Platt Amendment (1903)
Approved on May 22, 1903, the Platt Amendment was a treaty between the U.S. and Cuba that attempted to protect Cuba's independence from foreign intervention. It permitted extensive U.S. involvement in Cuban international and domestic affairs for the enforcement of Cuban independence.
U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 produced a peace treaty that compelled Spain to relinquish control of several overseas territories, including Cuba (see the de Lôme letter). In April of 1898, Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado proposed an amendment to the U.S. declaration of war against Spain, which stated that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba. The Teller Amendment asserted that the United States "hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people." The Senate adopted the amendment on April 19.
Nonetheless, U.S. troops occupied Cuba for several years after the war ended. Under Gen. Leonard Wood, the military government organized a school system, ordered the finances, and made significant progress in eliminating yellow fever.
When the Constitutional Convention of Cuba started its deliberations in July 1900, it received notification that the U.S. Congress intended to attach an amendment to the Cuban Constitution. The following year, Secretary of War Elihu Root drafted a set of articles as guidelines for future United States–Cuba relations. This set of articles became known as the Platt Amendment, after Senator Orville Platt of Connecticut, who presented it. Platt was a U.S. senator from 1879 to 1905 and influenced the decision to annex Hawaii and occupy the Philippines. As chair of the Senate Committee with Relations on Cuba, he sponsored the amendment as a rider attached to the Army Appropriations Bill of 1901. Cubans reluctantly included the amendment, which virtually made Cuba a U.S. protectorate, in their constitution. The Platt Amendment was also incorporated in a permanent treaty between the United States and Cuba.
The Platt Amendment stipulated the conditions for U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs and permitted the United States to lease or buy lands for the purpose of establishing naval bases (the main one was Guantánamo Bay) and coaling stations in Cuba. It barred Cuba from going into debt, making a treaty that would give another nation power over its affairs, or stopping the United States from imposing a sanitation program on the island. Specifically, Article III required that the government of Cuba consent to the right of the United States to intervene in Cuban affairs for “the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba.”
The Platt Amendment supplied the terms under which the United States intervened in Cuban affairs in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. By 1934, rising Cuban nationalism and widespread criticism of the Platt Amendment resulted in its repeal as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy toward Latin America. The United States, however, retained its lease on Guantánamo Bay, where a naval base remains in operation today.
Transcript
Whereas the Congress of the United States of America, by an Act approved March 2, 1901, provided as follows:
Provided further, That in fulfillment of the declaration contained in the joint resolution approved April twentieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, entitled "For the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect," the President is hereby authorized to "leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people" so soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows:
"I.-That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgement in or control over any portion of said island."
"II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of government shall be inadequate."
"III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba."
"IV. That all Acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected."
"V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and as far as necessary extend, the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island, to the end that a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases may be prevented, thereby assuring protection to the people and commerce of Cuba, as well as to the commerce of the southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein."
"VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty."
"VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence
of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States."
"VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States."
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/platt-amendment
************************
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 7, 1903
Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations.
Signed by the President of Cuba, February 16, 1903.
Signed by the President of the United States, February 23, 1903.
Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations.
The United States of America and the Republic of Cuba, being desirous to execute fully the provisions of Article VII of the Act of Congress approved March second, 1901, and of Article VII of the Appendix to the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba promulgated on the 20th of May, 1902, which provide:
“Article VII. To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.”
have reached an agreement to that end, as follows:
Article I.
The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations, the following described areas of land and water situated in the Island of Cuba.
1st. In Guantanamo (see Hydrographic Office Chart 1857).
From a point on the south coast, 4.37 nautical miles to the eastward of Windward Point Light House, a line running north (true) a distance of 4.25 nautical miles;
From the northern extremity of this line, a line running west (true), a distance of 5.87 nautical miles;
From the western extremity of this last line, a line running southwest (true), 3.31 nautical miles;
From the southwestern extremity of this last line, a line running south (true), to the seacoast.
This lease shall be subject to all the conditions named in Article II of this agreement.
2nd. In Northwestern Cuba (see Hydrographic Office Chart 2036).
In Bahia Honda (see Hydrographic Office Chart 520b).
[Page 351]All that land included in the peninsula containing Cerro del Morrillo and Punta del Carenero situated to the westward of a line running south (true) from the north coast at a distance of thirteen hundred yards east (true) from the crest of Cerro del Morrillo, and all the adjacent waters touching upon the coast line of the above described peninsula and including the estuary south of Punta del Carenero with the control of the headwaters as necessary for sanitary and other purposes.
And in addition all that piece of land and its adjacent waters on the western side of the entrance to Bahia Honda included between the shore line and a line running north and south (true) to low water marks through a point which is west (true) distant one nautical mile from Pta. del Cayman.
Article II.
The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.
Vessels engaged in the Cuban trade shall have free passage through the waters included within this grant.
Article III.
While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof.
[seal]
Signed by the President of the United States the twenty third of February, 1903.
[seal]
Treaty Between the United States of America
and Cuba; May 29, 1934
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICAA PROCLAMATION
Whereas a Treaty of
Relations between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba was
concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington on the
twenty-ninth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, the original
of which Treaty, being in the English and Spanish languages, is word for word
as follows:
The United States of America
and the Republic of Cuba, being animated by the desire to fortify the relations
of friendship between the two countries and to modify, with this purpose, the
relations established between them by the Treaty of Relations signed at Habana,
May 22,1903, have appointed, with this intention, as their Plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United
States of America; Mr. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States of
America, and Mr. Sumner Welles, Assistant Secretary of State of the United
States of America; and
The Provisional President of
the Republic of Cuba, Senor Dr. Manuel Marquez Sterling, Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Cuba to the United States
of America;
Who, after having
communicated to each other their full powers which were found to be in good and
due form, have agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE I
The treaty of Relations
which was concluded between the two contracting parties on May 22, 1903, shall
cease to be in force, and is abrogated, from the date on which the present
Treaty goes into effect.
ARTICLE II
All the acts effected in
Cuba by the United States of America during its military occupation of the
island, up to May 20,1902, the date on which the Republic of Cuba was
established, have been ratified and held as valid; and all the rights legally
acquired by virtue of those acts shall be maintained and protected.
ARTICLE III
Until the two contracting
parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard
to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and
naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February
16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day
of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to
the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard
to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903,
also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with
respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of
America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two
Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the
station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the
limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE IV
If at any time in the future
a situation should arise that appears to point to an outbreak of contagious
disease in the territory of either of the contracting parties, either of the
two Governments shell' for its own protection, and without its act being
considered unfriendly, exercise freely and at its discretion the right to
suspend communications between those of its ports that it may designate and all
or part of the territory of the other party, and for the period that it may
consider to be advisable.
ARTICLE V
The present Treaty shall be
ratified by the contracting parties in accordance with their respective
constitutional methods; and shall So into effect on the date of the exchange of
their ratifications, which shall take place in the city of Washington as soon
as possible.
In faith whereof, the
respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed
their seals hereto.
Done in duplicate, in the
English and Spanish languages, at Washington on the Twenty-ninth day of May,
one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four.
And whereas, the said Treaty
has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two
Governments were exchanged in the city of Washington on the ninth day of June,
one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four;
Now, therefore, be it known
that I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, have
caused the said Treaty to be made public, to the end that the same and every
article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the
United States of America and the citizens thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be
affixed.
Done at the City of
Washington this ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-four and of the Independence of the United States of America
the one hundred and fifty-eighth.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT By the
President:
CORDELL HULL
Secretary of State.
**************************
Unequal
Treaties in International Law
Elena
Conde Pérez, Zhaklin Valerieva Yaneva
- LAST REVIEWED: 25
March 2020
- LAST MODIFIED: 25
March 2020
- DOI:
10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0131
The “unequal treaties” (known also by the
terms “unjust,” “coercive,” “predatory,” “enslaving,” “leonine”) refers
fundamentally, but not exclusively, to a historical category of
bilateral treaties concluded in the late 19th and early 20th century between
European states, the United States of America (USA) or Latin American countries
(states that fulfilled the standards of “civilization”), and Asian or African
states (perceived as “uncivilized”). Therefore, most of these treaties were
signed after military defeat or as a consequence of such a threat and often
provoked dissatisfaction, as they were establishing a system of benefits
for the “civilized” powers, while restricting the sovereignty of the
“uncivilized” and subordinate states. Hence, the “uncivilized” was being put in
an unequal position while negotiating, as the “civilized” imposed—because of
its economic and military superiority—harsh restrictions and inequitable terms
and extorted for special privileges through concession of territorial and
sovereign rights, division of spheres of influence, opening of ports,
enforcement of extraterritorial jurisdiction, acquisition of railways, mining,
etc. That said, the first unequal treaty is the peace treaty between the Qing
Empire (China) and the United Kingdom signed in 1842, known as the Treaty of
Nanking. It was followed by similar agreements between the United States and
Japan (Convention of Kanagawa, 1854), or between Korea and Japan (Treaty of
Kanghwa/Ganghwa, 1876). After World War II, all states suffering from unequal
treaties tried to revoke the established system but met with varying success.
Nevertheless and despite being seen as a historical category, the idea of
unequal treaties is believed to have its prolongation to the present. Thus, the
idea that lies behind the concept of “unequal treaties” is often related to
imbalance between the parties, whether formal or substantive; nonreciprocal
rights; and obligations and/or a coercive form of conclusion regardless of it
being a military, political, or economic form of coercion. Accordingly, a
question arises as to whether any of these forms of inequality affects a treaty
qualified as unequal: whether it is valid or null, whether there are grounds
for its revision or amendment or causes to declare its termination or
suspension. However, applying the current international law—both its
conventional (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and customary
sources—there are not enough foundations to affirm the existence of an
autonomous category of “unequal treaties” and, above all, that they could
possibly have some legal consequences.
Detailed doctrinal discussions on the
history and development of the concept of “unequal treaties” can be found in Nozari
1971 and van
Hulle 2016. Detter
1966 addresses the topic from a legal perspective in the context of the
Sixth Committee discussions on the Soviet concept of “peaceful coexistence”
and, as a conclusion, offers some solutions de lege ferenda. Caflisch
1992 also considers the problem of whether there is a rule providing
nullity of the unequal treaties (general principles of law, customary law, or
prohibition of coercion) or the possibility of their unilateral termination or
amendment. Although these works refer to the legal dimensions, they do not
terminate the discussions about the exact definition of aggression, use of
force, coercion, and imposed treaties. Anyway, it is widely accepted that the
majority of the “unequal treaties” provided clauses of extraterritoriality,
most-favored nation, territorial cessions, and stationing of foreign military
units among other restrictions. The inequality was evident in the nonreciprocal
nature of the agreements as they conferred all rights to the great powers and
imposed all duties on the less powerful countries. Craven
2005 searches for answers as to why the doctrine of “unequal treaties” is
being denied a place in the modern international law, although that is not the
author’s objective: “[its] resurrection . . . as a doctrinal
category, nor [is it] to make any suggestions as to how the problem of
inequality might be addressed” (p. 337) under the existing norms of the law of
treaties. Aust
2005 briefly reviews some of the most cited works on the topic and
concludes that, despite its legal irrelevance, the discussion on inequality is
“useful since it helps to throw light on the treaty-making process” (p. 85). Markovic
1970 focuses on the discussions that took place during the Vienna
Conference on the Law of Treaties and possible justifications to invalidate or
terminate unequal treaties. Cassel
2012 represents a thorough historical approach to the unequal treaties
concluded with Japan and China by foreign powers. The author centers his
attention on the scope of the imposed extraterritoriality: concession of
various rights and immunities to foreign citizens living and working in the
Asian countries and the possibility, in case of a crime committed by the
foreigners, that the court and the law by which the defendant is to be sued or
prosecuted is the one of his own state/nationality. Jiangfeng
2016 makes a comprehensive overview of the category of unequal treaties and
its implications for contemporary international law.
·
Aust, Anthony. “Unequal Treaties: A
Response.” In Interrogating the Treaty: Essays in the Contemporary Law of
Treaties. Edited by Matthew Craven and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, 81–85.
Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal, 2005.
Aust
states that “unequal treaties” refer mainly to 19th-century agreements and
insists that the acceptance of the inequality as a ground for termination of a
treaty would cause instability. He states that the cornerstone of international
law is the legal equality among states even if they are unequal in political,
military, or economic terms. He wonders if an exact criterion on inequality
exists.
·
Caflisch, Lucius. “Unequal Treaties.” German
Yearbook of International Law 35 (1992): 52–81.
While
searching for a rule attaching legal effect to the “unequal treaties,” the
author affirms that states are free to conclude and determine the agreement’s
content. Caflisch reminds that there is no norm prescribing need of equal
duties and that the inequality does not necessarily mean that a treaty is void
or voidable (except in situations resulting from physical or military force).
·
Cassel, Pär Kristoffer. Grounds of
Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China
and Japan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199792054.001.0001
The
newly established legal order between the West and the Asian states in the 19th
century was a result of international treaties, which differ significantly from
those that introduced a colonial regime in other parts of the world. The main
difference exists in the extraterritoriality:
a characteristic that, although valid for all the treaties with Asian counties,
had its differences across them.
·
Craven, Matthew. “What Happened to Unequal
Treaties? The Continuities of Informal Empire.” Nordic Journal of
International Law 74 (2005): 335–382.
DOI: 10.1163/157181005774939896
A
historical perspective on the development of the idea of unequal treaties,
analyzing in depth the elements of inequality, such as the status of the
parties (revealing the problem of sovereignty), the context surrounding the
conclusion of the agreements (connected to the problem of duress and revision),
and the content and form of the treaties themselves (reflecting the problem of
reciprocity).
·
Detter, Ingrid. “The Problem of Unequal
Treaties.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 15 (1966):
1069–1089.
According
to the author, legal equality means that states are equal before international
law and share the same rights and obligations. Special attention is given to
the validity of unequal treaties, as Detter argues that most of them are not to
be null or void automatically, though such a possibility is recognized in
extreme cases only. For coverage of the issue according to her later theory see
International Law and the
Independent State, 2nd ed. (Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, VT:
Gower, 1987).
·
Jiangfeng, Li. “Equal or Unequal: Seeking a
New Paradigm for the Misused Theory of Unequal Treaties in Contemporary
International Law.” Houston Journal of International Law 38.2 (Spring
2016): 465–498.
This
contribution addresses the topic of unequal treaties in a very comprehensive
perspective, trying to respond to main questions as, for example, what treaties
are unequal, which of them could be invalidated under international law, and
what are the main implications derived from this category in contemporary
international law.
·
Markovic, Milan. “Les Traités Inégaux en
Droit International.” Jugoslovenska Revija za Medunarodno Pravo 17
(1970): 264–283.
Revision
of the category of “unequal treaties” at the Vienna Conference on the Law of
Treaties (1968–1969) and the special committee on the principles of friendship
and peaceful cooperation. Markovic analyzes doctrinal studies on unequal
treaties from the perspective of their legitimacy and legality (pacta sunt servanda rule) to
that of their possible revision and applicability of rebus sic stantibus and ius cogens as a way to
terminate or invalidate them.
·
Nozari, Fariborz. “Unequal Treaties in
International Law.” PhD diss., University of Stockholm, 1971.
In
his PhD dissertation on unequal treaties, Nozari underlines some of their basic
characteristics: (1) to be a result of (in)direct pressure, (2) applied by a powerful state, (3) in order
to dictate the
clauses of the treaty, (4) on a weaker
contracting party. These features, in his opinion, are direct
consequence of the existing inequality at the time of the creation of the
treaty.
·
van Hulle, Inge. “Grotius, Informal Empire
and the Conclusion of Unequal Treaties.” Grotiana: A Journal under the
Auspices of the Foundation Grotiana 37.1 (2016): 43–60.
DOI: 10.1163/18760759-03700003
Historical
survey of the category of unequal treaties. The author considers that their
existence goes far back to the early modern age. This article goes into the
early modern roots of unequal alliances and discusses how the Grotian analysis
of unequal alliances influenced other authors of the classic law of nations.
