….

Recalling that, in the Bogota Declaration of 6 August 1977, it was agreed that "a solution of the Belize question should be found by the peaceful methods consecrated in the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, and in accordance with respect for its territorial integrity and with the principle of the free self-determination of peoples",

Bearing in mind the relevant parts of the Declarations of the Conference of
Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Belgrade from 25 to 30 July 1978,

Reiterating its conviction that the people of Belize should be assisted in a
practical manner to exercise freely and without fear their inalienable right to
self-determination, independence and territorial integrity.

Deeply regretting the continued failure of the parties concerned to conclude an
agreement in conformity with the principles established in General Assembly resolutions 3432 (XXX), 31/50 and 32/32, and the resultant delay in the speedy achievement of the secure independence of Belize,

     1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination and independence;

     2. Reaffirms that the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved;

     3. Urges the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala to pursue vigorously their negotiations with a view to settling their differences over Belize, without prejudice to the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, and further the peace and stability of the region, and in this connexion to consult as appropriate with other especially interested States in the area;

     4. Requests the Governments concerned to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session on the outcome of the negotiations referred to above;

     5. Calls upon the parties involved to refrain from any threats or use of force against the people of Belize or their territory;

     6. Recognizes that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to take all necessary steps to enable the people of Belize to exercise freely and without fear their right to self-determination and to a firm and early independence;

     7. Urges all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, and to render all practical assistance necessary for the secure and early exercise of that right;

     8. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to remain seized of the question and to assist the people of Belize in the exercise of their inalienable rights.

22. At that Thirty-Third Session, the representative of the United Kingdom described rather more fully "a new approach...aimed at eliminating the original cause of the dispute" in these terms:

Now, however, his Government believed that it should make known publicly what those proposals were. His country had been engaged in negotiations with the Government of Guatemala for three years in an attempt to find a settlement. The Guatemalans had wanted territory to be included in a settlement and, while the United Kingdom had been prepared, without commitment, to examine that possibility, it had proved to be unacceptable, not only to the representatives of the people of Belize, but also to other States in the region, including some Latin American members of the Organization of American States, which had been concerned at the implications of any change in Latin American boundaries. Thus, after consultation with the Belizean parties and in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding which they had signed on 5 June 1978, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had suggested to the Guatemalan Minister for Foreign Affairs at their meeting in New York in September 1978 that a new approach should be adopted aimed at eliminating the original cause of the dispute...

Guatemala's claim to the Territory of Belize had first been formulated in 1939 on the grounds that article VII of the 1859 Treaty, by which Guatemala had recognized the then-existing boundaries of Belize, had not been fulfilled. The fact that the road from Guatemala City to the Caribbean coast referred to in that article had never been built jointly had led to Guatemala's current claim. A road to the Caribbean coast had subsequently been built by the Guatemalans alone. Successive Guatemalan Governments had stressed the need for better access to the Guatemalan province of Peten, which was adjacent to Belize, and the United Kingdom had therefore proposed in September 1978 that it would help with a major road project which would aid in developing the Peten. That project would be the modern equivalent of the provisions of article VII of the 1859 Treaty. The United Kingdom had also proposed that Guatemala should enjoy free port facilities in Belize City and should have access by road to the port. The free port facilities would enable Guatemala to import and export goods from the Peten by the most direct route and free of customs formalities. The Guatemalan Government had also stressed the need for secure, permanent and guaranteed access to the sea from its Caribbean ports and, while it currently enjoyed such access, it believed that it might be deprived of it after Belize became independent. The United Kingdom had therefore proposed that a seaward boundary should be agreed by treaty as part of the settlement, guaranteeing Guatemala permanent secure access from its ports to the high seas through its own territorial sea. Such an agreement would eliminate all doubts and problems for the future. The United Kingdom had further suggested that a separate treaty of amity and mutual security should be concluded between Belize and Guatemala, with provisions covering non-aggression and subversion, to ensure the security of the area. The provisions would include limitations on the stationing of foreign, but not British, armed forces.

…His delegation believed that those proposals were constructive and fair to both sides. Guatemala's complaint that the road envisaged under the 1859 Treaty had never been built would be satisfied. In addition, it would gain greatly improved communications to aid in the development of the Peten, and permanent access to its Caribbean ports through its own territorial sea would be guaranteed by the treaty. Belize would gain security once the problem had been settled and the Guatemalan claim had been withdrawn, and would have an agreed seaward boundary which would eliminate future disputes. The settlement of the problem would enable Belize to move towards secure independence and to concentrate on the development of the country, which had been inhibited by the uncertainty caused by the dispute".

23. In 1979, at its Thirty-Fourth Session, the General Assembly restated its by now standard approach as follows in Resolution 34/38:

The General Assembly,
…

Taking note of the part of the Political Declaration adopted by the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9 September 1979, relating to Belize, in particular the statement that the Conference reiterated its unconditional support for the Belizean people's inalienable right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and condemned all pressure or threats to prevent full exercise of that right,

Reaffirming the principles established in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and peoples, set out in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, in particular that all peoples have the right to self-determination, by virtue of which right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

Recognizing the special responsibility of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, to take urgent and necessary steps to enable the people of Belize to exercise freely and without fear their right to self-determination and to the firm and early independence of all of their territory,

Noting with regret the continuing failure of the parties concerned to settle their differences in a manner which will not prejudice the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly,

     1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and the preservation of the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize;

     2. Urges the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala to continue their efforts to conclude their negotiations without prejudice to the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and in furtherance of the peace and stability of the region and, in this connexion, to consult as appropriate with other specially interested States in the region;

     3. Requests the Governments concerned to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session on any arrangements which have been made to enable the people of Belize to exercise freely and without fear their right to self-determination and an early and secure independence;

     4. Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from exerting any pressure or the use of threats or force against the Government and people of Belize to prevent the full exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity;

     5. Urges all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and to render all practical assistance necessary for the secure and early exercise of that right;

     6. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to remain seized of the question and to assist the people of Belize in the early exercise of their inalienable rights.

24. In 1980, at its Thirty-Fifth Session, the General Assembly added new elements in Resolution 35/20. In affirming the territorial integrity of Belize and the right of the people of Belize "to the secure and full independence of all their territory", it declared that Belize should become an independent State before the conclusion of the Thirty-Sixth Session, and called upon the United Kingdom to convene a constitutional conference to prepare for the independence of Belize and to continue to ensure "the security and territorial integrity of Belize". Its resolution principally provided:

The General Assembly,

…

Welcoming the fact that, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 34/38, negotiations have recently taken place between the Government of Guatemala and the Government of the United Kingdom in close consultation with the Government of Belize and that the respective positions of both sides were clarified with a view to continuing the process of negotiations,

Noting with regret, however, that despite their efforts and good faith it has not yet proved possible for the parties concerned to agree upon a settlement of their differences,

Convinced that the differences that exist between the United Kingdom and Guatemala do not in any way derogate from the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and that the continuing inability of the parties to resolve such differences should no longer delay the early and secure exercise of that right,

Recognizing the special responsibility of the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to take immediate steps to enable the people of Belize to exercise freely and without fear their right to the secure and full independence of all their territory,

     1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, and urges all States to render all practical assistance necessary for the secure and early exercise of that right;

     2. Declares that Belize should become an independent State before the conclusion of the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly;

     3. Calls upon the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to convene a constitutional conference to prepare for the independence of Belize;

     4. Calls upon the parties concerned to respect the principle that the threat or use of force should not be applied to prevent the people of Belize from exercising their inalienable right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity;

     5. Urges the Government of the United Kingdom, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala to continue their efforts to reach agreement without prejudice to the exercise by the people of Belize of their inalienable rights and in furtherance of the peace and stability of the region and, in this connexion, to consult as appropriate with other specially interested States in the region;

    6. Calls upon the Government of the United Kingdom, as the responsible administering Power, to continue to ensure the security and territorial integrity of Belize;

     7. Requests the relevant organs of the United Nations to take such actions as may be appropriate and as may be requested by the administering Power and the Government of Belize in order to facilitate the attainment of independence by Belize and to guarantee its security and territorial integrity thereafter;

     8. Welcomes the declared intention of the Government of Belize to apply for membership in the United Nations upon attainment of independence, in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations;

     9. Calls upon Guatemala and independent Belize to work out arrangements for post-independence co-operation on matters of mutual concern;

     10. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to remain seized of the question and to assist the people of Belize in the early exercise of their inalienable rights.

25. Guatemala's reaction was sharply negative. It was cast in these terms:

"When a sovereign nation, such as Guatemala, invoked rules of law in support of its attempt to resolve a territorial dispute, that did not involve, however remotely, any threat or illicit act. The United Kingdom's failure to implement the terms of the 1859 Convention, in particular article VII, had voided the entire Convention, which had thus lost all validity. Since there was no means of validating it, the situation was merely the de facto one which had existed before the signing of the instrument. Guatemala sought a solution to the dispute with the United Kingdom by the peaceful means set forth in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Guatemala was willing to consider any proposal which did not distort the nature of the dispute. It was therefore astonished that attempts were now being made to hasten independence for the territory of Belize without having resolved the dispute with Guatemala. It would be irresponsible to attempt to establish a new State with uncertain frontiers and territory subject to negotiation and, therefore, to continual revision by various means.

"37. On more than one occasion, his delegation had rejected the Fourth Committee's intervention in making recommendations on the controversy; the dispute was of a legal and territorial nature and, as it was subject to settlement by direct negotiations, any intervention by outside parties and any attempt to impose parameters on the negotiations were unacceptable".

26. By this stage of repeated United Nations consideration of the question of Belize, Guatemala's position was wholly isolated. The representative of the United Kingdom, in associating himself with the resolution, stated that his Government would do its utmost to ensure that the people of Belize "achieved independent statehood with their existing territory intact…". The representative of Guyana maintained that it was clear from the statement of the Belize Leader of the Opposition "that the entire people of the Territory were united in denying Guatemala's territorial aspirations. In that regard, they had the overwhelming backing of the international community, as expressed in General Assembly resolution 33/36". The representative of Jamaica likewise supported Belizeans' "right to self-determination and early independence within their existing territory…". The representative of Mexico declared that Mexico had for years advocated the right of the people of Belize to self-determination. "That people had distinct social and cultural characteristics, and an undeniable right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity".

27. The Deputy Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Rogers, recalled that the House of
Representatives had joined the Government in "opposing all proposals for the settlement of the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute which might involve the cession of Belizian territory or the erosion of Belizian sovereignty". The Government of Belize had participated in the Anglo-Guatemalan negotiations for the previous 19 years in an effort to promote a settlement of differences without prejudice to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belize. During those negotiations, "Guatemala had tried to hold to ransom Belize's inalienable right to independence. Guatemala had indicated that it would allow Belize to become independent, provided that it gave up territory or gave Guatemala control of the economy and foreign affairs of Belize…Belize was prepared to continue participating in negotiations but was not prepared to allow Guatemala to exercise a veto over Belizean independence". The General Assembly's Resolution declared that the people of Belize should be enabled "to exercise freely and without fear their right to the secure and full independence of all their territory" before the conclusion of the next session of the General Assembly. The moment was ripe for independence, and for the exercise of Belize's right to "self-determination…and territorial integrity". Only the representative of Guatemala spoke in reply.

28. Resolution 35/20 was adopted in plenary session by a vote of 139 to none, with 7 abstentions. Guatemala did not take part in the voting. In the Fourth Committee, Guatemala was the sole State to vote against the Resolution.

The Admission of Belize to the United Nations.

29. On the day of its independence, 21 September 1981, Mr. George Price, Prime Minister of Belize, applied on behalf of Belize for membership in the United Nations. The Security Council two days later recommended to the General Assembly that Belize be admitted to membership. On 25 September 1981, the General Assembly decided "to admit Belize to membership in the United Nations". Before the vote admitting Belize to membership, the representative of Guatemala took the floor to record that Guatemala had expressed to the Security Council its opposition to the admission of Belize, and had called on the Security Council rather to deal with Guatemala's dispute with the United Kingdom. He then restated the claims of Guatemala in respect of Belize. He declared that the General Assembly "can vote as it sees fit…but that will not change the facts, for the dispute exists, and the new nation, Belize, is located within Guatemalan territory." One of the elementary attributes of a State is a territory; "In the case of Belize, it does not have its own territory. It exercises jurisdiction over an area, but this is solely the result of force…The territory of Belize is part of the territory of Guatemala. This is set forth in the Constitution of Guatemala…For these reasons we believe and proclaim that Belize is not qualified to become a Member of the United Nations, for its does not fulfil the requirements of Article 4 since it is not a State because it does not have its own territory".

30. For its part, the United Kingdom observed that, from midnight, 20 September 1981, it had recognized Belize as a fully independent sovereign State. "We recognized all the Territory of Belize which the United Kingdom administered before that date as now coming under the sovereignty of the new State…Independence has now come."

31. In the vote to admit Belize, only Guatemala voted against its admission. The vote was 144 to 1 with no abstentions.

CONCLUSIONS

32. The following conclusions may be drawn from the resolutions of the United Nations on the question of Belize, its admission as a Member of the United Nations, and the position that Guatemala has expressed thereon.

33. First, it is plain that the multiple resolutions of the General Assembly on the
question of Belize assume and affirm its territorial integrity, intact and inviolable. That is to say, it is the position of the international community (apart from Guatemala) that the territory of Belize encompasses "all" of the territory that was administered by the United Kingdom in Belize before Belize attained independence. The resolutions of the United Nations and the proceedings that led to their adoption admit of no other conclusion. By adopting those resolutions, the General Assembly did not in law determine the borders of Belize for it is not empowered to determine the borders of States; those borders in any event had been earlier determined, as described in this Opinion. Nonetheless, the fact that the States Members of the United Nations (with, in the end, only the exception of Guatemala) voted for the resolutions described above, having heard the positions of the two sides presented in some detail, can hardly be seen as other than recognition that the territorial integrity of Belize embraces its pre-independence borders, "intact" and "inviolable".

34. Second, the resolution admitting Belize to membership in the United Nations, on its face, no more defines its territory than has any other resolution of the United Nations admitting any other Member. Admission of a State does not certify the borders of the admitted State, whether they are uncontested (as is generally so), or contested (as in the cases of Jordan, Israel and Somalia, among others). Of course, the premise of the resolution admitting Belize is that - contrary to the position of Guatemala - Belize is a State, admitted because it is peace-loving and accepts the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, is "able and willing to carry out these obligations". But, in this case, there is an exceptional, added element of definition - or recognition - of the borders of the State so admitted. The multiple resolutions of the United Nations quoted above, in referring to "all the territory" and to the "territorial integrity" of Belize within borders "inviolable" and "intact", do appear to define or recognize those borders. The resolutions indicate that the General Assembly, in implementing its authority enunciated in Resolution 1514 (XV), has promoted the self-determination and independence of a colonial territory within the whole of the colonial borders of that territory.

35. Third, the argument of uti possidetis juris advanced by Guatemala in support of the borders allegedly obtaining when it attained independence in 1821 may equally be mustered in favor of Belize when it attained independence in 1981. As Guatemala emerged from a colonial status in 1821, so did Belize emerge in 1981; and if the concept of uti possidetis has acquired universal, contemporary force with the Cairo Declaration of 1964 and the judgment of a Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Burkina Faso/Mali case, then Belize may invoke that doctrine in support of the "intact" and "inviolable" colonial borders that existed when it became independent.

36. Fourth, the argument of Guatemala that the United Kingdom acted unlawfully in unilaterally granting Belize independence despite the pendency of Guatemala's claims is untenable. What rule of international law did the United Kingdom violate in so acting? It had hardly failed to engage in negotiations pursuant to Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Far from acting precipitately or unilaterally, repeated resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, adopted over a period of years, called on the United Kingdom to promote the independence of Belize while Resolution 35/20 recognized "the special responsibility of the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to take immediate steps to enable the people of Belize to exercise freely and without fear their right to the secure and full independence of all their territory" and called upon the United Kingdom to convene a constitutional conference to that end. In responding to those resolutions, the United Kingdom acted in deliberate conformity with the will of the international community.

37. Fifth, while Guatemala is correct when it argues that the United Nations General Assembly is not an arbitral or adjudicatory body authorized to settle a border dispute, it indisputably is endowed by treaty with the authority to admit an entity - which must be a State - as a Member. The State so admitted thereafter enjoys the prerogatives of membership and the protection of the provisions of the Charter.

Back to Menu | Appendix II