(b) The question then arises, Has the private claimant in this case put itself in a position where it has the right to present its claim to the Government of the United States for its interposition? The answer to this question depends upon the construction to be given to article 18 of the contract on which the claim rests.
(c) In article 18 of the contract the claimant expressly agreed that in all matters connected with the execution of the work covered by the contract and the fulfilment of its contract obligations and the enforcement of its contract rights it would be bound and governed by the laws of Mexico administered by the authorities and courts of Mexico and would not invoke or accept the assistance of his Government. Further than this it did not bind itself. Under the rules of international law the claimant (as well as the Government of Mexico) was without power to agree, and did not in fact agree, that the claimant would not request the Government of the United States, of which it was a citizen, to intervene in its behalf in the event of internationally illegal acts done to the claimant by the Mexican authorities.
(d) The contract declared upon, which was sought by claimant, would not have been awarded it without incorporating the substance of article 18 therein. The claimant does not pretend that it has made any attempt to comply with the terms of that article, which as here construed is binding on it. Therefore the claimant has not put itself in a position where it may rightfully present this claim to the Government of the United States for its interposition.
(e) While it is true that under Article V of the Treaty the two Governments have agreed "that no claim shall be disallowed or rejected by the Commission by the application of the general principle of international law that the legal remedies must be exhausted as a condition precedent to the validity or allowance of any claim", this provision is limited to claims falling under Article I and therefore rightfully presented by the claimant.
(f) If it were necessary to so construe article 18 of the contract as to bind the claimant not to apply to its Government to intervene diplomatically or otherwise in the event of a denial of justice to the claimant growing out of the contract declared upon or out of any other situation, then this Commission would have no hesitation in holding such a clause void ab initio and not binding on the claimant.
(g) The foregoing pertains to the power of the claimant to bind itself by contract. It is clear that the claimant could not under any circumstances bind its Government with respect to remedies for violations of international law.
(h) As the claimant voluntarily entered into a legal contract binding itself not to call as to this contract upon its Government to intervene in its behalf, and as all of its claim relates to this contract, and as therefore it can not present its claim to its Government for interposition or espousal before this Commission, the second ground of the notion to dismiss is sustained.
Already registered ?