April 30, 1948
In the name of their peoples, the Governments represented at the Ninth International Conference of American States have resolved, in fulfillment of Article XXIII of the Charter of the Organization of American States, to conclude the following Treaty:
GENERAL OBLIGATION TO SETTLE DISPUTES BY PACIFIC MEANS
ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties, solemnly reaffirming their commitments made in earlier international conventions and declarations, as well as in the Charter of the United Nations, agree to 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 recourse at all times to pacific procedures.
ARTICLE II. The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to settle international controversies by regional procedures before referring them to the Security Council of the United Nations.
Consequently, in the event that a controversy arises between two or more signatory states which, in the opinion of the parties, cannot be settled by direct negotiations through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties bind themselves to use the procedures established in the present Treaty, in the manner and under the conditions provided for in the following articles, or, alternatively, such special procedures as, in their opinion, will permit them to arrive at a solution.
ARTICLE III. The order of the pacific procedures established in the present Treaty does not signify that the parties may not have recourse to the procedure which they consider most appropriate in each case, or that they should use all these procedures, or that any of them have preference over others except as expressly provided.
ARTICLE IV. Once any pacific procedure has been initiated, whether by agreement between the parties or in fulfillment of the present Treaty or a previous pact, no other procedure may be commenced until that procedure is concluded.
ARTICLE V. The aforesaid procedures may not be applied to matters which, by their nature, are within the domestic jurisdiction of the state. If the parties are not in agreement as to whether the controversy concerns a matter of domestic jurisdiction, this preliminary question shall be submitted to decision by the International Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties.
ARTICLE VI. The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE VII. The High Contracting Parties bind themselves not to make diplomatic representations in order to protect their nationals, or to refer a controversy to a court of international jurisdiction for that purpose, when the said nationals have had available the means to place their case before competent domestic courts of the respective
ARTICLE VIII. Neither recourse to pacific means for the solution of con
troversies, nor the recommendation of their use, shall, in the case of an armed attack, be ground for delaying the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.
PROCEDURES OF GOOD OFFICES AND MEDIATION
PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION AND CONCILIATION
ARTICLE 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:
a) 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 members shall in turn choose a fifth member, from the permanent panel, not of the nationality of either party.
c) If, within a period of thirty days following the notification of their selection, the four members are unable to agree upon a fifth member, they shall each separately list 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 person so elected shall perform the duties of chairman of the Commission.
ARTICLE XX. In convening the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation, the Council of the Organization of American States shall determine the place where the Commission 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 its work.
ARTICLE XXI. When more than two states are involved in the same controversy, the states that hold similar points of view shall be considered as a single party. If they have different interests they shall be entitled to increase the number of conciliators in order that all parties may have equal representation. The chairman shall be elected in the manner set forth in Article XIX.ARTICLE =II. It shall be the duty of the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation to clarify the points in dispute between the parties and to endeavor to bring about an agreement between them upon mutually acceptable terms. The Commission shall institute such investigations of the facts involved in the controversy as it may deem necessary for the purpose of proposing acceptable bases of settlement.
b) Any question of international law;
c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute the breach of an international obligation;
d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
PROCEDURE OF ARBITRATION
ARTICLE =VIII. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter Four of this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties may, if they so agree, submit to arbitration differences of any kind, whether juridical or not, that have arisen or may arise in the future between them.
a) If the lists presented by the parties contain three names in common, such persons, together with the two directly named by the parties, shall constitute the Arbitral Tribunal;
b) In case these lists contain more than three names in common, the three arbiters needed to complete the Tribunal shall be selected by lot;
c) In the circumstances envisaged in the two preceding clauses, the five arbiters designated shall choose one of their number as presiding officer;
d) If the lists contain only two names in common, such candidates and the two arbiters directly selected by the parties shall by common agreement choose the fifth arbiter, who shall preside over the Tribunal. The choice shall devolve upon a jurist on the aforesaid general panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who has not been included in the lists drawn up by the parties;
e) If the lists contain only one name in common, that person shall be a member of the Tribunal, and another name shall be chosen by lot from among the eighteen jurists remaining on the above-mentioned lists. The presiding officer shall be elected in accordance with the procedure established in the preceding clause;
f) If the lists contain no names in common, one arbiter shall be chosen by lot from each of the lists; and the fifth arbiter, who shall act as presiding officer, shall be chosen in the manner previously indicated;
g) If the four arbiters cannot agree upon a fifth arbiter within one month after the Council of the Organization has notified them of their appointment, each of them shall separately arrange the list of jurists in the order of their preference and, after comparison of the lists so formed, the person who first obtains a majority vote shall be declared elected.
ARTICLE XLI. The parties may by mutual agreement establish the Tribunal in the manner they deem most appropriate; they may even select a single arbiter, designating in such case a chief of state, an eminent jurist, or any court of justice in which the parties have mutual confidence.
ARTICLE XLII. When more than two states are involved in the same controversy, the states defending the same interests shall be considered as a single party. If they have opposing interests they shall have the right to increase the number of arbiters so that all parties may have equal representation. The presiding officer shall be selected by the method established in Article XL.ARTICLE XLIII. The parties shall in. each case draw up a special agreement clearly defining the specific matter that is the subject of the controversy, the seat of the Tribunal, the rules of procedure to be observed, the period within which the award is to be handed down, and such other conditions as they may agree upon among themselves.
If the special agreement cannot be drawn up within three months after the date of the installation of the Tribunal, it shall be drawn up by the International Court of Justice through summary procedure, and shall be binding upon the parties.
ARTICLE XLIV. The parties may be represented before the Arbitral Tribunal by such persons as they may designate.
ARTICLE XLV. If one of the parties fails to designate its arbiter and present its list of candidates within the period provided for in Article XL, the other party shall have the right to request the Council of the Organization to establish the Arbitral Tribunal. The Council shall immediately urge the deli�~'quent party to fulfill its obligations within an additional period of fifteen days, after which time the Council itself shall establish the Tribunal in the following manner
a) It shall select a name by lot from the list presented by the petitioning party.
b) It shall choose, by absolute majority vote, two jurists from the 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 three persons so designated, together with the one directly chosen by the petitioning party, shall select the fifth arbiter, who shall act as presiding officer, in the manner provided for in Article XL.
d) Once the Tribunal is installed, the procedure established in article XLIII shall be followed.
ARTICLE XLVI. The award shall be accompanied by a supporting opinion, shall be adopted by a majority vote, and shall be published. after notification thereof has been given to the parties. The dissenting arbiter or arbiters shall have the right to state the grounds for their dissent.
The award, once it is duly handed down and made known to the parties, shall settle the controversy definitively,
shall not be subject to appeal, and shall be carried out immediately.
ARTICLE XLVII. Any differences that arise in regard to the interpretation or execution of the award shall be submitted to the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that rendered the award.
FULFILLMENT OF DECISIONS
The petition shall be made through the Council of the Organization of American States.
3. The acceptance by the United States of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, as provided in this Treaty, is limited by 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 at the time of the submission of any case.4. The Government of the United States cannot accept Article VII relating to diplomatic protection and the exhaustion of remedies. For its part, the Government of the United States maintains the rules of diplomatic protection, including the rule of exhaustion of local remedies by aliens, as provided by international law.
3. Reservation with regard to Article XXXV, in the sense that, before arbitration is resorted to, there may be, at the request of one of the parties, a meeting of the Organ of Consultation, as established in the Charter of the Organization of American States.
4. Reservation with regard to Article XLV, because it believes that arbitration set up without the participation of one of the parties is in contradiction with its constitutional provisions."Nicaragua:
"The Nicaraguan Delegation, on giving its approval to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogot�) wishes to record expressly that no provisions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice any position assumed by the Government of Nicaragua with respect to arbitral decisions the validity of which it has contested on the basis of the principles of international law, which clearly permit arbitral decisions to be attacked when they are adjudged to be null or invalidated. Consequently, the signature of the Nicaraguan Delegation to the Treaty in question cannot be alleged as an acceptance of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the validity of which is not certain.
Hence the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterates the statement made on the 28th of the current month on approving the text of the above-mentioned Treaty in Committee III."
Honduras: M. A. BATREs, RAM6N E. CRUZ, VIROILIO R. G�LVEz.
Chile: J. HERN.ANDEZ, JULIo BARRENECREA, J. RAM6N GUTI�RREz, W. MULLER, D. BASS!, E. BARRos JARPA, GASPAR MoRA SoTOMAYoR, RODRIGO GONZ�LEZ.
Uruguay: DARDO REGULES, JUAN F. GUICH�N, BLANCA. MIERES DE BoTTo, CARLOS MANINI R�os, NILO BERCHESI, HAcrOR A. GRAUERT, GEN. PEDRO SICCO, R. P�RIZ COELHO, PEDRO CHOUHY TERRA, Jost A. MORA. ARIOSTO D. GONZ�LEZ.
Guatemala: L. CARDOZA Y ARAG�N, VIRGILIO RODR�GUEZ BETETA, M. NORIEGA M., J. L. MENDOZA, JosA M. SARAVIA.
United States of America: NORMAN
ARMOUR, WILLARD L. BEAULAC, WILLIAM D. PAWLEY, WALTER J. DONNELLY, PAUL C. DANIELS.
Haiti: GUSTAVE LARAQUE, J. L. DEJEAN.
Venezuela: R�MULO BETANCOURT, LUIS LANDER, Jost RAFAEL POCATERRA, MARIANO PIC�N SALAS.
Paraguay: C�SAR A. VASCONSELLOS, AUGUSTO SALDIVAR.
RESERVATIONS MADE AT THE TIME
Nicaragua: With the reservation made at the time of signature.
September 1, 1955
1. With reservations.
The original instrument is deposited with the Pan American Union, which is also the depository of the instruments of ratification. The Treaty entered into force on May 6, 1949, when the second ratification was deposited by Costa Rica. It was registered with the United Nations on May 13, 1949 (Reg. No. 449, Vol. 30).
As this Treaty enters into force, through the successive ratifications of the Parties, the treaties, conventions and protocols mentioned in Article LVIII cease to be in force with respect to such Parties.
A-42: AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT (PACT OF BOGOTA)
ADOPTED AT: BOGOTA, COLOMBIA DATE: 04/30/48
CONF/ASSEM/MEETING: NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES ENTRY INTO FORCE: 05/06/49, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE LIII OF THE TREATY DEPOSITORY: GENERAL SECRETARIAT, OAS (ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT AND RATIFICATIONS)
TEXT: OAS, TREATY SERIES, NOS. 17 AND 61
UN REGISTRATION: 05/13/49 No. 449 Vol. 30
OBSERVATIONS: As this Treaty enters into force through the successive ratifications of the Parties, the treaties, conventions and protocols mentioned in Article LVIII cease to be in force with respect to such Parties.
GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A-42
|Antigua & Barbuda||-||-||-||-|
|Costa Rica||04/30/48||04/27/49||05/06/49 RA||-|
|Dominican Republic||04/30/48||08/04/50||09/12/50 RA||-|
|El Salvador||04/30/48||08/15/50||09/11/50 RA||-|
|St. Kitts & Nevis||-||-||-||-|
|St. Vincent & Grenadines||-||-||-||-|
|Trinidad & Tobago||-||-||-||-|
A-42. AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT "PACT OF BOGOTA" 1. Argentina: (Reservation made at the time of signature) The Delegation of the Argentine Republic, on signing the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogot�), makes reservations in regard to the following articles, to which it does not adhere: 1) Article VII, concerning the protection of aliens: 2) Chapter Four (Articles XXXI to XXXVII), Judicial Procedure: 3) Chapter Five (Articles XXXVIII to XLIX), Procedure of Arbitration; 4) Chapter Six (Article L), Fulfillment of Decisions. Arbitration and judicial procedure have, as institutions, the firm adherence of the Argentine Republic, but the Delegation cannot accept the form in which the procedures for their application have been regulated, since, in its opinion, they should have been established only for controversies arising in the future and not originating in or having any relation to causes, situations or facts existing before the signing of this instrument. The compulsory execution of arbitral or judicial decisions and the limitation which prevents the states from judging for themselves in regard to matters that pertain to their domestic jurisdiction in accordance with Article V are contrary to Argentine tradition. The protection of aliens, who in the Argentine Republic are protected by its Supreme Law to the same extent as the nationals, is also contrary to that tradition. 2. Bolivia: (Reservation made at the time of signature) The Delegation of Bolivia makes a reservation with regard to Article VI, inasmuch as it considers that pacific procedures may also be applied to controversies arising from matters settled by arrangement between the Parties, when the said arrangement affects the vital interests of a state. 3. Ecuador: (Reservation made at the time of signature) The Delegation of Ecuador, upon signing this Pact, makes an express reservation with regard to Article VI and also every provision that contradicts or is not in harmony with the principles proclaimed by or the stipulations contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, or the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. 4. United States: (Reservations made at the time of signature) 1. The United States does not undertake as the complainant State to submit to the International Court of Justice any controversy which is not considered to be properly within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The submission on the part of the United States of any controversy to arbitration, as distinguished from judicial settlement, shall be dependent upon the conclusion of a special agreement between the parties to the case. 3. The acceptance by the United States of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, as provided in this Treaty, is limited by 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 at the time of the submission of any case. 4. The Government of the United States cannot accept Article VII relating to diplomatic protection and the exhaustion of remedies. For its part, the Government of the United States maintains the rules of diplomatic protection, including the rule of exhaustion of local remedies by aliens, as provided by international law. 5. Nicaragua: (Reservation made at the time of signature) The Nicaraguan Delegation, on giving its approval to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogot�) wishes to record expressly that no provisions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice any position assumed by the Government of Nicaragua with respect to arbitral decisions the validity of which it has contested on the basis of the principles of international law, which clearly permit arbitral decisions to be attacked when they are adjudged to be null or invalidated. Consequently, the signature of the Nicaraguan Delegation to the Treaty in question cannot be alleged as an acceptance of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the validity of which is not certain. Hence the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterates the statement made on the 28th of the current month on approving the text of the above- mentioned Treaty in Committee III.
(Reservation made at the time of ratification) With the reservation made at the time of signature. 6. Paraguay: (Reservation made at the time of signature) Paraguay stipulates the prior agreement of the parties as a prerequisite to the arbitration procedure established in this Treaty for every question of a non-juridical nature affecting national sovereignty and not specifically agreed upon in treaties now in force. 7. Peru: (Reservation made at the time of signature) 1. Reservation with regard to the second part of Article V, because it considers that domestic jurisdiction should be defined by the state itself. 2. Reservation with regard to Article XXXIII and the pertinent part of Article XXXIV, inasmuch as it considers that the exceptions of res judicata, resolved by settlement between the parties or governed by agreements and treaties in force, determine, in virtue of their objective and peremptory nature, the exclusion of these cases from the application of every procedure. 3. Reservation with regard to Article XXXV, in the sense that, before arbitration is resorted to, there may be, at the request of one of the parties, a meeting of the Organ of Consultation, as established in the Charter of the Organization of American States. 4. Reservation with regard to Article XLV, because it believes that arbitration set up without the participation of one of the parties is in contradiction with its constitutional provisions.
Peru confirmed the reservations at the time of the ratification.
On February 27th, 2006, Peru notified the General Secretariat of the OAS of the withdrawal of the reservations made to articles V, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XLV of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, "Pact of Bogota". 8. 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, must be interpreted in the light of paragraph No. 2 of Resolution XXIX adopted at the Eighth International Conference of American States. Permanent Panel of American Conciliators (Information provided in accordance with Article XVIII) On August 19, 1987, the Government of Chile notified the General Secretariat the appointment of Messrs. Julio Phillipi Izquierdo and Helmut Brunner Noerr to be members of the Permanent Panel of American Conciliators for a three year period. Such period started on October 21, 1987, the date on which the General Secretariat received from Messrs. Phillipi and Brunner the acceptance of their appointments.