Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T20:37:06.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ninth International Conference of American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Charles G. Fenwick
Charles G. Fenwick*
Affiliation:
Pan American Union
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the Eighth International Conference of American States met at Lima in 1938 it was planned that the Ninth Conference should meet at Bogotá, Colombia, in 1943. The outbreak of the war in 1939, however, called for emergency measures in the form of three consultative meetings of Foreign Ministers and a special conference held at Mexico City in 1945. The First Meeting of Foreign Ministers at Panama in 1939 laid the basis for the maintenance of continental neutrality in accordance with standards of neutral conduct formally set forth in the Declaration of Panama. The Second Meeting of Foreign Ministers, held at Habana in 1940, proclaimed the principle of mutual defense against an attack by a non-American State and adopted measures to prevent the transfer of territory in the Western Hemisphere from one non-American State to another. The Third Meeting of Foreign Ministers, called in January 1942 after the entrance of the United States into the war, called for the breaking of diplomatic relations with the Axis Powers and for other measures of continental defense against the subversive activities of agents of tbp Axis Powers. In 1945, a special conference assembled in Mexico City to consolidate the defensive measures of the American States and to make pla is in anticipation of the conference to be held at San Francisco for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of peace. This was followed by another special conference held at Rio de Janeiro in 1947 in which the collective security provisions adopted at Mexico City were given permanent form in the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 1948 , pp. 553 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed at Eio de Janeiro in 1947, calls attention in its preamble to the intention of the parties to conclude the treaty on “The Inter-American Peace System” contemplated in resolutions adopted at the Conference on Problems of War and Peace, held at Mexico City in 1945. Resolution IX of the Final Act of the Rio de Janeiro Conference called upon the Inter-American Economic and Social Council to prepare a “basic draft agreement” on inter-American economic cooperation, to be submitted to the Conference at Bogotá.

2 See Informe de la Comisión Especial para Estudiar la Consulta del Gobierno de Colombia sobre la Participación de Nicaragua en la Conferencia de Bogotá, March 8, 1948. Pan American Union.

3 See Handbook for Delegates to the Ninth International Conference of American States. Pan American Union, 1947.

4 Project of Organic Pact of the Inter-American System. Pan American Union, 1948.

5 See Diario de la IX Conferencia International Americana, No. 15, pp. 272 ff.

6 A preliminary text of the Charter in English is available at the Pan American Union. A definitive text will appear with the usual report of the Secretary General.

7 Compare Article 9 of the Convention on Bights and Duties of States, adopted at Montevideo in 1933. The United States signed theconvention with reservations, and the problem remains unsolved at the present day.

8 The project prepared by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union stated more specifically that “The collective action envisaged in this Pact or in the Charter of the United Nations does not constitute intervention.”

9 The Conference dates back to 1889, when the First International Conference of American States met in Washington, at the invitation of the United States. The term “International” is now abandoned in favor of “Inter-American.”

10 The powers to be given to the Council were the subject of protracted debate. A number of the delegations called attention to the resolution of the Habana Conference of 1928 prohibiting both the Governing Board and the Pan American Union from exercising “functions of a political character,” disregarding the fact that the Governing Board had already been given such functions. By detaching the Governing Board from its more direct association with the Union and calling it the “Council,” the fears of the particular delegations were overcome.

11 The close coöperation of these three councils with the Pan American Union is secured by a provision that the heads of the corresponding departments of the Pan American Union are to be the executive secretaries ofthe respective councils (Article 88).

12 The confusion previously existing between the Union of American Eepublics and its administrative bureau, the Pan American Union, is now avoided; but it may be some time before the Pan American Union, as General Secretariat of the new “Organization,” ceases to be taken for the Organization itself.

13 The draft presented by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1947 must be distinguished from an earlier draft prepared in 1945, which followed closely the procedures of pacific settlement set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. The draft of 1945 imposed an absolute obligation of pacific settlement, but left it to the states in controversy to agree upon the particular procedure, with the provision, however, that if they should fail to agree recourse should be had to a meeting of consultation of Foreign Ministers to assist them in agreeing upon a procedure and, if necessary, to determine a procedure. This “flexible” system was abandoned by the Juridical Committee in 1947 in favor of the more rigid procedure of compulsory arbitration in the event that either of the parties should find that noneof the other procedures were satisfactory.

14 The problem was the same as that referred to above in connection with the formulation of the fundamental rights and duties of states. See above, note 7. Is or is there not an international standard of justice which supersedes national legislation and the decisions of national courts in cases of alleged denial of justice!

15 Reservation to the second paragraph of Article 3.

16 Reservations or understandings were entered by the delegations of Ecuador, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Guatemala, Cuba, Venezuela, and Honduras.

In view of the reservations to these and other articles of the Agreement, the representative of the United States on the Inter-American Economic and Social Council brought before the Council at its meeting on June 25, 1948, the question whether by furtherexamination of the various reservations it might not be possible to eliminate or, at the least, to reduce and clarify the number and extent of the reservations.

17 The rights granted to women by the two conventions are included in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article II, which proclaims that, “All persons are equal before the law and havethe rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race,sex, language, creed or any other factor.”

18 Final Act, XXX.

19 Final Act, XXXI.

20 Final Act, XXIX.

21 The United States delegation also considered the document to be more in the form of a labor code than of a charter of fundamental principles. It also argued that there should have been greater consultation with the International Labor Organization, in order to avoid a conflict with provisions of international labor conventions.

22 For a survey of resolutions previously adopted against subversive propaganda, see “Intervention by Way of Propaganda,” this Journal, Vol. 35 (1941), 626.Google Scholar

23 Declaration XX entitled, “ Act ofHabana Concerning the Provisional Administration of European Colonies and Possessions in the Americas.”

24 Final Act, XXXIII.

25 Final Act, XXXVI. The United States delegation, seeking to reconcile conflicting views, introduced a resolution declaring thatthe right of maintaining, suspending or renewing diplomatic relations with another government should not be exercised as a means of individually obtaining unjustified advantages under international law, and that the establishment or maintenance of diplomaticrelations with a government did not imply any judgment upon the domestic policy of that government. The resolution was adopted in the form of a Declaration (XXXV), entitled“Exercise of the Eight of Legation,” without, however, effecting a solution of the conflict of opinion.

26 Too much cannot be said in praise of thedetermination of the delegates to continue the Conference in spite of personal danger to themselves; and there is little doubt that their decision greatly aided the Colombian Government in restoring order. The attitude of the delegate of El Salvador, Ambassador Castro, was characteristic: “If all of the mechanism of the Conference should be destroyed we can still draft a treaty with pencil and paper.”