver the Nicaraguan Miskito residents, k have a ground sup-
ply route from Cuba for supplies entering from the Atlantic Coast. and to
develop the area. the reason that has been publicly stated.
Since late June, the Sandinists have been incrcasing their activities and ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 115

have been deploying troops along the border area near the Honduran depart-
ments of Choluteca and El Paraiso.
The Nicaraguan Government has deployed many troops and much mili-

tary equipment to places near our country, such as Lcon, Ocotal, Chinan-
dega, Somoto, Somotillo, Jalapa, Esteli, Condega, and others. This area covers
a line that is approximately 250 km long, forming the so-called northern
front, which obviously represeiits a serious threat to our country. The units
that have been deployed include 5 Sandinist People's Army (EPS) battalions,
19 reserve battalions that have been trained and incorporated in the group,
1tank battalion of thc Pablo Ubeda troops. and 3 companies of special units,
for a total of 29 mobilized battalions.
On 5 July, it was also reported that the EPS had implemented a new and

massive mobilization of troops and Soviet tanks on the Honduran bordcr.
This mobilization was confirmed bv the Nicaraeuan unterior Ministre.
MI. President and Messrs representatives, anothcr serious problem men-
tioned by the Contadora Grou11is the secret arms trafficking.
The ~icaraguan Government has been sending weapons t6 the rest of Cen-
tral America, cspecially Io El Salvador, since 1980. In the specific case of
Honduras. Nicaragua has repeatedly violated our territory in order to do this.
On ll January 1981 Honduran Army troops and public security agents
seized a large shipment of weapons and military supplies 16 km froni Coma-

yagua. The shipment had been well camouflaged inside a van that entered our
territory through the Guasaule customs post. These weapons were for Salva-
doran guerrillas. We seized M-16, G-3, and Fal rifles; M-1 carbines; 50-cal
ammunition clips: Chinesc RPG rockets; 81-mm mortar rounds; ammunition
clips; cartridges; communicatioiis equiprnent; and mrdicines. Five Hondurans
and 12 Salvad~~~ns were arrested for their invol~e~ent in this shinment of
wcapons and supplies.
Thc arms tralfic has continued through different ways and means. On

7 Anrii 1981 trooos of the 11th lnfantrv Battalion stationed in Choluteca
seizédanother van'carrying 7.62-mm and 3.56-miii aniniunition that had been
packed in polyethylene bags aiid hidden in the sides of the van. The troops
also seized a large quantity of niaterial for the Armed People's Kevolutionary
Organization, OKPA, of Guatemala, which was supposed to gel the entire
shipment.This van had left from Nicaragua and was detained at the Guasaule
customs post.
Honduran territorv has also bcen illeeallv uscd for the nassane of trooos

~i&ra~ua. ~wo of the guerrillas were kilied in a clash with the Hondoran pa-
trol. On this occasion we seizeil ~116 rifles, one Czechoslovak 7.65-mm ma-
chine gun made by FHX, M-16 clips, machine gun clips. cartridges, a portable
radio, an FSLN flag, FMLN and FSLN manuals, as well as two notebooks
containing full inforiiiation on the gencral route used to move militnry per-
sonnel and weapons through Honduras on the way to El Salvador.
The Sandinist réeime's intervention in al1 the countries of the Central
-
American region is also revealed in the training of Hondurans at scveral of
the Il schools tliat are operaiing in Nicaragua for this purpose. They arc
located in the different miiitar)~regions OSthat country.
Nicaragua is also the bridge: for the training of Hondurans in Ciiba. On
24 January 1983a group of 16 Hondurans was captured by Our authorities in
Tegucigalpa. According Io statements given by the arrested persons, their116 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

purpose was ta travel to Cuba via Nicaragua in order ta rcceive guerrilla
training and then return to the country to disruot order. The arrested ocrsons
charge2 that Professor Ramon p mil car~erna'~onzalez was responAble for
this operation. They zilsosaid he was the Honduran contact with high S.ndi-
nist afficials.
Nicaragua has also introduced another perturbing element into Central
American relations, because il has brought into its territory more than 17,000
military and other kinds of advisers, mainly from Cuba, the Soviet Union, the
GDR. Bulearaa. North Korea. Vietnam. the PL0 and Libva. amone others.
h~ch ,,n iniprc~>itc rctrcisn ~prc~cn.~iii:~kc-KIL:I~~I$J~tItI,rrit~gr\ ~[c:I
intcr\.cnti\>n i,>rr.ignf~>rccsIt h.n.il.$hroiirlitti,our rc-ion th: i~,n\ions
drri\ini fr,>i.in r.xi~:~-:~iiitiii~thrr.:it. Ihu\ :illiniinli East-\\O[ wn-
flict to become evident here in more ways than one.
Since the Sandinist governmcnt took over power and the interual violent
conflict that disrupts El Salvador became worse, Honduras has suffered a series
of heightened actions against its democratic institutions. These actions arc
clearly linked to the Nicaraguan Government and the FMLN. We can men-

tion, as an example of these actions. the kidnapping of ltalian businessman
Higinio Tarantelli D'Andrea in January 1980.He was later murdered. Like-
wise, there was the April 1980kidnapping of Texacogeneral manager Arnold
Quiros, in San Pedro Sula, barely 3 days before the elections for dcputies Io
the National Constituent Assembly. Also, there was the takeover of the OAS
headquarters in Tegucigalpa. On that occasion, OAS representative Ulises
Pichardo and three einployecs were held hostage. In addition, there was the
kidnapping of baker Paul Vinelli by a command of the People's Liberation
Forces, FPL, which is part of the FMLN, in December 1980. Vinelli was re-
leased on 2 Ma) 1981after a large ransom in dollars was paid. In March 1981
an aeroplane of the Honduran Company SAHSA (Servicio Aereo de Hondu-
ras, SA) was hijacked by a command of the Cinchoneros group comprised of
ihree men and a woman and was lorccd to land in Nicaragua. It was later
flown 10 Panama, from where they demanded that the Honduran Govern-
ment release Salvadoran FMLN guerrilla leader Facundo Guardado and
other guerrilla members who had been arrested in Honduras and charged
with the clandestine trafficking of weapons through our territory.

On 5 August 1981 the FMLN kidnapped engineer German Eyl, who was
released on II December 1981after a large ransom was paid, again in dollars.
On 10March 1982 businessman Jacques Casanova was kidnapped by a group
belonging to the FPL, which is a part of the FMLN. Casanova was freed €rom
a terrorist cell on 19 Mav 1982bv a nolice commando ooeration. On 28 Aoril
1982 a DASH-7 aeropline belokgiig to the ond dura airline SAHSA kas
hijacked in the port of La Ceiba, Atlantida Department, in Honduras. The
empira group Elaimed rcsponsibility for this action, it acted in co-ordination
with the FMLN. The hijackers finally released the passengers and the aero-
plane's crew, and left for Cuba on 1 May 1982. At 18.30 on 17 September
1982,in San Pedro Sula, 12terrorists violcntly entered the Cortes Chamber of
Commerce and Industries, firing their machine guns and wounding two
Honduran citizens. This action initiated the criminal kidnapping of over 100
people, including 2 ministers of state and the president of the Central Bank of
Honduras, who were participating in a seminar on economic policies. The
Cinchoneros group claimed responsibility for this action; its links with Nica-
ragua, Cuba. aiid the Salvadoran guerrillas were clearly establishcd. This

group demanded that the Government release Salvadoran guerrillas.
Eight days later, after many delicate conversations conducted through the ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 117

valuable mediation of the apostolic nuncio in Honduras. the hishop of San

Pedro Sula. and wiih the friendly co-operation of Panama. the terrorists
released the hostaeesuand left Honduras for Panania in a Panamanian Air
Force :icrolil:iiic. 'i'aciit!-Itiur Iiours I:ii~,r.ihc! coi~iiiiucd ihcir tti,Cuh:~.
Oii 14 Dricnihei I%i2 :Igri~upiruni ihr. I1r.<iple'\Kci.i>luiii~ii:ir!hl<i\~.iiictii.
\lKP, k~.I~i:~ni)~l.)lo:tc~r Xioni;ir:i S.I;I,.# 1:strüdaIII(;u:II~III:I~C,il\,. Shc1,
the daughte; Of Honduran President Roberto Suazo Cordovn.
Mr. President, this lis1 iifactions is no1 complete. Othcr terrorist actions
include the destruction of two powcr stations that Icft 80 pcr cent of the Hon-
duran capital wiihoui elcclriciiy, and the detonation of cxplosivc devices in
offices belonging to ihc Salvedoran airline TACA and Air Florida, the

Panamerican Life lnsurancc Company and IBM. al1US companics.
Beyond Our borders. explosive charges were placcd in SAHSA's iiffices in
San José, Costa Rica and in Guatemala City. Guatemala. The Costa Rican
Government expclled two Nicaraguan diplomats because ihey were respon-
siblc for these actions.
On 14 April 1983 ihe Honduran diplomatic mission in Bogoti. Colombia.
was blown up, while Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann
was there on an officialvisii.This icrrorist act wasoeroetrated with rrc;it crueltv.
for thc IliiiiJur;tii u>n\ulw:i\ lied up :snd the h,ii"h ;v.n pl:iccJ in'lroiii ol hih

;ind iIc.ii~ii:ii.l'lictliindiir;ini,l'~i;i\uitcreJ gr;i\c II)LIIIJIi~nJ ;IIIIIUSIIIIIS.
Otl~cricrr,)list ,t;is III:ILIihc i~I.~ici~ici0~t ~~IIIIIJ, ttlc (:hiIc:in .inJ ,\rccn-
tine embassies in Tegucigillpa. ai the Honduran hrewery in Snn Pedro Sula,-and
ai the Texaco refinery in Puerto Cortcs, and the direction of nisichinc-gun firc
at a group of mcmbcrs of ihc US military mission in Honduras.
At the samc lime, the Honduran diplomatic missions in Ecuador. Mexico.
Venezuela. France. Great Britain and Germany were subjected io assaults
and large demonstraiions. The persecution of our country is also evident on
our border. where Nicaragua harasses Honduran border towns. From 1979to
date. the Sandinist régime has staged nearly 200 attacks on zindviolations of

our territory. airspace. and waier. In these incidents, unarmed civilians and
Honduran troops have either heen killed or wounded. When the Sandinist
forces enter our terriiorv. thev o2 .aee und destrov and kidnao dcfenceless
Honduran citizcns. Thcy attack our fishing boats. within Our territorial waters
in the Atlantic and Pacifie Oceans. with artillery fire. The boats are cüpiured,
along wiih iheir crews, zindtakcn to Nicaraguan ports.
The Nicaraguan 1c;idïrs level al1kinds of verbal thrcats and insults against
Honduras and its highest oiiiciali, in an attempt to create a climate of increased
bilateral tension. Last vcar, Commander Tomas Borne ssiid in Madrid that
Nicaragua would eivc an necesserv sunnort to zuerrilla;ictions in Honduras. In
, ~ ..
MarchY1983 ~ornmandcr Huinbcrto Ortega 5aavedra 1hrï;ttcncd ond duras
with war, saving that Nicaragua's troops, aeroplanes, tanks, artillery and al1of
ils offensiv~ar~ament werc re;idy t~'~erpet;ate an act of aggresiion against
Our country. Thcse statements provoked a protest from Honduras. conveyed
by its Foreign Secretariat.
In Aoril 1983this same comniandcr told The New York Tinles that Hondu-
r;iii rcvolutii~ii:iric~could sirikc ttlc II~iiid~r~liAriiicd ForceifIlle).c\tiii nud
to Idunch sti:ich on INic.ir;igu.inierritory. Th15\t.itcnicni w;is,1150relccicJ h!
mv Gs~vcrnnicni I>uriiil: thc siimc muiiih. ihc Sic:ir;icu;in Furcien 5linistcr

made a statemeni in anima. declaring that the chances of open iar between
his country and Honduras had increased. In a speech before the UN Securiiy
Council in May 1983 the Foreign Minister said that Nicaragua coulcl slart a
war with Honduras.118 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Last month, Sergio Ramirez Mercado, member of the Nicaraguan Junta of
the Governmerit of National Reconstruction, said in Caracas, Venezuela,
that evcrythinr! seemed to indicate there would be an armed confrontation

are near. He asked the workeÏs to make sacrifices and to prepare for war
against Honduras. More recently, on 2 July. the Nicaraguan lnterior Minister

himself told the UPI news agency that he saw no chance that an agreement
would be reached to avoid war with Honduras.
All of these statements and threats have been accompanied by false accu-
sations that Honduran soldiers are harassing the Nicaraguan troops. They
have even reached the extreme point where the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister
said on 3 May 1983that Honduran soldiers had crossed the border and inva-
ded Nicaragua. This information was so absurd and incredible that the Nica-

raguan Foreign Minister himself corrected the statement, saying this was an
erroneous interpretation of the communiqué issued by the Foreign Ministry.
MI. President. Messrs reoresentatives. this is the current situation in mv
country, a count'ry that is being thrçatened, harassed, and attacked by thé
Sandinist government. which has shown not the slightest hesitation in un-
leashing ai unrestraiiied and vigorous arms buildup, thus breaking the terms
of security in the Central American Isthmus; which is indifferent toward the

disastrous conssquences that the creation of an enormous army, which ex-
ceeds the numher of militarv troons of the rest of the Central Amcricvn coun-
tries combined. will have for thé region, which continues to be the main
weapons supplier for the subversive and terrorist movements in the Central
American region, which cares nothinr! about the conseauences of permittine
the use of its'territor). by extraregionil and extracontine'ntal forces; threatec
ing the peace and security of the entire American continent; and which con-
tinues tu harass our southern border and to kill Honduran peasants and

foreieners. such as the case of two US iournalists who wçre killed recentlv hv , ,
the eiplosion of a mine placed by the iandinist People's Army, in violation of
our territory. These incidents have also provoked a mass exodus of Honduran
border inhabitants tu our interior
HunJuid\ lis, iit~hrc~kc,n 11,rrord <,rilic gcntl~~ni~.ii';,agr:ciiiciit\ ili.1ii
hÿr siiicrcJ intti. I hcJi$iin~uiilicJ rcprcwrit.iiitci ;Ir: itinre iiiihc 2.1.1.iaill
wiih \%hicl1Haindiir:~, ;ti.~lit~d th: \u\p~.ii~i~iiiiiJi~cu~~iiin\oi iibpr~~p,is:i1,)
this council. su that the Cintadora C;ouo's noble efforts would have an oo-

portunity to be fruitful. You are also abare of the commitment by whiih
Nicaragua undertook tu abstain from bringing actions up within the United
~ationi. a cominitment that the Sandinist iovernment d;d no1 honour
I\I .ine\\\ ciinicrciicc 111hlc.\ic<iCii! un I? ,\l>ril lYh3. Hi, tuc~llcnc!
\Ickic:in forci$ri S:~rr.i:ir\ 13crn:jrJo Se11UIvdJ:i.idmiiicil 111;iiIloii\lur.i~'~
cuiiciI~:~i~~ ~richiiic~\\iiIiin the O,\S m:$\lc Cuni:~I,~:t'>,[r.,te$ndI cti,~rt, pu.-
sible. ~efér;in~ to the meeting that the group's foreign ministers held in
Panama and that established their efforts, the Mexican Foreign Secretary

said, and 1quote:

"lt was initially noted that the most immediate task was to guarantee
that the OAS Permanent Council would not impede the Coniadora
Croup foreign ministers' actions, in terms of initiatives to find solutions
in Central America. This was an urgent matter. because the OAS
Pcrni.incni C'uiin~il ~:ir r<h~dulcJ i<~dch lie ;Idralr ,ii .irc\i~luiii~iiPr,>-

pt,wJ t)! IIoii~Iur~t~cm >1<1n~Ia.y ilt?r[tctctin.Fc~riun.ticly,ihr,~u$l.(\eric, ANNEXES TO THE MEhlORlAL 119

of ialks thai we hcld with othcr parties interested in this issue. itwas
decided that the OAS Permanent Council would postpone this discus-
sion and in this wav ihere would be an easine of oress"re. s. that the
IC~IUO;~~ lorutii could 1r;iiid~r tlic IS~UC. 1,)ihc P~II;#III;Iinruiii. tIi;iis, to
the (:ont:iJor:i forcisn miiiistcrr. ,\t ihr. mnic iiiiic. II u;i\ \ircs\cd ih.it

11 i\,oulJ Ihc:iJi.i,.ihlc th:ii cif<>ri, hc ni;idc in ttic I.niicJS;iituns ,t,ih:ii
no action would he taken there that would duplicate the work thüt had
jus1 bcgun in Panania on the previous Monday.
The narties that ;ire interested in this issue accented our Drooosal . ,
u.itligrc.it iiiicrcsi ;iiiJ rccidcJ t<i rcquc\t iti.it ihc O,\S l'crni;inciii

C'<iuncil p.l,ip<inc. .llsc.ii~,i'i01 ihc ,.,IIL ''tii, a;il thc. lirrt ;icl~.>iiih;it
\in\ I~I~CII ;,n ih? iiiu~. ;inJ ih;it II rciic.al. I:<~rcieiiSccrc1;i.v Se.ulvcJ;i
said this] freed us Io 1;ikc direct àcti& on the sÜbject."

This verbatim statement and the well-known circumstanccs of what has
taken place render any further comment on the situation unnecessary. Never-
theless. thev reaffirm our vicw ihat it is essential thai ihe fullilment of arrce-
ments that-miehi be reached amone the Central American eovernmenfs to

guarantee musi be effcciivel;vcrifiable.
Accordin2 10the OAS Charter. this suhject falls under the esseniial obiec-
tives and nature of our organiz;ition. It is also advisable thal WC note that-the
régime that has prevailed in Nicaragua since 1979 w;is born under the inspira-
tion of and wiih the support of the OAS. On that occasion. the following

essential foundations for ils historical viability were estahlished:
(1) The immediatc replacement of the Somozist régime. (2) lnslallation in

Nicaragua of a demcicratic government. whosc composiiion would include
the main representative groups that are opposed 10 the Somoza régime and
which would reflect the free will of the Nicaraguan people. (3) The convoca-
tion of free elcctions as soon as possible, which will lead to the establishment
of a truly democratic government that will guarantee peace. frecdom. and

justice.
Of these foundaiions. as cstablishcd and fully accepted at the 17th consul-

tative meeting. particularly by those who have since led the Nicaragunn Junta
of the Government of National Reconstruction. only the firsi has been ful-
filled. The rest of the foundations. which constitute the new régime's moral
and legal commitment io this organization, have heen made a mockcry. jus1
as the contincnt's oolitical desire has been made a mockcrv.

hlr I'rc,iil~.ni a.c ;#A lhc 0A.i l'crni:in~.iii C.,un<il ii,t;idc note <iti,ur
\pccch. u hicli1, ~upplcnicntcd hyilir ~Ilu,tr.~ii~~n ~i:ttcri;ttIi.1\i~ Ii:i\c di\tri-
hiiicJ. \Vc :II\<.i>k it18, i;ik~.noi~..~l tli>n.liir:,,'unvicldinr iIc,irc id orc~motc
peace in our region and to furthcr strengthen the démocràiic insiitut~ons that

are the common aspiration ofour peoples. We declare bcfore you ihat within
that spirit. Honduras will attend the next Contadora Group meeting and that.
in short. itwill fulfil ils obligations as a peace-loving State and 21mcmber of
the OAS.
Mr. President. before ending my speech I would like to invite those col-
leagues who wish to do so to vicw, once you have closed the session. a short

docurnentary, lasting 12 minutes and 40 seconds, in ihis same rooni before
going Io the reception thzii you. Mr. President. are holding for His Excellency
the Guatemalan Ambassador. Thank you very much. Mr. President.120 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 13

CANCUNDECLARATION ON PEACE IN CENTRALAMERICA.DECLARATION

LElTER DATED:9 JULY 1983 FROMTHE REPRESENTATIVEO SF COLOMBIA,

MEXICO, PANAMA AND VENEZUELA TOTHESECRETARY-GENERAL

[Origirral: Spanish]
//Y July 19831

We have the honour Io transmit ta you the text of the Cancun Declara-
lion on Peace in Cçntral Amcrica, drawn up by the Presidents of Colombia,
Mexico. Panama and Venezuela al the close of the meeting which they held
on 17July 1983at Cancun. Mexico.
We would request you to have the text of this Declaration circulated as a
document of the General Asscmbly and of the Security Council.

(Signedi Carlos ALBANHOI.GU~N.
Permanent Representative of Colombia
Io the United Nations.

(Signedj Miguel MAKiNBOSCH,

Chargé d'affaires.i.
of the Permanent Mission of Mexico
to the United Nations.

(Signed) Leonardo KAM.
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
of the Permanent Mission of Panama
to the United Nations.

(Si>.ed) Alberto MARTINIURDANETA.
Permanent Representative of Venezuela
to the United Nations.

Annex

CrrncrinDeclnrotion on Peace in Central America

In view of the worsening of the conflicts in Central Amçrica, Hcads of
State of Colombia, Belisario Betancur, of Mçxico, Miguel de la Madrid, of
Panama, Ricardo de la Espriella, and of Venezuela, Luis Herrera Campins.
decided to meet a1Canctln (Mexico) today. 17July 1983.
We considered the critical situation in Ccntral America and agreed that

we were al1deeply concerned at the spccd with which it was deteriorating, as
evidenced by an escalation of violence, the progressive mounting of tensions, ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORlAL 121

frontier incidents and the threat of a flare-up of hostilities that might spread.

All this. combined with the arms race and outside interfercnce, creates a
traeic settine affectine the oolitical stabilitv of the reeioii and rulinr out anv

in CentÏal America oresent the international communitv with the choice of
either resolutely suiporting and strengthening thc of political under-
standing by oflering constructive solutions. or passively accepting the accen-
tuation of factors which could lead to extremely dangerous armed confron-
tations.
The use of force is an approach that does not dissolve, but aggravates the
underlying tensions. Peace in Central America can become a reality only in so
far as respect is shown for the basic principles of coexistence among nations:
non-inïervcntion; sell-determination; sovereign equality of States; co-opera-
tion for economic and social development; peaccful settlement of disputes

and frcc and authentic expression of the popular will. The crcating of condi-
tions conducivc to peace in the region depends mainly on the attitude and the
genuine readiness for dialogue of the countries of Central America, which
must shoulder the primary responsibility and make the major effort in the
search for agreements ensuring peaceful coexistence.
Accordingly, it is essential that the political will to seek understanding.
which has been displayed sincc the very beginning of the Contadora Group's
activities. should continue 10 be clearlv cxoressed in continued efforts for
pcace. so that it niay be translaled into'conCrete actions and commitments.
It is also necessary that other States with interests in and ties to the region
should use their political influence in helping to strengthen the channek of
understanding and should unreservedly commit themselves to the diplomatie
approacb to peace.
The efforts of the Contadora Grouo have so far led to the initiation of a

of an agenda covering the salient aspects of the problems of the region.
These achievements, although still inadequate, have been encouriiged hy
the support of many countries, of a numher of organizations and of the most
varied opinion groups at the international level. All are agreed that the activi-
ties of the Contadora Grouo have heloed to mitieate the daneers and reduce
the risks of awidespread c8nirontatidn and havemadc il po&ible to identify
problems and causes of what is now a landscape of conflict and fear.
This eenerous suooort bv the international communitv impels us 10 persist

ples oi central America, we considecil necessary to éxpedite the processihat
may transform the will for peacs into proposais which. if propcrly developed,
can effectively ccintribute to the settlement of conflicts.

To that end, we have agreed on the general lines of a programme to bc
proposed to the countries of Central America which requires, in addition 10
srricr compliariçc with the essential principles governing international rela-
tions. the conclusion of agreements and political commitments that will Icad,
rcgion-wide. to effective control of the arms race. the elimination of f0reic.n

zation actions in other States. the eradication oftransit of and traffic in arms122 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

as well as the prohibition of other forms of aggression or interference in the
internal affairs of any country in the area.
In order to implement this general programme. il will he necessary to con-
clude agreements emhodying political commitments designed to ensure peace
in the region. These agreements could include:

- Commitment to put an end IO al1prevailing situations of helligerency:
- Commitment to freeze offensive weapons at their current level;
- Commitment to hegin negotiations on agreements for the control and re-
duction of currerit stocks of weapons, with the establishment of appro-
priate supervisory inachincry;
- Commitment to nrohibit the existence in national territory of militarv in-
stallations beloniing to other countries;

- Cornmitment to giveprior notice of troop movements near frontierswhen
the contingents excced the limits set in the agreement:
- Commitment to organize. as appropriate. joint boundary frontier or inter-
national supervision of frontiers by groups of observers chosen by com-
mon agreement by the parties concerned:
- Commitment to establish mixed securitv commissions with a view to ore-
icnling ;aiid.\r.hr.rc;ippr<q>ri;itc,r.r.\c>li.ingIrcinticr incident\:
- <:onimitment 1i1~.sl;ihl~sh~ntcrn:ilcuntrol iiinchincry to prcvcni thc tr;in-
sit of weapons from the territory of any country in Cheregion to the terri-
torv of another:
,
- Commitment to promotc a climate of détente and confidence in the area
by avoiding slatemcnts and other actions that ieopardize the essential cli-
mate of oditical confidence reauired:
- Commitment to co-ordinate systems of direct communication hetween
Governments with a vicw to prevcntine armed conflicts and gïnïra.ing an -
atmosphere of rnutual politi~al confidence.

Similarlv we considcr that. simultancouslv with the imolemcntzition of this
gcncr;il progranime. ihc 1;isk ,ifrc><,l\.inscpr~.ilicJificre~iec~hciuccii c<>uii-
trie\ \h<iuld hc t~ickle<linili;ill!. h! ihc sig,iiiii,ifin~.mi~r;jn<l if undcr5t:tnil-
inc :inil th: esl:ihli~hrncni <ifiiiixcJ c,immi>ii<,n, th;it \vil1ciishl~. th2 nnrtic.;
toundertake joint action and guarantee the effective control of thei; terri-
tories. especially in frontier areas.
These measures, aimed ai eliminating the factors which disturh the peace

of the reeion. should be accomnanied hv a maior internal effort to strenethen
dcn1ucr;itic institutions :inil ~u:ir;iiiiec rc\pcct lor liuiii;ii~rifihi,.
T<i thir end il is iicccss:ir\, tu in1prui.c nicih<idh <ifct~n,ulting the pci,plc.
ensure that the various currénts of opinion have free access toihe eiector;il
process and promote the full participation of citizens in the politic;il life of
their country.
The strennthenine of democratic oolitical institutions is closelv linked to
evolution ana progr& in the field oi economic development anci s»ci;il jus-
tice. In fact, thçsc arc two aspects of a single process whosc ultimate go;il is
the implementation of the fundamental vaiuesof mankind.

The economic backwardncss which liesat the root of instability in the rcgion
and is the immediate cause of many of ils conflicts should be approached from
this standpoint.
Some of the steps most urgently needed to offset the effects of the world
economic crisis are the strengthening of integralion machinery. an increase
in intra-zonal trade and the exploitation of opportunities for industrial com-
plementarity. Howcver. such efforts hy the countries concerned must be ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 123

erammes and access of Centrii Americàn oroducts lo thcir markets. The
Governments of the countries of the contadora Croup reiterzitc their deci-
sion ta continue the progriimmcs of co-operation that bencfit the subregion
and offer thcir assist~nc~in channelline hternational suonort towards these

toihe Central American &untries f& their con;idcration.
We appeal to al1membcrs of the international comniunity, cspecially those

which have expressed sympathy with the efforts of the Contadora Group, and
to the Secretarv-Ccncral of the Unitcd Nations and the Chairman of the Per-
iti.îii~~C'uirncili~frhc Org.ini/:<ti<i(ii ,2nir.ric~ii St;itt,,c,inirihut~.. trith
iheir cipcrienLr niid diploninlic cap:~l>ilii<, ihr. 5c.irch for ~ic;icciuls~~lutioiis
tu the ~roblems of central ~merica. Foi al1these reasons Ge have contactcd
the leaders of Government of the countries of the American continent with a
view tu obtaining their solidarity. which is necessary for us.
We. Heads of State of Colornhia, Mexico, Panania and Vcnezucla. reaf-
firm the aims that unite our Governments in the task of sccking to contribute
tu the establishment of thc jus1 and lnsting peace desired by the peoples of

Central America.

Donc at Cancun (Mexico) on 17July 1983.

(Signcd) Belisario BETANCUR.
President of the Republic of Colornbia.

(Signeri) Miguel DE LA Mt\DRII>.

President of the United Mexican States.

(Sigrled) Ricardo DE 1.A ESPRIEI.LA.
President of the Republic of Panama

(Signed) Luis HERRERACAMP~NS.
President of the Republic of Venezuela.124 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 14

SPEECH OF 19 JULY 1983 HY COMMANDERDANIEL.ORTEGASAAVEDRA,
CO-ORDINATOR OF THE NATIONALRECONSTRUCTION GOVERNINGJUNTA

OFNICARAGUAL , A THlflUNA, TEGUCIGALPA2,2 JULY 1983(EXCERPT)

(Translation)

. .. The Government of National Reconstruction will accept that the be-
ginning of the negotiation process promoted by the Contadora Group be of a
multilateral character so that therc should be no more excuses and that those
who declare themselves to be interested in peace take concrete steps to fur-

ther the process which may establish the bases thereof.
Furthermore, bearing in mind the fact that the Heads of State have en-
trustcd their Ministers for Foreign Relations with the preparation of specific
proposals to be submitted for consideration by the Central American countries
on account of the forthcoming combined meeting of Foreign Ministers and that
the major dangers to peace in the region could arise from the exacerbation of
the military conflicts already cxisting. the Sandinista National Liberation Front

proposes that discussions begin immediately on the following basic points:
(1) An agrecment to put an end to any belligerent situation prevailing by
means of the iinmediate signaturc of a non-aggression pact between Nicara-
gua and Honduras.

(2) Absolute cessation oi any supply of weapons by any country to the
forces in conflict in El Salvador so that the nation can solve its prohlem with-
out external interference.
(3) Absolute cessation of any military support in the form of supply of
weapons, training, utilization of territory to launch attacks or any other form
of aggression on the forces opposing any of the Central American Govern-
ments.

(4) Undertakings ensuring absolute respect for self-determination of the
Central American peoples and non-interference in the interna1 matters of
each country.
(5) Cessation of attacks and cconomic discrimination against any Central
American country.
(6) The non-installation of forcign military bases in the territory of Central
Amcrica and also the suspension of military excrcises in the area of Ccntral
America with participation of foreign armies.

Progress in the solution of these points will automatically contribute to-
wards a discussion of other ooints which likewise concern the Central Ameri-
r:,n Si.iic;,nd vhich ;ire re~.,r.le<inihc ('i>nt:iJ<irC~r<,up .~?c.nJ:IIIt>rJ~rto

11n.l;X~I;i:ccpt~t>l~,.inJ I:i.iin,: wlutiicitlic \ccurit\, iliiciiuiitric.iiithe
region.
When the agreamen~s ~ ~ ~ ~en reached with the aid of the Contadora
Group and whcn they have been approvcdby it. the Security Council of the
United Nations as the supreme international organization cntrusted with en-
suring international peacé and security, should sÜpervise and guarantee to al1
countries that these agreements will bc implemented. ANNEXISS TO THE MEMORIAL 125

Nicaragua staies ils willineness tu assume. with full resnonsibiliiv. al1com-
niiinicnt. ;iri.lng ironi ihr s:iiil ;lsrc.cmcnis a1rnislicsih~çCIC:I ~y nccr.piin<
ihr. Iiaiintovicu of th^.Ilc;irliiiS1:iicsiifthe ('oniador;~Croup ICIihc iiiiciii
thaïthe task of scttline soeci(ic differenccsbetween countrics must be beeun
initially wiih the signaTu; of a memorandum of understanding and the crea-
lion of commissions ;illowing the parties tu carry out combinïd actions and
euarantee effective controlÏof thcir territoriesl csvcciallv in thc frontier
Zones. Until thïsç initiatives materializc, the people ~ic;;rzi~u;iwill remain

completely mobilizcd, rcady tu crect a wall of patriotism and guns whçrcver
the aggrcssors m;iy strikc126 KORUKR AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 15

PRESSRELEASE OF TIlE MINISTERS OF FOREIGNRELATIONSOFTHECONTA-

DORA CROUP AND OF THECENTRALAMERICANCOUNTRIES3 ,0 JULY 1983

(Translation)

In fu~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~f the dinlomatic efforts in favour o~~Central American
peace, on 28,29 and 30 July there met inthe City of Panama the ~inistërs of
Foreign Relations of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, members of

what 7s known as the Contadora Grouo. with their colleaeues -rom Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, ~onduras'and Nicaragua.
During this third ioint meeting the evolution of the Central American situa-
tion was ëxamined and in a climite of frank cordialitv. the Drocess of neeotia-
tions leading to the construction of a stable and du;able peace in the entire
region was advanced.

In light of tliis objective, the Central Amcrican Ministers made known
their acceptance and gave their support to the Cancun Declaration recently
promulgated by the Heads of State of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Vene-
zuela. They agreed, in addition, that it was necessary to establish the basis for
the indisoensable aereements to achieve that oeace. and for such reasons. the
~inisters' of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, on the one
hand, and the Minister of Nicaragua on the other hand, formulated concrete

contributions on the criteria andiiewooints of the countries with resoect to
the characteristics, contents and scope'which such agreements should'have.
For the pnrpose of analysing the proposals presented, of identifying the
uoints of aeieenient. obiainina Checomoromises-necessarv and furtherini the
i>eace propess it was agreeduto recommence the joint deliberations in the
course of the month of August in the city of Panama.
The participants were unanimously satisfied by the constructive atmos-

phere which prevailed in the course of the sessions. A new phase has been
initiated in the process of the reduction of tensions characterized by a fluid
dialogue and a clear political will. In sueh conditions, it will be possible to
bring together thc basis for a regional political compromise which will guaran-
tee peace, re-establish security, promote democracy and stimulate co-opera-
tion for development.
On the second anniversary of the death of Gcneral Omar Torrijos Her-

rera, the nine Ministers meeting in Panama rendered a dcserved homagc to
his memory, depositing a wreath in the mausoleum where his remains rest
and making known their recognition of the ideals of peace, independence and
free determination of the people. principles for which Omar Torrijos fought
witb a visionary spirit.
President Ricardo de la Espriella kindly received the nine Ministers, who
manifested their gratitude for the efforts of the government in favour of rc-

gional coexistence and for the generous hospitality of the Panamanian people. ANNBXliS 1'0 THE MEMORIAL

Annex 16

"DOCUMENT OF OBJECTIVES" ISSUED BY THE JOINT MEETING OF MINIS-
TERS OF FOREIGNRELATIONS OF THE CONTADORAGROUP AND OF THE
CENTRALAMERICANCOUNTRIE(S UNITED NATIONSDOCUMENTS116041.
ANNEX).9 SBPI'EMBBR 1983

The situation prevailing in Central America. which is characterized by an

atmosphere of tension that threzitens security and peaceful coexistence in the
region. and which requires. for iis solution. observance of the principles of
international law governing the actions of States. especially:

The self-determination of pcoples:
Non~ ~ ~~~ ~tion:
The sovereign equality of States:
The veaceful sçttlement of (lis~utes;
~efriining from the threat or "se orforce;
Respect for the territorial integrity of Statçs:

Pluralism in ils various manifestritions;
Full support for dçmocratic institu1ii)ns:
The promotion of social justice;
Internationalco-operation for development;
Respect for and promotion of human rights;
The prohibition of terrorism and subversion:
The desire Io reconstruct the Central Amcrican homeland through pro-
gressive integration of its economic. legal and social institutions:
The need for economic co-oucr;ition amone the Stzitesof Central America

so as to make a fundamental co'ntribution10the devclopmcnt of their peoples
and the strengthening of their independence:
The underiaking 6 establish. promole or revitalize representative. demo-
cratic systems in al1the countries of the region:
The unjust economic. social and poliiical structures which exacerbate the
conflicts in Central Amcrica;
The urgent need 10put an end to the tension and lay the foundations for
understanding and solidarity ainong the countries of the area:
The arms race and the growing arms triiffic in Central America. which
aggravate political relations in the region and divert economic resources that

could be used for development:
The presence of foreign advisers and other fornis of foreign military inter-
ference in the zone;
The risks that the territory of Centralrican States may he used for the
purpose of conducting military oper;itions and pursuin~.policies of destabi-
iization against others:
The need for conceried ~olitical d'forts in order lo encouraee dialogue and
understanding in Centrzil Àmerica, avcrt the dziiigerof a gene;al sprcading of
thc conflicts. and set in motion the machinery needed10ensure the peaceful

coexistence and security of their peoples:128 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Declare rheir intenrion of achieving the followirig objecrivcs:
To promote détente and put an end to situations of confiict in the area,
refraining from taking any action that might jeopardize political confidence

or prevent the nchievement of peace, security and stability in the rcgion;
To ensure strict cornpliance with the aforementioned principles of interna-
tional law. whose violators will he held accountable;
To respect and ensure the excrcise of human, political, civil, economic,
social, religious and cultural rights;
To adoot measures conducive to thc establishment and. where aoorooriate

ensure that the variouscurrénts of ovinion have free access to faTrand reeular
elections based on the full observance of citizens' rights;
To promote national reconciliation efforts wherever deep divisions have
taken place within society, with a view to fostering participation in democra-
tic political processes in accordance with the law;
To create political conditions intended to ensure the international sccurity,
integrity and sovereignty of the States of the region;
To stop the arms race in al1ils formsand hegin negotiations for the control
and reduction of current stocks of weapons and on the nurnber of armed
troops;
To orevent the installation on their territorv of foreien militarv hases or

view to their eGmination;
To establish interna1 control machinery to prevent the traffic in arms [rom
the territory of any country in the region to the territory of another;
To eliminate the traffic in arms, whether within the region or from outside
il, intended for persons, organizations or groups seeking to destabilize the
Governments of Central American countries:
To orcvent the use of their own territorv bv oersons. oreanizations or
groups'seeking to destahilizc the ~overnments ;<Central ~herican coun-
tries and to refuse to provide them with or permit tbcm to receivc military or
logistical support;
To refrain from iiicitine or suoo..tine a-ts of terrorism. subversion or
sabotage in the countries in the area;
To establish and co-ordinate direct communication svstems with a view to
preventing or, where appropriate, settling incidents bétween States of the
region;
To continue humariitarian aid aimed al helping Central American refugces
who have heen dis~laced from their countries of oriein. and to create suitahle
n t i ir h Iunr rcp:iiri.iti<i>I,uili rc,lue~r\. III:<iii~uli.ii.iiii
n1t11thc co-,~l>crat!~til>fttlc LJIII~C;Iai~c>nIsli~h C'on~niivi~m:rlctr U~,iu$:c\
(I'VHClli snJ .,ihc,r iiiicrn.iiicin;~Iaccii,.ic, 4:~nicJ liririr<,pri.xtc~.
To undcrtake economic and social develooment ororrammes with the aim

sustained develooment on the hasis of soli8aritv and mutuil advantace:
To negotiate'the provision of external monetary resources wYhichwill
provide additional means of financing the resumption of intra-regional trade.
meet the serious bal;ince-of-payrnents problerns, attract funds for working ANNEXES TO THE iMEMORIAL 129

capital. support programmes to extend and restructure production systems
and promote medium- and long-term investment pr«jecrs;
To neeotiate bettcr iind broader access to international markets in order to

the achievement ofpricï stahility at a profitableand fziirlevcl for the products
exported by the countrics ofhç rcgion;
To establish technical CO-operation machinery for the planning. program-
ming and implemcnt;ition of multi-sectoral investment and ir;ide promotion
projects.
The Ministcrs for Foreign Affairs of the Central American countrics. with
the participation ofhe countries in the Contadora Croup. have beguii nego-
tiatibns whh the aim of..renari-ie for the conclusion of ihe aereemenis and
the establishment of the machinery necessary to formalize and develop the
obiectives conlained in this document. and Io bring about the establishment
ofappropriate verificrtion and monitorinz svstems.-To thzit end. account will
be i&e< of the initiatives put forwarduai the meetings convcned by the
Contadora Croup.

Panama City. 9 Septcmber 1983.130 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 17

MEASURES 'TOBE TAKEN TO FULFIL THE COMMITMENTE SNTERED INTO
IN THE DOCUMENT OF OBJECTIVES BY THE JOINTMEETING OF MINISTERS
OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE CONTADORACROUP AND THE CENTRAL
AMERICANCOUNTRIES(UNITEDNATIONS DOCUMENT Al39171, S116262,
APPENDIX),8 JANUARY1984

The Governments of Costa Rica. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua,

Considering:

1. The adoption by the £ive Governments in September 1983 of the
"Document of Objectives" as a früme of reference for the regional agreement
to achieve pcace,
2. The necessity of instituting mcasures designed to fulfil the commitments
embodied therein,

Resolve:

1. To adopt the following measures for immediate application:
1.Seclirity qiiesrions;

(a) The preparation by each of the Central American States of a register
or inventory of military installations, weapons and troops, with a view Io
developing guidelines on a policy for their verification and reduction which
sets ceilings and provides for a reasonable balance of forces in the region;
(b) The establishment of a list and timetable in each country with a view Io
reducing, and eventually eliminating, the presence of foreign military advisers

and other outside elements participating in military or security activities;
(c) The identification and elimination of al1forms of support or encourage-
ment Io and financing or tolcration of irregular groups or forces engaged in
destabilizing Central American Governments;
(d) The identification and disbandment of irregular groups or forces
which, acting from or traversing the territory of a Central American State,
participate in destabilizing actions against another Government of theion;
(el The identification of areas. routes and channels used for illeeal traffie in
;srni\ilthin.iniouir Jc the rcsion\<ith:iiucli tr.ifn1.0 tic doppcd:

11,Thc,~~I~~hli~I~i~ 01 ~ii,~ch,sni~~~Jircct c~~nintui~ic.tt\wtIi:IVIC,\V
to averting incidents betwecn States and devising solutions in the event of the
occurrencë of such iiicidents;
2. Polirical marlers:

(a) The promotion of national reconciliation on the basis of justice, free-
dom and democracy and the establishment for this purpose of machinery Io
facilitate dialogue between the countries of the region;

(b) The guaranteeing of full respect for human rights and, to this end, the
securing of compliance with the obligations embodied in international legal
instruments and the relevant constitutional provisions;
(c) The promulgation or review of legislation on thc electoral process with ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 131

a view to the holding of elections that guarantec the effectivc participation of
the people;
(d) The establishment of indcpendent electoral bodies lo preparc reliable
electoral registcrs and to ensure that thc electoral process is impartial and
democratic:
(e) The issue or, wherc appropriatc, the updating of regulations guaran-
teeing thc experience and participation of political partics which represent
the different currents of opinion;

(f) The establishment of an electoral timetable and the adoption of mea-
surcs designed to ensure that the political parties participate on an equal
footing:
(g) Endeavours to bring about genuine political trust between the Govern-
ments of the area in order to promote détentc;

3. Econornic an<l social querrions:

(a) The strcngthening of programmes of assistance to Central American
refugees and the promotion of \,oluntary repatriation, with the co-operation
of the interested Governments, in liaison andlor CO-ordination with national
humanitarian bodies and competent international organizations;
(b) The extension of full co-operation to the Cciitral American Integra-
tion Bank, ECLA, the Committee for Action in Support of the Economic and

Social Development of Central Amcrica and thc General Treaty on Central
American Intcgration (SIECA):
(c) Joint negotiations to obtain external resourccs 10 help rcvitalize Cen-
tral American integration processes;
(d) The encouragement of trade within the region and the promotion of
greater and better acccss of Central American products to the intern;ttional
~~~~~-~~~ ~
(e) The promotioii of joint investment projects;

ff) The establishment of iust economic and social structures which will re-
info.Gcean~a~thentic~ ~~~ocrjtic svstem and eive uhe ocovl.s f.ll access Io the
judicial system, employment, education, health and culturc;
II. To airrhorize: the Technic:il Croup. as advisory body of the Joint Meet-
ing ol the Ministers for Foreign Affairs ol Central America and of the Conta-

dora Group, to follow up the measures provided for in this docurrieiit on secu-
rity, political and economic and social questions. The Technical Group will
report to the meeting of Ministcrs on the progress made in carrying oiil these
measures;

111. TI> esrablish: in the framework of the Contadora Group, three work-
ing commissions for the purposc of preparing studies. legal drifts and recom-
mendations concerning security and political matters and economic and social
questions and of making proposais for veri.yin- and supervising.thc implemen-
talion of the measurcs a&e&dupon:
The working commissions will be governed by the following rulcs:

(a) They will be composed of representatives of the Governments of Cen-
tral America,and each country may designatc up to Iwo advisers per commis-

sion;
(h) They will be convened by the Contadora Group, which will participate
in their meetings in ordcr that it may continue to collaborate actively in the
study of the assigncd topics and in the prcparation of agreements:
(c) Recourse to external advisers, whether the latter are experts in their132 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

individual cap;icity or represenlatives of international organirations. must he
approved in advance by consensus;
(d) The working commissions willbe set up by 31January 1984at the latest,
for which purposc the participating Governments will designate their reprcsen-
tatives and adviseis and will communicate their nanics in due course to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Repuhlic of Panama;
(e)Each commission will preparç and present its timetahle and programme
of work before 29 Fehruary 1984;
(f ihe working commissions will carry out their tasks within the frame-
work estahlished by the "Document of Objectives". They will be co-ordinated
by the Technical Group and will present their studies, legal drafts and recom-
mendations to the Joint Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs by 30 April
1984at thc latest.

Panama, 8 January 1984. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI

Annex 18

LETTRE. EN DATE DU IERMAI 1984.ADRESSE€ AU SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE

GROUPE DE CON.~ADORA ET DES PAYS D'AMÉRIQUE CENTRALE (NATIONS
UNIES, DOC. S116522),1"' MAI 1984

(Original: rspagnol/
(2 mai 19841

J'ai l'honneur dc vous faire tenir le texte du bulletin d'information publié
à l'issue de la sixième réunion conjointe des ministres des relations exté-
rieures des pays membres du gri~upc de Contadora et des pays d'Am2rique
ccntralc, qui s'est tenueà Panama Lcs30 avril et 1" mai 1984.
Je vous pric de bien vouloir faire distribuer le tente de la présente lettre et
du bulletin en tant que document de l'Assemblée générale etdu Conseil de
sécurité.

(Signé) Flora L. NORIEGA.

Anriexe

Birlletin d'i,iforrnrrfionpubliéà Panania le 1'' mo1984 par les ministresdes
relrriionsextérieuresdespays membresdii groirpe de Contadoru eidr.spays
d'Amériquecentrale

Les ministres des relations extéricures des pays membres du groupc de
Contadora (Colombie, Mexique, Panama ct Venezuela) et du Costa Rica,
d'El Salvador, du Guatemala. du Honduras et du Nicaragua se sont réunis à

Panama le 30 avril 1984.
L'objectif de cette sixième réunion conjointe des ministres des relations
extérieures était de ooursuivre et de renforcer l'action diolomatiaue en vue

rer un climat de confiance, de cornpréhension et de coopération entre les pays
de la région.

Conformémeiit à l'ordre du jour annoncé. les ministres des rrlations
extérieures ont reçu les conclusions des commissions chargées des questions
politiques, des questions de sécuritéet des questions économiques et sociales
crééesen application des «Mesiires a prendre pour assurer I'exicution des
engagemçnts assumés dans le documcnt exposant les objectifs visés» du
8 ianvier 1984 /voir S/162521.
Au <coursilci tr,,i,I~rni~r. illtIr5.<6iiiiiili>si.ilitiiiu qu.ilrc hc\~liili~
Jc tr.iv.ipcriJ;liiIc~qiirllci.II:$i11iLIUJICJi\cr\ JO;UIIII~I~ CI .Iï ncim-134 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

breuses propositions dans leurs domaines de compétence respectifs. Les tra-
vaux, supervisés par le groupe technique, ont étéextrEmemcnt satisfaisants.
La cimmission chargée des questions politiques a étudié à fond et avcc
intéret toutes les propositions qui lui ont étésoumises pour examen. Elle s'est

consacrée à quatre grands domaines: la réconciliation nationale, les droits de
l'homme, les processus électoraux et la détente régionale. Elle a adopté
diverses propcisitions relativeà la création d'instruments permettant d'éla-
borer et d'appliquer une politique de détente fondée sur la contiance entrc
Etats afin de réduire véritablement les tensions nolitiaues et militaires

sentative et uluraliste et le alein resaect des droits de l'homme - ou à
renforcer de &les institution~iorsqu3eiles existen-. en vue d'encourager ct
de concrétiser lc processus de réconciliation nationale. La commission est
également aarvenue à un comoromis sur les règles destinées à emoêcher

oresshns uolitiauei. et sur des recomiandations concernant le lTbreaccès aux
processus'élect~raux ainsi que l'échangede données d'expérience et d'infor-
mations entre les organismes des pays d'Amérique centrale ceuvrant dans des
domaines d'activités similaires. . .
La commission chargée des questions de sécuritéa obtenu un consensus

sur plusieurs points de son ordre du jour. Tous les pays ont convenu de la
nécessitéde rétablir un climat de confiance,de stabilitéet de sécuritédans la
région et ont etudié les moyens pratiques d'y parvenir.
Cette comniission a atteint une large mesure d'accord quant aux principes
juridiques en matière de securité, aux mesures destinées à promouvoir la
confiance. à l'interdiction de l'installation de bases militaires et de toute

les pays voisins ainsi que les actions de d'éstabilisation, de cabotage et de
terrorisme: elle a examiné divers mécanismes concrets de prévention et de
règlement des incidents frontaliers.
Si le retrait des conseillers étrangers a donné lieues divergences d'opi-
nion quant aux modalités les plus appropriées de ce retrait, son principe n'en
a pas moins été approuvépar une grande partie des membres de la commis-
sion. Celle-ci a étudiéavec soin les problèmes crééspar le surarmement et
défini des critères de base pour détcrminer les niveaux souhaitables de
développement militaire des pays d'Amérique centrale ainsi que les termes
qui seront utilisés pour dresser l'inventaire des ressources militaires de la
région.

Enfin, les participants ont examiné diverses propositions concernant les
moyens et instruments les plus appropriés de vérificationet de contrôle. A cet
égard,ils ont souligné la nécesside constituer un dispositif impartial dans ces
deux domaines.
La commission chargée des questions économiques et sociales, pour sa
part, est oarvenue àune large mesure d'accord sur les auestions aui relèvent
de son mandat. Pour mieux ?acquitter de sa tâche, elle'recour Lux précieux
conseils de divers organismes internationaux et régionaux. Outre les activités
prévues à son programme, la commission a tenu-des réunions spéciales au
cours desquelles elle a entendu les avis des représentants du Haut Commis- ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 135

sariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés,de l'Organisation internationale
du Travail. de I'Oreanisation pariaméricaine de la santé. du Secrétariat Der-

précises ausujei de l'intégration,du commerce intrazonal et de la coopération

techniau,. ,~~~investissements ct du~f~ ~ncement. des auestions svndicales et ~ ~ ~
des problèmes de santé. Elle a examiné. cn lui accordant toute l'importance
qu'elle mérite, la situation des réfugiés,et, à cet égard, les pays ont présenté
diverses initiatives qui seront ex'minées en vu; d'assurer un règlement
conjoint de ce problème.
Les ministres dcs relations extérieures ont souligné que les travaux des

commissions avaient contribué de façon extrêmement positive au processus
dc neeociation nolitiaue et dinlomatiaue. Ils se sont félicitésdes travaux

ilconvieni de dédover 1; nlus d'effort sour surmonter les diverecnceï mais.

centrale ist aujourd'hui confrontie.
Après un échange de vues préliminaire, chacun des ministres a proposé de
procéder à un examen minutieux des documents établis par le groupe tech-
nique et les commissions de travail. Afin de faciliter la phase suivante des
opérations et de permettre au groupe de Contadora de s'acquitter de ses

fonctions de conciliation. les ministres des relations extérieures ont décidé
qu'il convenait d'ordonner systématiquement et de regrouper les documents
établis ,ar l~ ~ ~ ~ ~sions afin de le~ ~résenter orochainement aux eouver-
nements d'Amérique centrale pour qu'ils les examinent. Ils ont également
décidbqu'une fois qu'il aura achcvé sa tâche de compilation systématique et

de reerouocment. Îe eroune techniaue examinera lès recommandations et

ner forme aux~aciords intervenus etpour établirles mécanismes nécessaires à
leur mise en Œuvre.
Les ministres ont néanmoins souligné quc Ics progrès réalisésau sein du

groupe contrastaient avec I'interisification de la violence, la recrudescence
des activites milit;iires, la course aux armements et la présence militaire
étrangère dans la zone, phénomènes qui, sous leur forme la plus récente,
constituent une grave menace pour la paix et suscitent une inquiétude justi-
fiéeau sein de la communauté internationale. C'cst pourquoi ils ont exprimé
la détermination de leurs gouvernements d'intensifer les efforts visant à

empêcherla généralisation du conflit et à faciliter le dialogue et la négocia-
tion. Ils ont réaffirmé leur volonté inébranlable d'assurer un règlement
pacifique des problèmes régionaux tout en exhortant une fois de plus les pays
qui ont des liens avec la région ou qui y possèdent des intérêts à contribuer
activement aux efforts visant à y instaurer la détcntc. la paix et une coopéra-
tion authenliuue.

par Ic groupe de Contadora constitua~t la meilleure formulë et le moyen je
plus approprié pour résoudre les conflits que connaît actuellement la région.136 BORIIER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

II est par conséquent indispensable que les Etats d'Amérique centrale
poursuivent leurs efforts en vue de parvenir à une solution négociée de la
crise qui sévitdans la régionau moyen de négociations politiques et diploma-
tiaues menées dans un csorit dc sérieuxet de sincérité.en s'attachantàmain-
tenir leur volontéd'entefite et de concertation et en respectant les procédures

et moyens dc négociation qu'ils ont eux-mêmesconvenus, afin d'aboutir à la
conclusion d'un traité de oaix réeional

régissentle comportement des Etais ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 19

Nnm FROM THE CONTADORA CiKOUPTOTHEPERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE

24 Ociober 1984.

Her Excellency Monica Madari;iga.
President of the Permanent Counsel
of the Organization of American States.
Washington. D.C.

Your Excellency :

In comoliance with thï iiistri~ctions of our Ministries. we arc scndinr to
Your ~xcéllencya copy of the "Contadora Act for Peace and ~«-o~erziti& in
CentralAmcric;iVwith the requr:st that you makitknown io the missicinsof
the member States

We take advantagc of the opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the
assurance of our highest andcrstdistinguished considîraiion.

(Signed by represeniativcs of Mexico. Colombia, Panama and Venezuela.)

/Te.rt of Acr nors[ib»tiblyIli»idtrros; seeCoirnrer-MefiirofNicnragrra,
Ann. 241138 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 20

DECLARATION OF THE FOREIGNMlNlSTERS OF THE CONTADORACROUP
AT TH13 CLOSE OF THE MEETING OF 8 ANI) 9 JANUARY1985

11January 1985
Original: Spanish.

D.V.M. No. 003. Panama, January 9, 1985.

Excellency :

We have thc honor to transcribe below the tex1of thc "Declaration of the
Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Croup", issued at the close of our meet-
ing of January8 and 9, 1985.In this document, we have made an analysis of
the two years during which we carricd out our peace initiative, in the search
for a negotiated solution to the crisis in the Central American region, and we
have presented some guidelines or suggestions for immcdiate action to con-
tinue progressing toward a definitive agreement.

We are certain that in the steps we are taking toward that goal and objec-
tive we shall continue to have the dccided support of that Organization. as
well as the valuable backing and contributions that we have always received
from you.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of our highest consideration.

Augusta RAMIREZOCAMPO.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia.

Bernardo SEPULVEDA AMOR,
Secretary of Foreign Alfairs of Mexico.

Fernando CARDOZEFABREGA,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama.

lsidro MORALESPAUL,

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela.

Declarariori of the Foreign Ministers of the Conradora Groirp Meeting of
Juniiary8 and 9, 1985

At the beginning of 1983, there was the threat that widespread hostilities
would be unleashed in Central America.
ln thc IighUI [hi<~ilu:~!icm. hcCi.mrn111~1ii~B (~c~l~>iiih~l.c~x.iI'xii-
aiii:i anJ \'c.iiczuzl.i Jcciiluin 1drcr.in .inciiuri iu pri,iiii,i: llic pc:i<c- ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORIAL 139

miiation of the Central ~merican peoples.
Since then, the governments of the Contadora Group underscored the
socioeconomic roots of the Central American crisis and expressed their grave
concern in regard ta foreien militarv intervention in the area and the risk of
placing this c8nfiict withinthe contéxt of an East-West confrontation.
The process initiated by the Contadora Group has attained the following
ohjectiies, among others,which are also its most important achievements:

1. It established a regional pcilitical mechanism that encouraged a plan for
dialoeue and nçeotiation amonc! the Governments of Costa Rica, El Salva-
dor. Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
2. It identified the problems confronting the Central American nations and
drew uo an agenda of the main to~ics of dis~ute.
3. 1t'encou;aged specific comniiiments aming the Central American govern-
ments, embodied in the "Documt:nt on Objectives" and in the standards for the

the oeaceful coéxistence and the iust and stable d&elooment to which the
peoplcs of the region are entitled.
5. It aroused international awareness of the Central American crisis and
the support of the community of nations for a peaceful settlement, with the
Contadora Group as the feasiblc instrument to attain that end.

relations and regyonal détente. Moreover. it is also recognized that it is ap-
propriate to broaden the dialoguç between the Government of El Salvador
and the FDR-FMLN, as a means to ending the conflict that disrupts that
nation and paving the way towards national reconciliation.

Somc Ccntral American governments have made observations on the
draft Act for Peace and Co-operation. The Contadora Group has compiled
ihose ihal lend themselves to making the document more precise. and it will
propose somc formulas to recoiicile dilfering positions still remaining to be
settled.
As of this date, the Contadora Group reiterates its determination Io con-
tinue to work towards the altainment of a definitive agreement among the
governments of Central America to cstablish the bases for a system of mutually
respectful regional coexistence -- a system that favours sustained economic
and social development and the. strengthening of democratic and pluralistic
institutions.
The Contadora Group notes with satisfaction that the schedule set las1
Seotemher 7. uoon oresentation of the draft Contadora Act, has been fully140 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER AKMk'.I>ACi'IONS

rr~lrlrher ,>luiter.spcilrling for ihe sigtiofl111eCorrriidor<iAd. This nieeting

would prepare the material for a conferencc convokcd to sign the Act on
Peace and Co-operation in Central America.
The Forcien Ministers of the Contadora Grouo will immediatelv inform ~ ~ ~ ~
their ~entral~~merican counterparts of the lerms'of this declaralion. At the
same lime, they express their satisfaction al hziving h;td the opportunity to

meet with the President of Panama. Nicolas Ardilo Barletta. wh» reiterated
the categorical support of his Govcrnmcnt for the peacc-making efforts of
the Contadora Group.

Panania. January Y, 1985. ANNEXES TOTHE MEMORIAL

Annex 21

REPORTOFTHESECRETARY-GENERA LF THEUNITEDNATIONST , OGETHER
WlTHTHE COVEROF ANNEXV CONCERNING THETH~RDVERSION OF THE
"CONTADORA ACTFORPEACE AND CO-OPERATION IN CENTRALAMERICA"
(UNITEDNATIONSDOCUMENT A1401737,S117549).9 OCTOBER1985

1. This report is submitted in accordance with Security Council resolu-
lions 530 (1983) of 19 May 1983and 562 (1985) of 10 May 1985.
2. Since my most recent report datcd 15 December 1984 (A1391827-
S116865),1have endeavoured to maintain contact with the Governments of
the countrics constituting the Contadora Group, as well as with the Govern-
ments of the five Central American countries and of other countries with in-

irrests in the region. The volatility of the situation in Central America and
the magnitude of the problems with which thç Contadora Group has had Io
dea~ ~ ~ ~obvious~-~,o~ ~r hin~ ~~~ ~he disoatch of a comorchensive rcoort
on the Croup's aciivitics and this in turn has prevented me from reporting to
the Council for almost one year. The notes circulated as Security Council and

General Assemhly documents at the request of thc countries in the Conta-
dora Group or of the Central Arnerican countries bear witness to the fluidity
of the process.
3. On 26 Scatemher. 1received a visit in mv officc from the Ministsrs for

America. The Ministers also delivered to me an explanaiory document con-
cerning the Final Draft as well as other relcvant material, much of which has
already been circulated as official documents of the Security Council and of
the General Asseinbly'. The Firial Draft, as well as the letter of subiiiission
from the four Ministers. the explanatory document and thc other material not

previously circulated. arc attached as annexes to this report.
4. The Contadora Foreien Ministers told mç that the Final Draft was deli-
vered to their Central ~merican counterparts during a joint mçeting held in
Cartagena. Colombia, on 12and 13September. They stated that the new draft
incorÜorates some of the commeiits made bv somc Central American Ciovern-

oleninitentiaries of the nine countries would be mectinz in Panama. startine
on 7 0ctober 1%5,to discuss for a period not exceeding 45 days the unresolvçi
aspects of the Act relating to the following headings: (u) control and reduction

ol'armaments: Ib) im~lcmentation and f6llow-ua~mcchanisms with reeard to

drew myuattention to the fact'ttiat agreement kas-reache dt the Cartagcna

' The lis1ofthe documents already circulated. givingtheir renpçctivsynibolsis
containcdin Annrx 1of thisreport.144 BORDERAND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 22

LETTER FROMTHE PRESIDENTOF NICARAGUA 1'0 'THEPKBSIDENTSOF THE

COUNTRIESOFTHE CONTADORAGROUPANI) THE SUPPORT GKOUP(UNITED
NATIONS DOCUMENT Al401894. S117634.ANNEX), 1I NOVEMBER 1985

Lcrrer Dored 1.3Noveniber 1985froni rhe Per~rionoir Rel)rese~ir<rrive of
Nic~irrrgrirrro the United Nnrions A<l(lresse<lIo rhe Secretiiry-Generrrl

I hzivcthî honour to transmit to you the notc of II Novcmbcr 1985 from H.E.
Daniel Oricga Saavedra, President of thc Republic of Nicarzigua, addresscd 10

thï Presidents of Colnmbia, Mexico, Panama and Venczuela, the couniries thai
makc up what is refcrrcd to asthe Contadora Croup.
1should be grateful ilyouwould circulate this notc and iis anncx as an of-
ficial document of the General Assembly. under agenda itcm 21. and of the
Sccurity Council.

(Signed) Javier CHAMORRA MORA,

Amhassndor.
Permanent Represcntativc of Nicaragua
to the United Nations.

Leirer D,~red II N,,ve,riber 1985Jronl rlie Presi(1etrrof Nicirrriglili A~/(lressedro
rlfc Pre.si(1errr.osf Ille Co~rnrriesof the C»,rru(/orfr Groirp irn<lrire Slrpporr Groirp

The pcoples of Latin America and the Caribbean have fclt thal they were
rcprcscnted in the peacc initiative that Mexico. Panama. Venezuela and

Colombia have bccn promotingfor two years and 10 months and in which
those countriçs have been ioined bv Brazil. Areeiitinzi. Peru zind Urueuav.

and peacç calls for a senseof honour on the part of Latin Amcrican leaders.

Pcacc. stahility and dcmocracy arc being jeopardizcd by those who are
cndeavouring to maintain an unjust international economic ordcr that is
threatening io bring about economic contraction as a result of cxtcrnal debt
and incquitnhlç foreign trade.
Pcace. stability and democracy are jeopardized when pcoples such as the

peoplc of Nicaragua. who have gained independence, arc thc victims of a
policy ol State terrorism pursued by a governmçnt that is cndeavouring to
undermine the Nicaraguan revolution.
An endeavour is being made to undermine the Nicüraguan revolution
because the leaders <if the United States consider ilzi "bad exam~le" for the
pci,plc> ;iiiJ govcrnnicnis oi l aiin ,\nicric;:iiiJ ihc Clirihhc;in.whirh :irc

l.iring. ai !hi%iiioiiicni in hiri:iSrc;ii zirucglii,hrins :thiiucinew kinil of
~olitic.il and citinoniicrcl:iiioii,p:iriicul:irwiih ihc Uiiiicd Si;iic\.rcltt-
iions that must be just, equitable and respeciful.
The leaders of the United States are endeavouring io destroy the dcmo-146 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARME11 ACTIONS

In this war situation currently experienced by the country, il would nor be
oossible Io enter into commitmentsconcernine thc reduction and monitorine
Lf weapons as long as the basic minimum pondiiions did not exic whic;
would guarantee Nicaragua's security. Such conditions would exist only if the
United-States Governmënt were to enter into genuine. specific and effective
commitmenis which enabled Nicaragua to accept a lcvel of military develop-
ment which did no1 place its national security at risk.
In the oresent circumstanccs. not onlv has the aeeression aeainst Nica-

r;iguii in ;IIIsplicrcs n<itJcclincd. hiil the ihrc;iih :incl:iti;ick*on aiur nntic,ii;il
\i>vcrei+iiy :and inJcpcnJcncr. ;ire intcn>ifying sicadilv ;in4 th< pussihil~tics
iil renchins ;in unJcrst;inding uilli Ille lliiitcd St.iics ;ire bcc~iiiiin~incrc;is.
in& rciiiotc :ar:iir.,ul<if tliücountr\.'s intr3nïigcncc.
Nor u,illc<i!iJ~ti~~no\fpti~cc:in* sccurity c\i\t :iiIiingss the Ilnitcd St:itcs
military presence persists in the region as a threat tu my country's security.
Accordingly, and in conformity with the Document of Objectives and the
rcvised Act of 7 Sepfember 1984,Nicaragua advocates a complete ban on the
international military manŒuvres which have constituted intimidaiing and
threatcning actions against Nicaragua. as well as a form of intervention and
intcrference which must cease.

Despite the valuable peace efforts of the nations of the Contadora Group
and the Support Group, new elements of tension have had an adverse effect
on the Central American conflict, thcreby exacerbating the crisis and the
dangers which threaten Nicaragua and the region.
In this context, thç United States Government has aciually disburscd the
US.927million z~oo,,vedbv the United States Coneress for the mercenarv
lurcs. tlicrch? cjc:il.iiing ih~..i~~rcriion. Icrrcir. dr.struction and gcni~ci,lc
:ig.#in'ithe iiicar:igu.tn pcoplc ivhich h.i\~.1;ikcia t<iIoi <,\L.rII.i.iii~31c:ir.i-
ru.iii5 J~..id.5.11i.IIIUIIJL.LiI.l.l00 )iiJi1:11111e2d5.0.iiiiiiilic\ J.~11l.1ce..ilnd
ÜS$I.S million in direct and indirect IO&&.
As part of this aggressive policy, the United States Assistant Secretary of

Defense. Alfred C. Ikle. stated on 31October that the United States Govern-
iiiciit inisht rourt ta tlic Jircct u<ilIt>r:c.il .<IIIpoint in thc iuiurc iii~~rJcr
1,)<ncrtIii~~\tih~,k~e;~r;~quan (io\crniiieni SkichtIire.ih ,hou ih:tt lu~ticc;and
right are on ~icaragua"side when it invokes the righi not Io rcnounce the
means which would enable us tu defend ourselvcs againsi possible United
States direct military intervention.
At the same tirne, the United States Government has stcppcd up its ccono-
mic aggression against Nicaragua, renewing thc trade blockadc and economic
sanctions condemned by GATT, on the untenable pretext that the policies
and actions of the Government of Nicaragua continue tu pose an unusual
and special threat ta the national security and foreign policy of the United
States.

The intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate recently auiho-
rized the CIA tu supply sophisticated communicaiions radios to the terrorists
who are murdering the people of Nicaragua. while the United States Govern-
ment continues tu reject the mandate and jurisdiction of the Iniernational
Court of Justice and refuses tu comply with iniernaiional laws.
Furthermore. it should be emphasizcd that the rccent siatcment by the
Prcsident of the United States tu the session of the General Assembly com-
memorating the fortietb anniversary of the founding of the United Nations,
in which he soueht tu include the conflicts in Central America and the war ol
aggression agaizst Nicaragua within the framework of his negotiations wiih
the Soviet Union. constitutes a clear demonstration of contempt for the148 I~OKDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Posiiio~rof rhe Goverrrrneorf Nicurugiiirwirh KegiIorlie New Ilr~~fr

Coi~iiirlornAct of 12 Scprerr1985

1. Having analyse<l in dctail the Draft Act of 12Scptember 1985,we wish
ta emphasize thnt the Government of Nicaragua considers the ïollowing parts
of the draft to he acceptable. despitc the fact that in some cases. Nicaragua
once again yiclds ils position in ihc grcater intcrests of Central Anierican

peace and harmony:
1. PREAMHLE.

2. GBNERAL COMMITMENTS.
3. COMMITMENTS WSI'IREGARD TO REGIONAL DÉTENTEAND CON-
I:IDENCE-BUILDING.
4. COMMITMENTSWITH REGARD 1'0NATIONAL RECONCILIATION.

In this section. Nicaragua wishes stress that, although Our suggestions
with regard to national reconciliation were no1 incorporated. the concept of
these commiimïnts. prescntcd in the text as to be assumcd by countries vis-à-
vis their own pcoplcs. maintains thcir interna1 nature and hence the sacred

principle of noii-interlerenin matters within domestic jurisdictions.

LIAMEN~ARY CO-OPERATION.
7. COMMITMENI'S WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN MILITARY BASES.
Sc~oois AND INSTALLATIONS.

These comniitments should be completed by an appendix which provides
that the parties shall agrce to repeal current legal provisions which allow
foreign elementsIOparticipate in or have free accessto their military schools.

biises and installations.
8. COMMITMENTWITH REGARD'TOTHE TRAFFIC IN ARMS.

9. COMMITMENTS WITH RBGARD TO TERRORISM, SUBVERSIONOR
SAHOTAGE AND TIIE PROHIBITION OF SUPPORT FOR IRREGULAR
FORCES.

The commiiments in thcse areas, given their nature ofcommitmentunder
inlernationiilaw. shi~uld be implemented before the signing of the Act. in
order to creatc the minimum basic conditions of security io enable Nicaragua
IO assume commitmenis with regard in military development. At the signing
of the Act, these commitments must have been already complied wiih in their

tolality. not only hecziusethey are commitments undcr international law. but
bccause the signing of the Act constitutes a ratification of existing commit-
ments to respect ihese obligations.

10.COMMITMENTSWITH RBGARD TO DIRECS COMMUNICATIONSSYS-
TBMS.
11. COMMITMENTSWITH REGARD TO ECONOMICAND SOCIAL MAT-
'TERS.

12. COMMITMENTSWSTHREGARDTO REFUGEES.
13. COM~~IT~IENTS WlTll RBGARDTO EXECUTIONAND FOLLOW-UPIN
GENERAL.

We do noi. Iiowever. consider it acceptable that new functions should be ANNEXE3 70 THE MEMORlAL 149

assigned to the Art Ifoc Committee for the Evaluation and Follow-up of Com-
mitments concerning Political and Relugee Matters.

14. FINAI.PROVISIONSe ,xcept for that relating to the entry into forcc of
the Act and questions linked to thc time-limits for commitments.
15. ADDII'IONAI.PROTOCOLS1 and IV, which are acceptable in thcir
totality.

With reference Io Protocol II, the Government of Nicaragua wishes to
rçiterate once again that the interventionist and aggressive policy of the
United States Government is playing the central role in the Central Ameri-
can crisis. In that sense, it is no1 possible to find a lasting and stable solution
to the prevailing conflicts without engaging the political will of the United

States Governmcnt in scrious and bpecilic obligations, which would halt its
illegal conduct.
Thc Government ol Nicaragua notes with concern that Protocol II con-
tains no soecific commitments on the oart of thç United States Government.

(u) The cessation of al1forms of aggrcssion against Nicaragua and a commit-
ment not t<iinitiate such activities in the future;
(b) The adoption of the commitments with regard to international military
manŒuvres ;
(c) Strict compliance with the order of 10 May 1984 and the decision of the

International Court of Justice in the case hrought by Nicaragua against
the United States.
II.>ii~.i.r.iiiIIIL.i[iiiiii,iltlic (;,,ic'rnnir.iii ,ii Uic;ir:~~ii:~r.hr. m.hi i.i.ililr.
.iiiJ clicsiiir. i>pti,>n\ri,ul,l hri<~ailJ ;irici\. pri~r<i<.>Jlirc..'t~.J*i,lc:IIth'
~JniiccI51.~1r.hCi8b~crr~rt~,.rn~hi,~~linduI,l $ncItiJL,I ~ L.ih,~v~~-rn~~ntit~ n~~i-

mitments.
Furthermore, this protocol sliould be signed by the United States at the
same time as it signs the Contadora Act. sincc otherwise, Nicaragua and the
other countries of Central America would be open to United States aggression.
Protocol III should contain ;Inew provision cstablishing the duty of the
Statcs signatories to this Protocol to "provide every assistance for the func-
tioning of the execution and follow-up mechanisms provided for in the Act,
when required by the Parties".

il. Thc Governmeni of Nicaragua has also studied in detail thc provisions

for denunciatir;n. andcommitkents with ree&d to foreien militarv advisers.

States Gove&nent to destroy the Nicaraguan revolution are set forth below.

1. lnrernurk>nnlMilifury Munrnrvres150 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Latin American oosition of orinciole, namelv that the holding of interna-

iir1n.11ni;inicu\rcC iiiihc rcl.ic;ii ili<;ulrliiproiiiliiicd iiiiiiiediai~~iy.wliicli\\.,\
wh!. ihr. pr,~hil>iii~inui ni:ln.riiir~. :anil the ircc/ï .,n thi pr~,cur:mcnt i~f
weauons were to take olace simultaneouslv. In the new Seotember 1985docu-
me;, the prohibition'is postponed to subsequeni stages: whereas an imme-
diate freeze on the procurement of weapons is imposed, simultaneously only
with the "regulation" of manŒuvres.

It is true that, if Nicaragua agreed to the terms of the document of 12 Sep-
tember 1985in this regard, il could take advantage of the prerogatives of that
provision to hold military manŒuvres in its own territory, within the limits
established therein, with one or more of the military forces of friendly States
which have offered weapons or military advisers ta the Nicaraguan armed
forces. However, Nicaragua is fully aware that this would not contribute to

peace in Central America and in Latin America, and might even exacerbate
the alreadv difficult international ~ ~ua~ion.~ ~
In the opinion of the Government of Nicaragua, the absolute, immediate
and categorical prohibition of international military manŒuvres, regardless of
their tvoe. is an irrevocable oosition of orinciole. This Nicaraeuan oosition is
entirei;consistent with no1 Lnly the rebised 'Contadora Act if 7 Seplember

1984and the preamble of the new Act but also the Document of Obiectives of
September 1983.
The need ta prohibit the holding of international military manauvres in
absolute terms is al1the more obvious in view of the fact that whenever the
United States Government has held militarv manŒuvres in Honduras. it has

In addition, the military manŒuvres. from an objective point of view, are
the preparatory stages for rcal concrcte acts of aggression against Nicaragua
in the future.
In this regard. a peace agreement for the region should provide for the
absolute prohibition of international military manŒuvres and complete the

provisions relating to those commitments in order to ensure their implemen-
talion. Nicaragua considers it essential to incororate the following comple-
mentary aspects in the Act in order to avoid having omissions or gaps in the
text that might vitiate the commitments made:

International military manŒuvres must be prohibited simultaneously with
and at the verv moment at which the freeze or moratorium on the orocure-
11i~'iii~tUC.II)OII\ <li;ur>:
Iirnud hr.r\prr.\\ly pr.1hihiic.1f,,r :i Si;iicI<l;:lir.,i,utiiil,ihi .ir~.,iciIii,IJ
uniI'~tr.r:ilini~rn.~i~ari:ilniil~i:ir\niJnaiitrc\. ~~~r.lu~i~cn l\iih 115 cnvii iro<,t)\.
in the territory of one or more.Central American Statés.

2. Comniitmenrswirh Regard toArmamenrs and Troop Srrengrh

The Government of Nicaragua has been maintaining as a position of prin-
ciple that the topic of military development is directly linked to the national
security needs of each State and to strict compliance with the basic principles
of international law. This relationship is al1 the more evident in the case of
Nicaragua, which has been facing a brutal war of aggression waged by the

United States Government for more than four years.
Nicaragua considers thal any regional agreement implies the normalization
of relations between Nicaragua and the United States of America, in other
words, an end to the aggressive policy of the United States against Nicaragua. ANNEXES 1.0 THE MEMORIAL 151

In this regard. Nicaragua considcrs that mininium basic conditions of secu-
rity should be established so that Nicaragua may assume commitments with
regard to the control and reduction of weapons and troops. These minimum

conditions are the following:
An end to United States aggression against Nicaragua in al1 ils forms.
includine both oflïcial aid and covert aid to mercenarv forces throuwh private

future;
When al1tvoes of suooort to mercenarv forces cease. the threat ~osed bv
those forces 1o'~icar.a~;; will disappear, and minimum conditions of securifi
will be established, thus enabling.commitments to he assumed with regard to
armaments and troop strength.

The above-mentioned oremises. in addition to heine an oblieation under
international law, constitite a direct and specific obligation un& the order
of 10 May 1984 of the International Court of Justice instructing the United
States to respect Nicaragua's right to sovercignty and political independence,
which should not be jeopardized by military and paramilitary activities pro-
moted from outside the country.
On the same topic of armaments, the Government of Nicaragua makes the
following additional comments:

T~e ~o~ ~nment of Nicaraeua has noted with concern that the document
of 12September 1985changes~lie provisions of the revised Act of September
19x4 concernin the moratoriuiii on thc procurement of weapons. The new
document not &ly reduces the period of time of thc moratorium or freeze on
weapons, set for 30 days from the signing of the Act, thus imposing the imme-
diate entry into forcc of thc provision, but also extends the moratorium to
troop strength, which is no1 only an innovation but also a concession. For

Nicaragua, this position in addition ta contributing to an imbalance in thc
commitments already made, is clearly unacceptable because the total elimi-
nation of irregular forces does not occur simultaneously with the signing of
the Act. Certainly. such a provision seriously endangers Nicaragua's national
security as long as there are armed groups rcceiving support from outside the
country;
Moreover. Section 22 (cl of the revised Act of September 1984, in con-
sidering the "Ievels of military development of the Central American States,
in accordance with the requirements of stability and security in the region".
established, among the elements to be taken into account, in suhparagraph 8,

"Geographical features and position, and geopolitical situation". Efforts to
"refine" the text have resulted in the disappearance of that formula, and in
turn. the disappearance of subparagraph 8 makes it impossible to conduct an
accurate evaluation of the Nicaragnan problem in not only a Ccntral Ameri-
can but also a broader context.

Understandably, Nicaragua considers its military security problems ta be
not only the result of tcnsions in ils relations with some of the Central Ameri-
can countries. but also fundamcntallv linked with the attitude of the Govern-
ment of the United States, onc of.the world's two major military Powers
which, through its President, Ronald Reagan, has reiterated publicly ils dç-
termination not to toleratc thc existence in Nicaragua of the legal-political
régime of the Sandinist revolution.
Nicaragua is naturally concerned al the participation of Ccntrdl American152 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

countries. under United States influence. in militarv arraneements ostensiblv
~l~rc~t~d .t$.i~ii\tth< Y~;.I~J.~II.~rcv~~ldti<~ii.17ctrt111\~,.~;DII.tlic I:I!III~ui

sr$iiindiii,rk bir ;l<rr.r.ment ahich \iuulil riilc <>ut I~L.p,i~~ihiliivut milit.ir\'
confrontation between Nicaragua and its most immediate neighbours is of
undeniable imoortance. Of course. Nicaraeua asoires to a reasonable balance
which would guarantee its security not only against possible action by any one
of ils neinhbours but also aeainst possible ioint action by several of them
against ~Tcaragua, as has beën the case recently. ~owevei, while important,
the above conditions are not enough in themselves. Nicaragua considers that
thc lcvcl of wcaponry necessary tu defend its sovereignty is determined by
its capacity to resist a United States aggression. an option which the United

States Government systematically refuses tu rule out.
Until the Unitcd States Government publicly, clearly and honourably
makes an international commitment not to invade Nicaragua militarily. either
directlv or indirectlv. the Nicaraeuun oeo..e has the rieht to euarantce itself a
level if armaments'aiid military and paramilitary trooG whic; would enable it
Io defend ils sovereignty with dignity and to acquirc the minimum deterrent
capacity to make its fitëntial aggÏessors think seriously about the high costs of
such a venture.
Consequently. Niçüriigua's dcfence capability must continue tu be con-
sidered in the light of the same geographical and geopolitical factors which

rightly appeared in the Contadora Act of September 1984.
Moreover, iti respcct of the criterion of gross domestic products (GDP),
which the Act cites as a factor tu be taken into account in establishing maxi-
mum limits for weapons and troops, Nicaragua helieves that, in its case, this
criterion should bc givcn spccial consideration since Nicaragua's grossdomes-
tic product is at present adversely affected and drastically reduced as a result of
the economic, financial and military war being waged by the United States
Govcrnment, which has seriously affected the country's production levels.
Although Chapter III. Section 2: "Commitments with regard to Arma-

ments and Trooo Streneth" of the Act of 7 Seotember 1984 establishcs a
tiitict.ihlc ior ihc ~,in.9u\iiin .~i.ii.rccnicnr\ i>nt!p~.,IIiic.ipi,n\ .in.l Iiniii. IiBr
lrclilps;aililniilii.irin.i;ill;~lii~i:iyr,,i.nii.ncri1the,,. pri,hl'ni> rci1i;iiiii.11
tirelv 3~1t11c:1i,:i~cc~)t.in~chi .IIIlhc ti~,e\)ti.itlnIXI~IIL.\Sow11:rc 11the :\:t
is thére ahy attempt'to impoSe on any of the central American countries in-
volved in the negotiation a level of weapons or troops which that country is
nui prepared to agreç to of its own sovcrcign will.
To try to demand of a State that it renounce its sovereign and inalienable
rights is incompatible with international law and the Charters of the United

Nations and the Organization of American States, ziswell as with the very
principles sct forth in the Act.
In Nicaragua's opinion, the novel provision contained in the Act concern-
ing the provisional application of the maximum limits and timetables for
weapons and troops which the Verification and Control Commission (VCC)
shall set if the parties are unable to reach an agreement. is an unacceptable
mechanism since it seeks to replace the political will of the parties. without
which no agreement is possible. The imposition of such a mçasurc clearly
damages sovereign principles inherent to States. Moreover. such a provision
could predispose those States which might stand to benefit from the Com-

mission's studies tu block an agreement in order to benefit from Ibis system.
It is thus clear that, if one or more parties simply chose to block those agree-
ments, any one of the parties might he forced to accept indefinitely the level
proposed by the VCC.154 HOKI)EK ANI) TKANSUOKDEK ARMED ACI'IONS

these unacceptable limiis, WC find preciscly that dcfiniiion. Nicaragua con-
sidçrs ihç me;tning iifthe definition 10 he cxtremely broad and amhiguous,
since it is clear ihat ;iny civilian worker. docior. engineer or teacher, man or
woman, who is no1physically disablcd. can bc includcd undcr thc description

"likely to pariicipaie in military activities".
This conccnt also contradicts the Act itself. since il is natcntlv ohvious that
persons "likcjy" to participate in military, paramilitary and sec;rity activities
are preciscly those advisers who pcrform icchnical functions rclated to the
installation and maintenance of miiitary equipment. with the result that, to be
consistcnt, such personnel would also have to be required io withdraw imme-
diatcly.

4. Dirrurion of rhe fJi.rio<lof Vulidiryof rhe Acr. und Denir~rci[rrionProcedrrres

The final provisions of the new document esiablish thai "Five years alter
the entry into force of this Act, the Staies parties and the Contadora Group
shall meet io cvaluaic it and to takc whatevcr steps they deem necessary".
Likewise, the new Act, which is describcd as a legal instrument. does not
esiablish a systcm of denunciation.
Il dots no1strikc us as vcry rcasonable that a legal instrument which en-
visages very specific commitments should remain in force indefinitely and
should envisage for its evaluation and revision a legal mechanism requiring

unanimiiy of the parties.
The Government of Nicaragua considers that a precise period mus1 be
established for the validiry of the Act. To this end. itproposes that the Act
should have a rcasonable period of validiiy of five years. which could be ex-
tended if al1the parties so desired.
Furihermore. accouni mus1 be taken of the fact that the 12 September
document does no1 envisage a system for denunciation of the Act, although
international Iegal instruments usually contain such a clause. Such a provi-
sion is al1 the more necessary sincc any failure by the United States or any

Central American country 10 fullil ils commitments would leave unprotected
the national securiiy intercsts of the countries affecied by such a failure.
Finally. Nicaragua values grcatly the laudable efforts made by the Con-
tadora Group to reach an agreement which would resiore peace and security
to the Central American rcgion. Nicaragua is also confident that the Con-
tadora Group and ihe nations of the so-called Lima Group will at the same
lime move ahead in an effort directed al the United Staies Government. in
order 10 eenerate on the nart of that Government the necessarv oolitical will
I~Jcnahlc Nirar:igun and thc othcr countric\ <ifCciitr;il i\mcric;i to pur\ue
frcel!. thc p;ith cho,r.ii h? c:tch of ciur pcoplcst~i it<,wii\i,i.c.rr.i<iiwill. witli-

oui fear of annression. interference or foreinn intervention. ~icaraeua on-e
more reaffirms ils determination to continue to co-ooerate a.tiv~ - -n the- ~ ~-
proccss Icnd~nsto tlic nurn~;ilizati<ii~ ui rcl;ili<inshcruccii the unird St;,tci
and Nicararun and tiithc iicnaturc and cntrv ini<iior~c or rhc <.'<inriadtn,CI
and the strh fulfilment of 71sprovisions

Managua. 8 November 1985.

Daniel ORTEGASAAVEDRA. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 23

NOTE FROM THE AMBASSADOR P,ERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OFPANAMA,

FORWARDLNG TH15TEXT OF THE COMMUNIOUE ISSUEDBY THE CONTADORA

0EAISer.G
GPlINF.2354185
17 December 1985
Original: Spanish.

PERMANENT MISSION OF PANAMA
ORCANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

OEA-837-85
November 27, 1985.

Excellency:

1have the honour to address Your Exccllcncv to lorward to vou the text of

ber 21, 1985.
In this regard. 1request that you be so kind as to have the enclosed docu-
ment distribuleda the distinguished members of thc Permanent Council.

Accept, Excellency, renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed)Roberto LEYTON,
Ambassador.
Permanent Rçpresentative of Panama
ta the Organization of American States

His Excellency
Ambassador Richard T. McCormack

Chairman of the Permanent Council,
Organization of American States.
Washington, D.C.

Upon ending thc work sessions with their Centr;il American colleagues,
the plenipotentiariof the Contadora Group issue the following commu-
niqué:
1.Today, November 21,1985, marks the end of the period of45 days, agreed
uoon bv the Ministers of Foreien Alfairs of the Central Amcrican coun-156 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

matters still pending of the Act of Contadora for Pcace and Co-operation
in Central America, in regard to military manŒuvres, control and reduc-
lion of wcapons. and the mechanisms of execution of and follow-up on the
commitments in security and political matters, and such operational as-
pects as entry of the Act into force, the membership and operation of the

mechanisms for eecution and follow-up. their budget, and their seat.
2. During the meetings held October 7 through 10 and 17 through 19, the
points of view and proposais of the five Central American Governments
were gathered. During the course of the present deliberations from No-
vember 19 throueh 21. the oleniootentiarv reoresentatives of the Con-
tadora Group presentéd ne; priposals ti théir Central American col-
leagues, aimed at bringing the various positions closer together in order to
make neeotiation viable.
3. At this meeting ;isolution was attained of the matters concerning the
mechanisms for execution and follow-up and the final provisions of the
Act. New orooosals presented bv the Contadora Grouo for the neeotiation
on militariminŒuv;es and the Control and reduction 8f wcapons were also
considered.
4. The plenipotentiary representatives of the countries of the Contadora
Group will submit a report on the present status of the negotiations to
their Ministers of Foreign Affairs,so that the course of diplomatic action
and of the process of making peace in the region may be determined. It
will likewise convcv to thcm the reauest bv the Central American eovcrn-

attainment of negotiated solutions still require the coniribution of the
Central American governments, in a clear and categorical way, through
the political decision that will enahle them to undertake the commitments
set forth in the Act.
6. The plenipotentiary representatives of the countries of the Contadora
Group once more thank the Government of Panama for ils hospitality,
which has favored thc accomplishment of the work.

Panama City, Novemher 21, 1985. ANNEXES 1'0 THE MEMORIAL

Annex 24

CARAHALLEDAMESSAGEFOR PEACE. SECURITYAND DEMOCRACY IN
CENTRALAMERICA. LSSUED BY THEMLNISTERO SFFOREIGNRELATIONS OF
'THE CONTADORACROUP AND THE SUPPORTCROUP (UNITEDNATIONS
DOCUMENT Al4011075,Sl17736. ANNEX).12JANUARY1986

Lerrer Diired 13Jirtrrri1986fronl rhe Perr~ratier epreseirrnnveof
Argenrbiii. Brirzil, Color?rbia,Mexico. Panama, Perir. Urrrgiiay and
Verrezrrelaro die Urrire[lNarions Addre,s.ro the Secrnriry-General

We have the honour 10enclose a copy of the Declaration issued al the city
of Caraballeda. Venezuela. on 12 January by the Ministers for Foreign Af-
[airs of the Contadora Group and of the Support Croup. with a request that
this note and iis annex be circulated to al1Member States as an official docu-
ment or the fortiçth session of the General Assembly. under item 21: and of

the Securily Council.

(Sigried)Carlos ALHANHoLGuiS. (Signed)Carlos M. MURIZ.
Permanent Representative Permanent Representative
of Colombia. of Argentina.

(Sig!ied)Mario MOYA-PAI.ENClA. (Signecl)George A. MACIEL.
Permanent Representati\.c Permanent Represenlative
of Mexico. of Brazil.

(SigireilDavid SAMUDIO.Jr.. (Signed)Carlos ALZAMORA,

Perni;inent Representative Permanent Representative
of Panama of Peru.
(SigliEd)J. F. SUCREFIGARBI.LA. (Signed)Julio César LUPINACCI,

Pcrmsncnt Representative Permanent Representativç
of Venezuela. of Uruguay.

CnnrbrilleilirMes.s<igfcor Pe<, ecirriryand Dernocrac),
in Cenrrnl Americu

Thc Ministçrs for Foreign Affairs of the Contadora Group and of the Sup-
port Croup. meeting al Caraballeda on II and 12January 1986,dçclare that.
in thc light of the growing 1hrc;it Io peace in Central America and the risk of

a diplomatic vacuum that would exacerbate tension in the region. thcre is an
urgçnl need IOgive fresh momcnlum to the process of negotiations sponsored
hy the Contadoro Croup. This process must culminate as soon as possible in
the signing of the Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central
Amcrica, the only way to brinf: about a general political understanding that
would facilitatecaceful and productive coexistence among al1the countries
of the region on the basis of mutual respect.158 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

The Ministers note that aftcr 36 months of negotiations. there persist alti-
tudes and situationsthat make il diflicult to conclude a eeneral and comorehen-

sive agreement 11sa means of overcoming the climate orhostility and puking an
end to the arms race. foreign intervention and policies of force. Accordingly.
with a view to restorinp. the nccessarv climate of trust and obtainine from The
parties a politicalconikitment to siin the Contadora Act on ~ca& and Co-
operation in Central Anierica, the Ministcrs believe that it is necessary:
(a) To lay down Lasting Foundations for Peacc in Central America;
(b) To identify thç mcasurcs necessary to consolidate thosc Foundations
and oromote muiual trust:
(C lmrnediately to sponsor diplomatic initiatives aimed at securing cx-
plicit support for those Foundations and for the efforts of al1parties direclly
or indircctlv involved:

((1, I'uuficr thcir gciorlailfises for :in! <,th~.riicic\.;ir! iniiintivc\:
(CI 1'0 I.II<r~le\~3nt,IC~I<ItIo~c~pcJitc IIIC<iisninq;in* cntr! intii loric uf
the (:unt;id\>r:t .\cl t'caic :ind Cc~-a~pcr;~t~ oti(:cntr;~l An1sric.t.

1.LASTINCFOUNDATIONS FORPEACE IN CENTRAI.AMERICA

Anv lastine solution Io the conflict in Central America mus1have iust and
11;ilaiirerlfi>u~daiii>n\rcfiecting the traditii>n i~f.:iiiil thc :<\piriilion for. civi.
Ii~crlc<,~~vistciic;cimong the pc<,plis of L:itin r\nirri::i. i\csi~iilingl?. thc hli.
ni\lcr\ b~rF<ircirn ,\iLiir\ (4 ilic C\>nt:iJ\>r;i(ir~,un ainthe Sunnt,rt Ciri>'n
define as follow;thc Lasting Foundations for ~eàce in Central ~merica:

1.,t /,i11,l~~rvrr,..tilrri~o~.hich iiic:in\ th:it thc r<ilutitilic pr<,hlciii
,>fI.;tt~n,\~tterie:~niu,~:abmefr,>ni<,nJniu,tIw gu~r.int~c,ih! tlic rcgut,tt>~.lf.
lc,tit ~h~!itIhc~:c>iitviiihraulcd ln ~liccloh;.incl,tr;,tcctc l!,~.t.\\'cst c~~nili~t
2. Self-determinurion, which means ïhe independence of each Latin Ame-
rican country in selecting its own form of social and political organization, by
establishing at the domestic level the system of government which ils popu-
lation as a whole freelv chooses.
3. Non-irrrerfere~lce;rrhe inlerila1affairs of orher Srares. which means that
no country should influence the political situation of the Latin Anierican
States. either throu-h direct action'or indircctlv throu-h the use of third oar-
tics. or affect their sovereignty in any way.
4. Terrirorial inregriry. which means recognizing the frontiers circum-
scribing the actions of al1 the States; within such frontiers thcy may frecly
cxercise tbeir sovcreignty: bcyond thcm their conduct mus1 be in strict com-
pliance with the norms of international law.
5. Pl~rrnlisricrlernocri~cy,which means the excrcise of univcrsal suffrage
throueh free and oeriodic elections suoervisçd bv indeoendçnt national ziecn-
cies; it also means a inultiparty systcm that would ensure the legitimate and
organized representation of al1schools of thou~ht and al1political trends in
society, as well as majority govcrnmenl with die respect fvr thc basic rights
and freedoms of al1citizens and those of political minoritics within thc frame-
work of the constitutional order.

6. No armamr>irsor r»ilirury bitses that would endanger peace and sccurity
in theregion.
7. No milirary operariorls by countries of the region, or by countries with
interests in the region' which would involve aggression against other coun-
tries or pose threats to peace and to the region.
8. Nr, rroops or foreign (idvisers. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI. 159

9. No support. wherher polirii:al, logi.srica1or rnililury, to groups sccking to
suhvert or destabilize the constitutional order of the Latin American States
hy means of forcc or terrorist acts of any kind.
10.Respecrfor human righls, wliich means unconditional rcspect for civil,
political and religious freedoms so as to ensurc the full material and spiritual
development of al1citizens.

11.ACTIONS TO ENSURE THE CREATION OF THE LASTINGFOUNDATIONS
FOR PEACE

In order to ensure the effective existence of the Lasting Foundations for
Peacc. it is necessary to generate a climatc of mutual trust that will revive the
soirit of neeotiation and-reflect the oolitical will to zichieveeffective su..ort
for ilicI~iiunil;iti~~I:iid J.luniri.,r.lc1,)altiin ihc ultii11;~~,h]c..'iidl lhc
<tg!iln<.III.Icnlr!inlc)IUI:~ t~lhc C'c~nl:ati~>,,l~ 8,n1'c.i~~. l Cc!-\q>:r.>t~~m
itÏ Central Ameiica.

For this purpose, priority miist be giizen Io implemcntation of the follow-
ing actions:
1. Resumotion zind conclusion of the neeotiations leadine to the sienine of
the contadora Act on Pcace and Co-operation in cenGai America. u u

2. Cessation of outside supp~.t for the irregular forces operating in.the re-
gion.
3. Cessation of suppori.for the insurrectionist movements in al1countries of
the region.
4. Frceze on the acquisition of armaments and schedulcd reduction thereof.
5. Suspension of international military manŒuvres.
6. Gradual reduction and ultiriiate elimination of the presence of foreign

military advisers and of foreign military installations.
7. Non-aggrcssion commitment on the part of the five Central American
countries through unilateral declarations.
8. Effective steps to achieve national rcconciliation and full enjoyment of
human riehts and individual freedoms.
9. ~romotion of regional and international co-operation to alleviate the urgent
economic and social problems afflicting the Central American region.

111.SUPPORT FOR THE LASTIEIC FOUNDA'I'ION FOR PEACE AND FOR THE
SPECIFlCACTIONS

and actions on the ;art of the five c-~tral American countries and other
members of the international r:ommunity interested in peace in the region,
parlicularly the other countries of the Americdu continent.

The memher countrics of the Contadora Group. with the hacking of the

Support Croup. offer their good offices for the purpose of facilitatingthe exe-
cution of the following actions:160 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

1. Promotion of new activiiies of national reconciliation in accordance wiih
thelegal order in lorcc in e;ich of the countries. since rcgional stability also
presupposes domcstic peace-making in those cases where marked divi-
sions have occurred within society.
2. Acceotance of thc orooosal of the President-elect of Guzitemala that a

in the reeion. Thisuldconirihui~to a better understandine of the vrob-
lcms of ihe arcs and hclp to strengthen the negotiation cffozs.
3. Encouragement of thc rcsuniption of talks between the Govcrnmcnts of
the United States and of Nicararua. in ordcr to iron oui thcir diffcrcnces

cessions. is a prerequisite for rcgional dktente.
The dialogue of Manzanillo made it possible to identify the Foundations
for viable negotiaiion. which cannot be further postponed withoutserious
risks Io the peace anclstabiliiy of Latin America. The obstacles that have im-
peded this endravour can he removed. if those parties display political will

and flexibility.

V. SI(iN1NG ANI)ENTRYINTOFORCE OF THEPEACEAC1

The eight Forcign Ministers dccide to dcvote al1 their efforts in the ac-
celeration of the negotiations lcading Io the speedy signing of the Contadora
Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central Amcrica and ils cntry into force.

Caraballeda, 12January 1986.

Augus10 RAMiREZOCAMPO,
Minister for ForcignAfhirs of the Republic of Colomhia

Bcrnardo SEPUI.VEDAAMOKI
Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico.

Jorge ABAD~AARIAS.
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Panama.

Simon ALBERT0CONSALVI.
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Venezuela.

Ilante CAPUTO,
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Argentine Republic

Olavo SETUBAL,
Minister for Forcign Affairs of the Fedcrative Repuhlic of Brzizil.

Allan WAGNERTIZON,
Minister for Forcign Affairsof the Republic of Peru.

Enrique V. 1GI.ESIAS.
Minister for Foreign Affairsof the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. Annex 25

JOINTCOMMUNIQU É F THE PLENIPOTENTIARIEO SFCOSTARlCt\. EL SAL-
VADOR. GUATEMALA AND HONDURAS (UNITEDNATIONSDOCUMENT
Al4011117,Sl18074, ANNEX).18 MAY 1986

The plenipotentiaries of Costa Rica. El Salvador, Guatemala and Hon-
duras. meeting for the joint session of the Contadora Group and Central
Amcrican countries held on 16, 17 and 18 May 1986in Panama City, wish to
inform the ncws media of the following:

- In the course of these negotiations, attention was given to the items "mili-
tary manŒuvres" and "armaments and troop strength". on which agrcc-
nient was still pending:
- During the negotiations, proposals were submitted by the Contadora
Group, Nicaragua and Honduras. and a joint proposal by Guatem;ila and
Costa Rica;
- This las1 ~roposal. which contains an innovative ~lan for disarmament
and the rkduition of armaments and troop strength, recçived, at the end

of the session, thc support of the delegations of El Salvador and Hondu-
ras, with the result that a four-Power consçnsus emerged;
- This proposa1 affords the possibility of entering into real, direct. simple
and fair negotiations and provides maximum freedom to the Central
American States (o fulfil their security needs while at the samç time avert-
ine ;in endless arms miral:

table negotiations virtually irnposiible; and
- The representative of Nicaragua proposed that any negotiations on the
limitation of armamcnts and troop strength should take place after the
signing of thç Act, which wi~uldsubsequently entail hypothetical. uncer-
tain and indefinitc negotiations and would leave the relevant clause of the

Act drafted in a form that a,as imprecise and indefinite.
They declare that il is the will of their Governments:

1.With a view to achievingditente in the area. to meet the nccd for a valid
and binding commitment on disarmament, the reduction of troop strength
and the regulation and limitation of military manŒuvres:
2. To achieve :rational balance in the limits for militarv develonment in

4. To submit to international control and supervision: and
5. To gather for the signing of the Act on 6 June 1986.162 HORDBK AND TRANSBORDER AKMED ACrIONS

Annex 26

Lerrer Brrre(127 May 1986frm rhe Permaricnr Krpresenrarive

of Gir<iionol~iIO the United Narior~sAddres.sed ro the
Secrerary-Grr~eriil

1have the honour to reuuest vou to have circulated as an official documeni
ol ibisfortielh sc\,ion of ihc Cir.;icr;il,\.5cnil>l\. undcr :igcnil;i item 21.and %,f
ihc Sccuriiy Couiiiil. ihc texi uf the .'F,quipul:i\ I>ccl;ir.iii<~n".\igncd ;II
E~quipul:~~C . ;ii:i~cm;ilhv ~hc'[ive Cc~ilr;ilt\rncric;iii Prc\idciiI\ <ln25 Sl;tv

As ihc ~nicrii:iiii~ii~lc<imniunii\vil1doul~tles\ rccogni/c. ihc Fsquipul:~,

Prc\i.l~.iiii:ilSumiiiI\ihc iiigih~l~~<iusnite~l~iiiuiitu ihc :sqc-c,Id4rivineiiir
inteeraiion and firm detcrminationio CO-ooeratewhich continues to orevail
am& the fratcrnal pcoples of Central ~mcrica in thcir search for uniiy-pro-
moting solutioiis to the range of problems facing the rçgion.

(Signed) Arturo FAJARDO-MALDONADO.

Ambassador.
Permanent Representative

Having met at Esquipulas. Guatemala, on 24 and 25 May 1986.the Central
American Prcsidcnis siate that they havc held a uscful meeting marked by
the frankncss with wliich thcv dealt with the oroblcms of Ccntral America. In
their discussions, they anal$ed the areas of agreement and the differences
which pçrsisted in thcir idcas about life and the structure of powçr in a plura-
listic democracy.
They agrçe that thc best political forum which is al prcscnt available to

Central America for the achievement of peace and dcmocracy and the reduc-
lion of tensions produced in countries of the region is the Contadora process
soonsored bv a number of Latin American countrics and recoenizcd bv the
i~ternationaicommuriity.They agree to continue their dialogue those ;sues
and others no1 iaken up on this occasion.
Accordingly,

THEY DECLARE

1. That they havc decidcd to hold meetings of Prcsidents on a regular basis
as a necessary and appropriate forum for analysing ihc mosi urgent problems ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 163

r..,.IIIih' ;irc.u.iih r:\pc:t iiip:;g:r. .tnJ rcgii,n.il J.,\~Ii,pnic3ii~1Isir,r.c.k-

in2 sl~pr.>pri.tt\,iliilii,~to iIii>\cpr<~hlciii>
In that connection, they express their profound gratitude to the inter-
national community for al1 its efforts to solve the serious problems of the
region, and they once again affirm their confidence that they can continue to
rely on ils valuable support.
2. That thev are willinr to sien the "Contadora Act for Peace and Co-
operation in cintrai ~mehca", Gd agree to comply fully with al1the under-
takings and procedures contairied in the Act. They recognize that some
aswecis remain outstandin~i. such as militarv mançruvres. arms control and the

. .
iitate thç sienine <ifthe Act.
3. That ticreys a need to undertake effortsaimed at understanding and co-
operation and to back them u~ with institutional machinery for strengthenine
dialogue, joint development,'democracy and pluralism as basic factors fa;
peace in the area and for Central American integration. Accordingly. thcy
have agreed to establish the Central American Parliament. The members of
the Parliament shiill be freely elected by direct universal suffrage in keeping
with the principle of participatory political pluralism. Towards that ciid, the
vice-presidents shall, by mutual agrecment, propose Io their respective
Governments, within 30 days, the membership of a prcparatory commission
for the Central American Parliament; the commission shall be respi,nsible

for preparing a draft treaty on the establishment of the Parliament no Iater
than 90 days after the appointment of its members.
4. That peace in Central America can be achieved only fhrough an authen-
tic dcmocratic process that is pluralistic and participatory, which entails the
promotion of social justice and respect for human rights, the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of States and the rights of every nation to choose. freely
and without outside interference of any kind, its own economic, political and
social pattern. it bcing understocid that such a choice is the result of the freely
cxpressed will of the peoples concerned.
5. That they intend to revie~v, update and give new impetus Io the pro-
cesses of economic and social iritegration of the area so as to rcalize its de-
velopment potential Io the fullest extent for the benefit of their peoples and
10 deal more effeçtivelv with thi- serious difficulties thcv are facine.
They likewise intend tu promote and foster joint pos~tionsfor tLe area on

common economic prohlems such as the external dcbt, the deterioration of
the terms of tradc and the transfer of technologies which are appropriate Io
the area's needs.
They have also decided to sirengthen both institutionally and financially
the agencies for Central American integration and to fostcr regional agree-
ments and actions aimed at securine for those institutions and the reeion as a

dential Summit ~éeting and the importGt progrcss achieved t&ards peace
and democracy in the region. They express their gratitude for the hospitality
and kind attention shown to their dclegations. They express their wishes for
the success of the efforts of President Cereï.0 and IiisGovernment and for the
well-being and progrçss of the fraternal people of Guatemala and the hospi-
table city of Esquipulas, a Central American symbol of faith, unity and peace.164 BORDER ANI) TRANSBORDER ARMEI) ACTIONS

Thcy have signed this Declaration at Esquipulas. Kcpublic of Guatemala.
on the twenty-fifth of May. nineteen hundred eighty-six.

Oscar ARIAS SANCHEZ.
Presidcnt of Costa Rica.

JoséNAPOLEON DUARTE,
President oElSalvador.

Marco VINICIOCEREZO ARÉVALO,

President of Guatemala,
JoséAZCONA H..

President of Honduras.

DanielORTEGA SAAVEDRA.
President of Nicaragua. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORlAl.

Annex 27

LETTER FROM THE MlNlSTERS OF FOREIGNRELATIONS OFTHECONTADORA
GROUP TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITEDNATIONS(UNITED
NATIONSDOCUMENT A14011136,Sl18184, ANNEXl), 26 JUNE1986

Letrer Dated 26 Jirne 1986fronl rhe Ministerfor ForeignAffiirs of Colombia,
the Secrrtary for Foreign Aff0ir.s of Me-rico and the Ministers for Foreign
Affnirs of P~rrnrrmaand VerzezrrelnAddressedcothe Secrerar~s-Genernl

26 June 1986.

In order to comply duly with the resolutions on the situation in Central

Americü adopted both by the Security Council and hy the General Assembly
and as we have done on previous occasions. we are writing to you oncc again
to provide inform;ition and background data on the status of the diplornatic
negotiations which Our Governnients have been promoting.
On 26 Scptcmbçr 1985, we wrote to inform you about the efforts to peace
which the Governments of Colombia. Mexico, Pananla and Vcnczueln made
during that year (see A1401737-S117549,Annex 1). We ernphasized, zimong
other things, the continuation of the negotiations on the Contadora Act on
Peace and Sccurity in Ccntral America as cine ol the main diplomatic tasks

agreed with the five Central American Govçrnments.
On 12 and 13 Scptember 1985. a joint meeting of the Foreign Ministers of
the Contadora Croup and of the Central Arnerican Governments look place,
at which we submitted a new dr;ift act. That draft incorporated the observa-
tions and suggestions made by thç Ccntral American Governments during
the year. together with a number of proposais representing a fair compromise
on issucs wiih respeci to which consensus had not heen achieved or which
were most controversial. We set a period of 45 days for negotiations on the
draft, and for resolving the issucs considered to be outstanding.on the under-

standing that we agreed that neg.otiations on the other issues covered by the
Contadora Act on Pcace and Co-operation in Central America haù been
concluded. The only items outst;inding from among the very broad range of
political. sçcurity. economic and social issues covered hy the Act were the
following:

(a) Control and reduction of arinaments:
(h) lmplementation and follow-up mechanisms with regard to securily and
political matters;
(c) Military maiiûuvres.

Consequently. three meetings of plenipotentiaries were held, from 7 to 10
and from 17to 19October and from 19to 21 November 1985.Althourli vari-

annroaches of the Central American Governmentsthemselves hamnercd
tlivII~$~~II~II~OIi11\uhri:$nt~\ï 1~11c.l.inilihi.r.i.r.l1.i.rcprr:iis\i<ini.,r
thc JcIihr.r.itiiii,iiiiirrii.tii.~<i~~.iiii/.~t~~~iiihc iii:,ttc011 ilic slihcr166 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

hand, ilwas possible Io reach agreement on the implementation and follow-
uu mechanisms for the aereements and on the final clauses of the Act. The
contadora Group then p;t forward alternative proposals both on the reduc-

lion and control of armaments. and on military manauvrcs. However. it was
no1 possible to discuss the proposals in depth.-
In view of the standstill reached in the diplomaiic efforts and the danger of a
political vacuum in the rcgion. the Foreign Ministers of thc Contadora Group

and of the Support Group held a meeting al Carahallîd;!, Venezuela, on 1 I and
12 January 1986.Thï purposc of the meeting was to revicw the regional situa-
tion in detail arid to give a new impetus tu the ncgotiation proccss promoted by
the Contadora Croup. In the Caraballeda Message, we outlined the lasting
foundations for oeacc in Central America and stated that il was necessarv to

crstiics ilim;itc oi niulu;il truri th31 u.<iuldrcv1i.c the >pirit oi ncglti:iii<)n iinJ
m:ikc pi,rsihle Ihc att;iinmcnt ol ihc iiliini:jic iihj:ciiv<ifthe signing ;ind ciitry
iiii~forcc of ihc Cun1:idiir;i ,\ci \\'c cniph;i\i/cJ ihc urgcncy ni i;iking :iwrics
01 siniuliancou~ actions. includin.. itliC<iIi<i.ihc ii~nclusiun ul ncpoiiatioris on
Ihc ,\ci. the ccss;iliuii of outside support for irrccul;ir furccs aiid insurrectionist

movements o~erzitine in the reeion:a freeze orÏthe :icuuisiiion of armaments
aiid ;iichcdulcd reductitin thcrc<il. .ind ciicciivc ,teps lu achicvc ii;iti<~n;ilrL.cun-
cili;~iiiin and iull cnjai)nicni ot huni3n rishts and indti.idu;il frecdlint*.
In :~ilJiii,iii. ihc ciiuntrii~i thc Ci)iii:idi,rGroup. wiiliih~.h:,ckiiig ut the
Support (ir<,up. i~ffcrcu thcir good oifi<c\ ior ihc purp<isL ot I:i:ilii;itin~ nca

.tcti\.itics of n;iii<~n~irlcion~ili:tii.>n in :icct,rd.aii<: with ihc Ice.il iiiic>rc~.
in each of the countrics and the resumption of talks betwien the Govern-
ments of the Unitc<l States of America and Nicaraeua. and thev exnressed ~ ~ ~
;i:cepianic <il ih< ~ii<ipus:ioi 11ictticii IJrc\iJcnt-CILCIUI GU:IIL~I:I~,I for the
c\i:ihlishmcnt #II a rcgi<in:il p:irli:imc.nt.

l hc Gi~;nicni:iI;i DciI;ir.tti~~n. >itnc~I IV ilic \11111~ur Ft~rciin ,\fiairs ol
the Central Ameriean countries-attending the inauguration 8f President
Vinicio Cerezo. expresscd significant support for the objectives and princi-
ples set out in the Caraballeda Message.

On 10 February 1986. ihe Ministers for Foreign Affairs of ihe Contadora
Group and oi thc Support Group met wiih the Secretary of State of the
United States of America. The aim was to give impetus to the negotiation
process and set in motion the actions envisaged in the Caraballeda Message
within the framework of the dialogue in which the eight Latin American Go-

vernments have sought to engage with al1the parties involved in the Central
American conflict. The Latin American Foreien Ministcrs cmohasized the
necessity of taking the actions described in the Cziraballeda Message as a
matter of priority and simultaneously. In that conncction, wç rciicrated that
the cessation of outside support forirregular forces opcrating in the region

was an essential factor for peace. We also emphasized our belief that the solu-
tion 10 the Central American crisis must be found through political means
and negotiation. At the same time. we recalled that it was imperativc to take
effective measurcs of national reconciliation in al1 the cases in which deep
divisions have occurred in society.

On 14 and 15 Fcbruary 1986.a meeting of plenipotentiaries was held for
the purpose of resuming negotiations on the Contadora Act and taking other
initiatives conduci\,e to the simultaneous actions envisaged in the Carabal-
leda Message. The meeting was useful and instructive in so far as ii revealed
in detail the various and conflicting interprelations ihat existed with regard to

the direction which should be taken in the negotiation process.
At a meeting held al Punta del Este, Uruguay, on 27 and 28 February 1986, ANNEXES 70 THE MBMORIAL 167

tlic \liiiirtcr> iiir Forci~\if:~ir,nittic<:<iiit;iJ.,(;roup .ind t~iille Siip~>ort
Ciruup rc.iflirmc~l thc priii~.iplc\c,int;iiricJrithc C;ir:,h;illc'l;.\IL,\rd<;incl
agrccd on thc political neccssity of concluding the negotiations in the
Cont;idora Act on Pence and Co-operation in Central America. We agreed to
issue a cordial invitation to our collengues (rom the five Central American
States to attend ajoint meeting to review the progress made and consider new

courses of actioii. At Puntzi del Este, we referred 10 the importance of nor-
malizing relations between theGovernments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. In
that respect wc look into account the progrcss made at the meeting of the
Deputy Ministcrs for Foreign Affairs of the two countries, with the participa-
tion of the Contadora Group. held in Managua on 24 February, for the pur-
pose of defining the modalities for a "Civilian Conimission for Observation,
Prevention and Insneclion" alone the frontier. We also emohasized that the
Caraballeda Messaie, far from rFplacing negotiations on théContadora Act,
helped to hasten its entry into force. It was not n matter of picking and choos-
inifrom among the aciions refcrred to in the Message.-~achactivity was
valid in itsclf and hcnce no one could be madç contingent on any other. as

they constituted a political and lcgal duty for each Statc.
On 12 March 1986. a further meeting was held ai San José. Costa Rica.
during which various explanatioiis wcrc made. This initizitivc aimed at crea-
ting a climate of trust in the region has no1led to any further action. notwith-
standing the express willingncss of the Contadora Group to participate in it
and the commitment it has givcn. together with the Support Group. to ap-
proach the international community with a view 10 obtaining the necessary
material and financial resources for the functioning of the Commission.
From 5 to7 April 1986.a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the five Cen-
tral American counlries, of the Contadora Group and of the Support Group
was hcld in Panama City for the purpose of reviewing the progress of peace

initiatives in Central America and identifying priority measures for future
action. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Contadora Group and of the
Support Group decided 10 invite the fivc Central American Governments
immediately to resumc negotiations on the only outstanding issues relating to
the Contadora Act, namely the control and reduction of armaments and
international military manuuvres. on the basis of the proposals submitted by
the Contadora Group. In addition. wc invitcd the five Central American
Governmcnts to a meeting on 6 lune 1986at Panama City for the purpose of
declaring the negotiation of the tex! of the Contadora Act officially con-
cluded and procecding to ils formal adoption. Lastly. we rsiterated that it was
imperative for countries with links to and interests in the region to assis1in

creating a climate conducive to the emergence of the necessary political will
on the part of the parties directly involved.
As a result of thc positive response from the five Central American Go-
vernments. Iwo oleniootentiarv meetines were held. from 16 to 18 and from
27 to 29 May 19fi6.During th<nieetin@. proposals were put forward making
it possible to discuss the issues in the detailed manner which they required.
There was agreement on some points. but with regard to others, partifulûrly
those relatin- to the control and ~e~uction of the arms race. the assumotions
uiidcrlgiiic tlic propos:ils ditlcrcd. prini;iril? :icsi~rcl1,)the n;ilurc a11the
variou, c<infliit>irliich chisi in the r.!Cioii r\ltcr rccorn~ziiis the ~nipi,siil>ility
of sienine the Coiitadora Act on thc~ao~ointed date. the Cçntral ~merican
plenipiitciiti;iries soiiimuni~;itcJ tlie <Ir.teriiiin;iii,in,II ihcir rc\pcciii.c Gii\crn-

ment* Io continue ICIpr<iiiiaitctlic (Ii~~li~iitnliiiegoliitli<,iiproce.5.
In between the IWO mcïtings ~f~~lcni~otcniiarics, an important meeting168 HORDERAND TRANSBORDER ARME11ACïlONS

took place at Esquipulas. Guatemala. on 24 and 25 May. bctween the Presi-
dents of Costa Rica. El Salvador. Guatemala. Honduras and Nicaragua. In
the Esuuioulas Dcclaration. the Central American Hcads of Government
affirme2 that the Contadora process was "the besi political forum which is at
present available to Central America for the achicvemcnt of peace and

democracy ancl ihe rcduction of tensions", that they wcre willing "io sign the
'Contadora Act for Pcace and Co-opcration in Central America', and agree
to comply fully witti al1 the undertakings and proccdurïs contained in the
Act" and thai "pcace in Central America can he ;ichicvcd only through an
authentic democratic process that is pluralistic and participatory, which
entails the promotion of socialjustice and respect for human rights. the sove-
reignty and territorial integrity of States and the rights of every nation to
choose. freely and without outside interference of any kind, its own eco-

nomic, political and social pattern, it being understood ihat such a choice is
the result of the freïly expressed will of the peoples concerned".
The ioint meeiine of the Central American Minisiers for Foreien Affairs
of the Contadora Croup and of the Support Group look place 011-7June in
the above-mçntioncd context. After carefully analysina the situation in Cen-
tral America and the outlook for diolomatic nee6tiatrons. we informed Our
C'cnir:il,\nicric:iii c~~llc;igucsi,I 111cc<~nclti\i.,UL. hi~l rc:$ihc,I 111;1i.q)~.
;tnd with inc cc~~iv~ct~ct~ hn;,iiciIighidt ihc tacis kn<wii 1,)us XII,ihc, >vould

agree with our conclusions.
On that occasion, and in response 10 the affirniations madc in the Esqui-
pulas Declaraiion. WC again expressed the determination of the Govcrnments
of the Contadoni Group to continue assisting actively in the pacification of
the reeion. WC thcn fornisillv delivered what. in our view. should be the final
version of the Contadora A; for Peace and Co-operation in Central America.
It contains the totality of the substantive comrnitmcnts rïyarding the various
issues and aspects ccivered by the Act, based on criteria ofbalance and equity
for al1parties and taking inIo account the proposais submiited by the Central

American plenipotentiaries.
The tex1 we delivered defines and resolves the issues on which agreement
was oendine. "n the auestion of armaments. for cxamole. a l,st must bc
drawi up of the weapo;s in the countries of the region in order ihat. at a later
staee. ihey m;iy be controlled, reduced and, if possible. climinated. The lis1
mur1 be weighied according IO the technologicai capacity and destructive po-
tential of each wcapon.

With respect to the issue of international military manûuvres, we believe
that the or. .sals oresented bv the Contadora Croun in November 1985
rcni;i#n<,;!liJ11XB 1:trG Ithe, :trc l>;t<cJc~n;1~cii~r~,~I clicitic iz~.il>rcb:it!hi>-
4-\1> ,)tl~crcqi~~tll!liitp<#ri>nti>~c> in ihc ir:~iiich~ork 01 r~gi~~ii.$wIcurity.
\'ti\th.it ilic wh\t.inti\c. i3rur.of thc <'oni.iJ<ir.i,\ci h.1,~ hccii rr.\.>li,.J
as the Central American Governments have unequivocally staied. and in
order that the Act may bc signed, we propose that we should pass on imrne-
diately to another phase of the negotiation. In this phase we will deal jointly
and svstematicallv with matiçrs of a orocedural and ooerational nature refer-

riny princip;rll!.10 tlic ~1;iiutcvi tlic \'~r~Iic;iti;iiiJCs>ntriilCi,iiiiiii>ri~Ivr
Sccur~tyh1:iitcrs trhich will hc xn intcg-iil ~art <ifihc ,\et :indt<iaithvr rcdul.i-
tory matiers. As a nrereuuisite for this ~hasc we mentioncd that the meinine
and scope. which have airead? been agreed upon in agreenients concerning
substantive aspects of the Act. mus1 be respected.
Owine.10 the constitutional provisions of various Central American States,
the ~oniadora Act will not entir into force until the legil instrument has been170 BORDER AND TRANSBORIIEK AKMED AIXIONS

calls for the exercise of universal suffragethrough free. regular elections: a
multi-pariy sysiem in such a way as io permit the legal and organized repre-
seniation of al1 beliefs and ~olitical action in societv: maioritv eovernmcnt.

ordër.
In realfirmiiig our conviction that peacï must he consolidated through re-
spect for the cardinal principles of coïxisicnce among nations, democratic
devïlo~mcnt and the economic and social nrowth of the ~eo~les.of .he re-
$ion. the Çontiidi~ra (;r\>up :<ndthe ~u~~urÏ~;ri>u~rciicr:irc iciihr. c,>uniric,
i,fthe rcgiim .ind th<ir. ii,irh tic. .ind inicrc\is in the rcsii>iiihc stc;idiast

dcicriiiiii:iii~inof Our (io\,crnnicnIO Itnd thcir ciiid ,>l~iccri:il1piiriics in.
volved in these comniitments. Likewise. we are p;epared to analyseand agrce
on the mosi suitable procedures to ensure ihat they are duly fulfilled.

(Signed) Augusio RAMIREZOCAMPO.(Sigtreil)Bernardo SEPULVEDA AMOK.
Minister for Foreign Affairs Secretary for Foreign Affairs
of Colombia. of Mexico.

(Sigtrcil) Jorgc ARADIAARIAS, (Sigtied) Simon ALBERT0CONSALVI.
Minisier for Foreign Affairs Minister for Foreign Ailairs

of Panama. of Venezuela. ANNEXES TOTHEMEMORIAL

Annex 28

EYCl KI'I\I KO\I I IIII\ I'I1K\'II~\\'01:'PK1I:SII>I:\OI NIC,\K.\iill,\IIY'l Ill!
SI>..!>I>IIIYI~C~K~I,\I~ YII~\~o~K (SIY,, 27 J1,l.sl'Ni

SPANISH TEI.EVISION CHANNEL (SIN)
OFTCIEUNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA
WASIIINCI'ON D..C.

Television Programme "Topics and Debates"
Presenier: Guillermo Descalzi

Interviei<~eeCommander Daniel Ortega Saavedra

Sundziy,27 July 1986.

...........................

Qliesrion: What is happening witli Honduras? What is the zittitude of Hon-
duras? How do you deline il?
Answer: Well. 1-londurasis under a lot of pressure lrom the United States.

It has been obliged to acccpt the prescnce of mercenary camps there: it has
been obliged to acccpt Anierican rnilitary bases. because it is under economic
blackmail on the part of the United States.
Question: Wheii lsrael saw that in Lebanon. it invaded Lebanon. Arc you
going to invade the border zone with Honduras?

A~lswer: The thing is that wc do not have any problems with Honduras. We
have problems with the United States.
We are fighting against the mcrcenary forces and we have been fighting
with the mercenary lorccs in the border areas.

Qiresrion: And you lccl thzityou have the right to do su?

Answrr: Well, the thing is thai this is not aggression against Hoiiduras.
That is, whcn the mcrccnary forces come from Honduras and invade our
country. we defend ourselves and there is cross-tire and thcrc is combat in the
border zone and tliis is not an action directed against Honduras. To the con-
trary. 1think that this helps the defence of the sovereignty of Honduras. . .

'A copy of the vidçotepwasdçpositçd inthe Registry.172 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 29

RESOLUTIONSOF THE GENERALASSEMB1.YOF THE ORGANlZATlON OF
AMERICANSTATESCONCERNINC "PEACEEFFORTS IN CENTRALA~IERICA"

Document A

AGiRcs. 675 (XIII-(1183)
PBACEEFFORTS IN CENTRAL AMERlCA

(Rcsolution adopted ai the sevcnth plcnary session. held on
18 Novcmber 1983)

Tite Geileral Asseinbly,

Having seeii the communication prcscntcd by the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs of Colombia. Mexico. Panama and Venezuela ta this Assembly on the
pcacc efforts they are making in Central Amcrica:

Noting the Declaration signed by ihe Presidenis of Colombia. Mexico.
Panama. and Veneziiela at Caneun. Mcxico. on July 17, 1983;
Commending the Document of Objectives adopted lasi September under
ihc auspices of the Coniadora Group. by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatc-
mala. Honduras, and Nicaragua:

Coenizant that the Document of Obiectivcs contains a set of orincinles for
ziddreysingthe most serious problems 81the arca and achievingpcacc. secu-
riiy. and the co-operation uecdcd for the r.gion's economic and social develop-
ment:

Considering that the Contadora Group is cngagcd in a worthy effort aimed
at achieviny peaceful relations in the repion, based on the creation and

Re,solves:
1. l'o rcaffirm the in~oortance of the ~rincioles and rules of Amcrican
comiiy c<intaincd in ihc <'h:iricof ihc 0rg:ini~;itioof ,\mcric:an Si:tie\. :tnJ
p;iriicul;irly ihc ohlii:aiion.iciilc Ji\liutc> h! pc:içclul pr<iccdurc\ ;ilicic.

;ihsl:iin fri~ni~hUSI,111f<)rce.no1IIIinterlerc ciihcr direcil\. or iiiJlrec<ir
for whatever reason in the interna1 or cxiernal affairs of any other ~tate.and
to respect the right of each State io lead its own cultural. political. and eco-
nomic life freely and spontaneously.
2. To reaffirm the right of al1counirics in the region to live in peacc and
security. free from any external interference.
3. To express ils firmes1 support for thc ciforts of the Contadora Group
and to urge it to persevere in its efforts.
4. To welcome with satisfaction the Dec1ar;iiion of Cancun on Peace in

Central America issucd by Prcsidcnts Belis;iri« Betancur of Colombia, Migucl
de la Madrid of Mexico, Ricardo de la Espriella of Panama, and Luis Herrera
Campins of Venezuela. ANNEXES TOTHEMEMORIAL 173

5. To note with approval the adoption of the Document of Objectives ap-
proved by the Central American States at the proposal of the Contadora
Group, which contains a set of basic principles and commitments 10be nego-
tiated for addressing the conflicts in the area and achieving peace. interna-
tional security. democracy, and the cooperation needed for the region's eco-
nomic and social develooment.

will fo;malize the ohiectivcs arisine from those docimcnts. ;ln2 dcvise nioni-

toring and verificatiin mechanismi that will ensurc their iulfilment.
7.To request al1the Statcs to abstain from any act that may heighten ten-
sions.harn~er the nee-tiation efforts the Contadora Grouo is makine in mu-
tual agreement with the Central American governmcnts, or impede the crea-
tion of a climate of dialogue and negotiation conducive to the restoration of
peace in the region

Document B
AGIRes. 702 (XIV-0184)

PEACE EFFORTS IN CENTRAL AMERICA
(Resolution adopted at the eighth plenary session,
hcld on 17 November 1984)

The Genernl Assetnbly.
Considering:

The communication the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Colonibia, Mexico.
Panama. and Venezuela addressed to this Assembly regarding the efforts they
have made throughout 1984to bring about peace in Central Amcrica:
Recnlling:

That in adopting resolution AGIRES. 675 (XIII-OB3), "Peace Efforts in
Central America", this Assembly reaffirmed the importance of the principles
and standards of Inter-American comity set forth in the Charter of the Orga-
nization; and
That the same resolution urgod the Central Amcrican States to negotiate
forthwith agreemenls for solving conflicts in their arça and achicviiig the
peace. security, dcmocracy, and co-operation needed for thc cconomic and
social development of the region: asked al1States to refrain from engaging in
acts that might hinder efforts at inegotiation; and expressed the wholçhearted
support of the General Asscmbly for the efforts of the Contadora Group,
urging il to penist in ils efforts;

Noiing wirh pleasr,re:
The intensive effort made by the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora
Group in consulting. mcdiating between. and negotiating with. the Central
Arnerican eovernrnents with a view toobiainine forma1 iuridical and ~olitical
commitments that will create a climate of secuXty in central Americi conso-
nant with the principlcs of international law, strengthcn drmocrdlic. repre-
sentative, and pluraiistic institutions, and promote>ustainedaction for~the
economic and social development of al1the countries;174 BORIIER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Considering:
That the Contadora Act for Peace and Co-operation in Central America.
of September 7, 1954, represents a fundamental advance in the process of

dialogue and negotiation for regional peace. security. and development; and
Noting wirh sarisfaclion:

That the resolution adopted by consensus on October 26, 1984, by the
General Assembly of the United Nations holds that the Contadora Act pro-
vides the bases for détente, lasting peace, and the promotion of economic
and social developntent in the region,
Resolves:

1.To reiterate that il is the obligation of al1American States to scttle their
conflicts by peaceful methods alone; no1 10resort to the use of military force
or any other type of coercion; no1 to intervene directly or indirectly in the
interna1 or external affairs of any other State for any reason, and to respect
the right of every State to determine freely and spontaneously the character
of ils political, economic, and cultural life.
2. To reiterate that it is the right of al1countries in the region to live in
peace and security, free from al1outside interference.
3. To reiterate the nced to further the strenethenine of dcmocratic. reore-
sent:itivc. and pluralistic insiitutii>nb hy proiii,otin&su\t:iincd aciion for thr
ccunoiiiic and .i,ci:il dcvel<opmcntot the iountric\ ul th', region
4.Tc, i\clconic tuiihs;itisl;icti~onihc Cuitt:idor~ ,\ci fur t'cacc :ind Cu.
operation in Central America, of September 7, 1984, resulting from an in-

tense effort of consultation and negotiation carried out by the Governments
of Costa Rica. El S;ilvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua under the
ausoices of the Conladora Groun.
i.To urge allthe ~entralkerican governments to manifest their will for
Peace and to intensify their consultations amone. themsclves and with the
contadora Grouo in order to brine the neeotiation Drocess to its conclusion

region, to facilitate signature of the Contadora ~zt; to respect at the appro-
priate time the commitments that may be agreed upon; and to adhere to the
Additional Protocol to the aforesaid instrument.
7. To reiterate ils wholehearted support for the efforts the Contadora
Group is making to surmount the grave crisis in Central America.

Document C

AGlRes. 770 (XV-0185)
COMMUNICATION OF THE CONTADORA GROUP WITH REGARD 1'0 EFFORTS
ON I3EHAI.FOF PEACE IN CENTRAL AMERICA

(Resolution adoptecl at the third plenary session, held on 9 December 1985)

The General Assembk

Recalling:
Its resolutions AGIRES. 675 (XIII-0183) and AGIRES. 702 (XIV-0184)
and that for the pas1 34 months the countries of Central America. with the ANNEXES TO THE MEMOKIAL 175

support of the Contadora Group, have engaged intensively in negotiations
aimed at finding a solution to the Central American crisis,
Resolves:

1. To take note with satisfaction of the communication the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela have pre-
sented to this Assembly regarding peace negotiations carried out during 1985
and the progress achieved to date.
2. To urge the Central American countries and the Contadora Group to
persevere in their efforts to conclude the negotiations to achieve an agree-
ment for peace and co-operation in the region.
3. To request the Contadora <;roup to present to the sixteenth regular ses-
sion of the Gcner;il Assembly a communication on its pcace efforts.

I~ocument D

(Tra~~sfnrion)
Sixteenth Ordinary Session, 0EAISer.P
10 November 1986, Aglcgdoc.23186
City of Guatemala, Guatemala. 14 November 1986
Original: Spanish.

GENERAL COMMISSION
Curnmirrricariorfirom the Mini~tersof ForeigriRelations of the Contadora
Group und of the Siipporr Croup on Peace Processesin CenrralAmerica

(Point 10of the Agenda)

The General Assrmhly,

Bearing in mind Resolutions AGIRES. 675 (XIII-063) of 18 November
1983, AGIRES. 702 (XIV-0184) of 17 November 1984, and AGIRES. 770
(XV-0185)of 9 Becember 1985,in which the General Assembly expressed its
full support for the Contadora (3roup and called upon it to persevere in its
peace processes in Central America;

Having regard to the communication from the Ministers of Foreign Rela-
tions of the Contadora Group and of the Support Group to the Sixteenth
Ordinary Session of the General Assembly, in which the Ministers of Foreign
Relations reported on the pro<:essescarried out up until the prcsent and
expressed their aiixiety about the deterioration of the situation in Central
America;

Resolves:
1. to take due note of the communication from the Ministers of Foreign
Relations and to ncknowledge the commendable efforts that the Contadora
Group and the Support Group have becn carrying out with a view to achieving
pcace in Central America;
2. to reiterate its support for the peace processes of the Contadora Group
and of the Support Group and to cal1upon al1States to continue to give them
their full support;176 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

3. to request the Contadora Group and the Support Group to persist in
their praise-worthy efforts in favour of peace in Central America;
4. to request the Contadora Group and the Support Group to present 10
the Seventeenth Ordinary Session a report on their processes in favour of
peace. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 30

PEACE AND SECURITY AND PEACEINITIATIVES

Document A

38/10. THE SITUATIOX IN CENTRAL AMERICA: THREATS TO INTERNATIONAL
PEACE AND SECURITS AND PEACE INITIATIVES

The Generul Assembly,

RecallNlgSccurity Council resolution 530 (1983) of 19May 1953in which
the Council encoiiraged the efforts of the Contadora Group and appealed
urgently to al1interested States in and outside the region to co-operate fully
with the Group. through a frank and constructive dialogue, so as to resolve

their differences,
Renffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Na-
tions relating Lothe duty of al1States to refrain from the threat or use of force
against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any
Statc,

Also reuffirmir~the inalienable right of al1peoples to decide on their own
form of government and to choose their own economic. political and social
systcm free from al1foreign intervention, coercion or limitation,

Considering that the interna1 conflicts in the countries of Central America
stem from the economic, political and social conditions obtaining in each of
those countries and that they should not, therefore, be placed in the context
of East-West confrontation,

Deeply concerned at the worsening of tensions and conflicts in Central
'America and the increase in ciutside interference and acts of aggression
against the countries of the region, which endanger international pcace and
security,
Mindfil of the riecessity of promoting the.achievement of peace 21sound
basis. which would make possible a gcnuine democratic process, respect for

human rights, and economic and social development,
Noting with deep concern that in recent wecks armed incidents. border
clashes, acts of terrorism and sabotage, traffic in arms and destabilizing ac-
tions in and against countries of the region have increased in number and in-
tensity,

Noting with grenrconcern the military prescnce of countries from outside
the region, the cartying out of overt and covert actions. and the use of neigh-
bouring territories to engage in dcstabilizing actions, which have served to
heighten tensions in the region,

Deeply concerned at the prolongation of the armed conflict in countries of
Central America, which has been aggravated by increasing foreign inter-
vention.178 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMBD ACTIONS

Reurinz in min11 the Droeress achieved in the meetines that the Ministers
for ~oreign Affairs of 'theucontadora Group have heïd with the Foreign
Ministers ofCosta Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua in
identifying issues of concern and proposing appropriate procedures fGr the
consideration <ifthose issues,
Recnlling the Cancun Declaration on Peace in Central America issued by

the Prcsidents of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela on 17 July
1983', which contains an appeal for political commitments on the part of
countries situated in and outside the region with the aim of achieving lasting
peace in the area.
Benring in mind the Cancun Declaration and the endorsement by the
States of Central America of a Document of Objectives', which provides a
basis for an agreement on the nesotiations. that should be initiated at the

earliest possibie date with the aimof drawing up agreements and adopting
the necessary procedures for lormalizing the commitments and ensuring
a..rop.iate systems of control and verificition,
Appreciaiing the hroad international support expressed for the efforts of
the Contadora Group to secure a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the
conflicts affecting the region.

1. Renffirms the right of al1the countries of the region to live in peace and
to decide their own future. free (rom al1outside intcrference or intervention.
whatever pretext may be adduced or whatever the circumstances in which
they may be committed;
2. Affirms that respect for the sovereinntv and indeoendence of al1States
of the region is essential to ensure the &curity and péaceful coexistence of
the Central American Siates:
3. Condenins the acts of aggression against the sovereignty, independence
and territorial inteeritv of the States of the reeion. which have caused losses
-.
in human lifeand &arable damage 10their economies. thereby preventing
them from meeting the economic and social development needs of their
peoples: especially 2erious in this context are:
fa) The attacks launched from outside Nicaraeua aeainst that countrv's
ilrale&ic in~t:~ll:iii<~iiszu.ch as airpcoriband \e:ipi)rii. cncrg! storiigc i;iiilitic\

and cithcr targcts uh,osc de~truciiun ,eriuuilv nilccis ihc counir) s ccuiiomic
lice and endangers densely populated are as;^
(h) The continued losses in human life in El Salvador and Honduras. the
destruction of important public works and losses in production;
(c) The increase in the number of refugees in several countries of the
region:
4. Urges the States of the reeion and other States 10 desist (rom or to re-
-
frtiin from iiiiiiatiiig milii;irv ~iper;iiiuns inten1,)exeri ptilitic;il prcssurc.
u,liichn6grav;iic ihc \iiu;ition in the rcgicin;ind h;gmpcrihc ciiurts to pri>iii,>tc
ncaoti;iiiibn, th;ii ihc Coiiiiirl<iriiGroui, is undcri;ikini! uith thc iicrecmofi
~hë~overnments of Central ~merica;'

' A381303-Sl15877.annex. For the prinled lexisee Officia1 Records ofrhe Secitrily
Coi~ncil,7'hirry-eighYcnr,StipplenrenrforJirly,AitgiisfatzdSepremb1983,document
S115877,annex.
'Officia1Recordsoflhe SecuriryCouncil, T1iirf.v-eigYeu, S,tipplemenrfor Ocrober,
Novemberand December 1983,document S/16041.annrx. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 179

5. Notes with satisfaction that the countries of the region have agreed to
take measures leading to the establishment and, where appropriate, the im-
Drovement of democratic. reo,es.ntative and oluralistic svstems which will
guarantee effective popular participation in decision-makikg and ensure the
free access of various currents of opinion to honest and periodic electoral
processes based on the full observance of civil rights, emphasizing that the
strengthening of democratic institutions is closely linked to evolution and
advances achieved in the sphere of economic development and social justice;
6. Exoresses ils firmest sidoourt for the Contadora gr ou^ and urges it to
persevere in its effkrts, which 'enjoythe effectivesupport ot'the interkitional
community and the forthright co-operation of the interested countries in or

outside the region;
7. Welcomes with satisfaction the Cancun Declaration of the Presidents of
Colomhia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela and the Document of Objectives
endorsed by the Govçrnments of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hon-
duras and Nicaragua. which contains the hasis for the start of negotiations to
ensure harmonious coexistence in Central America;
8. Requests the Secretary-General, in pursuance of Security Council reso-
lution 530 (1983). to keep the Council regularly informed of the development
of the situation and of the implementation of that resolution;
9. Reqideststhe Secretary-General to suhmit a report to the General Assem-
bly at ils thirty-ninth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
10. Decides to keep under review the situation in Central America, threats

to security which may occur in the region and the progress of peace initiatives.

53rd plenary meeting
II November 1983.

Document B

3914. THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA: TI-IREATS TO INTERNATIONAL
PEACE AND SECURITY AND PEACE INI'TIATIVES

The General Assembly,
Recalling Security Council resolution 530 (1983) of 19May 1983,in which

the Council encouraeed the efforts of the Contadora Grouo and amealed
urgently to al1interezed States in and outside the region to ko-operaie fully
with the Group, through a frank and constructive dialogue, so as to achieve
solutions to the differences between them,
Recalling General Assemhly resolution 38110 of 11 Novemher 1983, in
which the Assemhly, inter alia, expressed its firmest support for the Conta-
dora Group and urged it to persevere in its efforts, which enjoy the effective
support of the international community and the forthright co-operation of
the countries in and outside the region,

Noting with satisfaction the results of the efforts made by the Contadora
Group, in particular the Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Cen-
tral America of 7 September 1984'.

'Al391562-S116776 annex. For theprinted textsee OfifcialRecords oftheSecurity
Coiincil,Thirty-nintYear Supplrment for July,August and Seplember 1984,documenl
S116775 .nnex.180 BORDER AND TRANSBORDERARhlED ACTIONS

Considerine that the Contadora Act is the result of an intense orocess of
consultations>nd negotiations bctween the Governments of costa Rica. El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaraeua. promoted by the Contadora

,il>,c~~~~.~~~l ~htrr~~egCamt,idc~r; ic[ ISa niqor \t<p in hr~nyn? 10 (ru].
ticinthe nc$i,ii:iti<~iipriicess in i11iIn\* the found;it:un, tor rléicnt~..1:isting
oeace and the orom;ition of economic and social develooment in the recio<

Taking note of the rcport submittcd by the Secretary-General in pursuance
of General Assembly resoluiion 38/10',

1. Urges each of the five Central American Governments to speed up ils
consultations with the Contadora Group with the aim of bringing to zicon-
clusion the neeotiation orocess with the earlv sienine of the Contadora Act
on Peace and Fo-operation in Central ~meriia, ïhereby facilitatins full com-

oliance with the comniitmcnts provided for in the Act and the entrv i.to forcc
8f the various mech;inisms f~iim~lementation and follow-up:
2. Also urges al1States, in particular those with ties to and interests in the
region. to respect Sullythe purposes and principles of the Contadora Act and
the commitments undcrtakcn by virtue of their accession to ils Additional
~ro~~~~~~.
3. Reqrresrs the Secretary-General. in accordance with Security Council

resolution 530 (1983). to report at reeular intervals to the Council on develov-
ments in the siiuation and'the impl~mcntation of that resolution;
4. Reqirests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assemhly, by
15 December 1984at the latest, a report on progress made in the implcmen-
tation of the oresent rçsolution':
5. ~eci<les'to iiiclude in the provisional agenda of its fortieth session the

item entitled "The situation in Central America: threats 10 international
peace and security and peace initizitives"

39rh plennry meeting
26 Ocrohrr 1984.

Document C

RESOLUTION 41 ON "THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA: THREATS TO
INTERNATIONAI.PEACEAND SECURITYAND PEACE INITIATIVES"

(Adopted on 17November 1986)

(Transcriprion)

The Genernl Assernbly,
Recnlling Security Council rcsolution 530 (1983) of 19 May 1983,in which

thc Council reaffirmed tlic right of al1the countries of the Central American
region to live in peace zindsecurity, frce from outside interfçrcncc.

'Al391562-Sl1677.5F.ortheprintedtcxt. seeOfficial Recordsof rheSeciiriryCoirtlcil.
Thirry-ninrhYenr..Sirpplcme~trfir/i<. t<gitslandSeprember1984.document SI16775.
'The report was irsued under the symbol A1391827-S116865 F.orlhç printcd ter1
seeOffino1Records ofiheSeoirNv Council.Thirry-ninrhYear,Silpple»te>ifror Ocrober.
NovernbernndDecernber1984. documenl S116865. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 181

Kecollinr. that the Securitv Council. in that resolution. encouraeed the
efforts of thc Contadora Croup and appealed urgently to al1interested States
in and outsidc the region to CO-opcratefully with the Group, through a lrank
and constructive dialogue, so as i« achicvcsolutions to exhting diffcrcnces.

Kecollirig Gcncral Assembly rcsolution 3Rl10 of 11 Novemher 1983. in
which the Asscmhly, itnerafin, exprcssed ils firmest support for the Conlzi-
dora Group and urged it to perscverc in ils efforts, which enjoy the elfectivc
support ol thc international community zind the forthright CO-operation «l
the interestcd countries in and outside the region.

Kecolling also Gcncral Asscnibly resolution 3914of 26 October 1984. in
which thc Assembly. inter olin. urgcd cach of the five Central Amcrican
Governments tosoeed uo ils consultation with the Contadora G~OUD with the
aim of bringing to a conclusion the negotintions process? and to respect fully
the purposcs and principles of the Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation
in Ceniral AmcriLa.
Rec<illNigSccurity Council resoliition 562 (1985) of 10May 1985. iiiwhich

thç Council urgcd al1States to relrain from carrying out, supporting or pro-
moting political, cconomic or military actions of any kind against any Statc in
the region which might impede the peacc objectives of the Contadora Croup.
Takirig tiore of the various reports submittcd by thc Secretary-Gciieral in
Dursuance of General Assemblv resolution 3914.

Sh[iring the concern of the Latin American countries at the worsciiing ol
the situation in Central America and ils possible implications for the entire
region. which the Ministers for Foreign Aflairs of the Contadora Group and
the Support Group expressed in thcir declaration of 1 October 1986.
Agreeirig with that declaration that the worsening of the crisis in Central
America could create serious tension and conflicts throughout the conti-
nent. and that, the peace of Central America is thercfore the pcacc of Latin
Amcrica,

Beiirirrg iri riiincl the resolution adoptcd on 14 November 1986 by the
General Assembly of the Organizalion of American States, mccting in
Guatemala, which. irirer nlin, requested Ihc Contadora gr ou^ and thc Suo-
port Group to persevere in their'valuzible efforts to achieve Gacc in Centrd
America. and urged al1States to continueto give them their resolutc support,

Corivbicc<lthat the oeooles of Latin America wish to achieve oeace. dcvc-
lopmcnt. and justice with;>ut outsidc interlcrcncc, in accordanie with their
own dccision and their own histi~ricalcxperience. and without sacrificing the
principles of self-determination and non-intervention,
Conviriccilthat itis imperativc to zivoida war in Ccntral America. and that
this is primarily the responsibility of thc governments directly or indirectly
involved in thc coiillict, as well as a task for $11p1olitically responsible govern-
ments and individuals who are prepared to dclend the cause of peace.

1. Re[iffir»is its conviction that the global, comprehensive and negotiatcd
solution of the conflict in Central America requires that al1States fully rcs-
pect the principles of international law cnshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations.
2. Ackrioiv1rdge.sthe commendable efforts being made by the Contadora
Group and the Support Group with a view to achieving peace in Central

America.182 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

3. Reireraresils support for the peace activities of the Contadora Group
and the Su~~ori Grouu. resuestine them to Dersevere in their valuahle efforts,
and urges ailStates to'coniinue 1: give thcm their resolute support,
4.Reqilesrs the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly al ils
forty-second session on the implementaiion of the present resolution,
5. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of ils forty-second session

the item entitled "The situation in Central Amcrica: threats to international
peace and security and peace initiatives". ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORIAL

Annex 31

EXTRACTFROMT11B FINAL ACT OFTHE LUXEMBOURG CONFERENCE,11AND
12 NOVEMBER 1985

(Transcription)

The Conference discussed the political and economic situation in Central
America and relations between Central America and the European Com-
munity.

During the Conference:
1.The High Representatives of the participating countries reaffirmed their
commitment to the continuation and development of the political dialogue
instituted at the Conference held in San Joséde Costa Rica, in accordance with
the principles set out in the San JoséDeclaration of 29 September 1984.

They are convinced that this political dialogue will contribute to the
~ff~rts of the Central American countries - with the sup..rt and with the
cncour.isciiicnt oi ihc <:,iiit.îdor.î Gruup- io find n ncguii;itcd. rcgioiial.
rlol>;il.nc;icr.ful sailutinor(1r.ICIput ün cnd io thc \,iolence and inst;ihtlitv
rn thearea and to foster social justice and economic development and a res-
pect for human rights and democratic liberties.
This peaceful solution must be based on the principles laid down in the
United Nations Charter, the OAS Charter and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and on the Contzidora Group's "document of objectives", and

Draft Document on Peace and Co-operation in Centrzil America dated 12 Sep-
tember 1985> approvcd by al1the States in the area.
It was accordingly agreed that this political dialogue should be institu-
tionalized, in particular by the holding of annual meetings. in principle al
Ministerial level.
The Contadora Group, which is continuing ils efforts to bring zibout a
peaceful solution in Central America, will play a full part in the meetings ta
be held in the context of the political dialogue between the countries of Cen-
tral America and those of the European Community.184 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMEA DIXIONS

Annex 32

ADDRESS BY THF. MINISTEROF FOREIGNRELATIONSOF HONDURASTO

(Translation)

It was this vacuum which eavc rise to the hirth. within the Oreankation of
r\nirrii,%n Siiite,. iht Cunladnr;~ (;r<)up. :lnJ 11 15nc>wrnorc ncccssilr? than
evcr to coiiipl~lc Illc ncguli;ili<i,ifthe rn;iticr\ tlu1il:iniling. doiii~ so in ihc
Con1;idor;i ,\cl for i'caic and Gi-ur>cr;il~unin Ccntral ,\niericli.
O~ 6~ ~une of this vear. the ~inisters of Foreign Relations of the Conta-
di,r;i <irc,up and of ih'eSupport (;ri>up met. 'l.h:\:(l:livcred Io us Ihc Icsl of
wli;iliiiIIICopinion <ifihc 1edi;iiing Ciroup ou~lii in coiistituie ihc fin;il vcr.
- . -
sion of the ..contadora Act".
Iloiv<\cr. ilw:is 1101possihle lor ihc Sl;<tc,ut C'cn1r:ilAnieriLa 10 :lppro\e
ih;ii let1 I>C;~U% ICdid no1i~ffer.in our opinioii. suiiiiicni gu:ir;intcer an nial-
ters of securitv. democratization and the international suiervision of asrcc-
ments.
In fact, rny Government is willing io subscribe to theAct in so far as it con-

tains agreements lhat lend themselves ta supervision both as regards sccurity
and as regards democratization. ANNEXES TOTHE MEMORIAL

Anncx 33

COMMUNIQUÉ 01: THE MINISTBRS 01' FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE CON-
TADORA CROUP AND OF THE SUPPORTGROUP, FOLLOWINGTHEIR PEACE
MISSIONTO TIIE CAPITALS OF THE FtVE CENTRAI. AMERICAN COUNTRIES.
ACCOMPANIEDBY THE SECRETARIES-GBNERALOF THE ORGANIZATION OF
AhlERlCAN STATESAND OFTHE UNITED NATIOSS, MEXICO CITY. JANUARY
1987

(Translalion)

Thc Ministcrs of Foreign Relations of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and

Venezuela, Meinbers of the Contadora Group. and the Ministers of Foreign
Rclations of Argcntina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay, Members of the Support
Group, in the presence of the Secretary-Genernl of tlic United Nations and of
the Secretary General of the 0rg;tnization of American States, carricd out a
Peace Mission to the capitals of the fivc countries of Central America, pur-
suant to the decision zidopted at the las1Meeting in Rio de Janeiro on 18De-

cember 1986.
The principal objectives of the Mission were to promote the co-ordination
of the .olic..h\. the Heads of State of Central America in relationto thc orob-
Isiiis ol the rcgionIO i~sccri;~ii h:tl nicnsurci irould rcndrr p<>ssihleihc :id-
v:inciiig 01'ihc neg<iiiiiti.>ns. io c.in\idcr thc iictlon\ which would iiii1%)ihiiir:
a ~eaceful solution. and thus to brine about a climate of mutual confidence
-
between the govïrnments of the area.
As a rcsult of this initiativWC, thç eight Ministers of Foreign Rel:itii~ns.
make the fcillowing Report:

- All the Heads of State of ihc countries of the area acknowledged the
serious deterioration of the situation in Central America,as shown funda-
mentally in an escalation of the fighting and in the stagnation of diplo-
matic ncgotiations.
- All of the Hcads of Stale outlined initiatives which. from thcir point of
view. could lead to the overcoming of the present critical situation. Con-

sultations with them could bring about the identification of points of con-
vergence with a return to di:ilogue.
- The five Presidents noted thç presencc of the Secretaries-General of the
United Nations and of the Organization of Amcrican States. bascd on
their powers and on Resolutions adoptcd by their respective Organiza-
lions, and tliey offered the scrviccs that bolh mentioned in their Aidc-

MCmoire of 18 November 1986 for thc purpose of contributing tu thï
peace efforts. The Ministers of Forcign Relations of the Contador:~ Group
and of the Support Group welcomed this offer and agreed on the impor-
tance of continuing to count on the help of the Secretaries-Gencral.
- The greatest obstacles rendering dialoguc difficult would appear to result
from differcnt conceptions as to the nianner of tackling the problems and

of promoting solutions to the scrious differences of a political nature. as
well as from the persistence of acts which violate international law.
- It has to bc acknowledged that thcre still docs not exist the necessary po-186 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

litical will togo ahead with the various proposals which have been put for-
ward in favour of reconciliation.
- Nevertheless. al1 the Heads of the Central American Statcs have ex-
pressly stated tu the Mission that the Forum of Contadora continues to bc
the most adequate instrument to reach a negotiated solution tu the regio-
na1 conflict, and we consider it tu be fundamental that we continue our
efforts for peace in the area.
For this reason, the Contadora Group, with the co-operation of the Sup-
port Group, calls upon the parties tu take an essential look as a whole at al1
the points in commun which will enable political dialogue to recommence
forthwith. 1tis hoped that by this means the negotiating process will be reac-
tivated.
Aware of the nature of our task, we reiterate our determination to main-

tain dialogue with al1the countries directly or indirectly involved in the con-
flicl. This includes the United States, the Government of which has publicly
stated that it supports the Contadora process, and whose contribution is ne-
cessary in order successfully to achieve a political solution to the regional
conflict.
In the same spirit, during the forthcoming weeks we intend tu hold an
exchange of points of view with the Ministers of Foreign Relations of the
European Communities, who have firmly and consistently supported the peace
processes.
Finally, upon renewing our determination to continue to push on with di-
plomatic negotiations, we utter the hope that the expressions of political will
that have been put ti, us by the five Heads of States in Latin America during
the Peace Mission will be converted into concrete actions. We also cal1upon
al1parties directly or indirectly involved tu ahstain from using force and from
any act that would hinder the negotiating process. For negotiations constitute
the only viable means of achieving that peace to which the peuples of Central
America aspire. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 34

AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFICSETTLEMENT ("P~cr OF BOGOTA"),SIGNED
AT THE NINTH INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE OF AMEKICANSTATES,
BOGOTA, 30 MARCH-2MAY1948,OFFICIALENGLISHTEXT

(Treaty Series, No. 17)

In the name of their peoples. the Governments represented at the Ninth
International Conference of American States have rcsolved, in fulfilment of
Article XXlII of the Charter of rhe Organization of American States, tu con-
clude the following Treaty:

C:HAPTER ONE

GENERALOBLIGATION TO SETTLEDISPUTES BY PACIFICMEANS

Arricle 1. Thc High Contracting Parties, solemnly reaffirming their com-
mitments made in earlier intern;itional conventions and declarations, as well
as in the Charter of the United Nations, agree tu refrain from the threat or
the use of force, or from any other means of coercion for the settlement of
their controversies, and to have recourseal al1limes to pacific procedures.

Article 11.The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to settle
international conrroversies by regional pacific procedures before referring
them to the Security Council of the United Nations.
Consequently, in the event that a controversy ariscs between two or more
signatory States which, in the upinion of the parties, cannotbe settled by
direct negotiations through the usual diplomatie channels, the parties bind
themselves to use the procedures estahlished in the present Treaty, in the
manner and under the conditioiis provided for in the following articles, or,
alternatively, such special procedures as, in their opinion, will permit them to
arrive at a solution.

Article111.The order of the pacific procedures estahlished in the present
Treaty does not signify that the parties may not have recourse Io the proce-
dure which they consider most appropriate in each case, or that they should
use al1these procedures, or that any of them have preference over others ex-
cept as expressly provided.

Article IV. Once any pacific procedure has been initiated, whetlier by
agreement between the parties or in fulfilment of the present Treaty or a pre-
vious pact, no other procedure may be commenced until that procedure is
concluded.

rlrrrt.V~ 'l'hc.if<,rc.~.iiJ1irii:i4urc~ ma!hcna[i[>licJto iii:itter, which.
hy ihciriintur:.;Ir- uiihin thc Ji~mcsti:jurisdici<ith< Sisle. Ii ihc [>nrlics
are not in agreement as to whether the controversy concerns a matter~of do-
mestic jurisdiction, this preliminary question shall be submitted to decision
by the International Court of Justice, at the requeof any of the parties.188 BORDERAND TRANSBORDERARME0 ACTIONS

Arricle VI. The aforesaid procedures. furthermore. may no1 be applicd to
maticrs alrcady settlçd by arrangement between the parties. or by arbitral
award or by dccision of an international court, or which are governed by

agreemçnts or ircaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the prçsçnt
Treaty.

Arricle VI/. The High Contracting Parties bind thcmselves no1 to make
diplomatic rcpresçntations in order to protect their nationals. or to refer a
controversy lo a court of international jurisdiction for that purpose. when the
said nationals hzivehad available the means to place their case beïore compe-

lent domestic courts of the respective State.
Arrrcle VIII. Neither rçcourse 10 uacific means for the solution of contro-

vcriics. iior thc rcc~immcnd.iti<~nof thcir u<c.sh.ill. in thc C;IW uf 3n ~rnied
~tiliik. hc gr<~unJï,,r dcl:i?ing tlic exercix of ih~.right i~finJiiiJu;il or .'ollci-
iive sclf.dcic!isc. as providcd ï<ir in ihc Charter iiithe I,'nitcd N:iti<in\.

CIIAPTERTWO

Pnoc~i:)u~~s OF GOOD OFFICESAND MEDlATlON

Arricle IX. The procedure of good offices consists in the attempt by one or
more American Governments not parties 10 the controversy, or by one or
more eminent citizens of any ~merccan Siate which is no1 a Party 10-the con-
trovcrsy. to bring the parties together, so as to make it possible for them to

reach an adequate solution between themselves.
Arricle X. Once the parties have been brought together and have resumed

direct negotiations. no further action is 10 be taken by the States or citizens
ihat have ofïered their good offices or have accepted an invitation to oïfer
ihem; they may. however, by agreement between the parties. be present al
ihc negotiaiions.

Arricle XI. The urocedure of mediation consists in the submission of the
c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ one Or more Amcr~ca~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ts no1oarties to the contro-

versy, or io one or more eminent citizens of any American State no1a party to
thc controversv. In either casc thc mediator or mediators shall be chosen by
mutual agreement beiween the parties.

Arricle XII. The funciions of the mediator or mediators shall be to assis1
the parties in thc settlemcnt of controversies in the simples1 and most direci
manncr. avoiding ïormalilies and seeking an acceptable solution. No report

shall be made by ihe mediator and, so far as he is concerned. the proceedings
shall be wholly confidential.

Arricle XIII. In the event that the High Contracting Parties have agreed io
the procedure of mediation bu1 are unable to reach an agreement within two
months on the seleciion of the mediaior or mediators, or no solution to the
controvcrsy has becn reached within five months aller mediation has begun,

the partics shall have recourse wiihout delay to any one of the other proce-
dures of peaceful seitlement established in the present Treaty.

Arricle XIV. The Fligh Contracting Parties may offer their mediation,
eithcr individually or jointly. but thcy agree no1 to do so while the contro-
vcrsy is in process oïsçttlement by any of the other procedurcs established in
the present Treaty. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

CtlAPTER THREE

PROCEDURE OF INIIESTIGATION AND CONCILIATION

Article XV. The procedure of investigation and conciliation consisis in the
submission of the controversy to a Commission of Investigation and Concilia-
tion, which shall be established in accordance with the provisions established
in subsequent articles of the present Treaty, and which shall function within
the limitations prescribed therein.

Arricle XVI. The party initieting the procedure of investigation and con-
ciliation shall request the Council of the Organization of American States to
convoke thc Commission of Investigation and Conciliation. The Council for
its part shall takemmediate steps to convoke it.
Once the request to convokc: the Commission has been received, the con-
troversy between the parties shall immediately be suspended, and the parties
shall refrain from any act that niight make conciliation more difficult. To that
cnd, al the request of one of the parties. the Council of the Organization of
Anierican States may, pending the convocation of the Commission, make
appropriate recoinmendations to the parties.

Article XVII. Each of the High Contracting Parties may appoint, by means
of a bilateral agreement consisting of a simple exchange of notes with each of
the other signatories, two members of the Commission of Investigation and
Conciliation. only one of whom may be of ils own nationality. The fifth mcm-
ber, who shall perlorm the fuiictions of chairman, shall be selectçd imme-
diately by common agreement of the members thus appointed.
Any onç of the contracting parties may remove members whom it has ap-
pointed, whether nationals or aliens; at the same time it shall appoint the
successor. If this is not done, the removal shall be considered as not having
been made. The appointmcnts and substitutions shall be registered with the
Pan American Union, which shall endeavor to ensure that the comiiiissions
maintain their full complement of five members.

Arlicle XVIII. Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing article,
the Pan American Union shall draw up a permanent panel of American con-
ciliators, to be made up as foll<iws:

(a) Each of the High Contracting Parties shall appoint. for three-year
periods, two of their natioiials who enjoy the highest reputation for fair-
ness, competence and integrity;
(bj The Pan American Union shall request of the candidates notice of their
formal acceptance, and it shall place on the panel of conciliators the
names of the persans who so notify it;
(cj The governments may, at ;iny time. fiIl vacancies occurring among their
appointees; and they may reappoint their members.

Arricle XIX. In the event that a controversy should arise between two or
more American States that have not appointed the Commission referred to
in Article XVII, the following procedure shall be observed:

(aj Each party shall designate two members from the permanent panel
of American conciliators, who are not of the same nationality as the
appointing party.
(b) These four niembers shall in turn choose a fifth member, from the per-
manent panel, not of the nationality of either party.190 RORDI'.R AND TRANSBORDER ARMEDACTlONS

(c) If, within a period of thirty days following the notification of their selec-
lion, the four members are unable to agree upon a fifth member, they

shall each separately lis1 the conciliators composing the permanent
panel, in order of their preference, and upon comparison of the lists so
prepared. the one who first receives a majority of votes shall be declared
elected. The persons so elected shall perform the dulies of chairman of
the Commission.

Article XX. In convening the Commission of Investigation and Concilia-
tion, the Council of the Organization of American States shall dctermine the
place where the Conimission shall meet. Thereafter, the Commission may
determine the place or places in which it is to function, taking into account
the best facilities for the performance of ils work.
Article XXI. When more than two States are involved in the same con-
troversy, the States that hold similar points of view shall he considered as a
single Party. If they have different interests they shall be entitled to increase

the numher of conciliators in order that al1parties may have equal represen-
talion. The chairman shall be elected in the manner set forth in Article XIX.
Article XXII. 11shall be the duty of the Commission of Investigation and
Conciliation to clarifv the points in dispute between the parties and to en-
deavour to brine about an'aereement between them unon mutuallv accent-
able terms. ~he'~ornmissio~sha11 institute such invesiigations of ihe fàcts
involved in the controversy as it may deem necessary for the purpose of pro-
~~
posing acceptable bases of settlement.
Article XXIII. It shall be the duty of thc parties to facilitate the work of the
Commission and 10 supply il, to the fullest extent possible, with al1 uscful
documents and inforinaiion, and also to use the means al their disposal to
enable the Commission to summon and hear witnesses or experts and per-
form other tasks in the territories of the parties, in conformity with their laws.

Article XXIV. During the proceedings before the Commission, the parties
shall be reoresented bv oleninotentiarv deleeates or bv aeents. who shall
serve as iniermediaries'bétw&n them and thrcommiss;on.-~he parties and
the Commission may use the services of technical advisers and experts.
Article XXV The Commission shall conclude ils work within a period of

six months from the date of ils installation; but the parties may, by mutual
agreement, extend the period.
Article XXVI. If, in the opinion of the parties, the controversy relates ex-
clusively to questions of fact, the Commission shall limit itself to invesii-
gating such questions, and shall conclude ils activities with an appropriate
report.

Article XXVII. If an agreement is reached by conciliation, the final report
of the Commission shall be limited to the tex1 of the agreement and shall be
published after ils transmittal to the parties, unless the parties dccide other-
wise. If no agreement is reached, the final report shall contain a summary of
the work of the Commission; it shall be delivered to the parties, and shall he
published after the expiration of six months unless the parties decide other-
wise. In both cases, the final report shall be adopted by a majority vote.

Arricle XXVIII. The reports and conclusions of the Commission of Inves-
tigation and Conciliation shall no1 be binding upon the parties, either with
respect to the statement of facts or in regard 10 questions of law, and they
shall have no other character than that of recommendations submitted for the ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI. 191

consideration of the parties in order 10 facilitate a friendly settlement of the
controversy.

Article XXIX. The Commission of Investigation and Conciliation shall
transmit to each of the parties, as well as to the Pan American Union, certificd
copies of the minutes of ils proceedings. These minutes shall not bc published
unless the parties su decide.

Article XXX. Each member of the Commission shall receive finaiicial re-
muneration, the amount of which shall be fixed by agreement between the
parties. If the parties do not agree thereon, the Council of the Organization
shall determine the remuneration. Each government shall pay its own ex-
penses and an equal share of the common expenses of the Commission. in-
cluding the aforcmentioned remunerations.

CHAPTERl'OUR

JUDICIALPROCEDURE

Article XXXI. In conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of
the lnternational Court of Justice, the Hiah Contractine. Parties declarc that
thev recoenize. in relation tu anv other ~merican ~tate.the iurisdictio~ ~f the
Court as compulsory ipso focruw ,ithout the necessity of any speciül agree-

ment su long as the present Treaty is in force. in al1 disputes of a juridical
nature that arise among them concerning:
(O) The interpretation of a treaty;
(b) Any question of international law;

(c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute thc breaeh
of an international obligation;
(d) The nature or extent of the reparation tu be made for the breach of an
international obligation.

Arricle XXXII. When the conciliation procedure previously established in
the present Treaty or by agreement of the parties does not lead to a solution,
and the said parties have not agreed upon an arbitral procedure, either of
them shall be entitled to have recourse 10 the International Court of Justice in
the manner prescribed in Article 40 of the Statute thereof. The Court shall
have compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1, of
the said Staiute.

Article XXXIII. If the parties fail 10agree as to whether the Court has juris-
diction over the controversy, the Court itself shall first decide that question.
Arricle XXXlV If the Court, for the reasons set forth in Articles V, VI and

VI1 of this Treaty, declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear thc contro-
versy, such controversy shall bc declared ended.
Ariicle XXXV If the Court for any othcr reason declares itself tu be with-
out jurisdiction to hear and adjudge the controversy, the High Contracting
Parties obligate themselves to submii it 10arbitration, in accordance with the
provisions ofChapter Five of this Treaty.

Article XXXVI. In the case of controversiessubmitted tu the judicial pro-
cedure tu which this Treaty refers. the decision shall devolvc upon the full
Court, or, ifthe parties so request. upon a special chamber in conformity with192 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Article 26 of the Statute of the Court. The parties may agree. morcovcr, 10
have the controversy decided e.r <reqitoerbono.
Arricle XXXVII. The procedure to be followed by the Court shall be that

established in the Stzitute thereof.

CHAPTERFI\'E

PROCGDUKE OF ARBITRATION

Arricle XXXVIII. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chaptcr Four or this
Treaty. the High Contracting Parties may, if they so agree, submit to arbitra-
lion differences of any kind, whether juridical or not, that have ariscn or may

arise in the future betwcen thcm.
ArricleXXXIX. The Arbitral Tribunal to which a controversy is to be sub-
mitted shall. in the cases contemplated in Articles XXXV and XXXVlll of
the present Treaty. be constitutcd in the following manner, unless there exists
an agreement to the contrary.

Arricle XL. (1) Within a period of two months after notification of the
decision of the Court in the case provided for in Article XXXV, each party
shall name one arbiter of recognized competence in questions of interna-
tional law and of the highest integrity, and shall transmit the designation to
the Council of the Organization. At the same lime, each party shall present to
the Council a list of ten jurists chosen from among those on the general panel
of members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who do no1
belong to its national group and who are willing to be mcmbers of the
Arbitral Triburial.
(2) The Council of the Organization shall, within the month following the

presentation of the list, proceed to establish the Arbitral Tribunal in the (01-
lowing manner:
(a) If the lists presented by the parties contain three names in common, such
persons. together with the Iwo directly named by the parties. shall consti-
tute the Arbitral Tribunal;
(b) In case these lists contain more than three names in common. the thrcc
. .
;irhitcrs nccdcd iu coiiiplric ihc ïrihun;il \hall hr. ~clecied by loi:
(cl In lhc circuni4:inccs cn\is;igcJ in the Irio prcLciling il.iu\cs. Ilifisr:
;irhiirr> dc>ien:iicd \h;ill chclohc<in.!of thcir nuii.i>nrcsidiiie ofiiccr:
If the lists contain only two names in common. such candidÿte;and the
two arbiters directly selected by the parties shall by common agreement
choose the fifth ;irbiter. who shall preside over the Tribunal. The choicc
shalldevolve upon a jurist on the aforesaid general panel of the Pcrma-
nent Court of Arbitration of The Haguewho has no1hecn included in the
lists drawn up by the partics;
(el If the lists contairi onlv onc namc in common.that oerson shall be a mcm-
hcr id ihc I'rihiiii;il.;inJ :iii,~thcrn.lnic sh.ill hc cl~loinfrtm :inlong
ihs eight:r.n juriiis reni:iiiiins otlii:ih<,v~.-mcniioncJlisi. The prcsi-
Jine i~ificcrsh:nllhc cle~icd in ac;orJ:sn~.c u,itli ihc rir~iccdurcc\i;ihlishcJ
in the preceding clausc;

(fl If the lists contain no names in common. one arbiter shall be chosen hy
lot from each of the lists: and the fifth arbiter. who shall act as presiding
officer, shall be chosen in the manner previously indicated: ANNEXES TO THE MEMORlAL 193

(g) If the four arbiters cannot agrec upon a fifth arbiter within one month
after the Council of the Oraanization has notified them of their aoooint-
ment, cach of them shall sebarately arrange the lis1of jurists in thg'order

of their prcference and, after comparison of the lists so formcd, the person
who first ohtains a majority vote~sh;illbc dçclared elected.
Article XLI. The parties may by mutual agreement establish the Tribunal

in the mzinner they deem most appropriate; thcy may even select a single ar-
biter, dcsignating in such case a chicf of statc, an eminent jurist, or any court
of justice in which the parties have mutual conlidence.
Article XLII. When more than two States are involved in the same contro-
versy. the States defending the same inrerests shall be considered as zisingle
party. If thcy have opposing intercsts they shall have the right 10 increase the

numbcr of arbiters so that al1parties may have cqual representation. Thç pre-
siding officer shall be selected by the method established in Article XL.
Arricle XLIII. The parties shall in each case draw up a spccial agreement
clcarlv definine. the specific matter that is the subiect of the controvcrsv. the
seat 0.fthï Trihunal. ihe rules of orocedurc 10 bç bbserved. the oeriod within
, .
which the award is tb be handed Aown,and such other conditions as thcy may
agree upon among themselves.
If the snecial aereement cannot be drawn uo within three months after
the date oi the in$allation of the Tribunal. il shh be drawn up by the Inler-
national Court of Justice through summary procc~u~e, and shall be binding
upon the parties.

Article XLII'. The parties may be reprcsented before the Arbitral Tribu-
nal by such pcrsons as they ma), designate.
Article XLV. If one of the parties fails to designate ils arbiter and prescnt
its lis1of candid;ites within the period providcd for in Article XL, the other
party shall have the right to request the Council of the Organization to estab-

lish the Arbitral Tribunal. The Council shall immediately urge the delinquent
party to fulfill ils obligations within an additional period of fiftcçn days, ;ilter
which lime the Council itself shall establish the Tribunal in the following
manncr:

(O) It shall select a name by lot from the list presçnted by the peiitioning
party.
(b) It shall choose. by absolute majority vote. two jurists from thc general
panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who do not
belong to the national group of any of the parties.
(c) The thrcc persons so designated,together with the one directly choscn by
the petitioning party. shall select the fifth arbiter, who shall act as presi-
ding officer. in the manner provided for in Article XL.
(cl) Once the Tribunal is installed, the procedure established in Article

XLlll shall bc followed.
Article XLVI. The award shall bc accomoanied bv a suooortine i.. . .n.
sh:tIl hc a~IupicJ hy tj rnapr1t! WI~. xnJ shiiilhc p~bl~bhvd:ofter tn~~iif~c~tt~~n
tlicrei~fh:iz been gitcn iu ihc partle'. The ~I~s\~.nt~n alr:l)11rIr.~rh~l<rssh311

have the riaht to sate the erounds for their dissent.
The aw&. once it is d;ly handed down and made known to the parties.
shall settle the controversy definitively. shall not be subject to appcal~~and
shall be carried out immediately.
Arricle XLVII. Any differences that arisc in regard 10the interpretation or194 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

execuiion of the award shall be submitted to the decision of the Arbitral Tri-
bunal that rendered the award.

Article XLVIII. Within a year after notification thereof. the award shall be
suhject IO review by the same Tribunal at the request of one of the parties,
provided a previously existing fact is discovered unknown to the Tribunal and
to the pariy requesting the review, and provided the Tribunal is of the opi-
nion that such fact rnight have a decisive influence on the award.

Arrfcle XL1,Y.Evcry rncmber of the Tribunal shall rcccivc financial remu-
neration. the amouni of which shall be fixed by agreement heiwcen the parties.
If the parties do not agreeon the amount, the Council of the Organization shall
determine the remuneration. Each government shall pay its own expenses and
an equal share of thc common expenses of the Tribunal, including the afore-

mentioned remunerations.

CHAFTER SIX

FULFILLME~T OF DEClSlONS

Arricle L. If one of the Hieh Contractine Parties should fail to carrv out the
<ilili~:,iic~inip<i\ed upcin it'h? ;Irlr.ci~i<i~'ofihc Inicrn:iiiuiial (:ourul Jus-
ilcc or hysn .irhiir;ilsrv:grilthc i~therp:#riyor Ii.irticoitccrncrl sh;ill. hehirr,
re\\irting taihc Sccurit! (:iiuncil ut ihe I'iiircJ S:iiions. prupusc .1\Icr.iinp,ii
C~~n~ult.,ti<i<nB>I liiii>icrs (II I:<>reignr\fl,iirr lu ;igrcc upun ;ippropriiii~..i-
çurc\ I<enstirr. the fullillni~ni111the JJJICI;~I~I:iision or :irbilral il\\,ilrd.

CHAFTER SEVEN

ADVISORYOPINIONS

Article LI. The parties concerned in the solution of a controversy may, by
agreement. petition the General Assembly or the Security Council of the
United Nations to request an advisory opinion of the International Court of
Justice on any juridical question.

The petition shall be made through the Council of the Organization of
American States.

CHAFTER ElGHl

Article LII. The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting
Parties in accordance with their constitutional procedures. The original in-
strument shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, which shall transmit
an authentic certifieil copy to each government for the purpose of ratifica-
tion. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the
Pan American Union, which shall notify the signatory governments of the
deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.

Article LIII. This Treaty shall come into effect between the High Con-
tracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 195

Article LIV. Any American State which is not a signatory to the present
Treaty, or which has made reservations thereto, may adhere ta it. or may
withdraw its reservations in whole or in part, hy transmitting an officia1 in-
strument to the Pan American Linion, which shall notify the other High Con-
tracting Parties in the manner herein estahlished.

Article LV. Should any of the High Contracting Parties make reservations
concerning the present Treaty, such reservations shall, with respect to the
State that makes them, apply to al1signatory States on the basis of reciprocity.

Article LVI. The present Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but may
be denounced upon one year's notice, at the end of which period it shall cease
Io be in force with respect Io the State denouncing it, but shall continue in
force for the remaining signatories. The denunciation shall be addressed Io
the Pan Americaii Union, which shall transmit it to the other Contracting
Parties.
The denunciation shall have no effect with respect to pending procedures
initiated prior to the transmission of the particular notification.

Article LVII. The present Treaty shall be registered with the Secretziriat of
the United Nations through the Pan American Union.

Article LVI11.As this Treaty comes into effect through the successive rec-
tifications of the High Contracting Parties, the following treaties, conven-
tions and protocols shall cease to be in force with respect to such parties:
Treaty to Avoid or Prevent Conilicts between the American States, of

May 3, 1923;
General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation, of January 5. 1929;
General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and Additional Protocol of
Progressive Arbitration, of January 5, 1929;
Additional Protocol to the Cieneral Convention of Inter-American Con-
ciliation, of Decernher 26, 1933;
Anti-War Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation, of October 10,1933;
Convention to Coordinate. Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of t~ ~ ~ ~
Existing Treaties between the'~merican States, of ~ecember 23, 1936;

Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation, of December 23,
1936;
Treaty on the Prevention of Controversiçs, of December 23, 1936.

Article LIX The provisions of the foregoing Article shall no1 apply to pro-
cedures already initiated or agrced upon in accordance with any of the above-
mentioned international instruments.
Article LX. The present Treaty shall he called the "Pact of Bogoti".

ln witness whereof. the undersiened Pleni~otentiaries. havine denosited
their full powers, fo&d to be in gogd and due'form. sign ihe prerent kreaty,
in the name of their respective Governments, on the dates appearing~~elow
their signatures.

Done at the City of Bogoti, in four texts, in the English, French, Portu-
guese and Spanish languages respectively, on the thirtieth day of April, nine-
teen hundred forty-eight.196 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

AMERICAN TREATY OS PAClFlCSETTLEMENT ("PACI'OF BOCOTA")

Signed at BogotA. 30 April 1948, at the Ninth International Conference of
American States
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 6 May 1949, in accordance with Article Llll of the
Trcaty.
DEPOSITORY: OAS Gencral Secretariat (original instrument and rati-
fications).
TEXT: OAS. Treaiy Series,Nos. 17and 61.
UN RECISTRATION: 13May 1949.No. 449. UN TrerirySeriesVol. 30.

Signnrorycrninrries Deposil of rorificarion
Argentin;) ....
Bolivia .....
Brazil. ..... November 1965
Chile. ..... April 197P
Colombia .... November 1968
May 1949
Costa Rica ....
Cuba ......
Dominican Republic Sepirmber 1950
Ecuador .....
El Salvador. ... Sentember 1950b
Guatemala ....'......
Haiti ............ 28 March 1951
Honduras .......... 7 February 1950
Mexico ........... 23 Novcmber 1948
Nicaragu;~ .......... 26 July 1950'
Panama ........... 25 April 1951
Paraguay. .......... 27 July 1967
Peru ............ 26 May 1967d
' United States .........
Uruguay. .......... I Sepiember 1955
Venezuela ..........

As this Treaty cniers into force through the successive ratifications of the
parties. the trcatics. convcntions and protocols mentioncd inArticle LVIll
cease to be in force wiih respect to such parties.
1. Argentinil:

(Reservations made al the time of signature)
The Delegaiion of the Argentine Republic, on signing the American
Treaty on Pacific Settlcment (Pact of Bogota), makcs reservations in regard
to the following articles. to which it does not adhere:

(1) VII, concerning the protection of aliens:
(2) Chapter Four (Articles XXXl to XXXVII). Judicial Procedure;
(3) Chaptrr Fivc (Articles XXXVllI to XLIX). Procedure of Arbitration:
(4) Chapter Six (Article L). Fulfillment of Decisions.
Arbitration and jiidicial procedure have, as institutions, the firm adher-
ence of the Argentine Republic. but the Delegation cünnot accept the form in

which the procedures for their application have bcen regulated. since, in its
opinion, they should have been established only for coniroversies arising in
the future and riot originating in or having any relation to causes. situationsor ANNEXES TOTllE MEMOKIAL 197

facts existing before the signing of this instrument. The compulsory execution

of arbiiral or judicial decisions and the limitation which prevents the States
from judging for themselves in regard to matters that pertain to their domes-
tic jurisdiction in accordance with Article V are contrary to Argentine tradi-
tion. Thc protection of aliens, who in the Argentine Republic are prolectcd
by its Suprcme Law to the same extent as the nationals, is also contrary to
that tradition.

2. Bolivilr:
(Reservaiion made at the time of signature)

The Delegation of Bolivia makes a reservation with regard io Article VI.
inasmuch as ii considers that pacific procedures may also be applied 10 con-
iroversies arising from matters setiled by arrangement between the parties.
when the said arrangement affectsthe vital interests of a State.

3. Ecliailor:
(Rescrvation madç at the time of signature)

The Dclceation of Ecuador. uoon sienine this Pact. makes an exoress reser-
i..iri<iivitt;q:irJ ArttcI~ \Il (<nJ;il;<c;er). pr~~\,i,ii,nrli:iici>ni;;idi.>ri.
riijin h:irmtiriy uiih thc priiiciplc\ procl.iiniehy <irthe rii[iul:iiions coiit.iiiied
in ilic Cli:iricr (ri ilic I.'niicd '1;iii~ins.thc Ch,)ithe Orr:~ni/~tion of Amc-
rican States. or the Constitution of the Republic of ~cuado;.

4. Nicnrirgirtr:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)

The Nicaragua11Delegation, on giving ils approval 10 the American Treaiy
on Pacific Settlenient (Pact of Bogoti) wishes to record expressly that no pro-
visions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice any position assumed by
the Govcrnment of Nicaragua with respect to arbitral decisions the validity of
which il has contested on the basis of the principles of international law.
which clearly perniit arbitral decisions to bc ;ittackcd when they are adjudged
to be nuIl or invalidated. Conscquently, the signature of the Nicaraguan Dele-
galion to the Trcaty in questiori cannoi be alleged as an acceptance of any
arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the validity of which is
not certain.
Hencc the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterates the statement madc on the

28th of the current month on approving ihe text of the above mentioned
Treaty in Committee III.
5. Pcragliny:

(Reservation madc al the time of signature)
Paraguay stipulatçs the prior agreement of the parties as a prercquisite to
the arbiiration procedure establishcd in this Trcaty for every qucstion of a non-
juridical nature affecting national sovereignty and no1specifically agrced upon

in treatics now in force.
6. Perrr:

(Reservations made al the tiine of signature)
1. Reservaiion with regard to the second part of Article V. because il con-
siders that domestic jurisdiction should be defined by the State itself.
2. Reservation with regard to Article XXXlll and the pertinent part of198 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Article XXXIV, inasmuch as it considers that the exceptions of res jiidicarii,
resolved by settlement hetween the parties or governed hy agreements and

treaties in force, determine, in virtue of their objective and peremptory nature,
the exclusion of thcsç cases from the application of every procedure.
3. Reservation with regard to Article XXXV, in the sense that, hefore
arbitration is rïsorted in. there may be, at the request of one of the parties, a
meeting of the Organ of Consultation, as eslablished in the Charter of the
Organization of American States.
4. Reservation with regard to Article XLV. because il believes that arbi-
tration set up without the participation of one of the parties is in contradiction
with its constitution;il provisions.

7. United Stores:
(Reservations made at the time of signature)

1. The United States does not undertake as the comolainant State to sub-
mit to the International Court of Justice any controv&sy which is no1 con-
sidered to be properly within the iurisdiction of the Court.
2. The submisiion-on the oart of the United States of anv controversv to
.irhirr;siio3s Ji~tinguishcd f;im juJici:il sc.iilcmcni. shdl hcdcpcndcnt ipon
thc conrlu>ion of ;sl>eci:il:#grecnieni hctucci~ ihc p;irtics io ihc cnse.
3. Ihc :iccci~t:~iischv thc liniicd St;iics of ihe iurisJiitii~n of ihc Iiiic.rn.i-
tional Court oi~ustice & compulsory ipsofacro andwithout special agreement,
as provided in this Treaty, is limited hy any jurisdictional or other limitations
contained in any Declaration deposited by the United States under Article 36,

paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, and in force al the time of the submis-
sion of any casc.
4. The Governmeiit of the United States cannot accept Article VI1 rclating
to diolomatic orotection and the rxhaustion of remedies. For ils oart. the
(;oicrnmcni ul th? IJnitcJ Stilies m~iiniiiinsth^TUILu .,f diploiniiiprotection.
including ihc rulc of cxhltusiion of local remcdies bv alien.,.;iprovideJ hy in-
ternational law.
a. Chile:

(Reservation made at the time of ratification)
Chile considers that Article LV of the Pact, in the part that refers to the

possibility that some of the Contracting States would make reservations,
mus1 be interpretcd in the light of paragraph No. 2 of Resolution XXlX
adopted al the Eighlh International Conference of American States.
h. El Salvador:

Notified denunciation referred to in Article 56of the Treaty on 26 Novem-
ber 1973.
c. Nicaragiia:

(Reservations made al the time of ratification)
With the reservations made at the time of signature.

d. Peru:
(Reservations made at the lime of ratification)

With the reservations made at the lime of signature. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 35

TRAIT& AMERICAIN DE RÈGLEMENT PACIFIQUE ("PACTEDE BOGOTA"),
OFFICIAL FRENCH TEXT

Au nom de leurs peuples, les gouvernements représentés à la 1X' Confé-
rence internationale américaine ont décidé, conformément à l'article XXlll de
la charte de l'organisation des Etats américains,de signer le traité suivant:

CHAPITREPREMIER

OHI.IC~ATIONGENERALE DE RÉGI.ER LES DIFFÉRENDS
PAR DES MOYENS PACIFIQUES

,Irt~<.l1 Le\ l~l:~utcsI'artic\ coiitr.ict:~iitc~r2;1Iiiriiic1it~~~IcnnclIc, t~l~e~
~~i>lig;iii<q\ii'cllc,in[ .i<cclitr'iI:iiidcs cdiiientions ci Jc,s <Ir'cl;ir:.ti~~ns
intcrii:iiiun:ilc\ :iiitiricu;iinb4uc J;ins I;iCh;irtc ilc.: S;ition, Iiiics: cllc5

décident de s'abstenir de la mena'ce,de l'emploi de la force ou de n'importe
quel autre moyen de coercition pour régler leurs différends et dc recourir, en
toutes circonstances, à des moyens pacifiques
Article II.Les Hautes Parties contractantes acceptent l'obligation de ré-
soudre les différends internationaux à l'aide des procédures pacifiques régio-

nales avant de recourir au Conseil de sécurité deyNations un-ies
En conséquence, au cas où stirgirait, entre deux ou plusieurs Etats signa-
taires, un différend qui, de l'avis de I'une des parties. ne pourrait êtrerésolu
au moven de néeocia~tionsdirectes suivant les voies di~lomatiuues ordinaires.
1c\ p.irtics \'cn&;igc;icnipliyci Ics pr<i.L!urcr r't;~hlic,J:in, <c lraWIU\ 13
f~iriiieet Jans Ic, icinJition~ prr'\.uis aux i,rtiilc\ \uivaOUtIca prt~cLdurc\
spéciales qui.i leur avis, leur permettront d'arriver a une solution.

Arficle111.L'ordre des procédures pacifiques établi dansle présent traiténe
signifie pas que les parties ne Deuvent recourir à celle uu'elles considkrent le
apiropr;é à chaque cas, ni Qu'ellesdoivent lessuivre ioutes, ni qu'iln'existe,
sauf disposition expresse à cet égard. une préférence pourI'une d'elles.

ArficleIV. Lorsque I'une des procédures pacifiques aura étéentamée, soit
en vertu d'un accord entre les p;irties. soit en exécution du présent traité. ou
d'un pacte antérieur, il nepouira êtrerecouru à aucune autÏe avant I'épuise-
ment de celle déjà entamée.

Arricfe V. Lesdites procédures ne Dourront s'a~~liuuer aux auestions uui.
par leur naturc, relèvent de la cnmp~tcncc natioide des ~tats.'~i les pariies
ne tombent pas d'accotd sur le f:iit que le différend est une question rclevanl
de la compétence nationale, sur Iü dcmande de I'une quelconque d'entre
elles, cette-question préjudicielle sera soumise au jugement de la cour inter-
nationale de Justice.

Article VI. Ces orocédures ne pourront non olus s'aooliauer ni aux aues-
lions déjàreglées;;u moyen d'une'entcnte entreles part'iés.Aud'une décision
arbitrale ou d'une décisiond'un tribunal international. ni à celles régiespar
des accords ou traités en vigueur à la date de la signature du présentpacle.200 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACI'IONS

Article VII.Les Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent à ne pas produire
de réclamations diplomatiques pour protéger leurs nationaux et à n'intro-
duire, dans le mêmebut, aucune action devant les juridictions internationales
tant que lesdits nationaux n'auront pas épuisé lesvoies de recours par-devant
les tribunaux locaux compétents de I'Etat en question.

Article VIII. Ni le recours aux moyens pacifiques de solution des diffé-
rends, ni la recommandation de leur emploi ne pourront. en cas d'attaque
armée, constituer un motif pour retarder l'exercice du droit de légitime
défense individuelle ou collective prévudans la Charte des Nations Unies.

CHAPITREDEUX

PROCÉDUREDESBONSOFFICESETDEMEDIATION

Article IX. La procédure des bons officesconsiste dans les démarches d'un
ou de nlusieurs e..vernements américains. ou d'un ou de nlusieurs citovens
éminents de I'un quelconque des Etats américainsétrangers 3 la controverse.
en vue de rapprocher les parties en leur offrant la possibilitéde trouver direc-
tement une iolution adéquate.
Article X. Désque le rapprochement des parties aura étéréaliséet que les

négociations directes auront repris, la mission de I'Etat ou du citoyen qui
avait offert ses bons offices ou aceoté l'invitation de s'interooser sera consi-

~.
Article XI. La ori)cédure de médiation consiste à soumettre le différend
soi1 :i un <BU plusicurï piuvcrncmciit~ ;iiiii.ricains. \oit:I un <lu plusicur>
cit,i!cn. c.minr.ntsJc I'un quclcoiiquc.IL.1:l;its;iniCri<;iin\r'tr:iiigcrsau Jiiic-
rcnJ. IJ:ln>I'unel l'autre s.<\leOU le) mr'di:itcur*scroni choisis d'un iiiinmun
accord par les parties.

Article XII. Les fonctions du ou des médiateurs consisteront à assister les
parties dans le règlement de leur différend de la manière la plus simple et la
olus directe. en évitant les formalitéset faisant en sorte de trouver une solu-
ticin acccpi.ihlc. 1.c médiateur sah\tienJr:i Jc faire nuiun r.ipport cl. L.nLX
qui le ecmccrnc. les pr<,cr'Jurc.\,cruIII ïtrictcnlsnt c~~nfiJ~~it~cII~s

Article XIII. Si aorks avoir convenu dese soumettre à la orocédure de con-
ciliation les aut te Parties contractantes ne pouvaient parvenir. dans un
délaide deux mois, isemettre d'accord sur le choix duou des médiateurs, ou
si. une fois entamée ladite orocédure de médiation. cinu mois s'écoulaient
an\ qu'~ne >uIut~onpui\*c Ctrc.11~)nn;ciiu rliiiirend. Id\ p;,rlics re:ourroiit
bans rc'tarJ;il'une qudlcsnquc Jc* ;autre\ pr<)ci.Jurc( Je r2gI~mcnl pitcifiqu~.
orévues au ré sentiraité.
,\rrizl,XIV Lcs liat.t<\ I'nrtici ct>ntr.\ct:iiiici pourrim. inJ~~~Juell~iii~nt

<iuc<~llccli\cnient. offrir leur niidi:iii«n. iiiais clle. >'cng;igciit 5 ne p.!, le
t;iirtant que ICJiffCreiid <Ienieurc ~uict ;il'une Jes ;suires i~r<icidurc\ prc-
vues au traité.

CHAPITRE TROIS

PROCEDURED'ENQUETE ETDE CONCILIATION

Article XV. La prucédure d'enquêteetde conciliation consiste àsoumettre
le différend à une commission d'enquêteetde conciliation quiseraconstituée ANNEXESTO THE MEMORlAL 201

conformément aux dispositions établies dans les articles suivants du présent
traité et qui fonctionnera dans les limites qui y sont fixéesci-après.
Article XVI. La partie qui recourt à la procédure d'enquête et deconcilia-

tion sollicitera do Conseil de I'Oreanisation des Etats américains la convo-
cation de la Commission d'enquëk et de conciliation. Le Conseil, de son
côté,prendra immédiatement les mesures nécessaires en vue de cette convo-
.:tlllln
['iic ioi\ rcjuL.;idciii.iiiJc Ji :<iii\<ic;iti<ir. 1(',iiiiiiii~~iiIc.Jiiii.rciiJ
i.nirc Ir, p.,rtic> dcnicurc cn <U.;PCII SI ir.II:,-;i ~':lh,~~~~i~IroJilIVLII~ICIC
pout,:)nl rc,i~,Jrc, I~l'l~~i1:~~n.~iIi;~li~,\.~.~,llfin, 1'.('~m~:ildc I'Or~.xni~.i-
ricin J:s iiti~ii~iiiiriciins p,iurr:i. >ur la JcniiiiiJc dcl'iiiiJe\ p.irticr. i:iirc
LILIrcc~~iii~iii~nJ:~li,~J.\> cr. \en, :i.:\ J~.rnilrr.s. LinJi, quc 1.4:<,n\c,calion
est en voie de réalisation.

Arricle XVII. Les Hautes Parties~ ~ ~ ~ ~antcs oourro.t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ac- . ~ ~ ~
cord bilatéral qui s'effectuera au moyen d'un simple échange de notes avec
chacun dcs autrçs signataires, deux membres de la Commission d'enquête et
de conciliation donti'un seulement oourra êtrede leur oroore . .ionalité. Le
cinquième sera éluimmédiatement, au moyen d'un commun accord par ceux
déjadésignéset ilremplira les fonctions de président.
L'une quelconque des Parties contractantes pourra remplacer les membres
qu'elle aura désignésquelle que soit la nationalité de ceux-ci et elle devra,

dans le mêmeacte, désigner leurs remplaçants. Lorsqu'elle aura omis de le
faire, la nouvelle nomination sera considéréecomme n'ayant pas étéfaite.
Les nominations et les remp1acc:ments en question devront êtreenregistrés
à I'Union panaméricaine qui veillera à ce que l'effectif des commissions de
cinq membres soit toujours au complet.
Arricle XVII/. Sans préjudice des dispositions de l'article précédent,
I'Union panaméricaine établira un Cadre permanent de conciliateurs améri-

cains composé de la façon suivante:
a) chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes désignera, tous les trois ans,
deux de leurs ressortissants jouissant de la meilleure réputation pour leur
valeur, leur conipétence et leur honorabilité;
b) I'Union panamkricaiue s'informera dc l'acceptation expresse des candi-
dats et placera dans le Cadre des conciliateurs les noms de ceux qui auront
donné leur agrément;

c) les gouvernements auront, à tout moment, la faculté de combler les va-
cances qui pourront se produirc et de nommer à nouveau les msmes
membres.
Article XIX En cas de différend entre deux ou plusieurs Etats américains
qui n'auraient pas établi la coinmission visée à l'article 17. la procédure
suivante devra être adoptée:

a) chacune des parties désignera du Cadre permanent des conciliateurs amé-
ricains deux membres dont la nationalité devra être différente de la
sienne;
b) ces quatre membres désignei-ont à leur tour un cinquième conciliateur
étranger aux parties et qui sera également tiré du Cadre permanent;
CIsi trente ~,urs aorès aue le,r no~~~-tion a éténotifiée aux uuatre .~ ~
membres sus-indiqués, ces derniers ne sont pas parvenus à se mettre d'ac-
cord sur le choix d'un cinquième membre, chacun d'eux établira séparé-
ment une liste de conciliateurs choisis dans le Cadre oermanent et énumérés

par ordre de préférence.Et après comparaison des fistes ainsi établies sera202 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

déclaréélu celui qui le premier aura réuni une majorité de voix. L'élu
exercera les fonctions de président de la Commission.

ArticleXX. Le Ci~nseilde l'organisation des Etats américains. en convo-
quant la Commission d'enquêteet de conciliation. fixera le lieu où elle doit sr
réunir. Par la suite, la Commission pourra déterminer le ou les endroits où
elle doit exercer ses fonctions, en tenant compte des conditions les plus
propres à la réalisation de ses travaux.
Article XXI Lorsque le mêmedifférend existe entrc plus de dcux Etats,

les Etats qui soutieniient le mêmepoint de vue seront considéréscomme une
mêmepartie. Si leurs intérêts sontdivergents, ils auront lc droit d'augmenter
le nombre des conciliateurs de façon à ce que toutes les parties alent une
représentation égale. Le présidentsera éluconformément aux dispositions de
l'article 19.
Article XXII. II appartient à la Commission d'enquête et de conciliation
d'éclaircir les points en litige et de s'efforcer d'amener celles-àiun accord
dans des conditions mutuellement acceptables. Dans le but de trouver une
solution acceptable. la Commission procédera aux enquêtes qu'elle jugera
nécessaires sur les faits qui ont donné naissance au différend.

Article XXIII. II est du devoir des parties de faciliter les travaux de la
Commission et de lui fournir, de la façon la plus large possible. tous les do-
cuments et renseignements utiles, et elles ont l'obligation d'employer
les moyens dont elles disposent en vue de lui permettre de citer et entendre
des témoins ou des experts, ou d'effectuer toutes autres démarches utiles,
dans les limites de leurs territoires respectifs et en contormiti: avec leurs
lois.
Article XXIV. Au cours des procédures devant la Commission, les partics
se feront représenter par des dClégués plénipotentiaires ou par des agents qui
serviront d'intermédiaires entre elles et la Commission. Les parties et la
Commission pourront avoir recours aux services de conseillers ct cxpcrts

techniques.
Article XXV. La Commission terminera ses travaux dans un délai de six
mois à compter du jour de sa constitution; mais les parties pourront, d'un
commun accord, proroger ce délai.
Article XXi71. Si, de l'opinion des parties, le différend se limite exclusive-

ment à des questions de fait. la Commission se bornera àfaire une enquête au
sujet de celles-ci et terminera ses travaux en présentant son rapport.
Article XXI'II. Au cas où un accord résulterait de la conciliation. la Com-
mission, dans son rapport final, se bornera à reproduire le texte du règlement
auquel sont parvenues les parties et ledit texte sera publié après avoir été
remis aux parties, sauf si ces dernières en décident autrement. Au cas
contraire, le rapport final contiendra un résumédes travaux effectués par la
Commission; il sera reniis aux parties et publié dans un délaide six mois, à
moins que celles-ci en décidcnt autrement. Dans l'un et l'autre cas, le rapport
final sera adopté à I;majorité des voix.

Article XXVIII. Les rapports et conclusions de la Commission d'enquête
et de conciliation n'auront aucun caractère obligatoire pour les parties ni en
ce qui concerne l'exposition des faits ni en ce qui concerne Ics questions
de droit; ils n'auront d'autre caractère que celui de recommandations sou-
mises àla considération des parties pour faciliter le règlement amical du dif-
férend. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 203

Article XXIX. La Commission d'enquête et de conciliation remettra à
chacune des parties, ainsi qu'à I'Union panaméricaine, des copies certifiées
des actes de ses travaux. Ces actes ne seront publiés qu'au moment où les
parties en auront ainsi décidé.
Article XXX. Chacun des membres de la Comniission recevra une

compensation pkcunaire dont le montant sera fix6 d'un commun accord entre
les partics. En cas de désaccord de celles-ci, le Conseil de I'Orgünisation en
fixcÏa le montant. Chacun des e-uvernements aura à sa charre ses . .ores
frais et une partie égaledes dépenses communes de la Commission, celles-ci
comprenant les ccimpensations prévues précédemment.

CHAPITRE QUATRE

PROCÉDURE JUDICIAIRE

Article XXXI. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de I'article 36 du Statut de la
Cour internationale de Justice, les Hautes Parties contractantes en ce qui
concerne tout autre Etat américain déclarent reconnaître comme obligatoire
de plein droit, et sans conventioii spécialetant que le présent traité restera en
vigueur, la juridiction de la Cour sur tous les différends d'ordre juridique
surgissant entre elles et ayünt pour objet:
a) l'interprktation d'un traité;
b) toute question de droit international:
c) l'existence de tout fait qui, s'il était établi, constituerait la violation d'un
engagement international;
d) La nature ou l'étendue de IZIréparation qui découle de la rupture d'un
engagement international.

Arricle XXXII. Lorsque la procédure de conciliation établie précédem-
ment, conformément à ce traité ou par la volonté des parties. n'aboutit àas
une solution et que ces dites parties n'ont pas convenu d'une procédure
arbitrale,l'une quelconque d'entre elles aura le droit de porter la question
devant la Cour internationale de Justice de la façon établie par l'article 40 de
son Statut. La compétence de la Cour restera obligaloire, conformément au
paragraphe 1 cide I'article 36 du mêmeStatut.
Article XXXIII. Au cas où les parties ne se mettrilient pas d'accord sur la
compétence de la Cour au sujet du litige. la Cour elle-même décidera au
préalable de cette question.

Article XXXIV. Si, pour les motifs indiqués aux articles 5, 6 et 7 de ce
traité. la Cour se déclarait imcompétente pour juger le différend, celui-ci sera
déclaré terminé.
Article XXXV. Si. pour une raison quelconque. la Cour se déclarait
incomoétente o.ur i,"er un différend et orendre une décision à son suiet. les
Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent à soumettre celui-ci à l'arbitrage,
conformément aux dispositions du chapitre 5 du présent traité.
Article XXXVI. En cas de différends soumis :Ila procédure de règlement
iudiciaireenvis;ieée dans ce traité. la Cour orendrzi sa décision en séance
plénière,ou, si les parties le demandent, en chanibre spéciale,conformément
à I'article 26 de son Statut. De cette façon, les parties pourront convenir que
le conflit est jugé ueqiro et borio.

Article XXXVII. La procédure que devra suivre la Cour est celle fixéepar
son Statut.204 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

CHAPITRE CINQ

PROCeDURE D'ARBITRAGE

ArticleXXXVIII .utre ce qui est établidans le chapitre 4 de ce traité, les
Hautes Parties contractantes auront la faculté de soumettre à l'arbitrage,
après accord entre elles. les différends d'ordrc quelconque. juridiques ou
non, qui auront surgi ou seraient appelés à surgir entre elles par la suite.

Article XXXIX. 1.e tribunal d'arbitrage appelé à connaître du différend
dans les cas visésaux articles35 et 38 de ce traité seraà moins d'accord con-
traire. constitué de la façon indiquée ci-après.

Article XL. 1) Dans un délaide deux mois. àcompter de la notification de
la décision de la Cour. dans le cas prévu à l'article 35.chacune des parties
désignera un arbitre d'une compétence reconnue en matière de droit interna-
tional et jouissant d'iinc haute réputation morale et elle fera part de son choix
au Conseil de I'Organiszition. En temps voulu, elle présentera à ce même
Conseil une liste dc dix juristes choisis parmi ceux qui composent la liste
générale des membres de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage de La Haye,
n'appartenant pas à son groupe national et disposés à accepter cette fonc-

tion.
2) Dans le mois suivant la présentation des listes. le Conseil de I'Orga-
nisation procédera àla formation du tribunal d'arbitrage de la façon suivante:
ri)les personnes dont les noms sont reproduits trois fois sur les listes
presentées par les parties composeront, avec les deux membres désignés

directement par les parties. le tribunal d'arbitraec:
h) au cas où plus de triis personnes se trouveraienidans la situation viséeau
paragraphe précédent,les trois arbitres qui doivent compléter le tribunal
seront choisis par tirage au sort:
c) dans les cas prévus aux deux paragraphes précédents, les cinq arbitres
désignés choisiront entre eux leur président;
d) si deux noms seulement se trouvaient dans le cas cnvisagé par le para-

eraohe ai du orésent article. les candidats auxauels il~~s'aonl~,uent et les
de& arbitres khoisis directement par les parties éliront d'un commun ac-
cord le cinquième arbitre qui présidera le tribunal. Le choix devra se faire
parmi les iuristes de la mêmeliste eénéralede la Cour oermanente d'arbi-
irage de ia Haye et porter sur un'arbitre qui n'était6s désignédans les
listes préparéespar les parties;
eJ si les listes ne rése enten tu'un seul nom commun. cette oersonne fera

f) au cas ou aucune concordance n'existerait entre les listes, deux arbitres
seront tirésde chacune d'elles au moyen d'un tirage au sort; le cinquième
arbitre sera élude la manière indiquée précédemment, et il exercera les
fonctionsde président:
g) si les quatre arbitres ne peuvent se mettre d'accord sur le choix d'un
cinquième arbitre dans un délai d'un mois à partir de la dateà laquelle le

Conseil de I'Oreanisation leur a fait oart de leur ~omi~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~d'eux
établira séparéient, el en disposani les noms par ordre de préférence,la
liste des juristes ct, après comparaison des listes ainsi formées, sera
déclaré élucelui qui réunit le plus grand nombre dc votcs ANNEXES TO TIIE MEMORIAL 205

Arricle XLI. Les parties pourront, d'un commun accord. constituer le tri-
bunal de la manière jugée par elles la plus appropriée. Elles pourront rnênie
choisir un seul arbitre, désignant en pareil cas un chef d'Elat. un juriste
éminent ou n'importe quel tribunal de justice dans lequel elles ont la même

confiance.
Arricle XLII. Lorsque plus de deux Etats sont parties au mêmedifférend,
ceux oui défendent des intéretssemblablesseront considéréscomme une seule
pxriic Si lcurs iiitCriis simi i,ppr,ré\. ils :turiml Ic Jriiii d'.iiigmcnicr Ic nciiiihr~.
dc, ;irhitrcs dc tcllc t.iion <luei<,utc\ Ics p:irtics ;iirni unc r~lrrC,ciii;iiion Cgiilc

le nrr'idcnt .;Cr:,<lu ciiniiiriiic'nicituh disp<~iit~<>JL.I'arti,.I41
Arricle XLIII. Les parties étzibliront dans chaque cas le compromis qui
devra définir clairement le point spécifique qui fait l'objet du différend.
désigner le siège du tribunal. fixer Ics règles à observer au cours de la procé-

dure, déterniiner le délai dans lequel Ic jugement doit être prononcéet les
autres conditions dont elles con\,iennent entre elles.
Au cas où un accord ne serait pas obtenu, relativement au compromis.
dans un délai de trois mois à compter dï la date de l'installation du trihunal,
la Cour internationale de Justicc formulerzi un compromis obligdtoire pour
les partics. au nioyen de la procédure sommaire.

Ariicle XLlV Les parties peuveiit se faire représenter devant le tribunal
d'arbitrage par les personnes qu'elles jugent convenable de désigner.
ArricleXLV. Au casoù. dans le délaiprévuàl'article 40. I'une des parties ne

désignerait pas son arbitre et ne présenterait pas sa liste de candidats. l'autre
partie aurait le droit de demander au Conseil de l'organisation de conslituer le
tribunal d'arhitraee. Le Conseil invitera immédiatemcnt la nartie défaillante à
remplir les obligzions précitéesdans un délai additionnel'de quinze jours à
l'échéanceduquel le même Conseil procédera 2 l'établissement du tribunal de
la fason suivante:

ai iltirera au sort un nom oarmi ceux contenus dans la liste oréscntécDar la
partie requCrantc;
b) il choisir;^. deI;iliste général^d. e la Cour permanente d'arbitrage de La
Haye et i la inajorité absolue des voix, deux juristes dont aucun ne devra
appartenir au groupe national de I'unc des parties;

c) les trois personnes ainsi désignées, aveccelles choisies directement par la
partie requerante. éliront. coiiformément aux dispositions de l'article 40.
le cinquième arbitre qui exercera les fonctions de président:
4 Le tribunal une fois installé. la procédure fixée à I'article 43 sera suivie.

Arricle XLVI. La décision arbitrale devra être motivée.adoptée à la majo-
rité des voix et publiée aorès que notificalion en aura étéfaite aux parties. Le
ou les arbitres Sissidents oourroiit formuler les motifs de leur désaccord
La dicision, dûment prononcée et notifée aux parties, réglera définitive-
ment le différend. sera sans app..l et devra recevoir exécution immédiate.

'ArticleXLVII. Les différences qui n?issciit relativement à I'intcrprCtiijion
et l'exécution de IIdécision arbitralï seront portCes devant le tribunal (I'arbi-
trage qui a prononcé le jugement.
Arricle XLVIII. Dans l'année suivant sa notification, la décision arbitrale

pourra donner lieu à une revision devant le mème tribunal qui l'a rendue si
I'une des parties le demande tootes les fois que se découvrira un fait. anté-
rieur au jugement. qui était ignoré du tribunal et du demandeur en revision.
et qui au surplus est susceptible. dans l'opinion du tribunal. d'exercer une in-
fluence décisive sur la sentence arbitrale. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORlAL 207

ses effets par rapportà la partie qui l'a dénoncé, etdemeurera en vigueur en
ce oui concerne les autres sienataires. L'avis de dénonciation sera adressé à
l'Union panaméricaine qui 1: transmettra aux autres Parties contractaiites.
La dénonciation n'aura aucun effet sur les procédures en cours entamées
avant la transmission de l'avis en auestion
Arricle LVII. Ce traité sera eiiregistré au Secrétariat général des Nations

Unies par les soins de l'Union panaméricaine.
Article LVIII. Les traités, conventions et protocoles ci-après énumérés
cesseront de produire leurseffets par rapport aux Hautes Parties contractantes
au fur et à mesure que le présent traité entrera en vigueur en ce qui les
concerne au moyen de leurs ratifications succcssives:

traité pour éviter ou prévenirles conflits entre les Etats américains du 3 mai
1923;
convention générale de conciliation interaméricüine du 5 janvier 1929;
traité général d'arbitrage intcraniéricain et protocole additionnel d'arbitrage
progressif du 5 janvier 1929;
protocole additionnel à la convention générale de conciliation interaméri-
caine du 26 décembre 1933;
traité pacifique de non-agression et de conciliation du 10 octobre 1933;
convention pour coordonner, développer et assurer l'application des traités
conclus entre les Etats américains du 23 décembre 1936;
traité interaméricain sur les bons offices et la médiation du 23 décembre
1936;
traité relatif Iüprévention des différends du 23 décembre 1936.

Article LIX. Les dispositions de l'article précédentne s'appliqueront pas
aux procédures déjà entamées ou régléesconformément à I'un des instru-
ments internationaux déjà mentionnés.
ArticleLX. Ce traité aura pour nom: .Pacte de Bngord.~

En foi de qiroi, les plénipoteritiaires soussignés, après avoir déposé leurs
pleins pouvoirs qui ont ététrouvésen bonne et due forme, signent ce traitéau
nom de leurs gouvernements respectifs, aux dates mentionnées en regard de
leur signature.

Fait à Bogotj, en quatre originaux, I'un en anglais, I'un en espagnol, l'un
en français et le quatrième en portugais, le 30 avril. mileuf cent quarante-

Réserves

Argentine

<<Ladélégationde la République argentine, en signant le traité américain
de règlement pacifique (pacte dt: Bogotd), formule dcs réserves au sujet des
articles suivants. auxquels elle n'a pas donné son adhésion:

judiciaire;
3) chapitre cinq (article XXXVIlI à article XLIX). Procédure d'arbitrage;
4) chapitre six (article L). Misi exécution des décisions.

L'arbitrage et le rCglement judiciaire possèdent, en tant qu'instituliuns, la
ferme adhésion de la République de l'Argentine, mais la délégationne peut208 BORIIER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

accepter la façon dont se trouvent réglémentCcslcurs procédures de mise en
application, car, à son avis, elles devraient seulement êtreétablies pour Ics
ditfércnds susce~tibles de se Droduire dans l'avenir. n. ~ui.ant leur source
dans aucun fait,cause ou situaiion antérieurs à la signature de cet instrument
et n'ayant aucun rapport avec ces derniers. L'exécution obligatoire des
décisions arbitrales ou judiciaires et la limitation établie qui empêche les
Etats de trancher eux-mêmes les auestions relevant de leur comoét.nce
nationale. conformément à l'articlec, sont contraires à la tradition de l'Ar-
gentine. Est également contraire à cctte tradition la protection des étrangers
Qui. dans la ~éoubliaue argentine sont nrotégés.di la mêmefacon auëles
nationaux, par la loi suprême. B . u , .

Bolivie

<<Ladélégationde Bolivie formule une réserve en ce qui concerne I'ar-
ticle VI, car elle estiine quc les procédures pacifiques peuvent également s'ap-
pliquer aux différends relatifs àdes questions résoluespar arrangement entre
les parties, lorsque pareil arrangement touche aux intérêtsvitaux d'un Etat.»

Equareitr
<<Ladélégation de I'Equateur, en souscrivant à ce pacte, formule une
réserve expresse relativement à l'article VI eà toute disposition qui viole les
principes proclamés ou les stipulationscontenues dans la Charte des Nations
Unies, dans la Charte de l'Organisation des Etats américains ou dans la
Constitution de la République de I'Equateur, ou qui n'est pas eii harmonie
avec ceux-ci.»

Efals-Unis d'Amérique

*1. Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique ne s'engagent pas, en cas de conflit dans
lequel ils se considèrent comme partie lésée, à soumettre à la Cour inter-
nationale de Justice un différend qui ne relève pas proprement de la compé-
tente de la Cour.
2. La soumission de la nart des Etats-Unis d'Amériaue d'un différend
clur~l:i~nquri I'art>iir.igL.Inon au ri.slr.menl luJ~:i:iirc. ilipendr.Jc 1;:,ln-
cl~lii~nJ'uii .icci,rJ \pi.ci.il ciitrc IL. partic, iniL:rr.mic;.
.?.l.',~ccn~iil~,i~ixorIV,t.1.11s-tJiii~J'AmLriuucdc l;, i~ir~d~c~iJm l:iCour
internationale de Justice comme obligatoire ipso facto et sans accord spécial,
telle que cette juridiction est établie au présent traité, se trouve déterminée

Dar toute limitation de iuridiction et autÏe catéeorie dc limitation contenues

d'un cas déterminé.
4. Le Gou\rernenient des Etats-Unis d'Amérique ne peut accepter I'ar-
ticle VI1 relatifà la protection diplomatique et à l'épuisement des ressources.
Pour sa part, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amériquemaintient les règles
de la protecti<in diplomatique, y compris la règle de l'épuisement des res-
sources locales pour les étrangers, ainsi qu'il est réglépar le droit internatio-
nal.,,

Paraguay
«La délégationdi1Paraguay formule la réserve suivante:

Le Paraguay souniet à l'accord préalable des parties la procédure arbitrale
établie dans ce protocole au sujet de toute question de caractère non juri- ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 209

dique qui touche à la souvcraineté nationale et dont il n'est pas expressément
convenu dans les traités actuellement en vigueur.»

Pérou
<<Ladélégationdu Pérou formule les réserves suivantes:

1. Réserve à la deuxième partie de I'article V, car elle estimc que la
juridiction intérieure doit êtrefixéepar I'Etat lui-même.
2. Réserve à l'article XXXlII et la partic que de droit de l'article XXXIV
car elle estime que les exceptions de la chose jugée résolue au moyen d'un
accord entre les partics ou régie par les accords ou traités en vigueur
empSchent, en raison de leur nature objective et péremptoire. I'app1ic;itioà
ces cas de toute ~rocédure.

américains.
4. Réserve à l'article XLV car elle estime que l'emploi de l'arbitrage sans
intervention d'une partie se trouve en contradiction avec ses préceptcs
constitutionncls.~~

Nicaraglra
.<Ladélégationdu Nicaragua, tout en donnant son approbation au traité
américain dc règlement pacifique (pacte de Bogota), désire déclarer dans
l'acte qu'aucune des dispositions contenues dans ledit traité ne peut détour-
ner le Gouvernement du Nicaragua de la position qu'il a toujours prise en ce
qui concerne les décisions arbitrales dont la validité a étéconsestéc en se
basant sur les principes du droit international,lequel permct clairement de

contester des décisionsarbitrales jugées nulles ou viciées.En consiqucnce, la
délégation du Nicaragua, en donnant sa signaturc au traité, formule une
réserve au sujet de I'acceptatiori des décisions arbitrales que le Nicaragua a
contestées et dont la validité n'a pasétéétablie.
La délégation du Nicaragua réitErcde cette façon la déclaration qii'elle a
faite le8 courant cn approuvant le texte du traité mentionné de la Troisième
Commission.s210 RORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 36

TRATADOAMBRICANO DE SOLUCIONES PACIFICAS ("PACTO DE BOGOTA"),
OFFICIALSPANISHTEXT

Eii ntmihr.!Jc \UIpuchli>~.Io\ Ciuhicrni,\ rcprc\crii:aJ~i~cil Is IX Ci~iifc-
rcncin Iiitcrn.l~iiinal ,\mcricann. h.in rcruclto. cn ciiiiipliiiiieiiti, del .~rti<ul<,
XXlll Jc I:i(.';irJc ICOI r~~ni/;iciiiii dc Io, t.>t;i~liis,\incriccinos. .-dlihi;ir cl
siguiente Tratado:

CAPITULO PRIMER0

OBLIGACION GENERAI. DE RESOLVER LAS CONTROVERSIAS
PORMEDIOSPACIFICOS
Arricirlo 1. Las Altas Partes Contratantes. reafirmando solemnemente sus

compromisos contraidos por anteriores convenciones y declaraciones inter-
nacionales asi como por la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, convicncn en
abstenerse de la amekza, del uso de la fuerza O de cualquier otro medio de
coaccion para el arreglo de sus controversias y en recurrir en todo ticmpo a
procedimientos pacificos.
Arriculo II. Las Altas Partcs Contratantes reconocen la obligaci6n de re-

solver las controversias internacionales por los procedimientos pacificos
regionales antes de llcvarlas al Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas.
En consecuencia, en caso de que entre dos O mis Estados signatarios se
suscite una controvîrsia aue. en o~inion de las partes. no pueda ser rcsuelta
por negociaciones direct& a travfs de los med'ios diplomaticos usuales, las
partes se comprometcn a haccr uso de los procedimientos establccidos en
este Tratado en la forma y condiciones previitas en los articulas siguientcsO

bien de los procedimientos cspeciales que, a su juicio, les permitan llegar a
una solution.
Arricitlu III. El orden de los procedimientos pacificos establccido en el
presente Tratado no significa que las partes no puedan recurrir al que
consideren mis apropiado en cada caso, ni que deban seguirlos todos. ni que
exista, salvo disposition expresa alrespecta, prelacion entre ellos.

Arriculo IV. Iniciado uno de los procedimicntos pacificos, sea por acucrdo
de las partesO en cumplimiento del presente Tratado, O de un pacto anterior,
no podri incoarse otro procedimienio antes de terminar aquéi.
Arriculo V. Dichos procedimientos no podrin aplicarse a las matcrias quc

por su esencia son de la jurisdiccion interna del Estado. Si las partes no
estuvieren de acucrdo cn quc la controversia se refierc a un asunto de juris-
diccion interna, a solicitud de cualquiera de ellas esta cuestion prcvia seri
sometida a la decision dc la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
Arriculo VI. Tamooco oodran aolicarse dichos orocedimientos a los
:1~11to\y;ircsucli~,~por ;irfcgIo de las p.irtc\,CIpar I:siiJ<$;arhitr.<>por

5entcnci;Js un irihuiial iiiicrnacionolque se Iiallcn regidos pair:icuerdoGI
trntados cn vigcncia cn 1;iccha de 1.tcclclir~ci<indcl prtwnic I'itcio.
ArriÏttli, \'II Las ,\lI:is P:irici Conlrlirini~~,ic ohli#.in'~ no iiitcnt:lr recl;i-
m:icion dilil<im;itic;il'ara proics;\us nacionales. ni :iiiiicin:ielccio un;, ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 211

controversia ante la jurisdicciiin internacional, cuando dichos nacionales
hayan tenido expcditos los medios para acudir a los tribunales domésticos
competentes del Estado respectivo.

Articulo VIII. El recurso a los medios nacificos de solucion de las contro-
\crsias. u1;grcc.~ni~~riJsci~len\Ucmpl~<,.no p<>llriiii\cr nioii\<~.cc:iioJC
,at,iq~c:tri~i~ipxr;, rct:~rd.tr cl clcr:i~ic~Jcl Jcrcchc, Je Icg,tim.i Jctcn~:#ln-
~l~vi.Iii,)~.ole:ti\a, prc.\i\1<114('.1r1:1J1.h S;i:ioncs lJ~i~~l.i>.

CAPITULO SECUNDO

PROCEDIMIENTOS DE BUENOS OFlClOS Y DE MEDIACI~N

Articulo IX. El procedimiento de los Buenos Oficios consiste en la gestion
de uno O mas Gobiernos Americanos O de uno O mas ciudadanos eminentes
de cualauier Estado Americanci. aienos a la controversia. en el sentido de
aproximar a las partes, proporcion~ndoles la posibilidad de que encuentren
directamente una solucion adecuada.
ArticuloX. Una vez que se haya logrado el acercamiento de las partes y que

éstas hayan reanudado las negociaciones directas quedara terminada la gestion
del Estado O del ciudadano que hubiere ofrecido sus Buenos Oficios O
aceptado la invitacion a interponerlos; sin embargo, por acuerdo de las partes,
podrhn aquéllos estar presentes en las negociaciones.

ArticuloXI. El orocedimiento de mediacion consiste en someter la contro-
versia a unoO mas gobiernos amsricanos, O a uno o mas ciudadanos eminentes
de cualquier Estado Americano extrafios a la controversia. En unoy otro caso
elmediador O los mediadores scran escogidos de comun acuerdo las partes.

Articulo XIII. En el caso de aue las Altas Partes Contratantes havan

iniciada la mediacion transcurrieren hasta cinco meses sin llenar a la solucion
de la controversia, recurriran sin demora a cualquiera de 16 otros procedi-
mientos de arreglo pacifico cstablecidos en este Tratado.
ArticuloXIV. Las Altas Partes Contratantes podrin ofrecer su mediacion,

bien sea individualO conjuntamente: pero convienen en no hacerlo mientras
la controversia esté sujeta a otro de los procedimieiitos establecidos en el
presente Tratado.

CAPlTULO TERCERO

PROCEDIMIEN TO INVESTIGACI COONCILIACI~N
ArticuloXV. El procedimicnto de investigacion y conciliacibn consiste en

someter la controversia a una <:omisionde investigacion y conciliacion que
sera constituida con arreglo a las disposiciones establecidas en los subse-
cuentes articiilos del presente Tratado, y que funcionara dentro de las limita-
cioncs cn éIsenaladas.
ArticiilXVI. La parte que promueva el proiedimiento de investigacion y

conciliacion pcdira al Consejo de la Organizacion de los Estados Americanos212 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

que convoque la Comision de Investigation y Conciliacion. El Consejo. por
su parte, iomari las providencias inmediatas para convocarla.
Recibida la solicitud oara aue se convoaue la Cornision ouedard inme-

la ~reanizacion de los Estados Americanos. oodri. a oeiicion de oartc mien-

Iras &té en trimite la convocatoria de la cimision, kacerles rech~endacio-
nes en dicho sentido.
Arricirlo XVII. Las Alfas Partes Contratantes oodrAn nombrar oor medio de
iin:icurrJ<, hil:iicral qu.ch:ir;ic,in\i:cilun ri ni pl^:.;inihiti Jc ni,i;~sc.,ii i.iJ.i
un\>de lus \>trt,r\i&nat:~ri,>. o\ micnil>rin JL.1.1C<>nii.i<iiJic In\c<liip.i~\i~n
C<~ncili.îii6n.Jc los iu:,lss uno soloriiiilrscr Jc \u oronria n.ici<inaliJ:id.TI
quinto seri elegido inmediatamente <iecomun acuerdh pir los ya dcsignados y
desempefiari las funciones de Presidente.
Cualquiera de las Partes Contratantes podra reemplazar a los miembros
aue hubiere desienado. sean éstos nacionales O extranieros: v en el mismo
acto debera nombrar al sustituto. En caso de no hacerlo ia remocion se tendra
por no formulada. Los nombramientos y sustituciones dcberin registrarse en

ia Union Panainericana aue velari ~or.ue .as Comisiones de cinco miembros
estén siempre integradas.
Articirlo XVIII. Sin perjuicio de Io dispuesto en el ariiculo anterior, la
Union Panamericana formara un Cuadro Permanente de Conciliadores Ame-
ricanos que scri iniegrado asi:

a) Cada una dc las Alias Partes Contratantes designari, por periodos de tres
afios, dos de sus nacionales que gocen de la mis alta reputacion por su
ecuanimidad, competcncia y honorabilidad.
b) La Union Panamcricana recabari la aceptacion cxprcsa de los candidatos
y pondra los nomhres de las personas que le eomuniquen su aceptacion en
del Cuadro de Conciliadores.
c) Los gobiernos podran en cualquier momento llcnar las vacantes que
ocurran entre sus dcsignados y nombrarlos nuevamente.
Arricirlo XIX. En el caso de aue ocurriere una coniroversia entre dos O mis
Estados Americanos que no tuvkren constituida la Cornision a que se refiere el
Articulo XVII, se observari el siguiente procedimiento:

a) Cada parte designara dos miembros elegidos del Cuadro Permanente de
Conciliadorcs Americanos, que no pertenezcan a la nacionalidad del desig-
nante.
b) Estos cuatro micnibros cscogerin a su vcz un quinto conciliador extrano a
las partes, dcntro dçl Cuadro Permanente.
c) Si dentro dcl plazo de treinta dias después de haher sido notificados de su
eleccion. los cuatro miembros no vudieren vonerse de acuerdo vara escoaer

de comparar las listas asi formadas se declarard eleito aquél qui primer0

reuna unÿ mayoria de votos. El elegido ejercera las funciones de Presidente
de la Cornision.
Arricirlo XX. El Consejo de la Organizacion de los Esiudos Americanos al
convocar la Cornision de Investigaci6n y Conciliaci6n determinard el lugar
donde ésia haya de rcunirse. Con posterioridad. la Cornision podra deter-
minar el lugar o lugares en donde deba funcionar. iomando en consideracion
las mayores facilidades para la realizacion de sus irah;ijos. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 213

Arrici<lr~XXI. Cuando mis de dos Estados estén imolicados en la misma
controversia, los Estados que sostengan iguales puntos'de vista seran consi-
derados como una sala parte. Si tuviesen intereses diversos tendran derccho a
aunientar el numero de conciliadores con el objet0 de que todas las partes
tengan igual representacion. El Presidcnte sera elegido en la forma estable-
cida enel articulo XIX.

Articula XXII. Corresoonde a la Cornision de Investieacion v Conciliacion
esclarecer los puntos c~ntrovertidos, procurando llev; a lai partes a un
acuerdo en condiciones rrciprocamente accptables. La Comision pronioveri
las investigaciones que estime nt:cesarias sobre los hechos de la controversia,
con el proposito de proponer hases aceptables de solution.
Arricirlo XXIII. Es deber de las partes facilitar los trabajos de la Cornision
v suministrarle. de la manera nias amvlia oosiblc. todos los documentos e

dili-encias. en sus risoectivos territorivsde conformidad con sus leves.
Anicirlo XXIV Durante los procedimientos ante la Cornision las partes
seran representadas por Delegados Plcnipotenciarios o por agentes que
serviran de intermediarios entre ellas y la Cornision. Las partes y la Cornision
podran recurrir a los servicios de consejeros y expertos técnicos.
Articrilo XXV. La Comision concluira sus trabajos dentro del plazo de seis
meses a partir dela fecha de su constitution; pero las partes podran, de
comun acuerdo, prorrogarlo.

Arricrrlo XXVI. Si a juicio de las partes la controvcrsia se concretare exclu-
sivamente a cuestiones de hecho. la Cornision se limita16 a la invcstiaaci6n de
aauéllas v concluiri sus labores con el informe corresoondiente.
Arricrrlo XXVII. Si se obtuviorc el acuerdo conciliatorio, el informe final
de la Comision se limitara a reproducir el texto del arrezlo alcanzado y se
publicara después de su entrega a las partes, salvo que &tas acuerden otra
cosa. En caso contrario. el inforinc final contendri un resumen de los
trabajos efectuados par la Comision; se entregara a las partes y se publi-
cara después de lin plazo de seis meses, a mcnos que éstas tomaren otra
decision. En ambcis eventos, el informe final sera adoptado por mayoria de
votos.

Arricirlo XXVIII. Los informes y conclusiones de la Cornision de Inves-
tieacion v Conciliacion no serin oblieatorios oara las oartes ni en Io relativo
aÏa exp;sicion de los hechos ni en 10concerDiente a jas cuestiones de dere-
cho. y no revestiran otro caracter que el de recomendacioncs sometidas a la
conscderacion de las partes para facilitar el arreglo amistoso de la contro-
versia.
Awiculo XXIX. La Comision de Investigation y Conciliacion entregara a
cada una de las partes, asicomo a la Union Panamericana, copias certificadas
de las actas de sus trabajos. Esta!; actas no seran publicadas sino cuando asi Io
decidan las partes.

Articirlo XXX Cada üno de los miembros de la Cornision recibira una
compensacion pecuniaria cuyo monto sera fijado de comun acuerdo por las
partes. Si éstas no la acordaren, la senalara el Consejo de la Organizacion.
Cada uno de los gobiernos pagara sus propios gastos y una parle igiial de las
expensas comunes de la Cornision, comprendidas en éstas las compensa-
ciones anteriormente previstas.214 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARhlED ACTIONS

CAPITULO CUARTO
PROCED~M~ENT JO DICIAL

Arricnlo XXXI. De conformidad con el inciso 2Odel articulo 36 del Estatuto
de la Corte lnternacional de Justicia, las Altas Partes Contratantes declaran
que reconocen respect0 a cualquier otro Estado Americano como obligatoria

ipso facto, sin iieccsidad de ningun convenio especial mientras estévigente el
presente Tratado, la jurisdiccion de la expresada Corte en todas las contro-
vcrsias de orden juriclico quc surjan cntrc cllas y que versen sohrc:
a) La interpretacion de un Tratado;
b) Cualquier cuestion de Dcrecho Intcrnacional;
c) La existencia dc todo hecho que, si fuere establecido, constituiria la

violacion de una obligacion internacional;
d) La naturaleza O extension de la reparacion que ha de hacerse por el
quebranlamiento de una obligacion internacional.
Arriculo XXXII. Cuando el procedimiento de conciliacion anteriormente
establecido conforrnc a este Tratado O par voluntad de las partes. no lleaare
a una solucion v dichas oartes no hubkren convenido en un orocedimiënto

arbitral, cualqu&ra de elias tendra derecho a recurrir a la corté lnternacional
de Justicia en la forma establecida en cl articulo 40 de su Estatuto. La juris-
diccion de la Corte qucdara obligatoriamente abierta conforme al inciso 1"
del articulo 36 del mismo Esidtuto.
Arriciilo XXXIII. Si las partes no se pusieren de acuerdo acerca de la
com~etencia de la Corte sobre el litigio, la ~ropria Corte decidird prcviamente

Arrk itloX,Y.YI\' SI I:Ci~ric.scJr.cl.ir:irc inci~nipc.leiitcp:ir:i atnaiccr de 1.1
contr,ii.er\i:i por lus iiioti\o\ sc~;iI;r.11III\:lriiciilV. \II y \'II d; cstc
Tratado, se declarard terminada la controversia.

Articulo XXXV. Si la Cortc se declarare incompetente par cualquicr otro
motivo para conocer y decidir de la controversia, las Altas Partes Con-
tratantes se obligan n someterla a arbitraje, de acuerdo con las disposiciones
del capitulo quinto de este Tratado.
Arriculo XXXVI En el caso de controversias sometidas al procedimiento

judicial a que se refiere este Tratado. corresponderi su decision a la Corte en
pleno, O, si asi Io solicitaren las partes, a una Sala Especial conforme al
articulo 26 de su Estatuto. Las partes podran convenir. asimismo, en que el
conflicto se falle e.r-ireqiroet hono.
Articulo XXXVII. El procedimiento a que deba ajustarse la Corte sera el
establecido en su Estatuto.

CAPITULOQUINTO
PROCEI)IMIENTO DE ARBITRAJE

Articulo XXXVIII. No obslante Io establecido en el Caoitulo Cuarto de
este Tratado, las Altas Partes Contratantes tendrin la faculiad de somctcr a
arbitraje, si se pusieren de acuerdo en ello, las diferencias de cualquier
naturaieza, sean-O no juridicas, que hayan surgido O surgieren en Io sucesivo
entre ellas.

Arricrrlo XXXIX. El Tribunal de Arbitraje, al cual se sometera la
controversia en los casos de los articulas XXXV y XXXVllI de este Tratado
se constituira del modo siguicnte. a menos de eGstir acuerdo en contrario. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 215

Arriculo XL. 1) Dentro del plazo de dos meses, contados desde la notifica-

ci6n de la decision de la Corte, en el caso previsto en el articulo XXXV, cada
una de las oartes desienara un arbitro de reconocida comvetencia en las
cuestiones dé derecho rnternacional, que goce de la mas alia consideracion
moral, y comunicara esta designacion al Consejo de la Organizacion. Al propio
tiempopresentara al mismo Corisejo una lista de diez juristas escogidos entre
los que forman la nomina general de los miembros de la Corte Permanente de

Arbitraje de La Haya, que no pertenezcan a su grupo nacional y quï estén
dispuestos a aceptar el cargo.
2) El Consejo de la Organizacion procederi a integrar, dentro del mes
siguiente a la presentacion de las listas, el Tribunal de Arbitraje en la forma
que a continuacion se expresa:

a) Si las listas presentadas por les partes coincidieren en tres nombres, dichas
oersonas constituir6n el Tribunal de Arbitraie con las' dos desienadas -
hirectamente por las partes.
6) En el caso en que la coincideiicia recaiga en mas de tres nombres, se deter-
minarin por sorteo los tres irbitros hayan de completar el Tribunal.
c) En los eventos previstos en los dos incisos anteriores, los cinco arbitros

designados escogerin entre ellos su presidente.
rljSi hubiere conformidad finieamente sobre dos nomhres, dichos candidatos
y los dos irbitros seleccionados directamente par las partes, elegirin de
comfin acuerdo el quinto arbitro que presidiri el Tribunal. La eleccion
debera recaer en algun jurista de la misma nomina general de la Corte
Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya, que no haya sido incluido en las
listas formadas por las partes.

e) Si las listas presentaren un solo nombre comun, esta persona formara
parte del Tribunal y se sorteara otra entre los 18 juristas restantes en las
mencionadas listas. El Presidente sera elegido siguiendo el procedimiento
establecido en el inciso anterior.
.. No oresentindose nineuna concordancia en las listas. se sortearan sendos
arbiiros en cada una & ellas: y el quinto irbitro, que actuara como Presi-

dente, sera elegido de la manera sefialada anteriormente.
g) Si los cuatro arbitros no pudieren ponerse de acuerdo sobre el quinto
arbitro dentro del término dc un ities cont~d~ desde la fecha en auc el
Consejo de la Organizacion les comunique su nombramiento, cada uno de
ellos acomodara separadamcntc la lista de iuristas en el orden de su
preferencia y después de comparar las listas-asi formadas, se declarari
elegido aquél que reuna primero una mayoria de votos.

Articulo XLI. Las partes podran de comun acuerdo constituir el Tribunal
en la forma que consideren mas conveniente, y aun elegir un arbitro unico,
designando en ta1 caso al Jefe de un Estado, a un jurista eminente O a cual-
quier tribunal de justicia en quien tengan mutua confianza.

Articulo XLII. Cuando mas de dos Estados estén implicados en la misma
controversia. los Estados que dsfiendan ieuales intereses seran considerados
como una~ ~ -~ ~ ~~~ Si tuGieren intereses Gnue~ros tendrin dere~ ~ ~ s~men-
tar el nfimero de arbitros para que todas las partes tengan igual representacion.
El Presidente se ele~iri en la forma establecida en el articulo XL.
.
Arliculo XLIIl. Las partes celebraran en cada caso el compromiso que
defina claramente la materia especifica objeto de la controversia, la sede del
Tribunal, las regl;is que hayan de observarse en el procedimiento, el plazo
dentro del cual haya de pronunciarse el laudo y las demas condiciones que
convengan entre si.216 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Si no se llegare a un acuerdo sobre el compromiso dentro de tres meses
contados desde la fecha de la instalacion del Tribunal. el comoromiso sera
formulado, con caracter obligatorio para las partes, par la Corte Internacional
de Justicia, mediante el procedimicnto sumario.

Ariicitl» XLIV. Las partes podran hacerse representar ante el Tribunal
Arbitral por las personas que juzguen conveniente designar.
Ariici~loXLV. Si una de las partes no hiciere la designacion de su arbitro y
la presentacion de su lista de candidatos, dentro del término previsto en el
articulo XL, la otra parte tendra el derecho de pedir al Consejo de la Organi-
zacion que constituya el Tribunal de Arbitraje. El Consejo inmediatamente
instara a la parte remisa para que cumpla esas obligaciones dentro de un
término adicional de quince dias, pasado el cual, el proprio Consejo integrara

el Tribunal en la siguiente forma:
a) Sortara un nombre de la lista presentada por la parte rcquirentc;
b) Escogeri por mayoria absoluta de votos dos juristas de la nomina general
de la Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya, que no pertenczcün al
grupo nacional dç ninguna de las partes:
c) Las tres personas asi designadas, en union de lameleccionada directamentc

por la parte requirente, elegiran de la manera prevista en el articulo XL al
quinto arbitro que actuara como Presidcnte;
d) Instalado el Tribunal se seguiri el procedimiento organizado en el articulo
XLIII.
Articrilu XLVI. El laudo sera motivado. adoptado por mayoria de votos
y publicüdo después de su notificacion a las partes. El arbitro o Arbitras
disidentes oodran deiar testimonio de los fundamentos de su disidencia.

Articiilo XLVIl. 1-as diferencias que se susciten sobre la interpretacion o
ejecucion del laudo. serin sometidas a la decision del Tribunal Arbitral que
Io dicto.

Articirlo XLVIII. Dentro del afio siguiente a su notificacion, el laudo sera
susceptible de revision ante el mismo Tribunal, a pedido de una dc las partes,
siempre que se descubriere un hecho anterior a la decision ignorado del Tribu-
nal y de la parte que solicita la revision, y ademas siempre que. a juicio del Tri-
bunal, ese hecho sea capaz de ejercer una influencia decisiva sobre el laudo.
Articulo XLIX. Cada uno de los miembros del Tribunal recibiri una
compensacion pecuniaria cuyo monto sera lijado de cornfin acucrdo por las
partes. Si éstasno la convinieren la sefialara el Conscjo de la Organizacion.

Cada uno de los gobiernos pagara sus propios gastos y una parte ignal de las
expensas comunes del Tribunal, comprendidas en éstas las compensaciones
anteriormente previstas.

CAPLTULO SEXTO
CUMPLIMIENTO DE [.AS DECISIONES

Articulu L. Si unil de las Allas Partes Contratantes dejare de cumplir las
oblieaciones aue le imo,nea.un fallo de la Corte Intemacional de Justicia o un
1.1u~Iadrl~~lr;l..,,Ir;u,,tr~,p.irlc. 1n1crc~;~~I.~nIc. ,idr:cllrrl:II C'~~n~c,uc
Sc.~uriJ;iJdc, 1.i,\.ici,,n~, Cni,l.,sI>r,,ni<r\ïiuna IlcuriiSii Jc ('~iii\uliJc
~Cnistros de Relacii~nes ~xteriores-a fin de auc acuerde las medidas aue

convenga tomar para que se ejecute la decision judicial o arbitral. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 217

CAPITULO SEPTIMO
OPINIONES CONSULTIVAS

Arricirlo LI. Las partes intercsadas en la solucion de una controversia
oodrin. de comun acucrdo. oedir a la Asamblea General O al Conseio de

Estad& Amcricanos. .

CAPITULO OCTAVO

DISPOSICIONE FINALES

Arricirl» LII. El prcsente Tratado seri ratificado por las Altas Partes
Contratantes de acuerdo con sus procedimientos constitucionales. El instru-
mento original sera depositado cn la Union Panamericana, que enviari copia
certificadaauténtice a los gobiernos para ese fin. Los instrumentos de ratifi-
cation serin depositados en los archivas de la Union Panamericana, que noti-
ficari dicho deposito a los gobiernos signatarios. Tal notification seri consi-
derada coma canje de ratificaciones.
Articulo LUI. El presente Tratado entrari en vigencia entrc las Altas Partes
Contratantes en el orden en que depositen sus respectivas ratificaciones.

Arriclilo LIV. Cualquier Estado Americano que no sça signatario de este
Tratado o que haya hecho reservas al mismo, podri adherir a éste O aban-
donar en todo Oci; oarte sus reservlis. mediante~instrumento oficial dirigido a
la Union PanameriCana. que notificari a las otras Altas Partes Contr;;antes
en la forma que aqui se establece.

Articirlo LV. Si aleuna de las Altas Partes Contratantes hiciere rcscrvds
respect0 del prcsente'~ratado, tales reservas se aplicarin en relacion con el
Estado que las hiciera a todos los Estados signatarios, a titulo de rccipro-
cidad.
Artici~loLVI. El presente Tratado rcgiri indefinidamente, pero podri ser
dcnunciado mediante aviso anticipado de un afio, transcurrido el cual cesari
en sus efectos para el denunciante, quedando subsistente para los demis
signatarios. La denuncia sera dirigida a la Union Panamericana, que la

transmitiri a las otras Partes Contratantcs.
La denuncia no tendra efecto alguno sobre los procedimientos pcndientes
iniciados antes de transmitido el aviso respective.
Arriciilo LVII Este Tratado sera registrado en la Secrctaria General de las
Naciones Unidas por mcdio de la Ilnion Panamericana.
Articirlo LVIII. A medida que este Tratado entrc cn vigencia por las

sucesivas ratificaciones de las Altas Partes Contratantes ccsaran para ellas
los efectos de los siguientes Tratados, Convenios y Protocolos:
Tratado para Evitar'o Prevenir Conflictos entre los Estados Americanos
del 3 de mayo de 1.923;
Convencion General de Conciliacion Interamericana del 5 de enero de
1.929;
'I'ratado General de Arbitraje Interamericano y Protocolo Adicional de
Arbitraje Progrcsivo del 5 de enero dc 1.929;
Protocolo Adicional a la Convencion General de Conciliacion Interameri-

cana del 26 de diciembre de 1.933;218 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Travado Antibélicodc No Agresi6n y de Conciliacion del 10de octubre de
..,.,.,,
Convention para Coordinar. Ampliar y Asegurar el Cumplimiento de los

Tratados Existentes entre los Estados Americanos del 23 de diciembre de
1.936:
Tratado lnteramcricano sobre Buenos Oficios y Mediacion del 23 de
diciembre de 1.936;
Tratado Rclativo a la Prcvencion de Controversias del 23 de diciembre de
1.936.
Arricrrlo LIX. Ln dispuesto en el articulo anterior no se aplicara a los
procedimientos ya iniciados o pactados conforme a alguno de los referidos
instrumentos internacionales.

Arlici~loLX. Este Tratado se denominara "Pacru de Bogord".

En fe de lo cira/. los Plenipotenciarios que suscriben. habiendo depositado
sus oleno ooderes. uue lueron hallados en buena v debida forma. firman este
~raiado, Ennombrc'dc sus respectives ~obicrnos: en las fechas quc aparecen
al pie de sus firmas.

Hecho en la ciudad de Borotd. en cuatro textos, resoectivamenle. en las
lenguas espafiola, franccsa. indesa yportuguesa, a los 30'dias del mes de abril
de mil novecientos cuarenta y ocho.

Reservas

"La Delegaci6n <lela Republica Argentina, al firmar el Tratado Ameri-
Cano de Soluciones Pacificas (Pacto de Bogota), formula sus reservas sobre
los siguientes ;irticulos, a los cuales no adhiere:
1) VII. relativo a la nroteccion de extranieros:

El arbitraje y el procedimiento judicial cuentan. como instituciones. con
la firme adhesi6n de la Republica Argentina, pero la Delegacion no puede
aceptar la forma en que se han reglamentado los procedimientos para su apli-
cacion. ya que a su juicio debieron establecerse solamente para las contro-
versias que se origiiien en el futuro y que no tengan su origen ni relaci6n
alguna con causas, situaciones o hechos pre-existentes a la firma de este
instrumento. La cjecuci6n compulsiva de las decisioncs arbitrales o judiciales
y la limitacion que impide a los Estados juzgar por si mismos acerca de los
asuntos que pcrtenecen a su jurisdiccion interna conforme al articulo V, son
contrarios a la trildici6n argentina. Es también contraria a esa iradicion la
protccci6n de los cxtranjcros, que en la Republica Argentina estin ampara-
dos, en un mismo grado que los nacionales, por la Ley Suprcma."

Bolivia

"La Delegaci6n de Bolivia formula reserva al articulo VI, pues considera
que los procedimientos pacificos pueden tambiénaplicarse a las controversias
emergentes de asuntos resueltos por arren'o de las Partes. cuando dicho arr-nlo
alecti intereses vitales de unsia ad o." ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 219

Ecuador
"La Delegacion del Eciiador al suscribir este Pacto, hace reserva expresa
del Articulo VI. y, ademis, de toda disposition que estéen pugna o no guarde
armonia con los principios proclamados o las estipulaciones contenidas en la
Carta de las Naciones Unidas, O en la Carta de la Organizacion de los Estados
Americanos, O en la Constitution de la Republica del Ecuador."

Estrrdos Unidos de América

"1. Los Estados Unidos de América no se comnrometcn, en caso de
contlicto en que se consideren pare agraviada, a somèter a la Corte Interna-
cional de Justicia Ioda controversia que no se considere propriamente dentro
de la jurisdiccion de la Corte.
2. El plante0 por parte de los Estados Unidos de América de cualquier
controversia al arbitraje, a diferencia del arreglo judicial, dependeri de la
conclusion dc un acuerdo especial entre las partes interesadas.
3. La aceptacion por parte de los Estados Unidos de América de la
jurisdiccion de la Corte Internacional de Justicia como obligatoria ipso facto
y sin acuerdo especial. ta1 como se dispone en el Tratado, se halla determi-
nada por toda limitacion jurisdiccional o por otra clase de limitacion conteni-

das en toda declaracion depositada por los Estados Unidos de Américasegin
el articulo 36, pirrafo 4, de los Estatutos de la Corte, y que se encuentre en
vigor en el moment0 en que se plantee un caso determinado.
4. El Gobierno de los Estadils Unidos de América no nuede acentar el
articulo VI1 relativo a la protection diplomitica y al agotamiénto de 1o;recur-
50s. Por su parte, el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos mantiene las reglas de la
oroteccion di~lomitica, incluvendo la resla del asotamiento de losrccursos
iocales por de los extranjeros. ta1 como Io aisPone el derecho interna-
cional."

Paraguay

"La Delegacion del Paraguay formula la siguiente reserva:
El Paraeuav sunedita al nrevio acuerdo de nartes el orocedimiento arbitral.
establecido en esie protoc&lo para toda cuesiion no jbridica que afecte a la
soberania nacional. no especificamente convenida en tratados actualmente
vigentes."

Peri

"La Delegacion del Peru formula las siguientes reservas:
1. Reserva a la segunda parte del articulo V porque considera que la

jurisdiccion interna debe ser definida por el propio Estado.
2. Reserva al articulo XXXIII y a la parte pertinente del articulo XXXlV
por considerar que las excçpcioiies de casa juzgada, resuelta por arreglo de
las Partes O regida por acuerdos O tratados vigentes, determinan, en virtud
de su naturaleza objetiva y perentoria. la exclusion de estos casos de la
aplicacion de todo procedimiento.
3.Reserva al articuloXXXV en el sentido de que antes del arbitraje pucde
proceder, a solicitud de parte, la reunion del Organo de Consulta como Io
establece la Carta de la Organizacion de los Estados Americanos.
4. Reserva al articulo XLV porque estima que el arbitraje constituido sin
intervention de parte, se halla en contraposicion con sus preceptos ccinstitu-
cionales:'220 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Nicaragira

"La Delegacion de Nicaragua. al dar su aprobacion al Trüiado Americano
de Soluciones Pacificas (Pacto de Bogoti), desea dejar expresa constancia en
el Acta, que ninguna disposition conienida en dicho Tratado podra perju-
dicar la posicion que el Gobierno de Nicaragua tenga asumida respccto a
sentencias arbitrales cuya validez haya impugnado basindose en los princi-
pins del Derecho Iiiiernacional. que claramentc permiten impugnar lall<is
arbitrales que sc juzguen nulos o viciados. En consecuencia, la firma de la
Delegacion de Nicaragua en el Tratado de la rcfcrencia, no podr5 alegarsc

como aceptacion de fallos arbitrales que Nicaragua haya impugii;id« y cuya
validez no estédelinida.
En esta forma. la Dïlegaci6n dc Nicaragua reiterü la manifestacion que
hizo en fecha 28 dï los corrientes, al aprobarse el texto del mcncionado
Tratado en la Tcrcera Cornision." ANNEXES TO THE rMEMORIA1.

Annex 37

REPORT OF THE SBCRBTARY GENERAI. OF THE ORGANIZATION 01'/\MERL-
CAN STATES PRBSI?NTED 'TO 'TIIBCOUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF
AMERICANSTATES ON 3 NOVEMBER1948. OAS ANNALS, Vol.. 1, NO. 2,
1949, PP. 45-54

CHAPITRE IV

TRAITE AMfiRlCAlN DE RÈGLEMENTS PACIFIQUES

La signature du traité américain de règlements pacifiques est probable-
ment le pas en avant le plus audacieux qui fût faàtla neuvième conférence.
et à mon avis. par bcaucoup d'aspects. cet acte est plus important qu'une
bonne partie des instruments élaborés et approuvés ii Bogoiri. Ce n'est cer-

tainement pas une progrès réalisésur un terrain définitivement solide, et il
est à craindre que nc s'écoulent qelques années avant que le traité ne
s'étende, avec pleine vigueur, à la communauté régionsle entière. Même
ainsi. sesisoositions. acecotéei;oar auatorze oavs sans réserve aucune. sont

internaiional commè un des fondements de l'étape de paix institutionnelle
que nous approchons. et qui s'impose par des forces plus puissantes que

toutes celles qu'en sens contraire entretenaient les nationalismes intransi-
geants.
Quand on étudiera avec plus de perspective historique le mouvement
juridique interamericain. on observera avec respect la logique de son évolu-
tion, etbeaucou~ de laits uui maintenant nous ~araissent I'rcuwe du hasard
sembleront si inielligeniment concertés, que perionne ne doutera qu'il n'y ait
eu un plan harmonieux et systematique régissant leur développement. Anti-

cipons sur ce jugement et arrêtons-nous l'examen du processus qu'a parcouru
I'organisation interaméricaine dans sa recherche d'un ordre juridique (le paix.
Pendant un certain temps, la teiidance est parallèle en Europe. On croit pos-
sible d'organiser la paix en établissant un mécanismede&glemenispacifiques
auquel ne pourraient moins Idire que de souscrire les nations qui, dc honne foi,
se d~-~nt amies CI~l~ oaix. II n'v a rien de coercitif ni de coaciif dans le
mécanisme. Le principe sur leqiiel il se fonde est qu'il y a des forces morales
supérieures qui inclinent les natiànbien agir eà vivre en paix. et que si elles

triuvent sur'leur chemin toutes sortes d'occasions et de systèmes pour éviter
que la paix ne soit rompue. elles utiliseront intensément ces occasions et ces
systèmes. Mais les nations américaines ont très vite compris qu'il IdIlait aller
olus loin. Avec leurs orocédures habituelles. elles commencèrenà construire
in édificede principe;. dont la consolidation a commencé,et réussiten grande
partie, par la méthode très sensée de la pédagogie: la répftition. Des
Ïésolutions successives, des conventions. des accords; des déclarations. vont
s'entassant pour préparer le champ sur lequelse livrera enfin la bataille

définitive contre la guerre. Elle perdra sa principale utilité: laê.te.Les
Etats américains s'engageront nioralement àne pas accepter pour légitimele
résultatd'une guerre de conqutte. Ils n'accepteront pas, non plus, qu'on puisse222 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

employer la guerre pour forcer un Etat à remplir des obligations pécuniaires.
Plus tard, ils condamneront la guerre en tant qu'instrument de politique inter-

nationale. et ensuite, la guerre d'agression, et ils s'engageront à régler tout
différendoar des moyen. ~aci.iaues. Puis ils déclareront leur solidaritéavec la
iirtimr. Je I'~i~ression. u'csi.il nrri\,L011':iunii>in,techniqiicnicnt. I;igucrre
n'.apas d'ullllli.. qu'ci1111cpeul I'emplo)cr pour .iuciiiic ilrr iiris qui iii~~livaicnt
toujours son déchaînement entre ies peuples, et que celui qui s'engagerait
volontairement dans une guerre rencontrerait devant lui cette muraille de
principes qui rendrait, vainqueur ou vaincu, sa conduite injustiïiablc.
Mais jusque-là le réseau complcxc de déclarations et d'affirmations du
droit, toute la trame de l'éthiqueintcrnationale américaine,ne suffiraientqu'à
condamner la conduite de qui SC dérobe à ces règles, auxquellcs SC sont
volontairement soumis les Etats de l'hémisphère.II y a deux grands vides,
mieux même:deux abîmes. sur le bord desquels les peuples américains ont
véculongtemps. Toutes leurs constructions juridiques auraient pu y choir, à la

moindre négligence. Si malgré tous les efforts que leur rédaction avait
réclamés, cesnormes avaient étéviolées par unEtat et qu'il n'eût pasétépos-
sible d'appliquer une sanction à son comportement. et si le fait s'étaitde temps
en temps répété.la déception la plus profonde et la plus justifiée se serait
emparée des peuples, et le droit international américainn'aurait pas progressé
d'un oouce de olus ou bien il aurait ou advenir aue tout ce monument
ju"di<;ue. laboribusenient édifié surla bonne foi des'~tats, fût l'objet d'une
interprétation unilatérale, par n'importe lequel d'entre eux, et que celui-ci
I'a~diauât à un autre. oou;iustifierbn acte de violence. II manquait donc. sur
cei de& abîmes, deux pontidéfinitifs: I'aciioncollective et la non-inrerveritio,~.
La non-interveiition, pour éviter qu'un Etat américain intente d'abroger le
droit d'aopliquer les règles iuridia;es aoorouvées Dar tous. et l'action iollec-
ti\e. pour ~,mp;.ch~.rque le* r~~lc;juri~i~ue> ne ilcnietircni qu'Geriics. n'liy;<ni

pcrsonne Iiciur Icr appliquer. Prudcinmeni. les il1311;~m.iric;linschcmin2rent
r1:inrcette voie h;ri,sCc dc dilficultc'ç.ci >';irr2t2rcitce qui p.ir;ii,s~it le plus
c<in\cn;ibl:: en premier Iicu. fermer le p;issnge ;It<iuic;icti<iniiidividuclle ci;i
toute Intcri,cniiim. Ouniid lui d2liiiiti\cmcni Gc:~rtr'c.etic p<i>.ihiliet le pCril
conluri. ils fircni le iIcuriL!mc ~3s. I'acli<~niuII~cIi\c Entrc Mi,ntL:vidé<(~ In
non-intervention) et ~haoulteoéc Iétaoe orincioale de l'action collective).'la
tâche fut de con;olider. de réaffirnkr..de ;épétér.le principe de la non-iiter-
vention, le martelant sans rel9che aucune. L'étapede l'action colleciive avait
commencé, quand fut déclenchéela deuxième guerre mondiale. Alors. la
solidaritéétaitaussi ferme déjàque la non-interveBtion. Si les AmCriques sont
solidaires. c'est-à-dire. un bloc solide qu'affecterait aussi bien la bonne ou la
mauvaise fortune de n'importe laquelle de ses parties, une agression venant de
l'extérieurcontre l'une d'elles affecteraitfatalement tout l'ensemble. La consé-

quence inévitable serilit la réaction çollcctive, uniforme,contre l'agresseur et
pour défendrela victiinc. Mais il y avait quelques doutes, relatifs àl'adaptation
du principe à l'hypothèse américaine. Si l'agresseur est un dilin-
quant, se disait-on, pourquoi acceptfr deux genres de délits,alors qu'il s'agit
d'un seul en réalité?Pourquoi l'étranger, I'extracontinental. provoque-t-il la
réaction collective,et n'en est-il pas ainsi du même délit,quand il est commis
par des Américains? Tel fut le pas qu'on a franchi à Chapultepec. L'action col-
lective avait trouvé uii fondement, avec quoi jusqu'à la dernière possibilitéde
justification, pour une action individuelle, a disparu.
Mais où l'on voit mieux la subtilité de cette évolution. c'est dans ce aue
beaucoup de gens appelèrent une erreur. et qu'on a prouvé êtrela réussitela
plus claire. La paix ne s'obtient pas seulement par le perfectionnement ANNEXES TO THE MEMORLAI. 223

graduel des méthodes de règlement pacifique, si après que toutes aient été
employées, une menace de guerre demeure encore possible. C'est seulement

quand la guerre devient im~ossible que les méthodes de solution vacifique

liscr définitivement la violence exërcée contré eux. si le comprirent Tes
hommes d'Etat américains ct pour cela, dèsle première moment, la tendance
fut de mettre la guerre hors la loi, jusqu'à ce qu'à Rio de Janeiro, en 1947, le
résultat fiit obtenu. C'était alors le moment, et non avant, d'offrir. comme

substitut à la oorte oui se fermait définit~v~ment. un svstèm, c~mo~,t de ~~
moyens de règlement pacifique, pour que soit aplanie toute difficuté inter-
nationale. Et aussi bien convenait-il. en ce temvs, de rendre obligatoires les
rhelenients oacifiaues.

apaiser et les éteindÏe, toutes les fois qu'ils constituent une menace pour
la paix. Tous les peuples, ct mêmesceux qui font partie du groupe privilégié
des cinq membres du Conseil, savcnt dès lors que toute dispute où ils s'en-

gageraient et qui dans I'es~rit du Conseil menacerait la vaix. veut &tretran-
Ehze, non pas Suivant une procédure établie et bien coniue, mais par ce que
jugerait recommandable. dans les circonstances, un corps éminemment poli-
tique.
Pour le erouve des Etats ami!ricains. aui avait ou se consolider sur la base
u . , . ~ ~
du principe de l'égalité juridique, cemoyen, étant unique et exclusif, impli-
quait un rétrogradation considérable. Une seule nation de ce groupe améri-
iain, le membre permanent du Conseil. sans l'existence di l'6rganisme
régional, aurait cu la faculté d'opposer son veto à tout règlement d'une dis-

pute interaméric;iine où elle se trouverait engagée directement, quand le
différend arriverait devant le Conseil. Certes, cette même faculté peutêtre
exercée dans toutes les situations mondiales~ ~~~sont de la iuridic~ ~~ de ,~~~~ ~ ~
l'organe de sécurité.Mais les autres nations, n'étaient pas engagées dans un

système de droit ancien, efficace et solidement basésur l'égalité iuridiquedes
États. mais au contraire arrivaient oour la vremière fois à rouir des avantaees u
que la nouvelle organisation internationale offrait à une monde où, jusqu'à
cette heure, prédominait seulement la force matérielle de chaque Etat, sans

aucune autrequi eût à lui faire équilibre.
Maintenant que la guerre devenait impossible, par l'action combiiiéc des
deux organisations. la régionale,en première instance, et la mondiale, comme
un recours supérieur, au cas où faillirait la régionale;que s'annulaient lous ses

effets et uu'ils étaient condamnés comme illéeitimes. le règlement oacifiaue
des différénds,en [orme obligatoire, était un $s bea"coup Plus faciie à fake.
Toutefois, à la neuvième conférence, malgré que toutes les situations juridi-
aues et oolitiaues fussent chaneées. dèsou'on ëssava d'introduire. oour la ore-
~ittirc lt;i,,I~'~~~.CIIILo ~IIliIig~8!1rcC.~U~I~IIC~-II~~~ Jc, .,iicicnne,' r;~i~t.~;ic<~

~II~~~I~~.IIeC t IIc.~ppc~~itto a~I':trh~tr;,g~,u au r2glcmcnt judtc131rc ;t\,cicar,ic-
icrr ~>hlie;~i~~rirriciroJuisii. mir I:tiurir. Je I'in~.ritcIcb mtiini~,nt\ L.Ini;.iiic 1,s
c\prr,\,iiiri\ diin; ip.,quc du dr~it ini~rn:~ii<~iia qui ,i\:iiiCi: JGlinr>;r.
L>;XIlI'\h~,lo~rcdu ~Iro11inlcr~t.~i~~~n;lic I, r~glc~~t~ii t;X~I!ILIUC ohl~gatu!rc

Je\ Jiilr'reiid. il Jc,\ conilil* ;Ir't? rsit.tcliL:;luci,ncc.liiJe soii\~cr;~in~.iI2c plu>224 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

aigu. pour une raison élémentaire: parce que ne pas régler un différend par
une méthode pacifique laisse toujours la possibilité du recours à la force. Les

nations faibles ou désarméesont toujours étéles championnes de l'arbitrage
et du règlement judiciaire. Les fortes ont hésité devant une procédure qui
im~. .ue. 3 I'orieine. ou'elles déooseront. devant les iu.e- ou les arbitres.
10~1~~ ls\ .iilrii>uiionï de leur Iiiii>\ïncr. m;itCricllc. pour ,c nicttrc :au nite;iu
Je, nulres n:itiuni dan> la pr2~cntiiii»n dc\ i;iit. cl I':ippr2cidtii)n jurirliquc
der cir;onst:inces ~olitiquc> qui ;ii~~icninroi,i~qiir'Ic diffkrcnd 3l;iir ICiolu-
lion du droit çntre'les individus ne se fit pas d'une autrc manièrc. Personne ne
voulait se souniettre volontairement à des juges. tant qu'il pouvait conserver
le privilège de résoudre ses propres disputes st avait assez de force pour im-
Doser la décisionfinale. Les iuees...ui ont existé.rcsu.e denuis Içs ~remières
étapcs de I'hunianité, comme ont existé,bien des sikcles avant nous. des pro-
cidurcs de rkglement pacifique des différçnds internation;iux, n'arrivkrent
ccpcndant 3 étendre le& autorité à certaines zones aristocratiques que lors-
que des révolutions successives rendirent impossible I'cmploi de la forcepour
réglerIcs disputes entre Ics individus. Tant quc le facteur force continuait de
peser sur le droit international, personne ne se sommettait au droit. sauf
uuand il étaitd'accord avec ses intérêtsM. ais si la euerre est considérée comme
un délitci que la nation qui entend y recourir rencontre subitement une coali-
tion de forces supérieures qui la contiennent. la rbduiscnt ci la privent de tous
les avantages uuelle oou~rait rechercher. les Etats ne trouveraient aucune
raison. ni publique ni secrète.pour ne pas accepter les règlements obligatoires.

Pour avoir réussi à placer la guerre dans cette position morale et juridique.
depuis longtemps délà.les nations américaines sont plus prèsque toutes autres
au monde à êtrerégiespar un systèmede droit. qui suppose. conime ilest clair,
une décision ultime et obligatoire.

Anrécéde~ir< .sIrrcrir. A la septième Conférence internationale améri-
caine de Lima, cn 1938. on adopta la résolution n" XV. dans laquelle après
avoir reconnu que «les normes juridiques pour prévenir la guerre en Amé-
riaue se trouvent disi~erséesdans de nombreux ~~aités. conventions. Da,.es et
d&larations qu'il est necessaire de systématiser en un ensemble organisé et
harmonieux». on recommanda que les divers projets présentés à la confé-
rcnce soicnt classifiés Dar 12LJni;onDanaméricaine et remis aux eouverne-
nient< cn \II~de leur ;ipprlci.,ii.~ii. IL:,Cc>nfiicncc 111tcr~i:iii~l;in;ric:linc
çiiircprcndr:iit cn-iiiic I'~l;ilior.iti<in.lu çiidc <1c1.1p;iix
1311iii.i1943.Ic C,in\cil dcm;ind.idu ;,>miii iuridi~u; intcr:ini2ric;iin de lui
orénarer un oroiet coordonni de convention üricifiùue. D'ziccord avec cette
dciande, le koiité juridique entreprit une étÙdcdes'accords interaméricains
existants et des proiets présentés à la conférence de Lima, et élabora deux
avant-oroiets: leorimie;. désienéDar la lettre A. se limitait à coordonner les
accords en !,igucur. sini y inlrt>duirc ilc ch:iiigcmcnini iorinulcr Jc l)rol~<>"-
ti<insd';iiiiendcniciit. Ic Jcu.;ii.nic. JCsiqnCp;,r 1;iIcttrL't:iiuiic icni;iiivc
plus formelle de préparer le projet sur ia base de ceux qui avaient étésomnis
à la conférence de Lima. en tenant compte du rapport de la commission

d'experts pour la codification du droit international. dont ils ont fait l'objet.
La résolution XXXIX de la conférence de Mexico recommanda que le
comité iuridiaue interaméricain entreorendrait l'élaboration immédiated'un

rends. Pour préparer ce travail. le comité devrait tcnircompie des projets
soumis à la huitième Conférence internationale américaine de Lima et de ANNEXES 1'0 THE MEMORlAL 225

celui qu'avait rédigé lecomité,lui-même.En conséquence, le comitéélabora
un troisième avant-projet en septembre 1945. Cet avant-projet fut reniis aux
eouvernements américains, uour avoir leurs aooréciations. Une fois au'elles
Turent reçues, le comité rédigeaun deuxième &et qui fut envoyéau 'conseil
dirçcteur en novçmbre 1946.
Les différences fondamentales entre ces deux projets résident en ceci que,
dans le second. la comité se orononca en faveur du svstème de I'arbitraee
obligatoire pour les différends'de to&s natures. qu'ils'fussent juridiques Ou
non, qui, de l'avis d'une des parties, ne seraient pas susceptibles de règlement
par une des procédures de mddiation, d'inveitigarion -on de conc'iliation,

établies dans le même projçt. Dans le projet de 1945, le comité juridique se
bornait à proposer qu'on reconnaisse la convenancç de soumettre à I'arbi-
trage ou au règlement judiciaire tous les différends qui pourraient survenir
entre les parties et qui seraient de nature juridique, parce que susceptibles
d'obtenir une décisionpar l'application des principes du droit. Dans ce même
projet, en 1945, <inintroduisait une procédure de consultation, que le projet
de 1947iueea inutile. et d'autant olus au'en orooosant un dénouement défini-
tif etobii&toire tous les diiféreids, sehe'la possibilité pourrait se pré-
senter qu'une des parties n'accomplisse pas son engagement, créant une situa-
tion decaractère i;olitiaue. aui &ait alors dç la c6moétence des réunions de
consultation des GinistGs d& relations extérieures et non d'un traitéde règle-
ments pacifiques.
Le comité juridiquç interaniéricain, dans le rapport annexé au projet
définitifde 1947,se réfère àla résolution n" X de la conférence de Rio de Ja-

neiro. tenue peu de mois auparavant, dans laquelle on recommande,
*qu'à la neuvième Conférence iiiternationale américaine qui aura lieu
prochainement à BogotA, on étudiç, en vue de leur approbation. les ins-
titutions qui donnent efficiicitéà un système pacifique de sécurité,et.
parmi elles. à l'arbitrage obligatoire pour tout différend qui inet en
périlla paix el qui soit de nature juridique>>.'

Plus loin le comité ajoute:

<<Nouscroyons sincèremeiit que malgré les difficultés que dans la
pratique ils aient pu avoir avant la reconnaissance de l'arbitrage ample,
les Etats américains sont arrivés àune étaoe de leur évolution iuridiaue
où cette reconnaissance répond à une véritable nécessité...Que ce soit
ainsi, non seulement le corrobore cc fait que dans le passéde trèsgraves
oroblèmes. entre autres ceux des frontcères. survenus entre les oavs

plus récentes cl les plus autorisées' du panaméricanisme.>,
En effet. la conférence de Chapultepec approuva. comme principe de droit
international,

<<l'adootionde la voie de la conciliation. de l'arbitrage amule, ou de la
justicc'internationale, pour résoudre tout différend ou disPute eiitre les
nations. quelles que soient leur nature et leur origine*,

et
«le traité interaméricain d'assistance réciproque dit, au préambule, que

tous les principes et déclarations de l'acte de Chapultepec - parmi226 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMEDACTIONS

lesquels se trouve celui que ie viens de cite- doivent êtretenus vour
accèptés,comrne norme; dé leurs relations mutuelles et comme 'base
juridique du système interaméricain.>>
Le Conseil. à la r6ception du projet du comité juridique, décida de le trans-
mettre aux gouvernements. accompagné du rapport préparé par le chef du
département juridique et d'organismes internationaux de l'union panaméri-

caine, dans lequel sont signalées les différencesfondamentales entres le pro-
jet de 1945et celui de 1947.
Un cl~nrrgerizen<rledirection.- Mais à la neuvième conférence il y eut un
chaneement subit dç direction. aui est exorimé dans le traité américain de
règlekcnts pacifiques. Alors qu'An pensaiique le débat allait se situer entre
les partisans de l'arbitrage obligatoire et ceux qui considéraient ce progrès
comme trop avancé. qui-déjà en d'autres occasions avait reçu de sérieuses
réfutations. une formule a surgi, qui fut défendue avec une particulière vi-

gueur par les dCICgations de Colombie, du Mexique et de l'Uruguay, afin
qu'on accorde la priorité à la procédure judiciaire, avec un caractère obliga-
toire. comme méthode définitive de rèelement des différends. Cette orocé-
dure devait ?ire appliquée par la ~our;nternationale de Justice, suivint les
pouvoirs que lui accorde ses Statuts. L'arbitraye ne serait ohligat<iirc que
lorsque la-Cour, en dcs cas déterminésse seraitdéclarée incompétente pour
connaître du différend.
II n'est étrange d'aucune façon que les Etats américains, traditionnelle-
ment attachés aux principes de droit les plus purs, aient trouvécette voie cn-
core plus attrayante que I'arbitrage obligatoire, lui-même. Le règlement judi-
ciaire des différends internationaux avait des antécédents américains très
respectables et très efficaces. Beaucoup d'Etats de l'hémisphère s'étaient
déjà engagés,par des traités bilatéraux. à se soumettre à la juridiction obli-
gatoire de la Cour. Mais le caractère obligatoire de la procédure judiciaire
réclamait une garantie plus grande: celle qu'aucun Etat ne pourrait alléguer
uue le différend concernait des auestions oui. oar leur essence. étaient de la
. .
juridiction interne. laissant le conflit sans dénouement et. en apparence.
résoluunilatéralement. Est-ce pourquoi l'article XXXIll du Pacte de Bogoti
établit qu'au cas où
<<lesparties ne se mettraient pas d'accord sur la compétence de la Cour
au sujet du litige, la Cour elle-même décideraau préalable de cette
question».

Ainsi donc. le traité envisage un système logique de moyens pacifiques,
parmi lesqucls peuvcnt choisir les Etats; mais si son application n'était pas
suffisante et que l'étape de la conciliation ne réussissait pas, et qu'on n'eût
vas mis les narties d'accord à soumettre l'affaire à I'arbitraee. n'imvorte la-
Quelle de ce'sparties aurait le droit de recourir à la Cour Gternatiknale de
Justicc, dont la juridiction serait obligatoirement ouverte, conformément au
paragraphe 2 del'article 36 de ses ~taÏuts. La mesure, qui paraît draniatique-
ment radicale, n'cst que la conséquçnce logique de la déclaration, réitéréc
par les Etats américains, de leur intention de résoudre tout conflit par des
procédures pacifiques. II ne suffit pas d'offrir une série de méthodes parmi

lesquelles les Etats peuvent choisir, s'il n'est pas une entre toutes qui, avant
l'échec des autres, résolve le problème. et qui, par conséquent, doit être
appliquée avec force. L'harmonie du traité américain de règlements paci-
fiques avec la Charte se montre à l'article 23 de cette dernière, d'ailleurs éla-
borée par la mSme commission qui prépara le traité, et qui dit: ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 227

<<Untraité spécialétablira les moyens propres à résoudre les diffé-
rends et fixera les procédures qui conviennent à chacun des moyens
pacifiques, de façon à ce qu'aucun différend surgissant entre les Etats
américains ne reste sans si~lution définitive au-delà d'une période rai-
sonnable. >>

Ceci est établi par le pacte di: Bogota, avec le caractère obligatoire de la
procédure judiciaire. Un autre traité aurait pu le faire par l'établissement de
I'arbitrage obligatoire. Mais aucun système qui n'envisagerait une étape
dernière obligatoire ne pourrait se trouver, à l'avenir, en concordance avec la
volonté des Etats américains, telle qu'elle est exprimée dans la Charte.
Le traité envisage des procédures de bons officeset de médiation, d'inves-
tigation et de conciliation -la procédure judiciaire et celle dc I'arbitrage. Ce
sont les mêmes méthodes qui sont établies dans les deux chartes: celle des
Nations Unies et celle des Etats américains. Mais dans le traité, la négo-

ciation ne fieure oas. vu oue sa fin est de créerdes orocédures. nour le cas où

Les procéduÏes ne sont pas échelonnéesdans un ordre de préférence,et Les
parties peuvent recourir à celle qu'elles considèrent meilleure en chaque cas,
sans êtreobligéesde les épuiser toutes. II peut arriver, par exemple, qu'après
la rupture des négociations elles conviennent d'en appeler à I'arbitrage ou à
la Cour interna(ioi1ale de Justice, sans essayer de passer par l'étapede la con-

ciliation ou essayer les bons offices et la médiation. Dans toutes ces procé-
dures, on supposequ'il y a accord des parties pour y recourir. Mais si Izitenta-
tive de conciliation échoue, paire qu'une des parties n'en a pas voulu ou
parce qu'on n'est pas arrivé à un accord quelconque sur le cas soumis, la pro-
cédure judiciaire sera obligatoire, si une des parties en appelle à la Cour
internationale de Justice.
II peut arriver qu'un des Etats, partie dans le différend. allègue qus le cas
n'est pas susceptible d'un règlement judiciaire, pour essayer. précisiment,
une des exceptions prévues dans le traité, c'est-à-dire, pour le présenter

comme une affaire relevant de :saiuridiction intérieure: ou bien. oour avoir
L:t2Jél:irCs,iliipar uii arr3nyciii:nt Jr.5 p;zrii~,<lu unc scnicncr. .irI~ili;ilr..<iu1.1
,li'zi\i<,nJ'uii tril>iiil:illlllcr1131h~~<l)ucncilrc p:lric qu'il rc Ir$luvr.r2Cl piir
un accord ou des traités en vieiieur à la date de la sienature du traité-amé-
ric;lin.Ic.\r~~lilIi.ip.i~~ifiqucs1-n Cr (:m.13 qur,>riiin(iri.ildl,lr, x.r:l \i~iiiIiirc
1.1('ou[. l~>uIc~ le, IOI> q~i'unc tic;p:irli/, ,a!ul?\zr:~ I'r.s~r.pt~~~i~II,I(CN~I~.
.l;~n.Ir.cs> de I:ipri~cCJurciu.I~c~:tirr.<.rcJi.cliir~~C<IIIII>:I~IIIn<)Jr ICS~lt<)lli,
antérieuremcnts'cités, le d;fférend sera donné pour términé.'comme on le
déclarera terminé aussi bien, mémes'il ne s'agit pas de procédure judiciaire,

si la question préalable des exct:ptions à l'application du traité est posée, la
Cour décide que l'affaire est précisément un des cas d'exception dans les-
quels le traité ne s'applique pas.

L'arbitrage. - Mais existe aussi la possibilité que, pour d'autres motifs, la
Cour se déclare incompétentepour connaître du différendet le résoudre. Pour
ce cas, il y a encore une autre voic, tout aussi obligatoire, et elle s'appelle:
I'arbitrage. C'est le seul cas où l'arbitrage est obligatoire, selon le pacte de
Boeota. Dans les autres. il n'est au'uue nrocédure à laouelle on Fe soumet

i.~il~oiit:iir~mcni,1.1~c tri>iivc1113:(c.iir IVni2iiic.pied quc I~DJIC ~,.:iI.iqucllc
p:ii\r.ni recourir Ir.<p.irii~~.;i n'iriilairic,L(uL.IILti~ii\.ILIL.IIJ~iliircnJ l C\
~l~<p~>\~iitd~un~ cli:xp~ir\' Ju 1r:tliC.\Ur l:iprc~:CJurc d':,11>11r:ig sr.rCr?!cnt228 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

aux deux hypothèses: mais ilest clair que lorsqu'il y a accord. entre les parties.
de soumettre un cas à l'arbitrage. les règles qui prévoient la manière de
combler le vide oroduit nar la renonciation de l'une d'elles ne s',,nl.auent ,~~
$1les psrtic, ri':irritciii i:un :sc:c,r,l I!:im2iiic niicuy les di\pciriti<m.sur
l'arI~ilr.~~':~ppIiquciitlc>r,qu'~ld oI>li~:m~r~p .:ircc que la (:our \'c,t ~I2cl.i-
rL:cincunipL:i;iiic dan\ I'h!p>thC\~.dc I';irtiilc XXXV. i,u I~~rsqiic3y:ini cim
venu dc rc<ourir :iI':irb~ir~~gc\ p;,rtIcsnd pcu\c111:#rri\cr <iun .IC.%I~q Jui
SUI~~IC .~UX,norme\ +nCr.iIc~ du Ira112 \Ur IL,;11111trcl,.pr,~c>dur~,Ic, ciC1:11-,
etc. Par contre. I'nccbrd des oartics sur ces points rend inutile I'a~~licationdes
règles du chapitre V. et leu; laisse libertéentière pour recherchér I'arbitragti

dans la forme qu'elles jugent la plus convenable.

La con,sir/~nr~~-Comme il est naturel. le traité a éliminéles procédures
de consultation entre les gouvernements américains qui. dans les projets
antérieurs du comité juridique. avaient eu une importance et une étendue
considérables. La consultation. Dour le rèelement oacifiuuc. est iustifiéerilei-
nement lorsqu'il n5c.xistepour ie moins üne pro~édurc'obliga<oire. II ;agit
alors de s'en remettre à la force morale des Etats américains pour une action
sur les parties engagées dans un différend et les incliner à chercher un
règlement de leur dispute. Mais à l'introduction de l'arbitrage obligatoire
dans le dernier projet du comité juridique, la consult;ition disparut, comme

elle disparut Cgalemcnt du traité, lorsque la procédure judiciaire a étérendue
obligatoire. Elle $1disparu, évidemment, comme procCdure de règlement paci-
fique, mais elle demeure comme force politique, pour faire respecter la déci-
sion prise par la Cour ou par les arbitres, dans les cas (lu l'action n'est pas
obligatoire.Ainsi, l'article établit que si une des partics a manqué aux obliga-
tions que lui imposait un arrêt dela Cour ou une sentence arbitrale. l'autre
partie, avant den appeler au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies. provo-
quera une réunion de consultation des ministres des relations extérieures.
afin que celle-ci décide des mesures qu'il convient de prendre pour que soit
exécutéela décision judiciaire ou arbitrale.
Suivant la Charte des Nations Unies, les Etats américains. tous membres

de l'Organisation internationale. sont obligés d'obéir aux décisions de la
Cour, pour tout litige où ils seront parties, et si l'un d'eux ne remplit pas les
obligations que lui impose un arrêt de la Cour, l'autre partie pourra en
a~oeler au Conseil dc sécurité.La disoosition du traité américain de règle-
ménts pacifiques n'affecte pas ~'obli~aiionni ne méconnait le droit qui>st
établipar I'articlc 91 de la Charte. Seulement, il crée une nouvelle étape, un
appel ultime à la procédure régionale, avec Ic devoir dc recourir cn phnier
lieu à la réunion dc consultation. La partie qui a succombé peut encore
s'adresser au Conseil de sécurité,lequel pourra faire des recommandations
ou dicter des mesures ayant pour but l'exécution de I'arrgt.
Les Etats américains ne désiraient pas créer un organe judiciaire régional.

Le traité, pour longtçmps au moins. écarte l'idée.que caressent tant d'Amé-
ricains éminents.de créerun jour la Cour interaméricaine de Justice. L'oppor-
tunitéde cette décisionsemble très claire. L'organisme régional. quise justifie
pleinement par l'action politique et coopérative, et en tant que créateur de
nouvelles formesde droit. ne peut inspirer aucun doute sur la capaciténi l'effi-
cacitéde n'importe quel tribunal chargé d'appliquer le traité. La Cour inter-
nationale est assez pourvue par ses Statuts, pour que lesjuges puissent y puiser
tous les élémentsindispensables et toutes les sources authentiques du droit. en
cherchant un fondement à leurs arrêts.L'article38 des Statuts de la Cour lui
ordonne d'appliquer les conventions internationales. tant gtnérales que parti- ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORlAL 229

culières, qui établissent dcs rigles reconnues expressément par les Etats liti-
gants: la coutume internationale. en tant aue oreuve d'une oratiaue de droit

plus grande compétenceet de différentes nations, comme moyen auxiliaire pour
la détermination des règles de droit; et mêmecette faculté, par l'article 50,
de charger n'importe qucl individu, entité, bureau, commission ou autre or-
ganisme, de faire une investigation ou de pratiquer une expertise. La Cour ne
manque pas d'élasticitépour interpréter le droit américain. et il n'y a aucun

avantage à ce que ce droit soit seulement appliqué par des Américains. Au
contraire, il est désirableque ce droit, qui a pu êtrecréégrâceà de nombreuses
circonstances oolitiaues favorables. et aui est une des .lus wrandes coiitribu-
tions de 19~m<rique'àla civilisationjuridique contemporaine. s'étende,soit dif-
fusé, soitétudiéou appliqué, inclusivement, dans d'autres régionsdu monde.
La constitution de la Cour garantit qu'il y aura toujours, parnii ses menibres,
les plus grands juristes américainset que tous lesjugcs qui la composent seront
choisis avec le plus grand soin, afin de garantir son impartialité. Une Cour
interaméricaine de Justice limiterait l'expansion de notre droit et le circons-
crirait dans l'hémisphère. Et ce serait porter un rude coup à l'une des plus
nobles institutions modernes, et I'une dcs plus nécessaires, si 1'011veut qu'un
jour il y ait une paix juste sur la terre.

L'uvrnir dit rrairé- Contrairement à l'opinion générale,qui supputait
beaucoup de difficultés.le traité américain de règlements pacifiques fut signé
Dar un nombre considérable de couvernements~les deux tiers.-sans réserve
aucune. Ce premier résultat fut idmirable et surprenant. II fut annoncé dès
quc le comité juridique américain eût soumis son dernier projet, contenant
l'arbitrage obligatoire, que le mombre des réserves serait supérieur à celui
des Etats qui pourraient adhérer pleinenient à ce principe. Si, comme il est
naturel de supposer, la signature du traité implique un vigoureux désir,de la

part des gouvernements, de Sraiichir ce pas importünt, et non pas une vue
conventionnelle et formelle de I'esorit. sans conséauences .rati.,es. on .eut
espérer que' très bientôt, pour le moins quatorze Etats américains seront liés
par toutes ses dispositions et prêts à l'appliquer entrc eux, si par mauvaise
fortune survenaitque.que. différçnd uui~ne~ourrait Das êtreÏésolu var les
néeocia~~~~~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Le traité, par sa naturc mtme. n'entrera pas en vigueur suivant les normes
courantes des autres pactes multilatérüux,comme la Charte des Nations Unics.
celle des Etats amérkains ou le traité d'assistance réciproque. A mesure que
les parties contractantes déposeront leur ratification, l'instrument entrcra en
vigueur pour toutes celles qui l'auront fait. Et aussi, tandis qu'entre en
vigueur le traité, pour deux Etats américains ou davantage, cessent pour eux
les effets des traités, conventioiis et protocoles collectifs qui, depuis 1923,
assuraient le règlement pacifiqui: des différendscntrc Etats américains.
II est possible d'êtretres optimiste sur l'avenir du traité. mêmepour ce qui
concerne les Etats aui Pont ratifié avec réserves.surtout auand on examine
soigneusement ces réserves ct qu'on les compare entre elles. La tendance
proprc au négociateur est de forrnuler des réserves,toutes les fois qu'un tcxtc
ne iui oaraît Üas absolument clair. surtout en des matières aussi déiicatesaue
celles-ci. II est Sort possible que. postéricurement, quelques-unes de ces ré-
serves ne soient pas jugées necessaires par l'organe respectif de ratification. et
mêmequ'un gouvernement qui a formdé des r'eservesIcs rcconsidère avant de
déposer sa ratification ou, comme il est prévudans le traité. à n'importe quel230 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

moment et postérieurement à la ratification. Aujourd'hui même,si on compare
les réserves formulées on vcrra que certaines d'entre elles impliquent une
appréciation contradictoire des termes du traité, ce qui peut signifier que le
traité n'est pas clair, mais que, susceptible d'éclaircissement, comme il est,
surtout par la manière dont il s'accorde avec la Charte, il laisse subsister une
série de possibilités que, pour le moins, quelques-unes des réserves soient

abandonnées. Dans ce cas, paraissent se trouver, par exemple, celles qui sont
relativesà l'application du traité, en cas d'urgence,à des différends sur des
affaires déjà résolues par arrangement des parties. et que I'Equateur et la
Bolivie paraissent entendre comme exclues par l'article VI, alors queI'Argen-
tine explique ainsi, sa réserveà l'arbitrage età la procédure judiciaire, tels
qu'ils sont conformésdans le traité,qu'a
<<sonavis ils devraient seulement êtreétablispour les différends suscep-

tibles de se produire dans l'avenir, ne puisant leur source dans aucun
fait, cause ou situation antérieursà la signature de cet instrument et
n'ayant aucun rapport avec ces derniers,,.
Le Pérou, pour sa part, fait réserveà l'article XXXIll età ce qui est contenu
dans l'article XXXIV,

<<caril estime que les exceptions de la chose jugée, résolue au moyen
d'un accord entre les parties ou régicpar les accords ou traités en vi-
gueur, empêchent, en raison de leur nature objective et péremptoire.
l'applicationà ces cas de toute procédure,,;

c'est-à-dire que même exclus, comme ils le sont, par le traité, l'intervention
de la Cour pour juger la question préalable, à savoir s'ils sont exclus ou non
- à quoi seul le traité lui-mêmepourrait s'appliquer- devient inacceptable.
Ne sont pas dans le même cas d'autres réserves qui en elles-mêmes
imo. .uent définitivement la non-conformité avec les orinci~es fondamen-
taux du traité, et non des questions d'interprétation de'ses ciauses. Mais un
traité qui, dès le début, conviendrait entièrement aux situations qui pour-
raient Eréerdes différends entre quatorze pays américains est une avance
prodigieuse. Pendant ce temps les relations des autres pays continueraient à
êtrerégies par les anciennes procédures, pour tous les cas où ceux-ci n'ont
pas accepté des clauses du traité. Mais nous devrions aussitôt comprendre
dans le premier groupe le Nicaragua, dont la réserve, qui concerne une situa-
tion spécifique, n'affecte en rien les dispositions essentielles du traité. Ainsi

s'élèverait à quinze le nombre des Etas qui paraîtraient d'accord avec la
totalité de ses clauses et disposés accepter les obligations qui en découlent.
................................... ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 38

ANNEXIII TO TIIE APPLICATION IN THE CASE CONCERNING 'THE ARBITRAL

STATESPASSED ON 5 JULY 1957)

Annex III

[Al

WASHINGTON AGREEklENTOF21 JULY1957

Solemn Act which occurred al the Panamerican Union on 21 July
1957,with the assistance of Members of the Council of the Organization
of Amcrican States acting provisionally as an organ of consultation, for

signature by Doctor Jorge Fidel Duron, Foreign Minister of Honduras
and His Excellencv Dr. Aleiandro Monticl Areüello. Foreien Minister
of Nicaragua of an "~~reeiient hetween the Ministries of Foreign Af-
fairs of Honduras and Nicaragua on the procedure tu be followed in
presenting tu the InternationaÏCourt of ~ustice their disagrccment con-
cerning the arbitral award handed down by His Majesty the King of

Spain on 23 December 1906". as well as of the individual declarations
made by each of the Forcign Minisiers of Honduras and Nicaragua.

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE THEIR DLSAGREEMENT CONCERNING

On 5 Julv, -~-7.,~ ~ ~ ~ncil of the Ore-nization of ~~erican Statçs acting
provisionally as Organ of Consultation approved a resolution expressing ils
satisfaction at the voluntary and simultaneous acceotance by the Govern-
ments of Honduras and Nictragua of the procedure if pacific Settlcment that

was subscribed tu by them, and the provisions of which are stated in the reso-
lution mentioned.
In accordance with the same resolution, the Parlies, having bound them-
selves tu apply the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement - the "Pact of
Bogota" - and tu utilizc the procedures set forth in that Pact. agree to abide
by the following rules of proccdure:

1. Thc Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua shall suhmit to the Inter-
national Cou~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~e. in accordance with its Statute and Rules of Court.

the disagreement existing belween them with respect to thc Arbitral ~ward
handed down bv His Maiesty the King of Spain on 23 December 1906.with the
understandine ihat cach: in the exercise if its sovereientv and in accordance
with the proCedures outlined in this instrument, shall pGséntsuch facets of the
matter in disagreement as it deenis pertinent.232 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

2.Within a maximum period of ten months counting from 15 September
of the current year. the Government of Honduras shall, in accordance with
Article 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, submit to the
said Court a written application institutithe proceedings and stating the
claim, and it shall inform the Government of Nicaragua, fifteen days in ad-
vance, of the date on which it will take this action.
3. Within a period of two months following the notification that the Court
is to make with respect to the above-mentioned written application, the
Government of Nicaragua shall be deemed to have received notice, and with-
in this same period shall designate the agent or agents who will reprcsent it

before the said Court.
4. The decision, arter being duly pronounced and announceto the Parties,
shall settle the disagreement once afor al1and without appeal, and shall be
carried out immediately.
5. As to the possible situation envisagcd in the agrecmcnt set forth in the
decision approved on 5 July 1957by the Council acting provisionally as Organ
of Consultation, the two Governments shall apply the measures contained in
that agreement.
6. In implementiiig the provisions of this Agreement, the Governmentof
Honduras and the Government of Nicaragua are mindful of the noble spirit
of Point6 of the decision approved on 5 July 1957by the Council acting pro-
visionally as Organ of Consultation, in which it is pointcd out that Honduras
and Nicaragua are linked in a very special way by geographicand historic lies
within the Central American community.

Washington, D.C., 21 July 1957.

(Signrd) (Signed)
Dr. Jorge FIDEI.DURON, Dr. Alejandro MONTIELARG~ELLO.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister of Foreign Affairs

of the Republic of Honduras. of the Republic of Nicaragua.

Appendix "A"

STATEMENT OF THE MlNlSTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF HONDURAS ON THE
POSITIONOF HIS GOVERNMENT IN RESORTING TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE

Honduras is submitting to the International Court of Justice its claim
against Nicaragua that the Arbitral Awardof His Majesty the King of Spain
handed down on 23 December 1906be carried out, basing ils stand on the fact
that the Arbitral Award is in force and is unassailable. Honduras has main-

law. a breach of an international oblieation

The foregoing reference to the position of Honduras in this proceeding is
only of a general nalure and in no wise constitutes a definition or limitation of
thLmatteÏ Io be submitted to the Court, or a formula that restricts in any way
the exercise of the right that Honduras will maintain in the action before the
Court.
- ANNEXES TOTHEMEMORIAL

Appendix "A"

COURTOFJUSTICE

Nicaragua. when it appears hefore the International Court of Justice, will
answer the claim of Honduras. oresentine reasons. actions. and facts. and
, .
opposing the exceptions that it considers aipropriate, in order to impugn the
validity of the Arbitral Award of 23 Decemher 1906, and its compulsory
force. and also invokine ail those rights that may be in its interest. Nicziragua
has kaintained and n& maintaincthat ils houndaries with Honduras con-
tinue in the same legal status as hefore the issuance of the above-mentioned
Arbitral Award.
The iorc~tiirir r;icrciizc IO th: priciti8iiiiitii~.ir.i~~.iii IIi~rr~,s~,rJin<1l.
onl! dl ;i~~n~r:iln.giurc.ind ln il<\$ISL,~,~nstiiuic,:I.Icflnitici.Ir~1mit.itl~ic,l

llie Iii.,ttici Ihhuhniii1r.J ti)ihc Ctiurt. or .iic,riiiultl1.1rcsiri.'iil1:in!\id!.
the exercise of the right that Nicaragua will maintain before the Court

No. 6594
Certiïicate of Regisiraiion

The Secrerary-Generalof rhe United Nations
Hereby certifies that the Government of the Republic of Honduras

Has registered with the Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the
Charter of the United Nations
The Agrccment (with related documents) between Honduras and Nicara-
gua for suhmitting to the International Court of Justice their differences with
respect to the Award of His Majesty the King of Spain of 23 December 1906,
signed at Tegucigalpa and at Managua on 21 and 22June 1957.respectivcly;and

The Agreement (with annexes A and B) on the procedurc for submitting
to the International Court of Justice their differences with respect to the
Award of His Majesty the King of Spain of 23 December 1906, sigiied at
Washington, on 21 July 1957.

The registration took place or128 September 1957 under No. 4005.
Done at New York, on 21 October 1957.

To the Government of the Rspublic of Honduras.

COUNCILOFTHE ORGANIZATIOO NF AMERICAN STATES .AN AMERICAN
UNION -- WASHINGTON d.~.

Council Series
C-sa-254 (English)
5 July 1957
Original: Spanish.

DEClSlONSTAKENATTHEMEETINGHELDON5 JULY1957

The Council passed the following resolution:234 BORDERANDTRANSBORDER ARMED ACrIONS

THECOUNCILOFTHEORGANIZATION OFAMERICAN STATEA SITING
PROVISIONALL AYSORGAN OF CONSULTATION

HAVINGSEEN:
The report of theAd Hoc Committee charge* with collaborating with the
Governments of Hoiiduras and Nicaragua in accordance with the resolutions
approved on 17May and 24 May 1957,by this Council acting provisionally as

Organ of Consultation; and
CONSIDERING:

That the regional system has demonstrated its effectiveness in carrying out
its noble purpose of guaranteeing the sovereignty and independence of the
American Republics and lraternal relations between them;
That, in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Inter-American
Treaty of Reciproc;il Assistanc- the Rio Treaty -. the application of this
instrument should lead not only to the elimination of any armed confiict but
also to the prcimotion of measures for the pacific settlement of the contro-
versy that is considered to have given rise to such a situation:
That the American Trcatv on Pacific Settlement -the Pact of Boeota -
which has been ratified by2the Governments of Honduras and ~icaragua,

provides procedures that are ap. .cable to the case under consideration:
and
Pursuant to and iicxecution of the Rio Treaty,
RESOLVES:

1. To express its satisfaction at the voluntary and simultaneous acceptance
by the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua of the procedure of pacific
settlement that, with the collaboration of the AdIlocCommittee, was sub-
scrihed to by hoth Parties. and the text of which is as follows:

"THE HIGHCONI'RACTING PARTIES.
FOLLOWINth Ge recommendations of the Council of the Organization
of American States acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation.
which were aciuated by the provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance ihat are applicable to controversies between
American States. which provisions urge such States to take the neces-
sary measures to re-establish peace and seille their controversies by
pacificmeans; and

Dasi~ous of rïestablishing as soon as possible the harmonious frater-
na1 relations that are a traditional characteristic of relations between
the American Republics and particularly betwcen countries that, like
those of Centr;il America, consider themselves to be linked by historic
tics of solidarity;
Acn~i: to carry out. through the applicatioof the American Treaty
on Pacific Settlement- the 'Pact of Bogota- and for the purpose of
settling once and for al1 the difference that is separaiing them at this

time, the judicial procedure outlined below:
(1) The Parties, having recognized and accepted in the Pact of
Bogota the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice asipso
facro compulsr)ry. shall submit thereto ihe disagreement existing be-
tween them with respect to the Arbitral Award handed down by His
Majesty the King of Spain on 23 December 1906, with the understan- ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 235

ding that each, within the framework of its sovereignty, shall present
such facets of the matter in disagreement as il deems pertinent.
12) The ~rocedure to be followed bv the Court shall be that estab- ~ ~~~
lishèd in its'~tatutes and Rules of Procédure.
(3) The decision, aftcr having heen duly pronounced and officially
announced to the Parties, shall decide the disagreement definitively and

without right of appeal, and shall he carried out without delay.
(4) If one of the High C:ontracting Parties should fail to comply with
the obligations imposed upon it by the decision of the International
Court of Justice, the other, before having recourse to the United Na-
tions Security Council, shall request a Meeting of Consultation of Min-
isters of Foreign Affairs of the American States to decide upon al1the
measures that it is appropriate to take to enable the decision of the
Court to be carried out.
(5) If, as a result of the application of the aforementioned judicial

procedure, al1phases of the disagreement with respect to the Arbitral
Award handed down by His Majesty the King of Spain on 23 December
1906 are not definitively scttled, the High Parties shall, without delay.
apply the arbitral procedure provided hy the aforesaid Pact of Bogotj
to settle definitively the riew situation created between theni, which
shall be clearly defined in the additional agreement that the High Par-
ties are to sign to this end within a period of thrce months from the date

thev a~ ~ ~f~ ~ ~lv notified of the d~ci~ ~n.
Ili! In :gc~cptingthi prsiccJurc \cl i.,rtli iii tliiiiirtruniciii niid ihc
pcrtincnt ;Lppl~~:ilic~ uf tlitl'.icii~fH~!g~,t. icith', c.i>chcrc ci~n>iJcr~.d.
thc lli-.Ii<;rnirsctiii-,P.rrt! tli.iiii.iJc.I rcrcri:itiiiniirthe ;~ti~rc~~:iiinJ-
ternational agreement declares that the aforesaid reservation shall not
take effect."

2. To express its sppreciation to the Governments concerned for the active
and effective cooperation they gave to the Council acting provisionally as
Organ of Consultation and the Ad Hoc Committee, to enable the procedural
agreement whose tex1 has beeri quoted in the preceding paragraph to be
reached.

3. To request the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua to maintain
the present smnts quo, without thereby altering any of the legitimate rights
claimed hy hoth Parties. until a definitive settlement of the controversy is
achieved by the application of rules of law and without at any time disrupting
the peace between the Parties.
4. To state that the Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Military Committee is
empowered to deal with any differences that might arise during the pcriod
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, with respect to the agreement referred

to in its current Regulations.
5. To transmit this document with each Party's note of acceptance to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and, through him, to the Intçrna-
tional Court of Justice.
6. To express its strong hope that the procedure set forth in the first para-
eraoh of this resolution will settlc. once and for all. the disaereement that has

-
region of the Americas.236 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 39

COMMUNICATIOO NFTHETEXTOF DECREE NO.79-86 01: 22 MAY1986 OF
THENATIONALCONGRESS OF THE REPUBI.ICOF HONDURAS .A GACETA.
NO. 24.940,6 JUNE1986

[Sponish re.rrnor reprodrrce(/l

(Trudiicrion)

Considérant qu'en date du 21 mai 1986 le Congrès national a décidépar
décret 75-86 de modifier la déclaration formulée par le Gouvernement du
Honduras le 20 février 1960 relativeà l'acceptation de la juridiction de la
Cour internationale de Justice.

Considérant que dans le contexte régional l'article XXXl du traité amé-
ricain de solutionspacifiquescontient une dbclaration d'acceptation de ladite
juridiction,

Considérant qu'en conséqucncc il cst néccssairc d'uniformiser les termes
dans lequels le Honduras a acceptéla iuridiction de la Cour internationale de
Justice,
Par conséquent.

Décrète
Article1. Autoriscr le pouvoir exécutàtravers le niinisthrc dcs relations
extérieures à notifier au secrétariat généralde l'organisation des Etats
américains les modifications introduites par le décret 75-86 du 21 mai 1986
qui sont également :ipplicablcàI'articlc XXXl du traité américainde solu-

tions pacifiques.
Arliclr2. Le présent décretentrerü en vigueur h partir de la date de sa
publication au journal officiel Cucer<i.

Fait dans la ville de Tegucigalpa, municipalité du district central. au salon
des séancesdu Congrès national, le vingt et un mai mille neuf cent quatre-
vingtisix.

Hector Orlando GOMEZCISNEROS,
Président.

Teofilo Norberto MARTELCRUZ.
Secrétaire.

Armando ROSAI.BSPERALTA,
Secrétaire. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Au pouvoir exécutif.

Par conséquent: Soit exécuté.

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 22 mai 1986.

JoséSimon AZCONAHOYO
, . Président.

Le ministre des relations extérieures
en exercice,

Guillermo CACERESPINEDA.238 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 40

OFDECREENO. 79186OF THE NATION~IC . ONGRESSOPHONDURAS ON THE

.VODI?I~..\IIOYS 01. 'I'IIIIUXDUKAK DI:,(AR..\IION 01 REcoGXrrlo\ ot'
THE ('OhIPI'I.<<>R\'JL:KISI)ILTIO 01: IlII: I.~lI:KYr\'llO~r\l.COKI OF JUS-
TII: ( \!,\Y lVh6:H: NOTE I:KO\I THE SE<'KI.IAKY C~EKCKA OF.l'II1OK-
~;AXIZ,\TI~-JOSF A\lERlC,\> ST,\TFS I(I IIIFPEKhI,\Nl.SV KFl~KI~~CVI'~V 1E
Ok I~OSl>l'R,\STO IHI ORG,\hl%A'~lO> OF ,\\lI:KI<~AsT.\'Il!S31)JUSE 1986

Document A

(Trnnslation)

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS OFTHE REPUBLIC OF
HONDURAS

Official Communication No. DSM-206186

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 26 May 1986.

His Excellency Joao Clemente Baena Soares,
Ambassador,
Secretary General of the Organization of American States.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary General,
I write to Your Excellency in order to send you, for the corresponding legal

purposes, the declaration of the Government of the Republic of Honduras
dated 22 May 1986 relating to the modifications introduced to the accep-
tance by Honduras of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

1take the opportunity 10present, 10Your Excellency, my sincere regards,

(Signed) Carlos LOPEZCONTRERAS,

Minister for Foreign Relations.

Declararionof the Governmenrof Hondurason Arricle XXXl of rheAmerican

PacifieSefrlementsTreafy

The Goveriiment of the Republic of Honduras, duly authorized by National
Congress by virtue of Decree No. 79-86ol 21 May 1986,to notify the Office of
the Secretam General of the Oreanization of Amencan States of modifications
introduic~dhy I)ccrccNo. 75-86'Oi~lMay 1986.liircspcci<,flhc ;irccpt;<nceof

the lurisdictioii oi lhc International CufrJusticeinvieu,of thc idclthntthe
terms of the said modificatory declaration are likewise applicable with regard
to Article XXXl of the American Treaty on Pacilic Settlement. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 239

NOW THEREFORE:

The Govcrnment notifies the Officeof the Secretary General of the Or-
ganization of American States, for al1 corresponding legal purposes, of the
following declaration:
Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice pro-
vided for in Article XXXI of th<:American Treaty on Pacific Settlement on
the following terms:

1. It recognizes as compulsory ipso factoand without special agreement, in
relation to any other Statç accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice in al1legal disputes concerning:

(ri)the interpretation ofa Treaty;
(b) any question of international law:
(cl the existence of anv fact which, if established, would constitute a hreach
of an internationai obligation;
(d) the naturc and extent of the reparation tube made for the breach ofan
internationiil obligation.

2. This Declaration shall not apply, however, tu the following disputes tu
which the Republic of Honduras may be a Party:
(a) disputes in respect of which the parties have agreed or may agree tu
resort tu other means for the pacific settlement of disputes;
(b) disputes coiicerning matters subject tu the domestic jurisdiction of the
Republic of Honduras under international law;
(c) disputes relating to facts or situations originating in armed conflicts or
acts of a similar nature which may affect the tcrritory of the Republic
of Honduras, and in which it may find itself involved directly or indi-

rectly;
(d) disputes referring to:
(i) territorial questions with regard tu sovereignty over islands,
shoals and keys; interna1 waters, bays, the territorial sea and the
Legalstatus and limits thereof;
(ii) al1rights of sovereigiity or jurisdiction concerning the legal status
and limits of the contiguous zone. the exclusive economic zone

and the continental shelf;
(iii) the airspace over the territoriewaters and zones referred to in
this subparagraph.
3. The Government of Honduras also reserves the right at any time to supple-
ment, modify or withdraw this Declaration or the reservations coiitained
therein by giving notice tu the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
4. This Declaration replaces the Declaration made by the Government of
Honduras on 20 February 1960.

National Palace, Tegucigalpa, D.C., 22 May 1986.

(Signed) JoséAZCONAH.,
President of the Republic.

(Signed) Carlos LOPEZCONTRERAS,
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Document B

(Translarion)

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICANSTATES

30 June 1986.

Dear Ambassador,

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt the NoteofYour Excellency No.
39/86lMPHlOEAlSCi, of 29 May 1986.whereby you forwarded to me Official
Letter No. DSM-206186of 26 May 1986 sent to you by His Excellency the
Minister of Foreign Relations of Honduras,,accomp,anied by the Declaration
of the Government of Honduras on the amendments introduced co~erning
the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in view
of the fact that the terms of the said amending Declaration are also applicable
to ArticleXXXl of the American Treaty on Peaceful Solutions.
As regards this matter, 1have the pleasure of informing Your Excellency

that on 30 June 1986 the above-mentioned Official Letter and Declaration
have been scnt to the Missions and Delegations of the Member States and
also 10 the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the relevant pur-
poses.

1avail mysclf of'ihis opportunity to renew to the Ambassador the assur-
ances of my highest consideration,

Joao Clemente BAENASOARES,
Secretary General.

llis Excellenq 1)ocior Hcrmÿn AnIoni#>Hcrniuder.

r\nihass:idor. I'ermanent Kcprcseni;iiii,c oiIlondurai
10 ihc 0rganiz:liion of ,\mcricnn S1airs. Wnihington. D.C. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 41

COMMUNICATIOO NFTHETEXTOF DECREE NO.79186TO THE PERMANENT
REPRESENTATIVE SF THE MEMBERSTATESOP THE ORGANIZATION OF
AMERICANSTATES(COLOMBIA,ECUADOR,PARAGUAY,ETC) BY THE
SECRETARYGENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICANSTATES,
?OJUNE1986

ORGANIZATIIJNOF AMERLCAN STATES

30 June 1986.

Your Excellency:

1 have pleasure in sçnding Your Excellency a copy of Official Cornmuni-
cation No. DSM-206186of 26 May 1986 addressed to me by His Excellency
the Minister for Foreign Relations of Honduras through the Permanent Mis-
sion at this Orgaiiization, together with the declaration by the Honduran
Government rclating to the modilication introduced by the acceptance of the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in view of the fact that the

terms of the said modificatory declaration are likewise applicable to Article
XXXI of the American Treaty <inPacilic Settlement.
1take the opportunity to express my sincere regards,

(Signed oao Clemente BAENASOARES,
Secretary General.242 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 42

NOTE OF THE MINISTER OFFOREIGN RE1.ATIONS OFHONDURAS TO THE
REGISTRA R1'THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE,29 AUGUST1986

[See IICorrespondencNo. 71 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 243

Annex 43

DECREENO. 75-86 OF22 MAY 1986 OFTHENATIONALCONGRESS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS,LA GACETAN , O. 24.936,4 JUNE1986

[Spanish text not reproduced]

(Translation)

DECREE NUMBER 75-86
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS

Decrees

Article1. Authorizes the Miriistry of Foreign Relations to formulate the
declaration referred to in subparagraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, in the following terms:

(a) the interpretation of a treaty;
(b) any question of international law;
(c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach
of an interriational obligation;
(d) the nature and extent of the reparation to be made for the breach ofan
international obligation., . . ..

2. This Declaration shall not apply, however,. to the following disputes to
which the Republic of Honduras may be a Party:

(a) disputes in respect of which the parties have agreed or may agree to
resort to oiher means for the pacific settlementof disputes;
(b) disputes concerning matters subject to the domestic jurisdiction of the
Republic of Honduras under international law;
(c) disputes relating to facts or situations originating in armed conflicts or
acts of a similar nature which may affect the territory of the Republic
of Honduras, and in which it may find itself involved directly or indi-
rectly;
(d) disputes referring Io:

(i) territorial questions with regard to sovereignty over islands,
shoals and keys; interna1 waters, bays, the territorial sea and the
legal status and limits thereof;
al1rights of sovereignty or jurisdiction concerning the legal sta-
(ii)
tus and limits of the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic
zone and the continental shelf;
(iii) the airspace over the territoriewaters and zones referred to in
this subparagraph.244 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

3. The Government of Honduras also reserves the right al any lime to sup-
plement. modify or withdraw this Declaration or the reservations con-
tained therein hy giving notice to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.
4. This Declaration replaces the Declaration made by the Government of
Honduras on 20 February 1960.

'Arficle 2. The current decree renders nuIl and void Decree No. 99of 29
January 1960 and will enter into effect on the day of its publication in the
Official Journzil Lu Gucetu.

Made in the city of Tegucigalpa, Municipality of the Central District. in
the Assembly Room of the National Congress on 21 May 1986.

Hector Orlando GOMEZCISNEROS,
President.

Teofilo Norberto MARTELCRUZ,
Secretary.

Armando ROSAI.ESPERALI'A. . .
Secretary.

To the Executive Power .
For Action

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 22 May 1986.

(Signed)José Simon AZCONAHOYO.
President.

The Secretary of State in the Ministry of
Foreign Relations. by law.
Guillermo CACERESPINEDA. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI

Annex 44

TRANSLATIONS OP THE DECLARATION OF HONDURAS OF 22 MAY 1986

,\CCl.Vl'lK<s THE J~lIlSl>l~"l~lO\ Ob 1111.lSll.KY,\~~l~~X,\l. Cl~t'lIl.01 JI ?lll'l.
Ill P:ll.ll'\llo 1 Ill1 Y / , / 1 1111.l11K,\11\1 (.'OI III<il
Jl:ït'lcl.ICJN 1935-IYhO ,\. ~!S(,I.I~II'~'I:S~.13. tK1 X( Il Tl.xl.

[See II,Correspondence, No. 121

, .246 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Annex 45

NOTE FROXl IHI1 ('llAKGl': I>',\ll:AOFlTHEEIIHASSY OF ~IOSI)UKAS Ih.
1111NI:I'III;Rwns TO THE KI:CIISIKAK OI:'~IIINTERNATIOVA COIJKI.OP
JUSTICE,24 APRlL1984

Le 24 avril 1984

Monsieur le Greffier,

J'ai l'honneur, suivant les instructions reçues de mon gouvernement, de
vous adresser ci-joint copie de la note que le Gouvernement du Honduras
vous transmet par l'intermédiairede S. Exc. le Secrétaire généraldes Nations
Unies.

Je saisis cette occasion pour renouvelàMonsieur le Greffier les assu-

rances de ma plus haute considération.

(Signé)AriasDE SAAVREDA Y MUGOELAR,
Chargéd'affaires a.i.

(Transcription)

Embajada de Honduras,
Johan van Oldenbarneveltlaan 85,
2582 NK La Haya.

(Traduction non officielle)

O. no252 D.A.

(Télex)

Tegucigalpa, le 18 avril 1984.

Son Excellence Monsieur Javier Pérez de Cuéllar,
Secrétaire généralde l'organisation des Nations Unies, New York, N.Y.,

USA.

Monsieur le Secritaire général,
J'ai l'honneur de présenter mes compliments Votre Excellenceà I'occa-
sion de vous exprimer la grave préoccupation du Gouvernement du Hondu-
ras au sujet des nouvelles démarches internationales entreprises par le Gou-

vernement du Nicaragua afin de soustraire à la compétencedu moyen de so-
lution pacifique spécial promu par le groupe de Contadora, formé par la
Colombie, le Mexique, le Panama et le Venezuela, la solution de la crise
politique, économique,sociale et de sécurité quifrappe la régioncentraméri-
caine et dont la nature complexe exige une solution globale et multilatErale. ANNEXES 70 THE MEMORIAL 247

II est de la connaissance de Votre Excellence que cette crise est le résultat
du débordement des conflits internes de auelaues oavs de la zone. du manaue

démesuré dei forces armées du Gouvernement du Nicaragua, engagé à oro-
mouvoir le déséquilibredes.gouvernements voisins par ~'ëncour~~ëme~, le
financement, l'entraînement en la prestation d'assistance logistique et de
communications aux groupes insurges d'autres pays centraméricains avec le
but d'instaurer des gouvernements qui lui soient proches.
C'est précisément pour chercher une solution intégrale à la crise cen-
traméricaine que le groupe de Contadora proposa une négociation directe
entre les Etats de laréeion.oui fut acceo.ée oar .e Gouvernement du Hondu-
13scl :iI;iqudlle IIdi1nn.1s<iii.,ppui le plus I;irgc cil p:griiiip:rni .iCliieiiicnt
t<iuics les rCuniuiii ;onv<iqur:c\ p:ir cc.m2mc groupe
Ir. Gi~uir.riicnieiii du IlonJui.is ~rC\cnt:i. :,\.ri1IYd73u *?in du <.'uiiseil
permanent de l'organisation des ~tats américains, un projet de résolution
aux fins de pacification de lazone centraméricaine. A la demande du groupe
de Contadora, présentéeau mêmeConseil par le représentant permanent de
la Colombie-.~e -~~duras acceo.~ la ~.soension de la discussion dudit. .oiet de
résolution afinque les négociations directes promues par ce groupe de pays
membres de l'organisation des Etats américainsaient l'oppo..unité d'aboutir
à des résultats
A ce sujet, S. Exc. le ministre mexicain des relations extérieures, M. Ber-
nardo Sepulveda, a reconnu, dans la conférence de presse tenue dans la
caoitale de son ,av, le 13 avril 1983. aue l'attitude conciliatoire montrée var
Ic Hi~nJur;i\ ;tu.cin JI. IOrganisation JCSFliit\ iamLirii:~in.irciidu p,i\riblc
ILIpe\li<in, cn1;imCcrpdr Ic groupe dc'Cont;iilor:l le mini.trc mcïic.iiii. SC
référant à la réunion tenue à Panama Dar les ministres oui intè-rent le -.ouue
et qui décidèrent leur intervention a dit textuelle ment:^

«On s'avisa dans une oreniière instance Que le olus ureen..était de
i'.issurcr qur. 1; Ci~nwilperm.inent dc 1OEr\ n'inh~h:iitp;i>I';gctionJcs
niinistrcs iiicnihrcs ilu groupc ('ontsdtir;! Jans leur iiii1i;ii:pi>ur
iri>uvcr Je\ iormulcs tic ri>lurion c.n AmLirique ccntrslc. Il s'apss:ti~ IA
d'unc qucsii~n urg~nic. ciir IC(:<~ii*cilpcriila~ient Jc I'OtA Jci.ic~11-
miner un ~>rojetJc rc'siiluliun prC,cnlr: p:ir Ic Ilondurds ce nii.iiic lun,li
après-midi. Ileureusement et grâce à une série de conversations tenues
avec d'autres narties intéressées dans cette ouestion. il fut accordé

-.
mêmetemps on a compris 120pportuniréde faire une démarche auprès
des Nations Unies pour qu'elles s'abstiennent de toute action qui
doublerait celle qui venait. de s'entamer à Panama lundi dernier. Les
'arti~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ont accueilli avec beaucoun d'intérêtla o. .osit~ ~ ~ ~ ~
qu'on leur faisait et elles oiit décidéde demanderau Conseil permanent
de I'OEA I'iiiournement de la question. Celle-ci fut la oremière action
prise à ce sujet et qui,je rép& [déclara le ministre ~êpulveda],nous
laissa libres quant à la capacité d'action pour assumer la juridiction
directe sur ce sujet.»
Au cours de plus d'une année de négociationsmultilatérales délicates,nous
avons pu constater l'appui très large rep par le groupe de Contadora, tant
de la part de l'organisation des Etats américains (AGlrés. 675-Xlll-0183)248 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

comme de l'Assemblée générale(rés.38/10). du Conseil de sécuritéde l'Or-
ganisation des Nations Unies (rés. 530 (1983)) ainsi que de la part de la
communauté internationale en général, sansdistinction de systèmes idéologi-
a.es. n,litiaues. économioue. o~~~,ridioues.
C'est pour cetic raison que Ir.(iou\,crncmcni du Honduras zoiisid?rc nC-
ccssaire cl du plus gr:rnd in1r'ri.tpour les Ct3ts de Ia ré~l<c~iitrnméricilincet
autres Etats que le groupe de Contadora poÜrsuive ses effortsdans
la recherche d'une paix durable et stable pour la région,sans que cette procé-
dure soit exposée à la frustration par le recours qu'un pays pourrait faire à

d'autres moyens de règlement pacifique.
D'accord avec cette thèse, partagée par la majorité des pays centraméri-
cains et par le groupe de Contadora, le Gouvernement du Honduras tient à
signaler le danger que supposerait le traitement simultané de la crise centra-
méricaine par des différentes instances internationales - comme l'a préten-
du le Gouvernement du Nicaragua lorsque des négociations directes sont
déjà en cours. Cette thèse s'est vue confirmée par le renvoi de la question
centraméricaine au erouoe de Contadora. avec I'aonui inconditionnel du
Conseil de sécurité ldes Nations Unies, de l'~sse&61ée généralede cette
mêmeorganisation et de l'Assemblée généralede l'Organisation des Etats
américains
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua essaie de nouveau de se.jouer du procès

de négociations de Contadora en prétendant soumettre la crise ccntraméri-
caine - de nature essentiellemeni politique - à la connaissance et résolu-
tion de la Cour internationale de ~ ~~ ~e. au détriment des nésociato~n~ ~~~~~- ~ ~ ~
cours et en méconnaissant mêmeles résolutions de l'organisation des Na-
tions Unies. de I'Oreanisation des Etats américains et l'appui ..ternational
total qu'a méritécetie voie de pacification.
II va sans dire que les négociations poursuivies par les pays de l'Amérique
centrale dans le cadre de Contadora sont clairement autorisées par I'ar-
ticle 52 de la Charte de I'ONU et var l'article 23 de la Charte de I'OEA. aui, .
favorisent les accords régionaux désdifférends.
Le Gouvernement du Honduras, sans participer ni prétendre intervenir de
quelque manière que ce soit, dans la procédure entamée par le Nicaragua
contre les Etats-Unis d'Amériqlie devant la Cour internationale de Justice,

observe avec préoccupation la possibilité qu'une éventuelle résolution de la
Cour puisse affecter la sécurité du peuple et de I'Etat du Honduras qui
déoend en erande oartie des accords bilatéraux et multilatéraux de coooé-
raiion interaationaie en vigueur - accords publics et dûment enregistrés'au
Secrétariat généralde I'ONU si de manière directe et unilatérale on es-
sayait de restreindre ces accords, ce qui aurait pour résultat de laisscr mon
pays dans une situation sans défense.
Le Gouvernement du Honduras juge aussi qu'ayant étéapprouvé à I'una-
nité au sein du groupe de Contadora le 9 septembre 1983 le «document
d'objectifsn qui con~prend la totalité des problèmes qui constitue la crise
centraméricaine dans ses diverses manifestations. et que se trouvant en outre
en cours les négociations entamées par les cinq pays centraméricains dans les
trois commissions de travail cyéées à cet effet, il est nécessaire que cette

procédure continue sans êtreperturbée par la soustraction de la matiEre de sa
compétence.
Vu les raisons ci-dessus exooséeset vu la demande introduite var le Nicara-
pu1 devant Is (.'OUIcn indicsiion dc iiir.surcs conscrwtoirer dans InprocC4urc
cntaiiir'c par Ic iïis.tr;igu;<cc>nIcs I~t;its~tiiiisrl'i\mL'riqje.pric Votre Ch-
cellence de bien vouloir transmettre, avec 1:urgencerequise par le cas d'espèce, ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 249

à M. le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice, le texte de cette note, qui
contient les préoccupations du Gouvernement du Honduras sur les effets que
ces mesure< pourraient avoir sur la négociation en cours ainsi que sur la
sécurité internationale de I'Etat du Honduras.

Je saisis cette occasion pour expiimer à Votre Excellence les assurances de
ma plus haute considération.

~rnulfo PINEDA LOFEZ,

ministre des relations extérieures
en exercice.250 BORDERAND TRANSBORDER ARME ADCTIONS

Annex 46

EXCERFT CONCERNING HONDURAS FROM THE REPORT OF THE HIGH
COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES(UNHCR), 1985-1986 (UNITED NATIONS
DOCUMENT AIAC.961677(PARTV),PP. 12-16). 15JULY1986

[Nol reproduced]

Annex 47

TABLEOF CONTENTS AND INTRODUCTION(OEAISER:UVI11.62. DOC. 10,
REV. 3),29 NOVEMBER1983; B: EXCERFTSFROMTHE PERIODICALLA
TRIBUNAOF TEGUCIGALPAC , ONCERNINGTHE EXODUSOF THE MISKITO
POPULATION OF NICARAGUA UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THEBISHOPOF
BLUEFIELDSM, ONSIGNOR SALVADO SCHLAEFER2,4 DECEMBER1983

[Nor reproduced] ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 48

(Translation)

CHRONOLOGY OF INCIDENTS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA.
ACCORDING TOTHECERTIFICATEO SFTHEMlNlSTRY OF FOREIGNRELATIONS
OF HONDURAS

A.FROM 29 JULY 1979THROUGH19 NO'<EMBER1981
Date Incident Place

1979
29.07.79 Violation of national territory, El Pedregalito
theft of a gun, and threats
against members of the Armed
Forces

06.08.79 Violation of national territory Dos Quebradas
and kidnapping
07.08.79 Mining of blind passages at the Trojes sector
border by the SPA. Confronta-
tion with a Sandinista patrol of

4Oûmen
03.09.79 Attack upon Mr. Francisco Aldea de Hato Nuevo
Varela Lopez
El Carrizal Prieto
04.09.79 Violation of national territory
and kidnapping
04.09.79 Violation of national territory El Carrizal Prieto
and murder of 1hree Nicaraguan
refugees

05.09.79 Kidnapping of Messrs Armando Algodonera Guadalupe
Aranjo and Esteban Mendoza
05.09.79 Release of MI. Esteban Mendoza El Triunfo
following payment of a ransom
of L. 150,000.00

08.09.79 Helease of Mr. Armando Aranjo
09.09.79 Attack against the customs house El Guasaule Customs
at El Guasaule, dnring which a

Guatemalan and a Costa Rican
citizen were injured
18.09.79 Violation of territorial waters Arrecife Lagarto

20.09.79 Kidnapping of Messrs Victor Santa Rita
Hugo Herrera and Rodolfo de
Jesus Herrara (Hondurans), who
were later murdered byChan,
the leader of Cusmapa252 I3ORL3ERAND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Date Incident Place

(13) 27.09.79 Violation of national tcrritory Aldea El Sombrerito
and theft
(14) 28.09.79 Request made by Mr. Birned
Dwtt Haylock for thc liberation
of Bote Haylock Prizze,
kidnapped by the SPA
(15) 03.10.79 Violation of national territory by El Espino
a group of gucrrillas, who estab-
lished themselves in the home of
Mrs. Edelvina Morales Sarmiento

(16) 04.10.79 Violation of national territory . Aldea de Terrero
(17) 13.10.79 Violation of national territory Paso Largo Madrigales

(18) 16.10.79 Violation of national tcrritory El Horno
(19) 28.10.79 Violation of national territory Palo Verde
(20) 01.11.79 Violation of national territory La v rater nuidom s d

(21) 21.11.79 Violation of national territory San Benito
and attack against the police of
Hacienda
(22) 05.11.79 Violation of aitspace ., . Border zone
(23) 08.11.79 Hijacking of the fishing boat Between Cabo Falso
Ca.stilli 1and theft of a cargo and.Cabo de Gracias a
of 35.000 shrimps Dios

(24) 18.11.79 Violation of national territory , Aldea Las Canoas
and theft of livestock

1980
(25) 21.01.80 Machine-gunning of a Honduran ~elween Cifuentes and
helicopter Trojes
(26) 04.03.80 Violation of national territory El Encanto
and attack against a patrol
. .
(27) 05.03.80 Violation of national territory El Encanto
(28) 10.03.80 Violation of territorial waters . Sector of Gracias a
and hijacking of the lobster Dios
lishing boatVera-Cil with ils crew
(29) 15.03.80 Liberation of the fishing boat . .
Vera-Cil and its crew. The cargo
' of shelllish was confiscated 6y
the SPA

(30) 07.05.80 Violation of national territory La Caguasca
and attacks and theft against
civilians
(31) 14.04.80 Violation of airspace El Nance Dulce

(32) 19.05.80 Violation of territorial waters. Honduran waters near
and theft of a "panga", Pto. de Potosi
a "trasmayo" and a motor ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 253

Date Incident Place
(33) 04.06.80 Violation of national territory Los Achiotes

(34) 23.06.80 Attack against civilians Aldea El Anonal
(35) 12.08.80 Violation of airspace and Sector of San Antonio
violation of national territory dç Flores
(36) 16.08.80 Violation of airspace Aldea de Cacamuya

(37) 30.08.80' Vblation of n;itional territory . El Estribo
and theft of livçstock
(38) 31:08.80 Violation of n;itional'territory ' ~acienda "El Suspiro
and kidnapping of a minor del Zarzal" ,
(39) 01.09.80 Violation of national territory , El Ayote

(40) 25.09.80 Violation of n;itional.territory . Sector of Las Mesas
(41) 30.10.80 Armed confroiitation between a Palu Verde
I-londuran patrol based in San
Benito and the SPA

(42) 09.11.80 Violation of.airspace and Tempisque and Oropoli
bbmbing of.Honduran territory
(43) 09.11.80 Violation of airspace Sector of Duyure and
San Marcos de Colon

(44) 10.11.80 violation of airspace; a Duyure
. . Nicaraguan type H500C helicop-
ter was captured, with three ,
crew members and equipment
(45) 24.11.80 Violation of airsGaie Alauca

(46) 29.11.80 Violation of nntional territory, . El Malacate
attack on a civilian, and
kidnapping of Mr. Eliseo
Ordonez Caldaron
(47) 29.11.80 Violation of territorial waters; Honduran waters in
the boat Comandnnte Che and the Pacific Ocean
its crew were captured ..

(48) 01.12.80 Violation of national territory Between Las Manos
and kidnapping and Jicaro Galan
(49) 03.12.80 Violation of national t'erritory Aldea Tapalchi
and kidnapping
La Fraternidad
(50) 13.12.80 Violation of airspace
(51) 26.12.80 Violation of national territory, Las Minas and
kidnapping and murder of El.Guanacaste
civilians
(52) 29.12.80 Violation of n:itional territory Cacamuya

and kidnapping
1981
(53) 27.01.81 Violation of airspace and attack Tierra Colorada
sigainst a Honduran patrol

(54) 12.02.81 Violation of national territory El Espinal
and kidnapping254 BORDER AND TRANSBORDERARMED ACTIONS

Dnie Incident Place
(55) 07.03.81 Violation of national territory, Agua Caliente Trojes
attack against Honduran citizens,
and theft
Attack against a military La Estrella
detachment

Attack against a Honduran Guasaule Customs
custilms post
Attack against a Honduran Guasaule Customs
customs post

Violation of national territory, El Estribo
attack against Armed Forces
Violaiion of national territory. Trojes
Four members of the SPA were
captured

Attack against a Honduran post Cifuentes
Violation of national territory. San Benito sector
Attack against a Honduran post

Attack against a Honduran patrol Honduran waters in the
Gulf of Fonseca
Violation of territorial waters, Honduran waters,
attack against fishermen, Estero El Torcidito
kidnapping and theft
Attack against Honduran Boca de San Bernardo

fishermen
Atiack against Honduran Arrecife Alargado and
fishermen Soutcha
Violation of airspace Suji and Mocoron

Violation of territorial waters Honduran territorial
and hijacking of the boats Lady waters
and Aida and their crews

Attack against a Honduran patrol,
disappearance of the Honduran
soldier Oscar Manuel Garcia
Ochoa.
The Chief of the First Region
of Nicaragua later communicated
that the body of this soldier had
been found on his territory and
that il had heen placed there
wiih iis equipment at about
22.00hours that day; the promise
was not kept, and Commander
Pichardo stated by telephone
that the body would be handed
over on 21 October as a result
of governmental-level action

Attack against a Honduran patrol Caserio El Coyol ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL. 255

Date Incident Place
(71) 22.10.81 Violation of national territory El Estribo.

(72) 25.10.81 Violation of national territory Caserio Las Moras
and kidnapping of [ive Hondurans
(73) 26,1081 Harassment of Armed Forces La Fraternidad

(74) 17.11.81 Attack against the police of El Pilon
Hacienda
(75) 17.11.81 Shooting and fire attacks against El Guasaule
a Honduran customs post

(76) 17.11.81 Attack against Honduran Palo Verde sector
positions
(77) 17.11.81 Attack against Armed Forces Palo Verde

(78) 18.11.81 Attack against a Honduran El Tablazo
military detacliment
(79) 19.11.81 Mortar attack against a El Tablazo
Honduran military detachment

B. FROM 19JANUARY 1982 THROUGH 17lULY 1986
1982
(1) 19.01.82 Armed attack El Tablazo

(2) 19.01.82 Armed attack El Tablazo
(3) 20.01.82 Firing against a patrol Palo Verde

(4) 21.01.82 Fusillade agairist Teniente Funez
(5) 30.01.82 Violation of territory and Palu Verde
harassment of Honduran patrol

(6) 06.02.82 Overflight of the territory by Leymus, Suji,
a Nicaraguayan plane and Dulsuma Rus-Rus, and
arson of the home of Mr. Auca; Turvenlancha
Tico Colomer
(7) 07.02.82 Disappearance. of Secundino Aldea La Esperanza
Nanranarez Cruz

(8) 10.02.82 Armed attack El Coyol
(9) 16.02.82 Violation of ti:rritory: capture of Ourique de Oro
Luis Caceres Torres and his

figbting equipment
(10) 23.02.82 Armed attack La Lima, Alauca
(11) 28.02.82 Armed attack against two Montana San Jose

civilians and kidnapping
(12) 15.03.82 Violation of territorial waters Punta Condega
and armed attack; injury to
Corporal Mario Ramos

(13) 17.03.82 Violation of territorial waters, Iralaya
kidnapping of the Honduran
crew of the Dt:bbie K256 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Date Incident Place
(14) 17.03.82 Violation of territorial waters
and attack against a Honduran
patrol; injury to Corporal Mario
Roherto Ramos

(15) 17.03.82 Violation of territorial waters , .
and hijacking of the fishing boat
Baby Jones and its crew members
(16) 18.03.82 Violation of territorial waters Raya
and hijacking of the boat
Derveeqee and 48 lobster ..
fishing boats

(17) 19.03.82 Kidnapping of two civilians . El Coyol
(Susana and Maria Rubio)
(18) 19.03.82 Violation of territorial waters Raya
and hijacking of the boat Treeho
and its crew

(19) 21.03.82 Violation of territorial waters; lslas del Cisne
hijacking of four fishing boats
(20) 21.03.82 Violation of territorial waters; Media Luna, Pobel
and hijacking of four Honduran
ships. Firing against two Won- . .
durnn airforce planes sent to
verify the incident

(21) 25.03.82 Fusillade against a soldier of the El Pilon
police of Hacienda
(22) 02.04.82 Violation of national territory; El Triunfo
kidnapping of five Hondurans

(23) 03.04.82 Violation of national territory El Triunfo
and kidnapping of Aurelio
Amador
(24) 03.04.82 Violation of airspace Madrigales

(25) .03.04.82 Violation of national tenitory El Pilon and El Coyol
and kidnapping of 6 Honduran
citizens
(26) 04.04.82 Violation of national territory.
Capture of 21 Nicaraguans

(27) 11.04.82 Violation of territorial waters Cayo Media Luna
and kidnapping
(28) 18.04.82 Violation of territorial waters Playa Punta San José
and attack
(29) 30.04.82 Violation of airspace Rio Guasaule strip

(30) 16.05.82 violation of national territory, Caguasca sector
kidnapping and murder
(31) 01.06.82 Violation of national territory Comunidad de Oyoto
and kidnapping

(32) 03.06.82 Harassment of border patrol - . Comunidad El Coyol ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL

Date Incident Place
(33) 04.06.82 Harassment of border patrol El Coyol
(34) 23.06.82 Violation of ail-space El Guineo

(35) 23.06.82 Violation of national territory El Anonal
and murder of a peasant . .
(36) 06.07.82 Armed attack Alto and La Guaruma

(37) 06.07.82 Violation of national territory El Oyote
and attack; theft
(38) 06.07.82 Armed attack Alto and La Guaruma
(39) 06.07.82 Armed attack Alto and La Guaruma
(40) 10.07.82 Violation of airspace Duyusupo

(41) 10.07.82 Violation of airspace Palo Verde
(42) 14.07.82 Armed attack. Five deaths Guarurna and Alto
\'iolation of territorial waters Cayos Media Luna
(43) 15.07.82
and hijacking of the boatBonne
Soiréand its crew
(44) 15.07.82 Violation of territorial waters Cayos Babel
and kidnapping
(45) 15.07.82 Armçd attack. Various injuries La Guaruma and Alto

(46) 16:07.82 Violation of airspace Arenales and Sahaba
Grande
(47) 17.07.82 violation of airspace

(48) 20.07.82 Violation of national territory, Comunidad.La Ceiba
armed attack and harassment of
Honduran villages
(49) 20.07.82 Violation of territorial waters
and hijacking of the boat
Lady Madeleine

(50) 20.07.82 Armed attack CornunidadLa Ceiba
(51) 01.08.82 Violation of airspace ~huasvila
(52) 04.08.82 Violation of airspacc San Marcos de Col011

(53) 04.08.82 Violation of airspace ' La Fraternidad
(54) 05.08.82 Armed attack with short- and La Guaruma, El Alto
.. long-range weiipons and La Palmita. Carta
Concepcion de Maria
(55) 05.08.82 Violation of national territory El Oyoto
and attack, destruction of the

house and theft from a cantonal
corporal and his family
(56) 05.08.82 Armed attack Guaruma and El Alto
(57) 06.08.82 Armed attacks and harassment La Guaruma, El Alto
. . on Honduran territorv and La Palrnita

(58) 07.08.82 Violation of national territory Hacienda San Enrique,
Dept. of Choluteca
(59) 10.08.82 Violation of airspace Duyusupo258 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Date Incident Place
(60) 10.08.82 Violation of airspace Comunidad de Pa10
Verde
(61) 10.08.82 Violation of airspace La Fraternidad

(62) 13.08.82 Violation of airspace and La Pena
kidnapping
(63) 16.08.82 Violation of airspace Pa10 Verde

(64) 16.08.82 Violation of airspace Honduran Customs
(Palo Verde sector)
(65) 16.08.82 Violation of airspace Palo Verde sector

(66) 20.08.82 Violation of national territory Palo Verde
(67) 20.08.82 Provocation in the border zones Palo Verde

(68) 28.08.82 Provocation against Honduran La Guaruma sector,
people Cerro La Mona sector
(69) 28.08.82 Violation of national territory. Guaruma
Threats against the people
(70) 28.08.82 Mortar and machine-gun fire Guaruma sector, Cerro

de la Campana
(71) 29.08.82 Fusillade and mortar fire and Guaruma, Aguacate
violation of airspace and Las Manos
(72) 01.09.82 Violation of territorial waters Guapinol, Gulf of

and airspace Fonseca
(73) 01.09.82 Violation of territorial waters, Gulf of Fonseca
violation of airspace
(74) 04.10.82 Violation of national territory Oyoto sector

and murder
(75) 12.10.82 Provocation of Honduran people La Guaruma
(76) 13.10.82 Violation of national territory Guasaule
and kidnapping

(77) 13.10.82 Mortar attack Las Guarumas
(78) 25.10.82 Provocation of Honduran La Fraternidad frontier
customs officers post

(79) 25.10.82 Provocation of Honduran La Fraternidad sector
customs officers
(80) 04.11.82 Hijacking of two fishing hoats
and their crews

(81) 05.11.82 Violation of airspace and Ahuasvila
dropping of bombs
(82) 14.11.82 Provocation of Honduran Palo Verde sector
garrisons
(83) 30.11.82 Harassment on national territory Puehlo Nuevo

(84) 02.12.82 Harassment of Honduran patrols; Rio Iorondano sector
serious injury to a Honduran
soldier260 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Dare Incident Place

(114) 20.03.83 Kidnapping of four Hondurans Punta Condega
and their two "pangas"
(115) 20.03.83 Harassrnent of border posts Palo Verde
(116) 27.03.83 Violation of national territory El Pilon

and theft of livestock
(117) 11.04.83 Violation of airspace Madrigales
(118) 12.04.83 Violation of national territory, La Bruja scctor
kidnapping and murder of a

rninor and theft of livestock. ,,
(119) 12.04.83 Violation of national territory "7 de Maya"
. . and theft of livestock
(120), 14.04.83 Violation of territorial waters, Near Cayos Bobel
attack against Honduran fisher- and Media Luna
men and hijacking of the boat

Dayana G
(121) 17.0483 Violation of territorial waters Amapala sector
and harassrnent of patrols
(122) 19.04.83 Mortar and machine-gun fire Palo Verde and San
Benito

(123) 19.04.83 Violation of airspace Madrigales sector
(124) 19.04.83 Provocation of Honduran fisher-
men, violation of territorial
waters

(125) 22.04.83 Violation of national territory, Tierra colorada
harnssment of oeasants
(126) 23.04.83 Violation of national territory Cacausca and thinis
de Cacambuya

(127) 09.05.83 Violation of airspace Cifuentes sector
(128) 10.05.83 Violation of airspace ~ifuentes sector

(129) 10.05.83 Violation of national territory Cauguina
(130) '12.05.'83 Att;ick against Hacienda officers "La Canoa" sector
(131) 12.05.83 Arnied attack Gua~ma, Concepcionde
Maria and Cinco Pinos

(132) 13.05.83 Heavy artillery attack La Canoa
(133) 13.05.83 Violation of national territory; ' El Caulote
kidnapping of four Hondurans
and threats against a customs

officer at La Fraternidad
(134) 16.05.83 Violation of airspace and attack Cifuentes sector
against Honduran people
(135) 22.05.83 violation of national territory
Cifuentes sector
(136) 22.05.83 Harassment of Honduran people El Naranjal, El Parvenir
and Cifuentes

(137) 23.05.83 Violation of airspace Caser (or de Lasupa)
sector ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 261

Date lrrcidenf Place
(138) 24.05.83 Violation of national territory, Trojes sector
altack against a Honduran vehicle
aiid its six occupants, and murder
of five of them

(139) 25.05.83 Harassment agdinst Honduran Trojes sector
vehicles and civilians
(140) 28.05.83 Armed attack against a patrnl 'Trojes sector

(141) 08.06.83 Harassment agiiinst ~bnduran El Troje
towns with sophisticated weapons
(142) 08.06.83 Violation of national territory Las Trementinas
(143) 17.06.83 Mortar firc Cifuentes

(144) 18.06.83 Fire against a passenger bus El Pital
(145) 18.06.83 Machine-gun fil-eand fusillade Palo Verde
(146) 21.06.83 Attack against ;rprivaie vehicle El Porvenir

with anti-tank grenades. Two
dead, one injurcd
(147) 23.06.83 Attack against ;iwood carrier ~os'~icotes
(148) 11.07.83 Harassment of Armed Forces Guaiaule

(149) 14.07.83 Violation of national territory ELTerrero
and murder of Mr. Secundo
Maradiaga
(150) 24.07.83 Mortar fire and fusillade Palo Verdc sector

(151) 28.07.83 Violation of national territory . Zarzal scctor
(152) 14.08.83 Provocation of Armed Forces Las Manos

(153) 19.08.83 Violation of national territory Las de Cacamuya
(154) 30.08.83 Mortar fire and fusillade Palo Verde sector
~ifuenies
(155) 06.09.83 Provocation of Armed Forces
(156) 12.09.83' ~ioiation of national territory El Pilon
and theft of horses

(157) 17.09.83 Violation of national territory Posa Redonda
and kidnapping of two Hon-
duran citizens
(158) 23.09.83 Armcd attack Agua Caliente

(159) 24.09.83 Michine-gun fire and fusillade Cerro El Ayote
(160) 26.09.83 Fusillade and machine-gun fire Cifuentes
(161) 04.10.83 Violation of national territory Cifuentes
and attack agaiiist the home of.

Wlr.Santos Pen:z Calix
(162) 10.10.83 Violation of territorial waters Punta Condega
(163) 10.10.83 -Violation of national territory Guaruma

and armed attack
(164) 04.11.83 Attack against helicopter £rom Guaruma
Nicaraguan territory262 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED 8ACTIONS

Dore Inciden1 Place
(165) 11.11.83 Harassment of border posts Cifuentes sector

(166) 12.11.83 Attack against a vehicle Cifuentes
(167) 13.11.83 Machine-gun fire and fusillade Cifuentes, Trojes
against border posts

(168) 18.11.83 Atlempted attack against a Cementerio sector
Honduran post
(169) 18.11.83 Provocation of Honduran people La Guaruma

(170) 27.11.83 Violation of national territory Hacienda San Juan
and kidnapping
(171) 12.12.83 Vicilation of national territory La Ceiba sectoi

1984
(172) 03.01.84 Violation of national territory Sacat-Kiwastara
and attempted kidnapping
(173) 05.01.84 Violation of national territory Sacat-Kiwastara
and treacherous murder. Eleven

dead and two injured
(174) 07.01.84 Explosion of a mine. One dzad
(175) 07.01.84 Violation of national territory El Sombrerito sector

and theft of livestock
(176) 07.01.84 Provocation of Armed Forces Palo Verde sector
(177) 07.01.84 Attack against naval detachment Punta Condega

(178) 11.01.84 Provocation. Murder Carretera de Trojes
(179) 17.02.84 Fusillade El Pedregalito

(180) 15.03.84 Violation of national territory
(181) 20.03.84 Violation of national territory Nance Dulce
and theft of livestock

(182) 20.03.84 Violation of national territory Guaruma
(183) 22.03.84 Violation of national territory Hacienda La Flor
and theft of livestock (El Triunfo)

(184) 22.03.84 Miiiing of national territory by Matano de Platano,
the SPA Cerro La Picona and
Cifuentes

(185) 04.05.84 Fusillade against El Espino El Espino
border post
(186) 08.05.84 Shooting-down of a helicopter
of the Honduran Air Force,
death of ils crew

(187) 26.05.84 Miiiing of Honduran territory, Las Champas
two deaths and a serious injury
(188) 28.05.83 Violation of national territory El Triunfo
and theft of livestock

(189) 30.05.84 Violation of national territory Los Lirios
and theft of livestock ANNEXES TO THE MEMORI

Date Incident Place
Tapalchi
(190) 01.06.84 Violation of national territory,
kidnapping attempt
(191) 04.06.84 Violation of national territory Ojo de Agua
and theft of livestock
(192) 10.06.84 Mortar fire Sahanas Redondas

(193) 19.06.84 Violation of national territory Cerro Peta Grande de
Gualiqueme, Cerro El
Variador and Minas de
Cacamuya
(194) 19.06.84 Violation of national territory. Duyusupo

Attack against Hondurari
military post
(195) 02.07.84 Violation of national territory San Marcos de Colon
and attack

(196) 02.07.84 Attack against the fishing boat
Cap-D L-Mark with loss of life
of fisherman Desiderio Harry
Walter
(197) 10.10.84 Confrontation between Waters of the Gulf of
Nicaragua and El Salvador Fonseca

1985
(198) 04.01.85 Attack against the national 1.a Lodosa
territory

(199) 11.01.85 Capture of two Honduran Between Cabo de
fishing boats(S.E.A. Golfo and Gracias a Dios and
Capitan Cholo) Cabo Falso
(200) 12.01.85 Violation of national territory Duyusupo
and kidnapping

(201) 18.01.85 Violation of national territory; Arenales
one dead and one injured
(a10-year-old girl)
El Guasaule
(202) 23.01.85 Attack against Honduran
Customs
(203) 26.01.85 Artillery fire Cacamuya and La Mina
(204) 30.01.85 Violation of national territory Palo Verde

(205) 04.02.85 Violation of airspace Arenales
(206) 12.02.85 Artillery fire San Marcos de La Selva

(207) 24.03.85 Murder of Honiiuran citizens La Remolina,
Cacayuma, El Espino
(208) 02.04.85 Violation of national territory El Espino

(209) 18.04.85 Harassment of the Honduran Cayos Bobel
boat Tropik
(210) 22.04.85 Heavy hombing La Vega

(211) 08.06.85 Capture of two fishing boats, Dept. Gracias a Dios
Miss Colen and Miss Sianles BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
264

Dale Incide111 Place
(212) 04.07.85 Arlillery fire Alauca

(213) 05.07.85 Violation of national territory Tapalchi
and attack against a military
defence
(214) 10.07.85 Violation of national terriiory Maquengales

, ,5) 10.07.85 Mortar bombardment La Lodosa
(216) 10.07.85 Attack against Honduran people Cerro Calenturd, Cerro
El Horno, Cerro el
Canton y Cerro
Gengibral

(217) 22.07.85 Shooting against a Honduran La lagua
patrol
(218) 22.07.85 Attack against Honduran people Corrales

(219) 22.07.85 Attack against Honduran people San Marcos de La Selva
(220) 12.08.85 Atiack and theft from Honduran Las Manos
citizens
La Laguna
(221) 14.08.85 Atlack against Honduran patrol
(222) 06.09.85 Attack against Honduran patrol Las Pinas sector
(223) 07.09.85 Atiack against Honduran people La Lodosa

(224) 08.09.85 Atiack against Honduran citizens Aldeas Las Mesas
(225) 09.09.85 Fusillade Caguasca

(226) 10.09.85 Bombing of ond dur aerritory Bocay sector
(227) 13.09.85 Mortar aitack El Espanolito

(228) 10.10.85 Violation of national territory El Tablazo
(229) 10.10.85 Attack against patroi Duyusupo sector
(230) 10.10.85 Aitack against patrol San Benito

(231) 20.10.85 Aiiack against patrol Guaruma sector
(232) 28.10.85 Atiack against helicopter Montecristo sector

(233) 28.10.85 Miiiing of Honduran Territory Quebrada del Oro
by the SPA
(234) 25.11.85 Fusillade against two Honduran. Duyusupo sector
patrols

1986
(235) 02.01.86 Vicilation of national territory, ~a'Su~a,Boca de
kidnapping and theft of personal Arenales
belongings and livestock

(236) 03.01.86 Release of Messrs JoséEsteban
LopezRamos, Joséde la Paz
Ramos, Martin Ramos and
Simeon Carcamo, held by the
SPA for 24 hours
(237) 07.01.86 Fusillade against patrol ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 265

Date Incident Place
(238) 13.01.86 Violation of nalional territory Tierra Colorada sector
and kidnapping

(239) 13.01.86 Attack against Honduran people Banco Grande, Quin,
Bocas de Par Par, carta
Entre Rios
(240) 14.01.86 .Violation of nalional territory La Esperanza secior
and theft from civilians

(241) 14.01.86 Violation of nalional territory Ampara sector
(242) 16.01.86 Violation of nalional territory San Agustin sector,
El Bosque hasta la
Cuesta de Zepeda

(243) 17.01.86 Violation of national territory, Caserio El Bosque
murder and kidnapping
(244) 19.01.86 ~ichine-gun and fire attacks Las Canoas
(245) 19.01.86 Violation of national territory El Boqueron
and murder ,

(246) 20.01.86 Violation of naiional territory La Polvora sector
and attack against civilian
(247) 21.01.86 Violation of national territory San Agustin

(248) 21.01.86 Violation of nalional territory Cayantu
(249) 21.01.86 Provocation of Armed Forces Vado Ancho
(250) 22.01.86 Attack against Honduran people, Palo Verde
two children dead, two injured

(251) 22.01.86 Fusillade and grenade attack Las Pinas
(252) 09.02.86 Attack against Honduran El Bosque
detachment

(253) 09.02.86 Fusillade Quebrada de Arenales
(254) 10.02.86 Violation of national territory La Esperanza ,
.. and kidnapping

(255) 12.02.86 Discovery of the body of MI. La Esperanza
Ricardo Avilez, kidnapped by
the SPA two days previously
(256) 13.02.86 Violation of national territory Tapalchi
and leaving a minefield

(257) 17.02.86 Violation of national territory Confluence of the
and kidnapping Quebrada El Cacao
with the Rio Guasaule
(258) 20.02.86 Violation of national territory La Esperanza
and kidnapping

(259) 22.02.86 Violation of national territory La Esperanza
and kidnapping ., .
(260) 23.02.86 RPG-7 rockets launched Amparo

(261) 25.02.86 Violation of national territory .Colina 800 -El
. . ' Boqueron sector266 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Date Incident Pince
(262) 25.02.86 Explosion of a mine placed in Buena Vista
national territory by the SPA.
Two injured
(263) 28.02.86 Fusillade against belicopter Coordinates 9336,Carta
Puerto Morazan

(264) 12.03.86 Attack against Honduran people Cerro Bijao, San Rafael
El Cerro, facing the al
Valle de Tecas and Las
Tejeras
(265) 14.03.86 Violation of national territory La Esperanza and
and attack against a patrol Cerro El Toro

(266) 14.03.86 Violation of national territory Yamalito sector
(267) 14.03.86 Violation of national tcrritory Somu-Tigni, Yamales
and Bolinkey

(268) 14.03.86 Violation of national territory La Esperanza
(269) 14.03.86 A soldier injured by explosion Maquengales
of a mine placed by the SPA
Las Bocas de Guano
(270) 15.03.86 Haand attack against a patrol Entre Piedra sector

(271) 16.03.86 Violation of national territory El Oro to El Rosario
(272) 17.03.86 Violation of national territory Cano de Ulwaskin

(273) 19.03.86 Artillery fire El Bosque
(274) 19.03.86 Artillery fire Las Mieles sector
(275) 24.03.86 Artillery bombardment with Carta Jutiapa
BM-21 multiple rocket-launchers

(276) 25.03.86 Ariillery fire Cerro Guambuco
(277) 30.03.86 Ariillery fire Carta Trojes

(278) 07.04.86 Artillery fire Sector between Las
Colinas de Moropuchi
and El Cementerio
(279) 14.04.86 Attack against Honduran Cerro Guazapo, Vieja
positions Customs, La Curva,
Casa Vieja, Casa de
Ladrillo facing
Teotecacinte, La

Tabacalera, Agua
Caliente, La Tejera, Los
Periodicos and El
Cementerio
(280) 15.04.86 Violation of territorial waters Guapinol sector
and kidnap..ng -

(281) 19.04.86 Explosion of a mine placed by Arenal
the SPA. One dead
(282) 26.04.86 Violation of national tcrritory, El Horno
theft and kidnapping ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAI

Date Incident Place
(283) 26.04.86 Violation of national territory, Duyure
theft and kidnapping
Tapalchi
(284) 26.04.86 Violation of airspace
(285) 30.04.86 Sandinist troop injures Honduran Las Champas
soldier and three civilians
(286) 04.05.86 Fusillade Colina Las Trojes

(287) 05.05.86 Kidnapping Nueva Victoria
(288) 05.05.86 Fusillade Colina 806, co-ordinates
0155 carta Cifuentes

(289) 06.05.86 Fusillade Palo Verde
(290) 08,0586 Fusillade Tapalchi
Paredes
(291) 08,0586 Violation of national territory
(292) 15.05.86 Harassment of Armed Forces Cifuentes
(293) 18.05.86 Attack against Armed Forces Cifuentes

(294) 19.05.86 Violation of national territory San Bernardo and Rio
Negro
(295) 20.05.86 Discovery of the body of a Las Cabullas, Duyure
Honduran citizen, death caused
by explosion of a mine placed hy
the SPA on Honduran territory

(296) 20.05.86 Child injured by explosion of a La Munguia
mine placed by the SPA on
Honduran territory
(297) 21.05.86 Violation of Honduran territory, La Laguna, Zarzalosa
theft of livestock

(298) 23.05.86 Fusillade Cifuentes
(299) 24.05.86 Serious injury, followed by El Horno
death, of the Honduran peasant
Abrahan Sanchez Sanchez who
stepped on a mine placed by
the SPA

(300) 30.05.86 Violation of national territory La Estrella sector
and kidnapping attempt
(301) 01.06.86 Violation of airspace Palo Verde

(302) 02.06.86 Kidnapping of fishermen San Bernardo sector
(303) 07.06.86 Harassment of Armed Forces Cifuentes
Palo Verde
(304) 08.06.86 Violation of national territory
(305) 09.06.86 Fusillade Las Manos
El Cerron and Vieja
(306) 10.06.86 Attack against positions of the Customs
Armed Forces
(307) 10.06.86 Fusillade and niortar fire Tapalchi
El Horno
(308) 11.06.86 Violation of national territory
(309) 12.06.86 Fusillade EI Pedregalito268 BORLIERAND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Date Incident Place'
(310) 12.06.86 Harassment of Armed Forces Cifuentes
(311) 19.06.86 Attack against Honduran peoile Guambuco

(312) 19.06.86 Violation of national territory Palo Verde
(313) 22.06.86 Violation of national territory Los Planes

(314) 22.06.86 Fusillade Tapalchi sector
(315) 22.06.86 Attack against Armed Forces Mata de Guineo
(316) 30.06.86 Violation of national territory Mata de Guineo

(317) 30.06.86 Violation of national territory Mata de Platano
(318) 01.07.86 Fusillade El Bosque

(319) 09.07.86 Attack against patrol La Guaruma
(320) 12.07.86 Attack against Honduran Vieja Customs and El
delachments , . Pital
(321) 12.07.86 Attack against patrol Cerro La Trinchera

(322) 13.07.86 Firing of LM-BMZ1 La Garrapata
(323) 13.07.86 Attack against Honduran Capire, Las Mieles
detachments . and El Basque

(324) 13.07.86 Firing of LCM-BM~I ~anco Grande
(325) 14.07.86 Fusillade against patrol Rio Torondano
(326) 16.07.86 Firing of 120-mm grenades 'Amparo

(327) 17.07.86 Fusillade Trojes and Cifuentes
(328) 31.07.86 Violation of national ierritory Bolinkey and Buena
Vista

(329) 31.G.86 Attack against patrol Tapalchi
(330) 02.08.86 Attack ,against naval patrols Potosi sector
(331) 04.08.86 Violation of airspace Cifuentes ,

(332) 05.08.86 Kidnapping of two fishermen Puerto Menor sector
(333) 18.08.86 Violation of national territory Arenales and Amparo ANNEXES TOTHE MEMORIAI.

Annex 49

Document A

NOTENO. 15184FROMTHE AMBASSAIJOR. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVEOF
HONDURAS.TRANSCRIBINGTHE TEXT OF THE NOTE DATED MAY 8. 1984.
SENTBY THE MINISTEROFFOREIGNi\FFAIRSOFHONDURASTOTHEMlNlSTER

OFFOREIGNAFI'AIRSOFNICARAGUA

OEA1Ser.G
CPIINF.2159/84

9 May 1984
Original: Spaiiish.

MISSIONOFTHE REPUBLICOF HONDURAS

TOTHE ORGANIZATION 01'A,MERICANSTATES

No. 15/84/MPH/OEA/CP May 9. 1984

Excellency:

1 have the honor to address Your Excellcncy to convey to you. and through
your kindness 10 the reprcsentatives of the othcr member States on thï Pcr-
manc~ ~ ~~~ ~l. the text of the note sent hv His Excellencv Dr. Edcardo I'az
Barnica, Minisler of Foreign Aff~iirs of ond dur os he ~inistcr Of Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua that reads verbatim as follows:

"Official Note No. 332-DSM. Tegucigalpa. D.C., May 8. 1984. His
Excellencv blieuel d'Escoto Brockmann. Minister'of Foreien Affairs.
hl;iii:igu:i. .licar;isuCxccllcnc!: Iam ;idJrcssiiig Your Cccllcn~y IU

prcscnl. thri>upli y,>u.10 tlic ~lirlingiiishr.~l Ciaii,i.riinicni of 'lic;ir;igu:i.
ihc sironsesi prulcbt <~ithe Kcpuhlic of Il<indur;ii i,\.r.r the hrui.il .hofil.
ing d,?\vii li>d.iy ;ihclici>ptcr uf the Hiindur;in air iorcc in viol,itl<in of
iill lhc rulcs 81fpcxcfulc~~~~xi~tcnc ci11 th< lr:o&i: rc%iiIi c~flhc lus$ of
ils crew and accompanying personnel. The unarmed hclicopter. identi-

lied bv nalionnl markines iinder Reeistration No. UHI-B No. 928. was
maki& ;Iregular flight Eetween ~eiuci~al~a and the port of Amapala.
Because of adverse weather conditions existing in the Gulf of Fonseca.
it depirted from ils route. and when it wai returning head tuward
Amapala ii was shot down by anti-aircraft fire from the Sandinista

army. on ihc peninsula of' Cosiguina. as reported by the Sandinisia
airforce. The oersonnel being carried bv the aircraft was the followinz:
Sccoiid ~icui;n:ini oi Ihc ,\i;iorcc Iloi;orntu Arlu '1'cchnii;il ~or~i~rril
Oscar Armniido Fl<,rc\ ,\niadur: ï'cchnic;il<:iiinniiticcCnginccr JosC

S:inolcon C.~~l~Ilann~V . r. AIc1;indro t\IkirdM.: ,\uditc,r>. H:irr! J Or-
tiz.'Roberlo Turcios D., ~ajo<~ernan Bircenas. ~uartermaste; Corps,270 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS

Lieutenant Francisco Suazo A., Quartermaster Corps. It should be
pointed out that this committee was carrying out an eminently admini-
strative mission. for the ourpose of reviewinq some work al Amapala

given ta the helicopter. nor was any attempt made ta establish radio
contact with it, rather it was the victim of a clearly aggressive attitude in
proceeding to shooi ii down. In view of the sorrow that resirains the
Honduran people over thc irreparable loss of such esiecmcd compa-
triots. in such reeretlablc circumstances that in no wav iustifv that
despicable act, th: Government of Honduras urges the.di*sting;ished
Government of Nicaragua to givc the necessary satisfactions for thai ac-
tion and cease the wariikc attitudes that are endangering the peace and
tranauillitv of the Central American are1also reaucst vou. Mr. Mi-
ni&, t~ authorizeihe necessary provisions so that Îhe mortal remains

of our compatriots killed in that lamentable incident may be returned ta
Ourcountr;. With assurances ofrnvhinhest consideration. -deardo Paz
Barnica, ~inister of Foreign ~ffarrs."

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Roberto MARTINEZORDOREZ,

Ambassador.

His Excellency Dr. Francisco Posada de la Pefia,
Chairman of the Permanent Council,
Organization of Amcrican Statcs,
Washington, D.C.

Document B
NOE NO.16184FROMTHEAMBASSADOR, PERMANER NTPRESENTATIVO EF
HONDURAS. TRANSCRtBlNC THE TEXTOF THE NOTEDATED MAY 9. 1984.
Sb.Nl HYTHEhllSlSrliR OFI:OKF.l(;S,\l:l:r\lKS~~FHO~UIIKI\STOTIINlSTEK

01:IOREICS Al:I:i\lRS 01: Sll'AKACiU,\

CPllNF.2162/84
10 May 1984
Original: Spanish

MISSION OFTHE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
TOTHEORGANIZATION OFAMERLCAN STATES

No. 16/84/MPH/OEA/CP May 10, 1984.

Excellency:

1have thehonor t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ur Excellencv to convev to vou. and throueh
your kindness. to the othcr representatives ofthe memger Gate; on gr-
manent Council, the text of the note sent by His Excellency Dr. Edgardo Paz ANNEXES TO THE MEMORlAL 271

Barnica, Minister of Foreign Affiiirs of Honduras, to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, which reads verbatim as follows:
"Official Note No. 338-DSM. Tegucigalpa, D.C., May 9, 1984. His

Excellency Miguel d'Exoto Brockmann, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Managua, Nicaragua. Excellency: 1 am addressing Your Excelleiicy to
reject the concepts of the note of protest that you addressed tome yes-
terday, on account of the brutal shooting down by anti-aircraft Sire of
the Sandinista army, of an unarmed personnel transport helicopter of
the Honduraii air force. Your Excellencv affirms. for obvious Durvoses,
that it was a matter of .two military helicopters coming from ond dur an
territory', when in truth it was just one helicopter that was transporting
a technical committec that was to do inspection work on constructions
at the naval basc at Amapala. Your Excellency goes on to say that 'the
helicopters having been detected by our armed forces, they proceeded
to repel thein, and succeeded in shooting down one of them'. It causes
real indignation that the iri-esponsibility of the Sandinista army should
have Ied it to 'repel', that i10say, violently to launch an armed attack

against, an unarmed personnel transport helicopter. If, as Your Excel-
lency maintains, the aircrafi. was detected by your armed forces, there is
no justification whatever for not having followed the normal procedure
in cases of this kind, that is to say, to warn the aircraft or establish radio
contact with it so that it mav be identified. orto order it to land. Rather
it seems that when the heliiopter was detected preparations were made
for shooting it down. Your Excellency points out, almost with pleasure
'they . .succeeded in shooting down one of them', a most reprehensible
action that, far from heing a heroic feat, is one more demonstration of
the total disrespect of the Ciovernment of Nicaragua for those most ele-
mentary procedures that should be ohserved in such situations, above
all. when the zone in which the helicooter was shot down does not av-

pear on the air navigation charts as a ;estricted. prohibited, or dang&-
ous zone. The aggressive attitude of and the use of force by the Govern-
ment of Nicaragua is in contrast to the action of the Government of
Honduras in similar cases. When on November 10, 1980, a helicopter
of the Sandinista air force type H500C violated Honduran air space and
was forced to land at the town of Duyure, Department of Choluteca, at
which lime the following crew members were captured: Captain Roberto
Sanchez, pilot Ernesto Venerio, and journalist Carlos Duran Palavicini.
The helicopter and its crew were returned unharmed, after the corres-
ponding record of the facts had been made. In the same way, on March
13, -~82. the then Col--~-~~f Aviation Walter Louez Reves. i,~~,s ca- ~~
pacity ai General Commander of the Honduran ~ir Force, delivered to
His Excellencv Dr. Guillermo Suarez Rivas, Amhassador Extraordi-

narv and ~leii&otcntiarv of the Renublic of Nicaraeua. the Douelas air-
crait, type ~-:7 (DC-3f of mott~ed camouflage cza re~istracon No.
FAS-208, belonyiny to the Sandinista air force of the Republic of Nica-
raeua. which ha> landed in irreeular circumstances on the afternoon of
s&day, March 7, al the ~oncozin international airport of Tegucigalpa.
For al1the reasons stated, the Government of Honduras repudiates this
most reprehensible act,a product of the warlike hysteria ofihe Govern-
ment of Nicaragua. 1 also wish to reject the rnalicious statement con-
tained in Your Excellency'ii note 10the effect that the inscription 'U.S.
Army Commander' was found on the tail of the aircraft, adding that272 HOR1)ER AND TRANSBORDER ARME ADCTIONS

that fact made one presume that it was a case of a helicopter belonging
to the United States armed forces. Malediction has no limits: even in
such sad circumstances, the attempt is made to distort the truth and to
draw an advantage out of a criminal act. The aircraft had a Honduran

flag and registration of the Honduran air force (FAH) UH1-8928, of
which Your Excellency perversely makes no mention. What is more, you
try perversely artiiicially to link the flight of the helicopter with alleged
'acts ofaggression' attributed to Honduras,when al1the persons found
aboard the unarmed helicopter were wïll-known Hondurans, including
distinguished university professors. No artifice will be valid for the
Managua régimeto cover up the brutality of this act or the treachery
with which it acted.This is the public explanation that the Government
of Honduras offers and that Your Excellencv sordidlv demands. The
Government of Honduras, in again rejecting the concepts and inaccura-
cies contained in Your Excellency's note of yesterday. reiterates its
stron..st .rotest to the Government of Nicaraaua-and demands the
ncic\s;iry s3lizf;l;liuiis i<irlhc <onllilclillis unjus1ili;ia<[. Willl
thc ;issurlnces of ni\ hiphest con\idcr:~iiun Edg,;iPa/oR:~rnicn.Slini-
ster of Foreign Affairs."

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Seal and signed) Roberto MARTINEZORDONEZ,

Ambassador.

His Excellency Dr. Francisco Posada de la Peiia,
Chairman of the Permanent Council,
Organization of American States,
Washington, D.C. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 50

NOTENO. 04186 FROM THE AMBASSADORP ,ERMANENTREPRESENTATIVE
OF HONDURAST , RANSCRIBING THE TEXT OF THE NOTEDATEDMARCH25,
1986.SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGNAFFAlRS OF HONDURAS 70 THE

MINISTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRSOFNICARAGUA

0EAISer.G
CPIINF.2392186
2 April 1986

Original: Spanish

MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

No. 04l86IMPHIOEAICP April 1, 1986.

Excellency:

1have the honor to address Your Excellency to convey to you, and through
,ou~ ~-~ ~ ~~ ~er.~tates reoresented on the Permanent Council.the tex1of the
note dated March 25,1986, bhicti the Govçrnment of on dura hass addressed

to the Government of Nicaragua to denounce the incursion of contingents of
the Sandinista Peoole's Arrnjinto Honduran territorv in the easternborder
area, Departmeni if Olancho.
The note reads as follows:

"Tegucigalpa, D.C., March 25, 1986.

Excellency:

I ;iii.iJ,lri.r~iiig >'c,urf\:cllciit<iiiiiiirn!i,iithxi riiCiu\crnnicnt
Il.,c~ri.~in.,nJ dul! conlirrnrJ rel>i,rijth:,[ :~~iiiiiigc.IIthc,S.iriJini*i.i
I'cc~Ic's ,\inil h:svc1ii1rud:J inrc!ll~>~~Jur:~icnrrit6Dr11lhc L.I\IC~IIbar-
der ka, ~eiartment of Olancho, and that they ha& fired artillery and
other weapons over Honduran territory. The actions to which 1 refer

took place las1week and this week. In anticipation of an increase in the
activities the Sandinista Peoolc's Armv has unleashed aeainst Honduran
territory, the Government if the ~eiublic has deployëd forces toward
the area in reference with orders to protect the population and to throw
back the Nicaraguan trooos. Uooi oresenting Your Excellencv the

~vnid~con~ ~ntations ihat could.endaneer the oeace betieen the two
Lountric, 711.~t~icc.q:tiii ;onipr<)mi\c th,, rcgio~iitlpc.~cï-m:sking~ili~rti

>paiiiz,>rc,l v tlic C.'uiit:iJ~,r;(iiroM)) (;to\criinic~nihclic\cith;,[ ihc
Ki<.ir.tgu;~nC;ovcrnriic~it11.4thc 111c,~,pih1cc>hlig:~t~c ~%deal ni111 [hi,
<Idnuniiaiion king niiidc ii#ioJ i.titl:inilalth 111:iIc\lrr. notiidcqr;i-
vatc the :rl\is $<hich.iur rc:lsonqknonn tu :III uf II>( c11tr:11mcric.alh:~s274 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED A~IONS

been exoeriencin- sincc the second half of 1979. Mv Government. Mr.
Minister. is countingon the Nicaraguan Government's taking the appro-
priate corrective measurcs and acting in the future in sucb a way that the
éventsdenounced will no1be repealed. Accept, Excellency. the renewed
assurances of my highest consideration. Carlos Lope2 Contreras, Secre-
tary of Foreign Affairs. To His Excellency. Mr. Miguel d'Escoto Brock-
mann, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Managua, Nicaragua."

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances ofy highest consideration.

Hernan ANTONIOBERMUDEZ,
Ambassador. Permanent Representative.

His Excellency Ambassador Fernando Andrade Diaz Duan,
Chairman of the Permanent Council,
Organization of American Statcs,
Washington, D.C. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL

Annex 51

INCURSION BY Tllli SANDINIBTA PEOPLE'SARMY

lNTOHONDURASFROM4 TO8 DECEMBER1986

A. CHRONOLOCY OF THE INVASION OF HONDURAS BY THE TROOPS OFTHE
SANDlNlSTA PEOPLE'S ARMY (SPA)(4 TO 8 DECEMBER1986)

4 Deceniber: A column of about 200 men of the SPA took the Honduran
town of Maquengales 7 kilometres (rom the border with Nicaragua which
they attacked at 12.10. in thatlocality there was only a small garrison of the
Honduran army, of 15 men.
The same dav. armed Sandinista helico~ters flew over Honduran territory.
5 Dert,,>rbcr '1hc 1lonJur:in Minisiry <,fI:oreisn Kcl:iti<~nspri>tc,I<iils

i\'icnr;igu~ncoun1crp;irt rcg;irding the cvcniof the prci,ii~u, J3y dr.ni.inding
repar:iiion for thc iI~m;icc. c;iuscd ;ind ihc rclc;isc <II[lie tlondur:~n siildicrs
captured by the SandiniGa troops.
6 December: Tlie SPA attackcd "Las Champas", with artillery and pene-
tratcd Moora and El Espanolito, installing positions from there to El Bosque.

The SPA on the same dav attacked the towns of Arenales. La Esoeranza.
Al:~qu~ng~~l(c,i~:tiii).Bur.ii;aV13ia.Sul>i<g:,ni~JEl Ahurridc,, ini;~IltIc~ndur:i~i
\iIl;rgc.. At 1twiheur,.thcrc un, fighiing in 1I.ri\'r*ta. PicxlraRi~lî:~ndFI
E\oanuliii~.,\t lOIli1Iiuiir\ 711itisni~fihc SPA. m:ikinp uu Ihrcr. coluniiis.
peketrated Honduran soi1as far as El Guano an4 El BOGU~.
The same day, the Ministry of Foreign Relations protested energetically 10
the Sandinista government, demanding ihat the invading troops be withdrawn
from Honduran territory and warning that if this did not occur' their expulsion
would be carried out.

The Nicaraguan Ministry of Foreign Relations responded by asserting that
it was false that Sandinista trooos had invaded Honduran territorv.
7 December: Given the Nicaraguan denial, the Honduran air force received
the order to bombard the Sandinista positions in Honduran territory. The
armv reinforced ils defensive installations and advanced towards the border.

witL the intention of expelling the invaders.
It was calculated that al that moment ap~roximately 2,500 Sandinista sol-
diers were within the national lerritory.
At that moment, the Sandinista troops began their retreat.
The Government of Honduras has provided Io the Security Council, al the

occasion of the meeting held on 10 December al the requcst of the Ciovern-
ment of Nicaragua, concrete evidence of the Sandinista penetration in our ter-
ritory. Amongst this evidence there appears a military instruction sheet iden-
tifying the Nicaraguan operative under the name of "General Benjamin
Zeledon", as well as identity cards of SPA soldiers, which were found in na-
tional territory.276 BORDER AND TRANSBORDERARhlED ACrlONS

B. NOTE FROMTHE MlNlSTEROF FOREIGNRELATIONSOF HONDURAS
TO THE FOREIGNMlNlSTER OF NICARAGUA,
5 UECEMBER 1986

Tegucigalpa, D.C., 5 Decembcr 19x6.

To His Excellency
Miguel d'Escoto Rrockmann.
Foreign Ministcr.
~angua. Nicaragua.

1am writing to you to hring to your attention the following facts:

1. Yesterday, Soviet-made helicopters belonging to the Sandinista airforce
overflew Honduran territory in the "Boca del Espanol" zone near the Poteca
river, on a mission of re-supply and the transport of wounded people. The
helicopters rcturned to their bases located in Nicaragua after complcling their
task.

11. In addition. also yesterday 4 December 1986 starting at 18.00 hours
until 01.00 hour 015 Dccembcr. 200 soldiers of the Sandinistzi Pcoplc's Army
attacked and occupied thc position of the national army of Honduras located
in "Las Mieles", near the Potïca rivcr. The platoon. made up of 15mcmhers,

which was defending the position, decided ta regroup 10 defend itself in an-
other position, given the numcrical superiority of the attacking army. During
the incident 3 Honduran troops were injured - Corporal Orlando Cruz
Gutierrez and thc soldiers Edil De Jesus Paguaga and Luis Alfredo Apli-
Cano -. at the same rime the Sandinista troops were capturing the Honduran
soldiers Alfonso Urraco Diaz and Oswaldo Lopez Andrade and seized arms
which were in the p<-,sscssionof the Honduran platoon. The attack was with-

out warning and carried out hy such a quantity of soldiers of the SPA that it
was logically impossible for the Honduran soldiers to rcsist il.

III. The Honduraii position is located approximatcly 7 kilometrcs from the
border with Nicaraoua and within Honduran territorv. This trcachcrous
attack of the SPA againsi a surveillance position of the national army of Hon-
duras is considered hy my Govcrnment as an act of extreme hosiility and dan-
ger for peaceful relaiions bçtween bath States.
Our army has provcd, beyond any doubt, that the attackers wcre mcmhers
of the SPA who, in violation of Honduran national terrilory, conimittcd an

act of exlremc eravilv.
T~ ~ -v~rn~ent ~f Ho~~~~-~~orotests formallv and eneroeticallv to the ,
Nicaraguan Gcivernment for this act of aggression, which resulted in the in-
iury of three Honduran soldiers and the capturinn of Iwo Honduran soldiers
and demands from il an investigation, and Ïhe coÏresponding cxplanation. as
well as the appropriate indemnification of the injured soldiers. and the return
of the captured soldiers and arms. In addition, the immediate cessation of
these acts, which escalate the political military crisis which Central America

is experiencing. is demanded. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL 277

1 reiterate tu the Minister the assurance of my high and distinguished
consideration.

Guillermo CACERESPINEDA,
Secretary of Foreign Relations by Law.

C. NOTE FROM THE MlNlSTER 01' FOREIGN RELATIONS OF HONDURAS
1'0 THE FOREIGN MINISTEK OF NICARAGUA.
6 DECEMBER 1986

Tegucigalpa. D.C.. 6 Decembcr 1986.

Tu His Excellency
Miguel d'Escoto Rrockmann.

Foreign Minister.
Managua. Nicaragua.
Yesterday moriiing, troops of the Sandinista People's Army attackcd the

Honduran villages of Maquengalcs, Buena Vista and La Espcranza, within the
jurisdiction of Trojes, in the department of El Paraiso. Information is being
collected regarding the quantity of human and material lusses. However. the
displacement of civil population living in the area was of considerablc dimen-
sions.
This brutal attack oeroetrated bv the SPA aeainst the civil Honduran

population, which liv; peacefully in the border%one, has escalated to an
intolcrable limit for the Governmcnt of Honduras and has created a situation
of military crisis which does not f'orma part of the peace plan that the Central
American countries havc traced for the future of the region.
My Government presents to the Government of Nicaragua, once again, an
energetic and formal protest against these acts which cannot remain without a
corresponding indemnification and it is for this reason that it demands from

your Government that it immediately proceed to the withdrawal of the troops
of the Sandinista People's Army from Honduran territory. If within a reason-
able time the high command of the SPA does not do so. the Honduran armed
lor~cs \\IIIpr,>cd~.dnith .(IlcnLrg\ 18)iliriult~l~ll~~ iit Ihclr ~~~n~111ul1~ ~l!1,il
C,IJci~iiJinr iliiii;iti.~n;ilicrritii.,ii,ih~ uncrcigni! 01 ihc ;ijiinir!.
hly Cic~\<rnmr.iiiJ;i~i.~nJ>.in .idditi<,n.fr<iiiiilic Ni;.ir,i~ut~n<ii,\r~riiiiiciii.

ilir.:.iiiipl:tr. in.1cniiiiii::iii01itlic .l.iiii.,~c.iu.r.J IO itic .-I\II p~~yiil.,ii<~n
.inJ tIic.~iiiiii:~Ii:~~.css;iiii>01 .,II Iicllircrcni .iciion\ wliiili :iri Ic;~.Iiihr.
~Icni~~~r,~l(ii:~ncrI~!ii:nt, cjt (.'cnlr.tl,\IIIC~IIL~18):I \%.Ir~V~ILt'lIiI, oc~lllcr
desire nor have sought,

1reiterate tu the Minister my distinguished and attentive consider;ition.

Guillermo CACERESPINEDA,
Secretary of Forïign Relations by Law.

-