Binationality does not cancel sovereignty – Economic

– First prerequisite: Contracting States are legal entities of a public nature.

So, if the Contracting States are legal persons, they must inevitably be represented by natural persons, and such representations fall to the natural persons of their agents. In turn, these agents are public officials and therefore have a public law character.

– Second prerequisite: Every legal entity must be represented by a natural person for the normal development and development of the exercise of the sovereign power it has through a natural person who represents it under a constitutional mandate that is of public order and level. This mandate falls to the first agent or the president of the republic, who is a civil servant.

– Third premise: The first agent or president of the republic is he who represents the state, in its government and in its administration, together with the other two powers which constitute the regency of the state: the legislative and the judicial, both of which are also of public order. .

– Fourth premise: Since the President of the Republic is the administrator of the “res” public, its legal nature cannot be different from public order.

– Fifth premise: The new entity created by agreement between the High Contracting Parties, whose legal nature is public, cannot generate an entity with another legal nature, which is private.

If this happens, it means that a private entity cannot be generated from a public procurement entity; for if this were so, it would be like saying that from sea water—which is salty—you can expect fresh water. From a freshwater spring you can only expect fresh water, but never salt water, because it is not of the same nature and type.

Gentlemen, here comes the distorted interpretation that those who work or visit Itaipu insist on presenting the bi-national as a supra-national entity of a private nature – apparently on purpose -. It’s like pretending a pregnant cat can give birth to a puppy; or vice versa.

– Sixth premise: If the high-ranking parties signed an international treaty to implement a joint venture to create between two sovereign states, such as a binational entity such as the Itaipú hydroelectric plant, its legal nature cannot be different from public order, as well as its generating matrices – the states that are created it – they are also legal entities of the public order.

If what he transcribes below were true: “…//… composed of an international legal instrument, and therefore subject to the specific norms contained in international treaties, having the same capacity to produce its own actions, independently of the will of the contracting parties states”.

This would then mean that the international organizations, as in this case the Itaipú or Yacyretá hydroelectric plant, would constitute a state within the independent and sovereign state of Paraguay; a premise that is not true but becomes a delusion. Only one exception is known in this case – which is – the Vatican State in the territory of Italy, in which an independent and sovereign state with its own territory of 39 ha, which is located in the territory of Italy, is recognized by the consent of the nations of the planet.

Furthermore, if these bi-national entities were “independent of the will of the contracting states”, there would be no need for the intervention of the High Countries representing both sovereign states – the Presidents of the Republic of Paraguay and Brazil – to determine by decree an Executive Power, with the consent of the Nation’s Senate, to the Directors General of the Bi-National Entities. Therefore, following what has been stated in the previous paragraph, without fear of being wrong, we can conclude that binational entities “are not independent of the will of the party or the contracting states”.

I repeat, what Mr. Francisco Javier Coronel Castillo said constitutes a “declaratory legal error”, therefore a cunning, false, legally inappropriate and malicious statement to interpret the legal meaning of the Treaty of Itaipu.

– Seventh premise: The legal support of this treaty on the legal nature of public order in the face of any contradictions that may arise between the contracting parties will be governed by international public law, as its very legal nature indicates, allows and imposes it.

The States Parties, through their legal representatives – the Presidents of the Republic of Paraguay and the Federative Republic of Brazil – have clearly defined the path to follow in case of misunderstanding between the contracting parties, i.e. if a dispute arises in the management of sovereign priority interests between them, they must follow the following steps:

1st) First, seek agreement between the Directors-General (the main channel between the parties representing the High Contracting Parties) and the members of the Entity’s Council. If this does not achieve the expected result, it will proceed to the second phase of the process:

2nd) Take the lack of agreement in the first phase to the High Contracting Parties (diplomatic channel between the High Countries) so that they resolve it in this case. But if, despite this attempt to resolve the impasse, it is not resolved, then they must proceed to the third stage:

3rd) Resort to international courts of law where PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW will come into force, which will be based on points of the Treaty of Itaipu that have been violated or not observed by one of the parties. If what the international jurisdiction decides is not followed, the final stage remains, which is the defense of their sovereign rights by force: WAR. But in Article 144 (CN) – RENUNCIATION OF WAR, the Republic of Paraguay renounces war but upholds the principle of legitimate defense.

Which once again demonstrates the misinterpretation that the general defender of Itaipu, a direct margin [¿?] refers to the text and context of the Treaty of Itaipu signed between the High Contracting Parties.

– Eighth premise: Since the two signatories are of different nationalities, it is called binational.

As we can see, the only reason for the “binational” designation is that they are two sovereign countries, Paraguay and Brazil, but this title can never change the legal nature of the signatory countries, which will always be of public order.

– Ninth prerequisite: We must not confuse the concepts of the concepts of nature or social order with their legal types, which would be their binationality. With this premise, it is very clear – from a legal point of view – that the order of the binational entity is public and its legal nature will be given by its binationality.

– Tenth premise: Binationality requires respect for the sovereignty of the States Parties, without prejudice to the agreements reached, embodied in the text of the Treaty.

The Treaty of Itaipu

Article I – The High Contracting Parties agree to carry out jointly and in accordance with the provisions of this treaty and its annexes the hydroelectric use of the water resources of the Parana River; belonging in “condominium” to both countries…

Article III – The High Contracting Parties establish, with equal rights and obligations, a Binational Entity called ITAIPÚ for the purpose of carrying out the hydroelectric exploitation referred to in Article I.

Article V – The High Contracting Parties authorize Itaipu to carry out, during the term of this treaty, the hydroelectric exploitation of the section of the Paraná River referred to in Article I…

– The eleventh premise: International treaties are like a coin with two faces, one stamped with the sovereignty of states and the other with bi-nationality.

They constitute, together with each other, the reason on which the agreement reached is based, without your needing to express it; as it is inherent in its international legal nature, which must be respected under equal conditions by both parties (Article III of the Treaty).

Another important legal feature to consider is that dual nationality (legal types) is a parameter of internal governance that is imposed in case of differences regarding the internal administrative and technical management of the entity; The same should be resolved as follows: 1°) seek an agreement between the Directors General (through primary or first instance between the parties representing the High Contracting Parties); while the sovereignty of the States Parties, when they are surrounded; They should be treated at second instance, raised to the highest countries to be considered and resolved diplomatically.

If the disagreement persists, it must be considered in a third instance, the international jurisdictional instance, and will be governed by international public law, since its nature or legal order is public order.

– Twelfth premise: If the presidents of the countries that signed the Treaty of Itaipu; natural persons with the title of public servant or civil servant, to represent their respective countries, who appoint their representatives in the new entity created by the treaty – i.e. the general directors and executive directors, in this case on both sides – They will also have the same legal character as their appointees, ie. they will be civil servants; therefore, the entity will also be of a binational public order.

As the Chief Defender of the Itaipu Direct Margin (¿?) can appreciate, it can never happen, in the case of a public servant, that that person can be a director or officer of a private person at the same time.

Thirteenth premise: The contract positions the state parties as commercial partners and co-owners of the created entity, with equal contribution, provided for in Article 3 – paragraph 1 of the contract.

Deception

If they are binational, “independent of the will of the contracting states”; the intervention of higher parties would not be necessary….

They are not

We can conclude, without fear of being wrong, that binational organizations are not independent of the will of the country or the contracting states.

Public

It is quite clear, legally…, that the order of the binational entity is public and its legal nature will be given by its binationality.

levels

In case of disagreement, there are three instances: that of the directors. That of the top parties and finally resort to international courts.

Journalist, lawyer and engineer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *