President Donald Trump has recently expressed interest in the US
“taking back” control of the Panama Canal, a statement that raises significant legal and geopolitical questions.
The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, came under US control after the signing of the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty that granted the US sovereignty over the canal zone. For nearly a century, the US oversaw this vital maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. But the
1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties paved the way for its transfer to Panama, which was completed on December 31, 1999, in accordance with international law.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaties, ratified by both nations, explicitly outline the terms of the transfer and the canal’s continued neutral operation. Since 1999, Panama has held full sovereignty over the canal, which remains open to ships of all nations under international law, particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. While the US retained certain military rights, these do not extend to control over the canal.
Trump’s proposal to take back control of the canal would violate the Torrijos-Carter Treaties and the fundamental principles of territorial sovereignty and self-determination. The US has no legal basis to reclaim the canal without Panama’s consent. Any unilateral move is likely to face strong international opposition and erode US credibility as a treaty-abiding nation.
Moreover, reversing the 1999 transfer would be impractical, as Panama has exercised full control of the canal for over two decades, and any attempt to alter this arrangement would require complex diplomatic negotiations with little likelihood of success.
Given the broad international recognition of Panama’s sovereignty, such an effort would also face significant diplomatic resistance, particularly from Latin American nations sensitive to issues of sovereignty and foreign influence. It would be counterproductive to
US engagement in Latin America.
The Organisation of American States could issue a formal resolution reaffirming Panama’s sovereign rights over the canal, emphasising the need to respect treaties and international law. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which prioritises regional autonomy and non-interference, is likely to denounce any US attempt to challenge Panama’s control, framing it as a violation of Latin America’s right to self-determination.
Besides, finding a legal precedent is challenging, as there are no established cases that support the revocation of a treaty or reversal of sovereignty transfers.
Some legal principles have been cited in international law to justify revisiting agreements under extraordinary circumstances. For instance, the Gulf of Maine case (Canada vs United States, 1984) suggested that boundary agreements could be subject to review under exceptional conditions.
In theory, the broader principle of national security and self-preservation could be invoked if the US were to argue that control of the Panama Canal was critical to its strategic interests. But such a claim would be highly contentious, requiring an expansive and debated interpretation of both the treaty framework and international law. Trying to apply such general legal principles to the Panama Canal would be legally tenuous and politically sensitive.
From a domestic US perspective, altering the Torrijos-Carter Treaties would require negotiating a new treaty, which would mean facing significant legal and political hurdles, including congressional approval. The 1999 transfer established a strong legal precedent affirming Panama’s sovereignty, making any reversal highly improbable.
Trump’s concerns about
China’s involvement in the Panama Canal stem from its growing economic and strategic footprint in the region.
Chinese companies have secured control over key ports at
both ends of the canal and are investing in infrastructure, such as a bridge over the waterway.
US senators have expressed apprehension that this Chinese presence could enable China to monitor US activities and potentially disrupt canal operations vital for US trade. Additionally, Trump has criticised Panama’s transit fees, viewing them as excessive and detrimental to US economic interests.
But Panama’s recent decision to
exit China’s Belt and Road Initiative following US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit signals a shift in its geopolitical alignment. While details remain limited, this move may suggest an effort to recalibrate its foreign policy, potentially reducing reliance on Chinese investments and strengthening ties with the US and its allies.
But with China remaining a key economic partner, it is unclear if this decision reflects broader concerns over debt dependency and strategic influence or a more pragmatic reassessment of Panama’s economic priorities.
Rubio’s visits to Panama, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic from February 1-6 further underscores Washington’s efforts to counter Beijing’s regional influence. But Panama’s departure from the Belt and Road Initiative does not change the legal reality that the US has no valid claim to retaking the canal.
Rather than seeking control, Washington is likely to focus on deepening economic ties with Panama and supporting infrastructure development to ensure regional stability and reduce Chinese leverage.
China’s response to any US attempt to assert control over the Panama Canal is likely to be multifaceted. From a legal perspective, China has consistently emphasised the importance of territorial sovereignty and adherence to international treaties.
Politically, given its expanding economic partnerships in Latin America, Beijing is likely to view any challenge to Panama’s sovereignty as a point of concern in US-China relations. China has been wary of increased US military presence in strategic global waterways, and such a development could contribute to diplomatic tensions.
While concerns about China’s growing influence in the region are valid, reasserting US control over the Panama Canal would be legally dubious and politically costly. The idea may resonate in certain political circles, but it faces considerable obstacles in terms of legal justification, diplomatic consensus and Panama’s cooperation.
This article was originally published on the website of South China Morning Post on February 5, 2025.
Who owns the Arctic? Trump’s vision and the global power struggle