Scribd
Upload
290 views1 page

The Tinoco Arbitration, Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) Plaintiff-Great Britain Defendant - Costa Rica Facts

The Tinoco Arbitration involved a dispute between Great Britain and Costa Rica over oil concessions granted by the former Tinoco regime in Costa Rica to a British company. While the Tinoco regime ruled de facto for two years, Great Britain did not recognize its legitimacy. The arbitrator, Chief Justice Taft, ruled that lack of recognition did not invalidate the Tinoco regime's de facto control or contracts, and Costa Rica was bound to honor the oil concession.

Uploaded by

Vincent Rey Bernardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
290 views1 page

The Tinoco Arbitration, Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) Plaintiff-Great Britain Defendant - Costa Rica Facts

The Tinoco Arbitration involved a dispute between Great Britain and Costa Rica over oil concessions granted by the former Tinoco regime in Costa Rica to a British company. While the Tinoco regime ruled de facto for two years, Great Britain did not recognize its legitimacy. The arbitrator, Chief Justice Taft, ruled that lack of recognition did not invalidate the Tinoco regime's de facto control or contracts, and Costa Rica was bound to honor the oil concession.

Uploaded by

Vincent Rey Bernardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Ruling: Explains the decision made by the arbitrator, focusing on the recognition of contracts under international law during government changes.
  • Tinoco Arbitration Case Overview: Provides a summary of the Tinoco Arbitration case, outlining the parties involved and the historical context.
  • Issue: Identifies the core legal question regarding the recognition of government contracts in international law.
  • Facts: Describes the background and relevant details of the Tinoco Arbitration case, focusing on the political events in Costa Rica.
  • Commentary: Provides additional analysis and interpretation of the ruling’s implications for international law and governance.

The Tinoco Arbitration, Great Britain v.

Costa Rica (1923)


Plaintiff- Great Britain
Defendant- Costa Rica

FACTS

The Tinoco regime, which was the former government of Costa Rica, was alleged by Great Britain to
have granted oil concession to a British company that had to be honored by the present regime.

The “Tinoco regime” came to power through a coup in Costa Rica in 1917. It lasted for two years. During
this time, the Tinoco regime was recognized as legitimate by some States, but not large powers such as
Great Britain (plaintiff). During its time in power, the Tinoco regime entered into several contracts
(including an oil concession) with the British government. When the regime fell in 1919, Great Britain
brought suit against Costa Rica (defendant) to enforce the contracts and collect on the Tinoco regime’s
liabilities. Costa Rica argued that the Tinoco regime was not a recognized government capable of
entering into contracts on behalf of the State. Additionally, Costa Rica argued that since Great Britain
itself did not recognize the Tinoco regime as a government, it could not claim that Tinoco conferred
enforceable rights such as the oil concession on British citizens. In March 1923, the case was considered
by an Arbitrator, United States Chief Justice William H. Taft.

ISSUE
Does a government need to conform to a previous constitution if the government had established itself
and maintained a peaceful de facto administration and does non-recognition of the government by other
government destroy the de facto status of the government?

RULING:  
No. A government need not conform to a previous constitution if the government had established itself
and maintained a peaceful de facto administration and non-recognition of the government by other
government does not destroy the de facto status of the government. The non-recognition of the Tinoco
regime by Great Britain did not dispute the de facto existence of that regime. There is no estoppel since
the successor government had not been led by British non-recognition to change its position.

Estoppel was not found by the arbitrator. The evidence of the de facto status of the Tinoco’s regime was
not outweighed by the evidence of non-recognition. This implies that valid contracts may be formed by
unrecognized government.

You might also like