Page 61 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the each river, "notwithstanding any alterations in the banks
Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space. 40 or in the course of those rivers, provided that such altera-
4-4. Extent of Territory. a. Having examined the tions be effected by natural causes through the slow and
various means by which states may acquire territory over gradual erosion and deposit of alluvium. .. ." Other
which to exercise jurisdiction, attention must next be changes brought about by the force of the current, such as
directed toward the extent of this territory. Such an the sudden abandonment of an existing river bed and the
analysis generally entails an examination of land, river, opening of a new one ("avulsion"), were to produce no
and lake boundaries. In this regard, spedic provisions of change in the dividmg line, which would continue to
Restatement, Second, serve as pronouncements of the follow the middle of the original channel bed, even
relevant international legal norms. though this should become wholly dry or obstructed by
deposits. 42 In 1889, an International Boundary Commis-
RESTATEMENT, SECOND, FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES (1965)
sion was created by agreements between the United States
4 12. Land, River, and Lake Boundaries and Mexico and charged with the task of deciding whether
(1) The boundary separating the land areas of two states is deter- changes in the course of the Colorado River and the Rio
mined by acts of the states expressing their consent to its location. Grande had occurred "through avulsion or erosion" for
(2) Unless consent to a different rule has been expressed, the purposes of the 1884 treaty. 43 In 1895 a dispute arose
(a) when the boundary between two states is a navigable river, over a tract of land in El Paso, Texas, known as "El
its location is the middle of the channel of navigation;
(b) when the boundary between two states is a nonnavigable Charnixal." Each country claimed the entire tract. The
river or a lake, its location is the middle of the river or lake. Boundary Commission was unable to agree on the bound-
Comment ary line, and a convention was signed by the two govern-
a. Land boundaries. . . . Many boundary disputes have been settled ments on June 24, 1910, establishing a commission to
by peaceful means including, in particular, boundary conventions and "decide solely and exclusively as to whether the interna-
arbitration, as in the case of the continental land boundaries of the
United States. Because, in a dority of cases,the location of land bound- tional title to the Chamizal tract is in the United States of
aries between states is defmed by agreement (frequently as interpreted America or Mexico." 44 In rendering the award, the
by arbitration) almost no smc principles of international law have Presiding Commissioner of the arbitral tribunal, with the
developed in this field. Mexican Commissioner concurring in part, said:
b. Thalweg doctrine. The rule locating the boundary in the middle of
the channel of navigation rather than the middle of the stream is called . .. [Tlhe Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner are
of the opinion that the accretions which occurred in the Chamizal tract
the "thalweg" doctrine. See Louisiana v. Miissippi, 202 U.S. 1, 26 up to the time of the great flood in 1864 should be awarded to the
S.Ct. 408,50 L.Ed.913 (1906); New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361,
54 S.Ct. 407, 78 L.Ed.847 (1934). United States of America, and that inasmuch as the changes which oc-
c. Effect of nanrral shifr. In disputes between the states of the United curred in that year did not constitute slow and gradual erosion within the
States, the Supreme Court has applied the distinction between accretion meaning of the Convention of 1884, the balance of the tract should be
and avulsion, under which the boundary between two states shifts with awarded to Mexico. 45
the gradual shifting of the channel caused by erosion and deposit of The American Commissioner dissented. At the session of
alluvium (accretion) but does not shift when the river is suddenly the Commission in which the award was read, the agent
diverted from the previous channel (avulsion). See Nebraska v. Iowa,
143 U.S. 359, 12 S.Ct. 396,36 L.Ed.186; Arkansasv. Tennessee, 246 for the United States protested against the decision and
U.S. 158, 38 S.Ct. 301, 62 L.Ed.638 (1918); 12 Am.J. Int'l L. 648 award, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(1918). . . . 1. Because it departs from the terms of submission in the following
particulars:
Although, as noted in the Comment to Q 12, the majority a. Because in dividing the Chamizal tract is assumes to decide a
of land boundaries are defined by srnic agreement be- question not submitted to the commission by the convention of 1910
tween the states concerned, disputes still arise concerning and a question the commission was not asked to decide by either party at
the proper interpretation or application of such agree- any stage of the proceedings;
ments. 41 One such boundary dispute of long standing in- b. Because it fails to apply the standard prescribed by the Treaty of
volved the U.S. and Mexico. Inasmuch as this dispute in- 1884;
c. Because it applied to the determination of the issue of erosion or
volves several of the concepts spoken to in § 12 of the avulsion a ruling or principle not authorized by the terms of the submis-
Restatement, it is of particular interest. sion or by the principles of international law or embraced in any of the
b. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and treaties or conventions existing between the United States and Mexico;
d. Because it departs from the jurisdictional provision of the Treaty
the Gadsden Treaty of 1953, the United States and Mex-
of 1889 creating the International Boundary Commission. 46
ico attempted to fix the boundary line between their
respective territories. Because the Colorado and Rio Shortly after the Commission had adjourned, the United
Grande Rivers constantly shifted their channels, the two States notified Mexico ". . . [fJor the reasons set forth by
countries agreed in 1884 that the dividingline should con- 42. 24 Stat. 101 1, 1 Malloy 1159.
tinue to "follow the center of the normal channel" of 43. 26 Stat. 1512, 1 Malloy 1167.
44. 36 Stat. 2481, 2483.
40. 19 U.S.T. 7570; T.I.A.S. 6599; 672 U.N.T.S. 119. 45. Charnizal Arbitration (tTnited States v. Mexico), [I91 1) For
41. Seecase Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, (19621 I.C.J. Re1 U.S. 572, 586 (Int'l Boundary Commission 191 1).
6. 46. Id. at 597-98.