Founding Attorney
Statements by U.S. political leaders about “taking back” the Panama Canal have pushed a century-old waterway to the center of international legal debate. Panama has administered the canal since 1999, and its government has firmly rejected any suggestion that control could revert to the United States. Consequently, lawyers, investors, and governments now face a serious question: what does international law actually say?
This article reviews the treaty framework that governs the Panama Canal, the limits international law places on unilateral action, and the dispute-resolution options available to states and investors if tensions escalate.
From the 1903 Convention to the Torrijos-Carter Treaties
The legal story begins with the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. Under that convention, the United States acquired the right to build and operate the canal and to control the surrounding Canal Zone. The waterway opened to traffic in 1914. It quickly became one of the most important shipping routes in the world.
However, U.S. control of the Canal Zone became a persistent source of friction with Panama during the twentieth century. Negotiations ultimately produced the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, signed on September 7, 1977. Two separate instruments emerged from that process. The first, the Panama Canal Treaty, dismantled the Canal Zone and provided for a gradual transfer of authority. It expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999, when Panama assumed full control. The second, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, has no expiration date. As a result, it remains in force today.
What the Neutrality Treaty Requires and What It Permits
The Neutrality Treaty sits at the heart of the current debate. In it, Panama declared the canal permanently neutral. The waterway must remain open to peaceful transit by vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality, without discrimination. Moreover, tolls and related charges must be just, reasonable, and equitable.
The treaty also gives both Panama and the United States a role in maintaining that regime. Each state may act to defend the canal against threats to its neutrality. For that reason, some commentators argue that the United States retains a limited security role. However, the conditions and understandings attached during ratification cut the other way. They record that this right of defense does not create a right of intervention in Panama’s internal affairs. In addition, they state that any U.S. action must never target Panama’s territorial integrity or political independence.
Therefore, the Neutrality Treaty reads best as a shield for the canal itself, not as a license to reassert control over it. Nothing in the text provides a mechanism for returning the waterway to U.S. administration.
Who Governs the Panama Canal Today?
Since the 1999 handover, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has administered the waterway. Panama entrenched the ACP in its Constitution as an autonomous entity with responsibility for operation, maintenance, and toll-setting. The authority publishes its transit rules and financial results through official channels.
Panama has also invested heavily in the route. For example, a 2006 national referendum approved a major expansion program, and the new Neopanamax locks opened in June 2016. That project generated significant construction disputes between the ACP and its contractor consortium, and several of those disputes proceeded to ICC arbitration. We analyzed those proceedings in our article on construction arbitration in international contracts.
Could Reclamation Threats Violate International Law?
Political statements are not, by themselves, breaches of a treaty. Nevertheless, international law sets clear boundaries on what any state may lawfully do next.
First, treaties bind. Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, reflected in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), every treaty in force must be performed in good faith. Although the United States has not ratified the VCLT, it treats many of its rules as customary international law. Similarly, Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT require interpreters to read treaty terms in good faith, in their context, and in light of their object and purpose. The object and purpose of the Neutrality Treaty is an open, secure, and neutral canal, not renewed foreign control.
Second, the grounds for escaping a treaty are narrow. A fundamental change of circumstances under Article 62 of the VCLT is an exceptional doctrine, and tribunals apply it restrictively. Consequently, complaints about toll levels or foreign commercial influence would face a high bar. The treaty itself already contains provisions that address tolls and neutrality.
Finally, the UN Charter matters. Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Any attempt to retake the canal by coercion would therefore raise serious questions under the Charter. Even explicit threats of force can engage Article 2(4) on their own. Panama, for its part, has publicly reaffirmed its sovereignty over the waterway and has defended that position in diplomatic forums.
How Could States Resolve a Panama Canal Dispute?
Suppose the two governments genuinely disagreed about the meaning of the Neutrality Treaty. What then? Diplomacy would come first, because treaty disputes of this kind usually begin with consultations between foreign ministries. If talks failed, the parties could agree to submit the question to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ can hear a case, however, only where both states accept its jurisdiction over the dispute.
Meanwhile, other canal users have a stake as well. The neutrality regime protects vessels of all nations, and a separate protocol invites every state to adhere to it. For example, a state whose shipping suffered discriminatory treatment could raise the issue diplomatically or in international organizations. In short, the legal architecture channels disagreement toward negotiation and adjudication rather than unilateral action.
Investor Protection and Disputes Around the Panama Canal
Geopolitical tension around the Panama Canal also has a commercial dimension. Ports, logistics parks, energy facilities, and shipping businesses cluster around both entrances to the waterway. Foreign investors in those sectors hold concessions and long-term contracts. In addition, several concession arrangements have already drawn regulatory and judicial scrutiny within Panama.
International law offers those investors meaningful protection. Panama is a party to the ICSID Convention and has investment treaties in force with numerous states. Moreover, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement contains its own investment chapter. In general, these instruments protect qualifying investors against uncompensated expropriation and against unfair or inequitable treatment. If a government measure destroys the value of a protected investment, investor-state arbitration may follow. Our overview of the ICSID procedure explains how such a claim unfolds.
By contrast, purely commercial disagreements, such as disputes under transit, concession, or construction contracts, will usually proceed under the arbitration clauses in those agreements. Careful contract drafting therefore remains the first line of defense.
How Transnational Matters Can Help
The Panama Canal debate shows how quickly politics, treaty law, and investment protection can converge. Transnational Matters PLLC advises investors, contractors, and trading companies on investment treaty claims, international arbitration, and cross-border risk planning. If your business depends on canal-linked infrastructure or trade routes, our international investment lawyers can help you assess your treaty protections before a dispute arises. Contact our office to discuss your options.
If the issues discussed here affect your business or investments, our team is ready to help. Contact our team to discuss a strategy tailored to your situation.
