The Reasons of The Court
The court rejected both the uti possidetis principle and the oceanic principle because:
- «...In the particular case of the 1881 Treaty no useful purpose would be served by attempting to resolve doubts or conflicts regarding the Treaty, merely by referring to the very same principle or doctrine, the uncertain effect of which in the territorial relations between the Parties, had itself caused the Treaty to be entered into, as constituting the only (and intendedly final) means of resolving this uncertainty. To proceed in such a manner would merely be to enter a circulus inextricabilis....»
The tribunal considered that the exchange of Patagonia for the Strait of Magellan was the transaction behind the 1881 treaty:
- «...This was what Chile conceded by giving up a claim that still had enough vitality and content, at least politically, to make its final abandonment of primary importance to Argentina. It is on this basis, as well as on the actual attribution of Patagonian territory to Argentina effected by Article II of the Treaty, that the Court reaches the conclusion that it was the antithesis Patagonia/Magellan, rather than Magellan/Atlantic, which constituted the fundamental element of the Treaty settlement....»
After careful consideration of all possible word meanings and interpretations of the text, the court refused the Atlantic clause:
- «... The Argentine interpretation depends on subjecting the text to a process, not exactly of amendment, but of what is known as emendation, i.e. adjustment to accommodate a different outlook. This is in no way an illegitimate proceeding as such, —but its acceptability in any given case must depend on how compelling are the reasons that operate to support it, and also on the degree of adjustment entailed. The following are the adaptations that would be required:...»
Read more about this topic: Beagle Channel Arbitration
Famous quotes containing the words reasons and/or court:
“In short, if there were external bodies, it is impossible we should ever come to know it; and if there were not, we might have the very same reasons to think there were that we have now.”
—George Berkeley (16851753)
“In the court of the movie Owner, none criticized, none doubted. And none dared speak of art. In the Owners mind art was a synonym for bankruptcy.... The movie Owners are the only troupe in the history of entertainment that has never been seduced by the adventure of the entertainment world.”
—Ben Hecht (18931964)