Continued…..
Arantzanzu Mandi1: Arantzazu Mendi was a Spanish ship which was registered under the
Bilbao area of Spain. In 1936 there was a civil war in Spain between two-party the Republics
and the Nationalists. Nationalists were under the comment of General Franco. The UK
recognized de jure the Republican government of Spain, on the other hand, they also
recognized de facto the rebel government (the Nationalists). Slowly General Franco overtook
many areas including Bilbao and at that time the Republics nationalized all the (Registered)
ships of that area. At that time the ship Arantzazu Mendi was anchored at a port of UK. The
De Facto Nationalist government of Spain who was recognized by UK appeal to the UK that
as The United Kingdom gave them the legal recognition the Arantzazu Mendi ship legally
belongs to the Nationalist government and therefor UK should cease the ship and handover to
the Nationalist government.
The main issue in this case was: Whether the republican government shall have the right to
possess the ship? Decision was: A de facto government has control over state assets within
the territory it controls. A de jure government has control even overstate assets abroad.
Reasoning was: It was held by the House of Lords that since the Nationalist was a de-facto
recognized sovereign ineffective contract over a large portion of Spain, it was immune from
the jurisdiction of the local courts of other sovereigns.
Tobar Doctrine: Doctrine of legitimacy
Estrada Doctrine: Doctrine of effectiveness
On September 12, 1931, Mexico was admitted to the League of Nations. That was a
significant event as it had not been invited since the creation of the intergovernmental
organization once the First World War ended, which can be attributed mainly to some
unsolved problems between Mexico and the United States. In the heart of the forum, Mexico
established its position in favour of the international law and the principles of non-
intervention and self-determination. The Mexican government always supported the peaceful
resolution of disputes and rejected the use of force in international relations. All of that gave
the country a major international prestige. As for its southern neighbours in Latin
America and the Caribbean, Mexico returned to the International Conference of American
States, where it had been previously excluded because the government had not been
recognized by the US. The country gained an outstanding prestige in the conferences that
1
(UK) 1939
took place in Havana (1928) and Montevideo (1933), which postured for Latin American
union and international law.
Meanwhile, Mexico had the opportunity to spread its position towards the international
practice of recognition, known as the Estrada Doctrine. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Genaro
Estrada, pointed out on September 27, 1930:
The government of Mexico restricts itself to keep or retire, when considered appropriate,
its diplomatic agents and to continue accepting, when considered appropriate as well, similar
diplomatic agents whose respective nations have accredited in Mexico, without qualifying,
neither hastily nor a posteriori, the right that nations have to accept, keep or replace their
governments or authorities.
The Estrada Doctrine suggests that under the establishment of de facto governments in other
countries, Mexico did not support giving recognition because it is considered a degrading
practice. By injuring the sovereignty of other states, recognition puts them in a vulnerable
position because their internal affairs can be judged by other governments, which assume a
critical attitude when deciding about the legality and legitimacy of foreign
governments. Mexico was itself harmed because of the practice, as it was difficult to obtain
recognition of its independence.
The most extended use of the Estrada Doctrine was in the 1970s, when Mexico did not
withdraw its recognition of any South American government that was formed through a coup
d'état. The only measure Mexico could use against such governments was withdrawing
its diplomatic mission.
In other words, the Estrada Doctrine states that Mexico should not make positive or negative
judgements about the governments, or changes in government, of other nations, because such
an action would imply a breach to their sovereignty. In addition, the doctrine is based on the
universally-recognized principles of self-determination and non-intervention, which are
considered essential for mutual respect and cooperation amongst nations.
