In summary, Guatemala’s position involves the following assertions: 

1. The area of Belize was originally included within the domains of Spain. 

2. Within those domains, Belize formed part of the province of Verapaz within the Captaincy-General of Guatemala. 

3. During that period, extending until the acquisition of independence in 1821 by the United Provinces of Central America( which included Guatemala), the only rights that Britain acquired in the area were those granted by the Anglo-Spanish Treaties of 1783 and1786. those rights were limited to the area north of the Sibun River and were restricted in their scope; 

4. Upon the acquisition of independence the United Provinces of Central America, and subsequently Guatemala, succeeded to the sovereignty of Spain by operation of the principles of uti possidetis juris, subject to the treaty rights of Britain;

5. The limitations in the Treaties precluded Britain from acquiring sovereignty over any part of Belize; 

6. Therefore the 1859 Convention between Britain and Guatemala operated as cession of territory from Guatemala to Britain and not as a treaty establishing a boundary between the two territories; 

7. The 1859 Convention contains a provision  (Article 7) for the construction of a cart road from Guatemala City to the nearest point of the Guatemala Coast, to which Britain was required to contribute; 

8. Britain’s non-performance of its obligations under this article entitled Guatemala unilaterally to terminate this Convention; 

9. Guatemala has done so, the treaty is at an end and, as a result, the cession of the territory of Belize is no longer operative and it has reverted to Guatemala. 

GUATEMALA’S ARGUMENT REGARDING BREACH OF THE 1859 CONVENTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Guatemala has at various times contended that Article7 of the 1859 Convention imposed obligations on Britain and that Britain’s failure to comply with those obligations led to the Convention’s becoming “null and void.” In the words of Guatemala’s representative in the General assembly on the occasion of the admission of Belize in to the United Nations, “ that pledge was never kept and the Convention was therefore null and void, since the conditions on which Guatemala entered into the contract were not fulfilled.” We have already indicated our opinion that any responsibility for non-performance of that Article relates only to the period of Britain’s rule in the British Honduras and has not devolved upon independent Belize. Here we consider only Guatemala’s argument regarding the effect of the alleged breach of Article 7 on the 1859 Convention as treaty establishing the boundary of Belize.