Guantanamo Bay Agreement

Although both the United States and Cuba can terminate the Guantánamo Bay lease by negotiating its termination, the 1903 Executive Agreement and the 1934 Treaty on Relations designate the United States as the only party to which it can unilaterally terminate.17 By reducing the duration of the lease as "the time necessary for the purposes of coal and naval power plants, The executive agreement passes to the only state that can determine this period, since the "time required" is intrinsically dependent on the needs and interests of the United States. The 1934 treaty states that, unless the United States and Cuba agree otherwise, the lease agreement will remain in effect "as long as the United States of America does not abandon the said Naval Station at Guantanamo," which will condition the duration of U.S. jurisdiction and control on any act (abandonment) of the United States. Some aspects of the law that could allow the United States to return control of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba relate to how the lease can be terminated. These concern both the form and the content of the agreement. As for its form, the two 1903 treaties that make up the lease – the February Executive Agreement and the July Treaty – are legally equivalent in terms of including the United States bilaterally. While an executive agreement does not require congressional approval and a treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate,29,29 both types of agreements take on the same character by creating international obligations for the United States.30 International law considers them identical for the purposes of the norms governing interstate agreements; In particular, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a "treaty" as "an international agreement (i.e. everything) concluded between States in writing and subject to international law". 31 (The Convention itself has the United States.

Approval by the Senate, but it is generally accepted as customary international law applicable to all states, a view widely shared by the United States.32) The legal relationship of the United States and Cuba with the leased area was established by the Executive Convention, which gave the United States "full jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay for the duration of the lease, while affirming that Cuba had "ultimate sovereignty" over the territory.9 This agreement specified the duration of the lease, not the duration of the lease. in years, but as "the time needed for the needs of coal mines and naval stations". 10 Cuba`s potential to actively exercise any form of sovereign authority there was excluded in Cuban domestic law by a 1934 court decision requiring Cuba to consider Guantanamo Bay as foreign territory.11 U.S. court decisions ultimately classified the region as falling under the de facto sovereignty of the United States, 12, which confirmed Cuba`s de jure sovereignty in that country. This Rental Agreement is subject to all the conditions set forth in Article II of this Agreement. [23] Scott Packard, How Guantanamo Bay Became the Place the U.S. Keeps Detainees, Atlantic (September 4, 2013) www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/how-guantanamo-bay-became-the-place-the-us-keeps-detainees/279308/. A statement by Cuba that it has condemned, rejected or revoked the basic Guantánamo agreements would be legally ineffective. These agreements must be maintained on their terms until otherwise agreed between the United States and Cuba. An assertion of the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (change of circumstances) as a ground for unilateral termination would not be valid. The application of the doctrine has never been confirmed by an international tribunal. The [page 740] principal authors of international law assert that the doctrine can only be applied by agreement of the parties or by decision of a court.

The United States, for its part, has argued that the lease remains valid as a bilateral agreement under international law, which is an obligation for Cuba to comply with it, and that on this basis, the continued presence of the United States at Guantanamo Bay is also legal.16 [5] The United States has also anglicized the name of the bay to remove the Spanish accent mark above the second "a". See e.B. Miriam Pensack, An American Century of Brutal Overseas Conquest Started at Guantánamo Bay, Intercept (July 4, 2018, 10:00 a.m.), theintercept.com/2018/07/04/guantanamo-bay-cuba/ (note that the base is called "GTMO" in U.S. military jargon). If arguments based on U.S. property rights fail, Cuba can still argue that the United States should return the territory under international law. Although both states have the right to appear before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)[35], they should each submit to the mandatory jurisdiction of the ICJ. [36] In this case, Cuba could challenge the validity of the lease on the basis of U.S.

conduct. According to article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention), "a treaty is void if its conclusion was obtained by the threat or use of force". [37] The Platt Amendment and the accompanying agreement could have violated this section because the lease provision was a threatening ultimatum. [38] The first Cuban government extended the lease with unequal bargaining power:[39] Cuba understood that the U.S. armed forces would remain on the island if the lease agreement was not concluded,[40] which is a possible manifestation of coercion. [41] Despite their legal equivalence as bilateral instruments, the February 1903 Executive Convention and the July 1903 Treaty, which include the Guantánamo Bay lease, are not equivalent to the United States. . .

.