Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T04:07:13.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Boundary Dispute between Ecuador and Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Georg Maier
Georg Maier*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a saying that when a dispute lasts for a long time, it must be about something small; for if it were not, it would be in the interest of the parties to settle it. This, however, is not the case in the boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru. The dispute is not only one of the major international issues of Latin America, but it is also dangerous, because its long history has clothed it with considerations of national prestige and honor and because it involves a very considerable extent of territory with which neither country is willing to part. Up to the present day, the two countries have attempted to settle their differences through negotiations, treaties, arbitrations and wars—only to revive them again and again. Even the 1942 Protocol of Eio de Janeiro, which seemed finally to have settled the dispute, was declared null and void by Ecuador in 1960.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 28 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 ‘ ‘ Starting from the Tumbes on the Pacific Coast, the line follows along the ridges and other Cordilleras of the Andes through the jurisdiction of Paita, and Piura to the Marafi6n, at 6 degrees, 30 minutes South Latitude, and on the interior, leaving to Peru the jurisdiction of Piura, Cajamarea, Moyobamba and Motilones; and by the cordillera of Jeveros, crossing the river Ucayali, at 6 degrees of South Latitude, up to the Javari or Jauri river at its confluence with the Carpi; and on the waters of the latter to Solimoes or the Amazonas and from thence down to the most westerly mouth of the Caqueta or Yapura, where the boundaries with Brazil begin.” N. Clemente Ponce, Limites Entre Ecuador y el Peru. Memorandum Para el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica de Bolivia 13 (3rd ed., Washington, D. C: Gibson Brothers, 1921).

2 Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, Coleccién de Documentos Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano- Peruanos, Vol. I, p. 57 (Quito: Tipografia de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por R. Jaramillo, 1902).

3 There is evidence of this in President Velasco Ibarra's Message to Congress on Aug. 10, 1961. In it he speaks about the border problem but only refers to it as “our Amazonian region.” Ecuador: Message addressed by His Excellency, Doctor José María Velasco Ibarra, Constitutional President of the Republic, to the Honorable National Congress, on August 10, 1961, p. 27.

4 Peru, The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador 11 (Monograph from Peruvian Embassy, n.d.).

5 Isaiah Bowman, ‘’ The Ecuador-Peru Boundary Dispute,'’ 20 Foreign Affairs 759 (July, 1942).

6 Charles H. Cunningham, The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies, ‘’ University of California Publications: History,” Vol. 9, p. 5 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1919).

7 Ponce, op. cit. 22.

8 The Viceroyalties of New Spain were Santo Domingo (1526), Mexico (1527), Guatemala (1543), and Guadalajara (1548); those under the Viceroyalty of Peru were Panama (1535, abolished in 1542 and re-established in 1563-64), Lima (1542), Santa Fé de Bogotá (1549), Charcas (1559), Quito (1563, abolished 1717, and re-established 1723), Chile (1609) and Buenos Aires (1661).

9 Vicente Santamaria de Paredes, A Study of the Question of Boundaries Between Ecuador and Peru 55 (Trans, by Dyke, Harry Van; Washington, D. C: Byron S. Adams, 1910).Google Scholar

10 Ponce, op. cit. 9.

11 Ibid. 9-10.

12 Ibid. 18.

13 Santamaria de Paredes, op. cit. 62-63. The original Cédula of 1740 was discovered by Dr. N. Clemente Ponee in 1894, up to which time Peru claimed not to know anything of its existence. El Comercio, Quito, Dec. 18, 1960, p. 5.

14 The partial text of the Cédula reads thus: ” I am resolved to segregate, from the Viceroyalty of Santa F6 and the Province of Quito, and add to that Viceroyalty, the Government and Comandancia General of Mainas with the towns of the Government of Quijos (except Papallacta), they being all on the shores of the Napo River or in its immediate vicinity; thereby extending that Comandancia General, not only along the lower Marafión River to the frontiers of the Portuguese Colonies, but also on all the other rivers which empty into the MaraB6n from the north and south, such as the Morona Guallaga, Pastaza, Ucayali, Napo, Yavari, Putumayo, Yapurá and other small streams, as far as the point where these same rivers cease to be navigable on account of their waterfalls and inaccessible rapids; also the towns of Lomas and Moyobamba should remain in the possession of the same Comandancia General, in order to uphold, as far as possible, the ecclesiastical and military jurisdiction of those territories.” Ponce, op. cit. 14.

15 Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, Exposición Sobre los Límites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, Vol. I, pp. 119-127 (Quito: Tipografía de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por R. Jaramillo, 1903).

16 Vacas Galindo, op. cit. note 2 above, Vol. I, pp. 153-161.

17 Vacas Galindo, Exposición Sobre los Límites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, cited note 15 above, Vol. I, p. 132.

18 By the Cédula of July 12, 1790, these were entrusted to the Franciscan Fathers of Quito. Vacas Galindo, Colección de Documentos Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, Vol. I, pp. 114-116

19 Dictamenes Jurfdicos Presentados a S. M. el Real Arbitro en la Memoria del Peru, Art. I, p. 48 (Madrid: 1906).

20 Honorato Vázquez, Memoria Histórica-Jurídica Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano- Peruanos 21 (2d ed., Quito: Imprenta Nacional, 1904).

21 L. A. Wright, “A Study of the Conflict Between the Republics of Peru and Ecuador,” 98 Geographical Journal 258 (November-December, 1941).

22 Ponce, op. cit. 20-21.

23 Modesto Chavez Franco, Cartilla Patria; Epitome de Historia y Geografia Ref? erentes a las Fronteras entre Ecuador y Peru de 1531 a 1921, p . 63 (Quito: Imprenta de” Eil Dia,” 1922).

24 Ponce, op. cit. 16.

25 Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland, Personal Narratives of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America During the Years 1799-1804, Vol. I, p. 125 (Trans, and ed. by Ross, Thomasina; London: Bell and Daldy, 1871).Google Scholar

26 The doctrine of uti possidetis is based upon Roman law and has been adopted in international law to designate the principle of the possessory status of territories. It is in this sense that the principle of uti possidetis has been adopted by all the Latin American nations as the basis for the settlement of their boundary disputes. The latter term is applied to peace treaties confirming conqueror's possession in absence of specific treaty provision.

27 Santamaría de Paredes, op. cit. 270.

28 In his letter of Feb. 21, 1825, to Marshal (then General) Sucre, regarding the five northern provinces of Argentina, he said: “Neither you, nor I, nor the Peruvian Congress itself, nor the Colombian, can break or violate the basis of public law whichwe have recognized in America. This basis is that the republican governments are founded within the bounds of the old viceroyalties, captaincies general, or presidencies as that of Chile.” Vicente Lecufía, Cartas del Libertador, Vol. IV, p. 263 (Caracas: Litografía y Tipografía del Comercio, 1929).

29 Santamaría de Paredes, op. cit. 275.

30 Ibid.

31 L. H. Woolsey, “ T h e Ecuador-Peru Boundary Controversy,” 31 A.J.I.L. 98-99 (1937).

32 Ponce, op. cit. 48.

33 Present-day Ecuadorean maps erroneously show an identical boundary line for the Treaty of 1829 and that fixed by the Royal Cédulas of 1717 and 1739. Roberto Crespo Ordofiez, El Descubrimiento del Amazonas y los Derechos Territoriales del Ecuador 5 (Cuenca :Nucleo del Azuay de la Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 1961).

34 Vacas Galindo, Colección de Documentos, op. ait., Vol. II, pp. 265-267.

35 M. F. de Martens, Mémoire Sur 1'Arbitrage Entre le Pérou et 1'Equateur 53 (Paris: A. Pedone, 1906).

36 Ramón de Delmar y de Olivart, Marqués de Olivart, La Frontera ?e la Antigua Colombia con el Perú: Contribución al Estudio de la Cuestión de Límites entre el Ultimo y el Ecuador 137-138, 151-152, 161-162 (Madrid: Establecimiento Tipográflco “Sucesores de Rivadeneyra,” 1906).

37 Wright, loc. cit. 265.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid. 266.

40 Vacas Galindo, Colección de Documentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 387-399.

41 Wright, loc. cit. 267.

42 Vacas Galindo, Colección de Documentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 417-437.

43 Arbitrator of Points of Law serves as translation of ‘ ‘ Arbitro de Derecho'’ which appears in the original text.

44 Vacas Galindo, Colección de Doeumentos, op. cit., “ Vol. II, pp. 468-601.

45 Wright, loc. cit. 269.

46 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 434 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,1915).

47 Ibid. 430.

48 Wright, loc. cit. 269.

49 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 491.

50 Francisco Tudela, The Controversy Between Peru and Ecuador 41 (Trans. Lima:Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1941).

51 Karl Keyerleber, “Last American Boundary Dispute,” 105 World Affairs 128 (June, 1942).

52 Manuel O?ría's successful military campaign against Ecuador gave him the greatest prestige in Peru. His wartime association proved useful to him seven years later, when he staged a military coup d'état and emerged as dictator of Peru. Tad Szulc, Twilight of the Tyrants 171-172 (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1959).

53 56 Stat. 1821; 36 A.J.I.L. Supp. 168 (1942).

54 Lilo Linke, Ecuador: Country of Contrasts 180 (3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1960).

55 Emilio Murillo Ordonez, El Protocolo de Río de Janeiro y sus Conseeueneias en los Rios Cenepa, Morona y Marañón 8 (Cuenoa: Casa de la Cultura Eouatoriana, Nueleo del Azuay, 1953).

56 Lloyd Mecham, J., The United States and Inter-American Security: 1889-1960, p. 407 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961).Google Scholar

57 Demetrio Aguilera Malta, “El Problema Limítrofe Ecuatoriano-Peruano,” 11 fi Cuadernos Americanos 38-40 (Mayo-Junio de 1961).

58 Message to Congress, 1961, op. cit. 26.

59 According to Peru, the Protocol of Río de Janeiro gave her nothing that she did not own by virtue of her historical titles and it took away from Ecuador nothing that Ecuador possessed before the difficulties which led to the signing of the treaty. Peru,The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador, op. cit. 4.

60 The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1967.

61 La Calle, Quito, No. 350, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 22.

62 Revista Militar de las Fuerzas Armadas Ecuatorianas, No. 2 (June, 1965), pp. 60-61.