Art. 3.- Jurisdiccióny competencia. Laspersonas
naturales o jurídicas, nacionales o extranjeras,
querealicenactividadesmineras, estánsometidas
alasleyes, juecesytribunalesdelpaís. Enelcaso
de las personas naturales y jurídicas
extranjeras, setienecomoimplícita su renuncia
a toda reclamaciónpor víadiplomáticaode
organismosinternacionalesdeJusticia.

Jurisdiction and competence:

All persons natural or legal, domestic or foreign, that engage in mining activity are subject to the laws, judgements and tribunals of the nation. In the case of natural persons, or legal foreigners, it is implicit that they renounce all appeals by diplomatic means, or by bodies of international jusitice.

How do you like it so far?

I'll just add that from my reading of a wide variety of issues, the question of sovereignty comes up over and over again in many different contexts.

The term itself is so weighed down with national pride and historic indignation as to be essentially meaningless in a legal sense. What is implied, as we see clearly in article 3, is the rejection of long standing international agreements and treaties, unless it suits us.

The political sticking point seems to be that to pass any law that puts the national interest under the purvue of an international body cannot be allowed. This is of course ridiculous, but that's the way it's perceived by the public and by a large segment of the legislature, whose knowledge of international law is obviously very limited.

I was hoping we wouldn't see this in the mining law, but there it is, on page one. Now I ask you, what company in it's right mind is going to invest in a nation where they explicitly renounce long standing international agreements - agreements that are reciprocal, and thus address the issue of sovereignty via participation in framing and administering said agreements?

So much for page one.

ebear