View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 1 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 369 (1923)
Brief Fact Summary. 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.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. 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.
A commentator noted in 1962 that, for the purposes of these borrowing statutes, the courts unanimously hold that a cause of action sounding in tort arises in the jurisdiction where the last act necessary to establish liability occurred; i.e., the jurisdiction in which injury was received.
View Full Point of LawIssue. 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?
Held. (Taft, C.J., Arb). 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.
Discussion. 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.