American-Mexican Claims Commission

Last updated

The American-Mexican Claims Commission, officially known as the General Claims Commission (Mexico and United States,) was a commission set up by treaty that adjudicated claims by citizens of the United States and Mexico for losses suffered due to the acts of one government against nationals of the other. The General Commission lasted from 1924 to 1934, when the mixed U.S.-Mexico commission was abandoned. [1] There was a Special Commission that was set up to deal with claims arising from the era of the Mexican Revolution. Neither commission was successful and in 1934 the two governments engaged in direct bilateral negotiations and came to a settlement. [2]

Contents

History

Since Mexico's independence in 1821, the US and Mexico on a number of occasions had disputes over territory, taxation, and claims by US private citizens. Claims between 1825 and 1839 were arbitrated by a claims convention, on the suggestion of the Mexican government. The convention was established on April 11, 1839. [3] Subsequent commissions were constituted in 1839, following the Texas Revolt and claims following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), the Gadsden Treaty (1854), and the McLane–Ocampo Treaty (1859). [4] A commission was set up following the expulsion of the French in 1867, which was constituted on July 4, 1868. [5]

Mexican President Alvaro Obregon Obregon Salido, Alvaro.jpg
Mexican President Alvaro Obregón
U.S. President Calvin Coolidge Calvin Coolidge cph.3g10777.jpg
U.S. President Calvin Coolidge

The Commission was constituted under the terms of the General Claims Convention, signed September 8, 1923, in Washington, D.C., by the United States and the Mexico, during the administration of Mexican President Alvaro Obregón and U.S. President Calvin Coolidge (succeeding Warren G. Harding who died just a month earlier.) Obregón had sought U.S. diplomatic recognition for his government and engaged in bi-lateral talks with the U.S. over constitutional issues regarding oil, resulting in the Bucareli Treaty. The Mexican-U.S. General Claims Commission was another formal effort to renegotiate the relationship between the Mexico and the U.S. [6] The convention, which took effect on March 1, 1924, was intended to improve relations between the countries by forming a commission to settle claims arising after July 4, 1868,“against one government by nationals of the other for losses or damages suffered by such nationals or their properties” and “for losses or damages originating from acts of officials or others acting for either government and resulting in injustice.” [7] Excluded from the jurisdiction of the General Claims Commission were cases stemming from events related to revolutions or disturbed conditions in Mexico. [8]

The General Commission met from 1924 to 1931 in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City. Work resumed in 1934 under a new protocol and format, with two commissioners, Genaro Fernández MacGregor (Mexico) and Oscar Underwood, Jr., US, both appointed in 1934. [9]

The Special Claims Commission was formed to address claims arising from events which occurred between November 20, 1910, and May 31, 1920). [10] With the Special Commission, U.S. claims for losses were countered by the Mexican government's position that some losses were due to "bandits", such as Pancho Villa, and not "true revolutionaries." Villa's forces had killed some U.S. engineers at Santa Ysabel, and the engineers' heirs entered a claim for over US$1 million, which the Mexican commissioners rejected on the grounds that "Villa at that time was a private bandit whose unfortunate activities were of no concern or responsibility to the Mexican government." [11]

Neither the General Claims Commission nor the Special Claims Commission (which dealt with claims from the period of the Mexican Revolution were successful, in part due to differing estimates of damage and culpability, but also because political posturing made individual claims cause for the defense of national honor on both sides. [12] Claims by U.S. citizens with counterclaims by Mexicans asserted high value for their losses, in anticipation that only a percentage would be paid in the end. [13]

In 1934, direct bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and Mexican governments worked to settle the general and special claims through ordinary diplomatic channels. Compensation was established by an agreed-to formula (2.64% of face value) and claims were lumped together rather than examined on an individual basis. The compensation was paid in installments from one government to the other, to be parceled out by that government to the claimants. The quiet diplomacy rather than the bilateral commission accomplished the result of clearing the claims. [14]

Controversy

There are controversies regarding the treaty. For example, there are those who claim that the Bucareli Treaty prevented Mexico from producing specialized machinery (engines, airplanes, etc.) or precision machinery, so Mexico has not yet emerged from the technological backwardness caused by the treaty. [15] In addition to the fact that during the period between 1910 and 1930, civil wars and multiple military coups and internal rebellions (some sponsored by the United States and other foreign nations, such as Great Britain and Germany) devastated industries in Mexico, war reparations slowed higher education, as well as research and technological development, while social and political instability drove away foreign investment. [16]

Membership

The Commission was composed of three members, one from the U.S., one from Mexico, and one from a neutral country. [17] The commissioners were Cornelis van Vollenhoven of The Netherlands (neutral, served 1924 – August 30, 1927); [18] Kristian Sindballe of Denmark (served July 16, 1928 – July 1, 1929; [19] Horacio F. Alfaro, Panama, appointed by agreement of the two governments, serving from May 27, 1930. [20] Genaro Fernández MacGregor (Mexican, served continuously from 1924), [21] Edwin B. Parker (United States, served 1923 – resigned July 17, 1926), [22] Fred Kenelm Nielsen (United States, appointed July 31, 1926, served continuously from then on). [23]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Military Tribunal for the Far East</span> Post–World War II war crimes trials

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trial and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, was a military trial convened on 29 April 1946 to try leaders of the Empire of Japan for their crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity, leading up to and during the Second World War. The IMTFE was modeled after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, Germany, which prosecuted the leaders of Nazi Germany for their war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Álvaro Obregón</span> President of Mexico from 1920 to 1924

Álvaro Obregón Salido was a general in the Mexican Revolution. A pragmatic centrist, natural soldier, and able politician, he became the 46th President of Mexico from 1920 to 1924 and was assassinated in 1928 as President-elect. In the popular image of the Revolution, "Alvaro Obregón stood out as the organizer, the peacemaker, the unifier."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plutarco Elías Calles</span> President of Mexico from 1924 to 1928

Plutarco Elías Calles was a Mexican soldier and politician who served as President of Mexico from 1924 to 1928. After the assassination of Álvaro Obregón, Elías Calles founded the Institutional Revolutionary Party and held unofficial power as Mexico's de facto leader from 1929 to 1934, a period known as the Maximato. Previously, he served as a general in the Constitutional Army, as Governor of Sonora, Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Interior. During the Maximato, he served as Secretariat of Public Education, Secretary of War again, and Secretary of the Economy. During his presidency, he implemented many left-wing populist and secularist reforms, opposition to which sparked the Cristero War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chamizal dispute</span> 1852–1963 U.S.–Mexico border conflict caused by a shift in the Rio Grande

The Chamizal dispute was a border conflict over around 600 acres on the Mexico–United States border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. It was caused by a shift in the Rio Grande, as a survey presented in 1852 marked differences between the bed of the Rio Grande and the present channel of the river. Tensions over the territory during the historic Taft–Díaz summit almost resulted in the attempted assassination of both presidents on October 16, 1909.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War of aggression</span> Military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of International Trade</span> US court dealing with international trade and customs law

The United States Court of International Trade is a U.S. federal court that adjudicates civil actions arising out of U.S. customs and international trade laws. Seated in New York City, it exercises broad jurisdiction over most trade-related matters, and is permitted to hear and decide cases anywhere in the country, as well as abroad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Banana Wars</span> Series of conflicts in Central America

The Banana Wars were a series of conflicts that consisted of military occupation, police action, and intervention by the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898 and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934. The military interventions were primarily carried out by the United States Marine Corps, which also developed a manual, the Small Wars Manual (1921) based on their experiences. On occasion, the United States Navy provided gunfire support and the United States Army also deployed troops.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antonio María de Bucareli</span> Viceroy of New Spain

Antonio María de Bucareli y Ursúa was a Spanish military officer, governor of Cuba, and Viceroy of New Spain from 1771 until his death in 1779. His military service included campaigns in Italy and Portugal. He rose to the rank of lieutenant general while serving as inspector of coastal fortifications in Granada. In 1766, Bucareli entered the Spanish colonial administration as governor and captain general of Cuba. His record there earned him appointment as viceroy of New Spain in 1771.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Philippines (1898–1946)</span>

The history of the Philippines from 1898 to 1946 is known as the American colonial period, and began with the outbreak of the Spanish–American War in April 1898, when the Philippines was still a colony of the Spanish East Indies, and concluded when the United States formally recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mexico–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

Mexico and the United States have a complex history, with war in the 1840s and the subsequent American acquisition of more than 50% of former Mexican territory, including Texas, California, and New Mexico. Pressure from Washington forced the French invaders out in the 1860s. The Mexican Revolution of the 1910s saw many refugees flee North, and limited American invasions. Other tensions resulted from seizure of American mining and oil interests. The two nations share a maritime and land border. Several treaties have been concluded between the two nations bilaterally, such as the Gadsden Purchase, and multilaterally, such as the 2019 United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, replacing the 1994 NAFTA. Both are members of various international organizations, including the Organization of American States and the United Nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Manila (1946)</span> Treaty establishing Philippines as an independent sovereign state

The Treaty of Manila of 1946, formally the Treaty of General Relations and Protocol, is a treaty of general relations signed on July 4, 1946, in Manila, the capital of the Philippines. It relinquished U.S. sovereignty over the Philippines and recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines. The treaty was signed by High Commissioner Paul V. McNutt as representative of the United States and President Manuel Roxas as representative of the Philippines.

<i>Pious Fund of the Californias</i> Jesuit mission fund, subject of a major international tribunal

The Pious Fund of the Californias is a fund, originating in 1697, to sponsor the Roman Catholic Jesuit Spanish missions in Baja California, and Franciscan Spanish missions in Alta California in the Viceroyalty of New Spain from 1769 to 1823, and originally administered by the Jesuits. It became the object of litigation between the US and Mexican governments in the 19th century, with the resolution making legal history in The Hague in 1902.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Edward Brownlee sex scandal</span> 1934 scandal in Alberta, Canada

The John Brownlee sex scandal occurred in 1934 in Alberta, Canada, and forced the resignation of the provincial Premier, John Edward Brownlee. Brownlee was accused of seducing Vivian MacMillan, a family friend and a secretary for Brownlee's attorney-general in 1930, when she was 18 years old, and continuing the affair for three years. MacMillan claimed that the married premier had told her that she must have sex with him for his own sake and that of his invalid wife. She had, she testified, relented after physical and emotional pressure. Brownlee called her story a fabrication, and suggested that it was the result of a conspiracy by MacMillan, her would-be fiancé, and several of Brownlee's political opponents in the Alberta Liberal Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Territorial evolution of the Caribbean</span>

This is a timeline of the territorial evolution of the Caribbean and nearby areas of North, Central, and South America, listing each change to the internal and external borders of the various countries that make up the region.

Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), or an investment court system (ICS), is a set of rules through which countries can be sued by foreign investors for certain state actions affecting the investments (FDI) of that investor by that state. This most often takes the form of international arbitration between the foreign investor and nation. For the rules to be effective, they must have been agreed upon between the states concerned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Holman Gregory</span> British politician

Sir Henry Holman Gregory was an English lawyer, judge and Liberal Party politician.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saavedra Lamas Treaty</span> 1933 multilateral treaty

The Anti-war Treaty of Non-aggression and Conciliation was an inter-American treaty signed in Rio de Janeiro on October 10, 1933. It was the brain-child of Carlos Saavedra Lamas, who was the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time the treaty was concluded. It was signed by representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay. The US government acceded to the treaty on August 10, 1934. The treaty went into effect on November 13, 1935. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on November 28, 1935.

The Bucareli Treaty, officially the Convención Especial de Reclamaciones, was an agreement signed on August 13, 1923 between México and United States. It settled losses by US companies during the Mexican Revolution. It also dealt with the illegality of potential expropriating American landholding and subsoils for the sake of Mexican public use as well as the ways of calculating compensation and forms of payment, given expropriation was well needed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Venezuelan crisis of 1895</span> Political crisis in Venezuela in the 19th century

The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 occurred over Venezuela's longstanding dispute with Great Britain about the territory of Essequibo and Guayana Esequiba, which Britain claimed as part of British Guiana and Venezuela saw as Venezuelan territory. As the dispute became a crisis, the key issue became Britain's refusal to include in the proposed international arbitration the territory east of the "Schomburgk Line", which a surveyor had drawn half-a-century earlier as a boundary between Venezuela and the former Dutch territory ceded by the Dutch in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814, later part of British Guiana. The crisis ultimately saw Britain accept the United States' intervention in the dispute to force arbitration of the entire disputed territory, and tacitly accept the US right to intervene under the Monroe Doctrine. A tribunal convened in Paris in 1898 to decide the matter, and in 1899 awarded the bulk of the disputed territory to British Guiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in California</span> Land rights of indigenous peoples

Aboriginal title in California refers to the aboriginal title land rights of the indigenous peoples of California. The state is unique in that no Native American tribe in California is the counterparty to a ratified federal treaty. Therefore, all the Indian reservations in the state were created by federal statute or executive order.

References

  1. ↑ Cline, Howard F.; The United States and Mexico. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1961, p. 209.
  2. ↑ Cline; U.S. and Mexico, p. 209.
  3. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1823–1934: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1935, pp. 2–3.
  4. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions, pp. 3–6.
  5. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 6.
  6. ↑ Cline; The United States and Mexico. pp. 208–09.
  7. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 322.
  8. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 322.
  9. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions.
  10. ↑ Feller; The Mexican Claims Commissions p. 385.
  11. ↑ Cline; U.S. and Mexico, p. 209.
  12. ↑ Cline; U.S. and Mexico, p. 208.
  13. ↑ Cline; U.S. and Mexico, p. 208.
  14. ↑ Cline; U.S. and Mexico, p. 209.
  15. ↑ Flores, Asdrúbal (2003). Protocolo Secreto De Los Tratados De Bucarelli (Ficción). México, D. F.: Galileo Ediciones. p. 258. ISBN   9685429022.
  16. ↑ Rosas, Alejandro: "Mitos de la historia mexicana. De Hidalgo a Zedillo"]], Mexico, Editorial Planeta, 2006. ISBN 970-37-0555-3
  17. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1823–34: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1935, p. 42.
  18. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1823–34: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1935, p. 44.
  19. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1823–34: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1935, p. 44.
  20. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1823–34: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1935, p. 45.
  21. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 44.
  22. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 44.
  23. ↑ Feller, A. H.; The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 44.

Further reading


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.