WSP09503

• File Number: 8278.400
• Description: Title I - Mexican Treaty
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 5/10/1962
• Author: CWCB - D. Hamburg
• Title: Mexican Water Treaty Negotiations Pertaining to the Colorado River
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

.'

1. The Arbitration Treaty, by its own terms, so limits
the class of controversies covered by it that little
of substance on the Colorado River of benefit to
Mexico could be taken before an arbitration board.
This argument is based upon the exemption contained
in Article 2, excluding from arbitration those con-
troversies which are within the domestic jurisdiction
of the parties and not controlled by international
law. It was further argued that the term "domestic
jurisdiction" is used to include naIl internal
jurisdiction of the nation, judicial, legislative
executive or administrative", and it is pointed out
that the use of and the right to benefit from such
structures and facilities as Boulder Dam, Imperial
Dam, the All-American Canal, are subject to control
by courts of the united states. In other words, it
is argued that these are matters within the domestic
jurisdiction of the United states and not controlled
by international law. Those supporting the Treaty
argued, among other things, that the United states
has always recognized the right of each country to
an equitable share of the use of the waters of an
international stream and in addition, the Supreme
Court of the united States can invoke that law in
controversies between states over the use of waters
of interstate streams. (See Kansas vs. Colorado,
206 U. S. 46; Wyoming vs. california, 251 U. s. 419).
Those favoring the Treaty also argued that by entering
into a treaty Mexico would not obtain any title or
preferential right to the use of any facilities now
constructed or to be constructed in the United States
but they may take advantage of any benefit which may
accrue to either nation by reasons of construction
facilities.

2. Those opposing ratification of the Treaty argued that
the Mexican reservation, which is quoted above, excepts
from arbitration cases "under the jurisdiction of the
courts" and, therefore, further enlarges the scope of the
cases which are not arbitrable under Article 2(a).
Those in favor of the Treaty argued against this propo-
sition by stating that there is no tribunal to which
Mexico could go for a judicial determination of its
rights and consequently it is a matter which would fall
outside the reservation and therefore be an arbitrable
item.

-16-