The New York Times ran a piece written by Enrique Krauze of Mexico.
“Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, an elder [Mexican] statesman, is convinced that the Mexican government has a solid legal case.” What he is referring to is litigation in international bodies to force the return os a sizable part of the southwestern part of America to Mexico. He has those in Mexico who, while agreeing with him in principle, believe the case to be a long-shot at best.
A former Mexican secretary of foreign relations, Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, the leading Mexican expert in international law, believes — “much to his regret,” he said — that Mr. Cárdenas’s initiative is not feasible. “In previous times, wars of conquest did not find the same moral and legal condemnation that is nowadays part and parcel of our system of law,” he told me. The treaty would have to be challenged under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “for which it must be shown that the state did not expressly agree that the treaty is a valid instrument or that, by reasons of its own conduct, that state must be considered as not having acquiesced to the validity of the treaty.”
But this is not the case with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was signed with the agreement of both governments.
The other problem Mexicans face is that it would be necessary to get the International Court of Justice to annul the 1948 treaty ending that war. Their problem is the U.S. does not recognize all the rulings of that court.
Continue on the next page: