Sovereignty over Clipperton Island France vs Mexico Rome, January 28, 1931, decided by Victor Emmanuel HELD: Sovereignty

over Clipperton Island belongs to France y 1858: Lieutenant Victor Le Coat de Kerweguen of the French Navy, commissioner of the French Government, declared that the sovereignty belonged to Emperor Napoelon. However, his vessel was not able to reach the shore and left without leaving any signs of sovereignty in the island. Sovereignty over Clipperton was proclaimed in a journal, The Polynesian of Honolulu No acts of sovereignty were done over the island which remained uninhabited A concession for the exploitation of guano beds was approved by the king Nov 1897: three persons were found collecting guano for the Oceanic Phosphate Co. of San Francisco. They placed an American flag on the island The US claimed that they did not grant any concession or claimed any right over Clipperton Mexico sent a gun-boat, La Democrata, to the Island. Officers and marines and raised the Mexican flag. France found out about this and reminded Mexico of its rights over Clipperton. A very long diplomatic discussion took place 1909: the two governments decided to refer the issue of sovereignty to arbitration

y y y y y y y y

ISSUE: To whom should clipper island belong? France MEXICO FAILED TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE ISLAND BELONGED TO THEM y Mexico claims: Clipperton belonged to Mexico before it was acquired by France. They called it Passion Island/Medano/Medanos Island. It originally belonged to Spain and afterwards, from 1836, to Mexico as the successor state of the Spanish state. The French occupation was not valid. There was no proof that the Spaniards discovered the island That they might have known it before the log books on board the French Vessels La Princesse and La Decouverte dated in 1711 had identified and described it is a conjecture more or less probable Mexico failed to demonstrate that Spain had a right as a state to incorporate the island and effectively exercised that right Mexico produced a geographical map printed from the archives of the Mexican society of geography and statistics, where the island figures as comprised within the Political and Military Governments of Spain in North America . But the official character of this map cannot be affirmed, it is not certain that it was drawn by order and under the care of the state and the manuscript memorandum (that it was used at the Royal Tribunal of the Consulate of Mexico) does not confer official character upon it.

y y

y y

Mexico did not prove any sovereignty over the island

Clipperton Island belongs to France y 1858: France proclaimed her sovereignty over Clipperton. The island was in the legal situation of territorium nullius and susceptible of occupation. It has legitimately acquired and was never subsequently lost by dereliction since she never had the animus of abandoning the island. The fact that she has not exercised her authority there in a positive manner does not imply the forfeiture of an acquisition already definitively perfected There are incontestable grounds to hold that France clearly intended to consider the island as her territory It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi, the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there. This takes place when the state establishes in the territory itself an organization capable of making its laws respected. (there may also be cases where it is unnecessary to have recourse to this method) Thus, if a territory, by virtue of the fact that it was completely uninhabited, is, from the first moment when the occupying state makes its appearance there, at the absolute and undisputed disposition of that state, from that moment the taking of possession must be considered as accomplished, and the occupation is thereby completed. Art 35 of the act of Berlin of 1885 (assuring to occupied territories the existence of an authority sufficient to cause acquired rights to be respected and, the case occurring, the liberty of commerce and of transit in the conditions upon which it may be stipulated) does not apply: - act of Berlin was subsequent to the French occupation - concerns only territories on the coasts of Africa - binds only signatory states of which Mexico is not one - has nothing to do with the taking of possession but imposes an obligation which presupposes an occupation which was already taken place and is already valid The regularity of the occupation was questioned because other powers was not notified of it. But the obligation to make such notification contained in art 34 of the act of Berlin is not applicable to this case. http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup10/basicmats/clipperton.pdf

y y