Treaties and Conventions

The Adams-Onís Treaty, signed in 1819 between the United States and Spain, was a pivotal agreement that resolved a territorial dispute and resulted in Spain ceding Florida to the United States. This treaty also played a crucial role in defining the western boundary of the United States and establishing the border between the U.S. and Mexico (then New Spain), extending from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. As part of the treaty, the United States paid up to $5 million in claims against the Spanish government and renounced its claims on certain aspects of Spanish Texas.

Institutional Implications: The Adams-Onís Treaty had significant institutional implications as it resolved a territorial dispute between the United States and Spain. The treaty remained in effect for a short period until Mexico gained independence and signed the Treaty of Córdoba. However, the border defined by the Adams-Onís Treaty was later recognized by the Treaty of Limits between Mexico and the United States in 1828.

The Adams-Onís Treaty: A Landmark Agreement in Texas History

Treaties and Conventions

The Treaty of Limits, signed in 1828, was the first official agreement between Mexico and the U.S., upholding the boundary established by the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty. The treaty was enacted in 1832 and underwent amendments in 1831 and 1835. However, it was eventually replaced by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican-American War.

Institutional Implications: The Treaty of Limits had significant institutional implications as it established the official borders between Mexico and the United States. Although the treaty is no longer active, it laid the foundation for subsequent agreements and negotiations between the two countries.

Document Regarding the Treaty of Limits

Treaties and Conventions

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, marked the war's conclusion between the United States and Mexico. As a result, Mexico ceded 55% of its territory, including present-day states such as California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. The treaty established the Rio Grande as the southern boundary with the United States and relinquished all claims to Texas.

Institutional Implications: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had significant institutional implications as it resulted in a major territorial shift, with Mexico, losing a significant portion of its land to the United States. This had long-lasting effects on both countries' political, economic, and social institutions. The treaty also established the Rio Grande as the southern boundary, which has had ongoing implications for border security and immigration policies.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) | National Archives

Treaties and Conventions

The Gadsden Purchase, or the Treaty of La Mesilla, involved the U.S. acquiring approximately 29,670 square miles (76,800 km2) of land in southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico from Mexico. Its purpose was to facilitate the construction of a transcontinental railroad along a southern route. The treaty defined the border between Mexico and the United States and marked the last significant territorial expansion of the contiguous United States. Tucson, Yuma, and Tombstone are located within the acquired territory. The financially strained Mexican government agreed to the sale, receiving $10 million in compensation.

Institutional Implications: The Gadsden Purchase marked the last major territorial expansion of the contiguous United States and defined the border between the two countries. The acquisition of this land facilitated the construction of a transcontinental railroad along a southern route, which had important economic and transportation implications. The financially strained Mexican government agreed to the sale, highlighting the power dynamics between the two nations.

Gadsden Purchase Treaty | National Archives

Treaties and Conventions

The McLane-Ocampo Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Transit and Commerce, was negotiated between the United States and Mexico during Mexico's War of the Reform in 1859. It aimed to provide financial support to Mexico's liberal government led by Benito Juárez. However, the treaty faced controversy in both countries and was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1860. The treaty would have granted the United States perpetual transit and military rights on Mexican soil, including land routes and the establishment of warehouses. It also included provisions for troop transportation and the protection of transport routes by military force. The treaty remains a subject of study in Mexico and is seen as compromising national sovereignty.

Institutional Implications: If ratified, the treaty would have granted the United States long-term transit and military rights on Mexican soil, which could have compromised Mexico's national sovereignty. Additionally, the treaty included provisions for troop transportation and using military force to protect transport routes. Despite its rejection by the U.S. Senate in 1860, the treaty remains a study in Mexico, highlighting its lasting impact on the country's history and the ongoing debate surrounding national sovereignty.

The McLane-Ocampo Treaty

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention of July 29, 1882, established a temporary commission tasked with resurveying and placing additional monuments along the western land boundary. Addressing challenges and uncertainties related to the existing border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, the Convention enabled a comprehensive resurvey by a commission of representatives from the United States and Mexico to define the boundary more clearly.

Institutional Implications: The Convention of July 29, 1882 resulted in enhanced clarity and accuracy of the western land boundary, facilitating governance, trade, and interaction between the two neighboring nations. The institutional implications of this Convention are no longer active.

Convention Of July 29, 1882

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention of November 12, 1884, addressed the challenges associated with determining boundaries affected by meandering rivers. It provided rules and guidelines for establishing clear boundaries when tracts of land are transferred from one riverbank to the other. Recognizing the need for adjusting boundaries to follow a river's new course, the Convention emphasized scientific methods for accuracy.

Institutional Implications: The Convention of November 12, 1884, introduced a standardized process for determining boundaries affected by meandering rivers. It emphasized using scientific methods and cooperation between nations to establish clear and consistent territorial boundaries. This institutional framework aimed to bring clarity and accuracy to transferring land from one riverbank to the other. The Convention is no longer active, but its principles and guidelines have influenced subsequent agreements and practices in boundary determination.

Convention Of November 12, 1884

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention of March 1, 1889, played a vital role in establishing the International Boundary Commission (IBC) and implementing the rules outlined in the 1884 Convention. Addressing challenges associated with determining the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, particularly concerning the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, the Convention led to the creation of the IBC. The IBC was responsible for applying the rules defined in the 1884 Convention when meandering rivers caused tracts of land to transfer between the two nations. Establishing the IBC ensured accurate demarcation and maintenance of the international boundary. The Convention and subsequent modifications solidified the recognition of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as integral boundary components, acknowledging their historical, geographical, and political significance. The Convention aimed to establish equitable water distribution between the United States and Mexico, specifically focusing on the Rio Grande. Recognizing the shared nature of the river, it outlined guidelines for a fair allocation process. Its objective was to promote collaboration, sustainable water management, and the shared utilization of this vital international resource.

Institutional Implications: The Convention of March 1, 1889, led to the establishment of the IBC, which is still active today. The IBC was responsible for accurately demarcating and maintaining the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, particularly concerning the Rio Grande and the Colorado River. This ensured clarity and stability in the border region, fostering peaceful coexistence and cooperation between the two nations. Additionally, the Convention aimed to establish equitable water distribution, emphasizing cooperation and sustainable water management. It provided a framework for shared utilization of vital international resources, promoting collaboration between the United States and Mexico.

Convention Of March 1, 1889

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention for the Elimination of the Bancos in the Rio Grande from the Effects of Article II of the Treaty of November 12, 1884, aimed to address complications arising from changes in the beds of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The original Convention, signed in 1884, established that the border between the two countries would follow the center of the rivers' normal channels, regardless of alterations in the riverbanks caused by natural erosion and sediment deposition. However, challenges arose concerning "bancos," small land areas separated from the main riverbed due to erosion and avulsion. In 1905, a new convention was negotiated and signed, nullifying the effects of Article II of the 1884 treaty on 58 surveyed bancos in the Rio Grande. According to the new Convention, the boundary line would align with the river's deepest channel in that section, and the dominion and jurisdiction of the bancos on the right and left banks would transfer to Mexico and the United States, respectively. The Convention also established guidelines for future riverbed changes, granting authority to the International Boundary Commission to apply the principle of banco elimination while allowing exceptions for significant alterations. It ensured that residents living on the eliminated bancos retained rights and options regarding citizenship and property. However, neither the United States nor Mexico ratified the Convention.

Institutional Implications: The Convention for Eliminating the Bancos in the Rio Grande from the Effects of Article II of the Treaty of November 12, 1884, had significant institutional implications. It aimed to address complications arising from changes in the riverbeds of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The Convention established guidelines for future riverbed changes and granted the International Boundary Commission authority. However, the United States or Mexico did not ratify the Convention, suggesting that its institutional implications are no longer active.

Text of the Banco Convention of 1905 - Chamizal National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention of May 21, 1906, aimed to establish equitable water distribution between the United States and Mexico, specifically focusing on the Rio Grande. Recognizing the shared nature of the river, it outlined guidelines for a fair allocation process. Its ultimate goal was to promote collaboration, sustainable water management, and the shared use of this vital international resource.

Institutional Implications: The Convention of May 21, 1906, recognized the importance of cooperation and outlined guidelines for a fair allocation process. It considered historical water usage and downstream needs while providing dispute-resolution mechanisms. Although the Convention is no longer active, its emphasis on collaboration and sustainable water management remains relevant for international water resource management.

Convention of May 21, 1906

Treaties and Conventions

The De la Huerta–Lamont Treaty addressed Mexico's post-revolution debts and was negotiated between Mexico and the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico (ICBM). The treaty included provisions for debt repayment, utilizing funds from Mexican railroads, and an oil export tax. While achieving some success, it burdened government finances and redirected funds from social reform.

Institutional Implications: The De la Huerta-Lamont Treaty had significant institutional implications for Mexico. It helped normalize Mexico's foreign relations and paved the way for subsequent financing agreements. Despite the implications, the treaty played a crucial role in shaping Mexico's foreign relations and was instrumental in gaining recognition from the United States for President Obregón's government. The treaty is no longer active.

De la Huerta-Lamont Treaty

Treaties and Conventions

The Bucareli Convention, signed in 1923, sought to resolve losses experienced by U.S. companies during the Mexican Revolution. Negotiations occurred in Mexico City, addressing concerns about the potential expropriation of American land and subsoils for Mexican public use. The treaty refers to the agreements negotiated during the meetings, which encompassed compensation calculations and payments for expropriations. Despite lacking formal legal validity due to non-approval by both countries' Congresses, it drew criticism in Mexico for violating national sovereignty. Ultimately rejected by Mexico's successor to President Obregón, the treaty further strained US-Mexico relations, particularly regarding oil. Subsequent disagreements and conflicts, especially concerning oil resources, characterized the treaty's impact on bilateral relations.

Institutional Implications: The Bucareli Treaty, although lacking formal legal validity, had significant implications for US-Mexico relations, particularly in the oil sector. The treaty's attempt to address American losses during the Mexican Revolution and concerns about expropriating American land and subsoils drew criticism in Mexico for violating national sovereignty. Its rejection by Mexico's President Obregón strained bilateral relations and led to subsequent conflicts over oil resources. The treaty's impact on US-Mexico relations, especially in the oil industry, is still evident today.

Bucareli Conferences

Treaties and Conventions

The Convention of February 1, 1933, led to a collaborative effort to construct, operate, and maintain the Rio Grande Rectification Project. This project aimed to straighten, stabilize, and shorten the course of the Rio Grande in the El Paso-Juárez region. The International Boundary Commission (IBC), comprising representatives from both countries, oversaw the project. Strategic channeling, engineering interventions, and the construction of physical structures such as levees and revetments were employed to prevent erosion and maintain a consistent river course.

Institutional Implications: The Convention of February 1, 1933, led to the construction of physical structures and engineering interventions to stabilize the river and create a well-defined border. The project's success set a precedent for future joint efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Convention of February 1, 1933

Convention

The United States and Mexico have agreed to a Convention to protect migratory birds that temporarily reside in both countries. The Convention, signed by representatives Josephus Daniels and Eduardo Hay, includes measures such as establishing close seasons, refuge zones, and hunting limitations. It also prohibits hunting from aircraft and the transportation of migratory birds across the border without authorization. The Convention, signed in 1936, is set to remain in force for fifteen years, with potential yearly extensions.

Institutional Implications:

The Convention between the United States and Mexico to protect migratory birds has significant implications for both countries' institutional frameworks. Firstly, it necessitates the establishment of regulatory bodies or the expansion of existing ones to enforce the measures outlined in the Convention. This includes monitoring and enforcing close seasons, refuge zones, and hunting limitations.

Secondly, the prohibition of hunting from aircraft and the unauthorized transportation of migratory birds across the border implies a need for increased surveillance and law enforcement capabilities. This could potentially involve multiple institutions, including wildlife agencies, border control, and aviation authorities.

Thirdly, the Convention's fifteen-year duration with potential yearly extensions suggests a long-term commitment from both countries. This requires institutional stability and continuity to ensure the Convention's successful implementation and potential renewal.

Lastly, the Convention also implies a need for cross-border cooperation and coordination between the United States and Mexico. This could lead to the establishment of joint committees or working groups, fostering institutional collaboration and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Overall, the Convention represents a significant step towards institutionalizing wildlife protection and cross-border cooperation between the United States and Mexico.

LINK

Treaties and Conventions

The United States-Mexico Convention of November 19, 1941, known as the Convention relating to the Final Adjustment of Certain Unsettled Claims, nullified most claims between the U.S. and Mexican governments, except for U.S. oil companies' claims for property nationalized by Mexico, which would be addressed in future agreements. The Convention, tracing its origins back to the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the resulting oil concession disputes, effectively resolved claims through the Mexican government's payment of $40 million to the U.S. government. Ratified by both countries, it ensured resolution, established a payment schedule, and superseded previous agreements.

Institutional Implications: The United States-Mexico Convention of November 19, 1941 established a framework for settling claims between the two countries nationals without resorting to international arbitration.

Convention of November 19, 1941, United Mexican States, United States of America

Treaties and Conventions

The "1944 Water Treaty," officially known as the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, is an agreement between the United States and Mexico regarding the equitable allocation and utilization of water from these rivers. Signed in 1944, it recognizes the shared nature of these water resources and seeks to prevent disputes while promoting cooperation in their management. The treaty mandates water allocations based on natural flows, historical use, and each country's needs and establishes water delivery, measurement, and infrastructure maintenance mechanisms.

Institutional Implications: The 1944 Water Treaty has had significant institutional implications for the United States and Mexico; it recognizes the shared nature of these water resources and seeks to prevent disputes while promoting cooperation in their management. It designates the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) as the governing body responsible for implementing the treaty. This agreement has been active for over seven decades and is vital in preventing conflicts and promoting cooperation between the two countries.

1944 Water Treaty Between Mexico and the United States: Present Situation and Future Potential

Treaties and Conventions

The Chamizal Convention, signed in 1963, was a crucial agreement that resolved a longstanding border dispute between the United States and Mexico. The conflict revolved around the Chamizal tract and Cordova Island. Notable figures such as Presidents Adolfo López Mateos, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, along with diplomats and commissioners, played pivotal roles in negotiating and settling the dispute. The Convention resulted in the return of the Chamizal tract to Mexico, established the course of the Rio Grande as the international border, and divided Cordova Island.

Institutional Implications: The Chamizal Convention resolved a longstanding border dispute and strengthened diplomatic relations between the two countries. This resolution strengthened the relations between the United States and Mexico and exemplified peaceful conflict resolution. The Chamizal National Memorial was established to commemorate the successful resolution, emphasizing diplomacy, peace, and understanding in international affairs. The Convention and its implications are still active today, as the Chamizal National Memorial continues to promote peace and commemorate the successful border dispute resolution.

Chamizal Convention of August 29, 1963

Treaties and Conventions

The Boundary Treaty of 1970 aimed to resolve disputes and uncertainties along the Rio Grande border between the United States and Mexico. It specifically addressed the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts and other areas. The treaty entrusted the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) with its implementation, which involved the relocation of river channel.

Institutional Implications: The Boundary Treaty of 1970 addressed pending boundary cases, sovereignty over islands, and measures for changes in river channels. It aimed to maintain established international boundaries and define maritime boundaries. The treaty is still active and has played a crucial role in resolving disputes and maintaining clear boundaries between the two countries.

Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary

Treaty

The Treaty of November 23, 1970 resolved all pending boundary differences between the two countries and provided for maintaining the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary. It provides procedures designed to avoid the loss or gain of territory by either country incident to future changes in the river.

Institutional Implications:

The Treaty of November 23, 1970, between the two countries, has significant institutional implications. Firstly, it establishes a clear and unambiguous boundary, thereby reducing potential conflicts and misunderstandings. This clarity can foster better diplomatic relations and cooperation between the two nations. Secondly, the treaty's provision for maintaining the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary indicates an institutional commitment to environmental stewardship. The rivers' preservation is not only crucial for ecological reasons but also for the communities that depend on them for their livelihoods.

Moreover, the treaty's procedures designed to avoid the loss or gain of territory due to future changes in the river demonstrate a forward-thinking approach. This provision indicates an institutional recognition of the potential impacts of environmental changes and the need for adaptive strategies. It also suggests a commitment to fairness and equity, as it seeks to prevent either country from unfairly benefiting from such changes.

Overall, the treaty reflects a strong institutional framework for managing international boundaries and environmental resources. It underscores the importance of clear agreements, environmental preservation, and adaptive strategies in international relations.

LINK

Treaties and Conventions

This treaty emphasizes cooperation and mutual legal assistance between the United States of America and the United Mexican States. It outlines both parties' measures to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes. The treaty specifies the types of assistance provided and the conditions under which a request can be denied. Importantly, it highlights that the treaty is exclusively for mutual legal assistance and does not grant private individuals any rights.

Institutional Implications: This treaty establishes a framework for cooperation and legal assistance between the United States and Mexico in combating crime. The treaty's emphasis on mutual assistance strengthens the institutional capacity of both countries to address transnational criminal activities. This treaty still guides the legal cooperation between the United States and Mexico.

Treaty On Cooperation Between The United States Of America And The United Mexican States For Mutual Legal Assistance

Treaty

The goal of NAFTA was to integrate Mexico with the developed economies of the United States and Canada, with the hope of bringing stronger economic growth to Mexico and discouraging illegal migration. While opponents of NAFTA highlighted wage differentials and the potential loss of U.S. jobs, supporters argued that the agreement would create new jobs and modernize the Mexican economy. NAFTA also paved the way for future free trade agreements and incorporated labor and environmental provisions. Economists agree that NAFTA benefited North America's economies, but it is difficult to determine its direct effects due to other factors such as technological change and trade with China.

Institutional Implications:

The establishment of NAFTA represented a significant shift in the institutional framework governing international trade, particularly within North America. It marked a move towards greater economic integration and interdependence among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This integration had profound implications for the economic policies and strategies of these countries, necessitating a more coordinated approach to trade and economic development.

The institutionalization of NAFTA also had implications for labor and environmental regulations. By incorporating these provisions into the agreement, NAFTA set a precedent for future trade agreements, signaling the growing importance of these issues in international trade discussions. This could potentially lead to more comprehensive and stringent labor and environmental standards in future trade agreements.

Furthermore, NAFTA's impact on job creation and modernization of the Mexican economy indicates the potential of such trade agreements to influence domestic economic structures and policies. This suggests that institutions like NAFTA can play a significant role in shaping the economic trajectory of member countries.

However, the difficulty in determining NAFTA's direct effects due to factors such as technological change and trade with other countries like China underscores the complexity of the institutional implications of such agreements. It suggests that while these agreements can have significant impacts, they are also influenced by and interact with a range of other factors and institutions. This highlights the need for a holistic approach to understanding and managing the institutional implications of trade agreements.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Treaty

The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, signed in 1987 between the United States and Mexico, facilitates cooperation in law enforcement matters, covering crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorism. It allows for the exchange of information, evidence, and assistance in investigations and prosecutions, with specific procedures for requesting and providing assistance. The treaty also includes confidentiality provisions and regular consultations to review its implementation. It serves as a crucial tool for law enforcement agencies in both countries to combat crime and enhance justice.

Institutional Implications:

The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Mexico has significant implications for the institutional frameworks of both countries. Firstly, it necessitates a high degree of coordination and cooperation between law enforcement agencies in both countries. This could potentially lead to the strengthening of these institutions, as they are required to work together to combat crime effectively.

Secondly, the treaty also implies a certain level of trust and mutual respect between the two countries, as they are sharing sensitive information and evidence. This could potentially enhance diplomatic relations and foster a stronger bilateral relationship.

Thirdly, the treaty has implications for the legal systems of both countries. It requires that each country respects and adheres to the legal procedures of the other when requesting and providing assistance. This could potentially lead to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other's legal systems, and may even influence legal reforms in the future.

Lastly, the treaty's confidentiality provisions imply a commitment to protecting the privacy and security of information. This could have implications for the data protection and cybersecurity policies of both countries.

Overall, the treaty has far-reaching implications for the institutional structures, legal systems, and diplomatic relations of both the United States and Mexico. It serves as a testament to the importance of international cooperation in combating crime and enhancing justice.

LINK