Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:45:32.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 1948 , pp. 111 - 120
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 International Conferences of American States. First Supplement. 1933-1940. Washington, 1940, pp.360–361 Google ScholarPubMed.

2 Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace. Final Act, Washington.Pan American Union, 1945 (printed), Res. VIII, pp. 40–44.Google Scholar

3 See this writer’s Editorial Comment in this Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 872–879.

4 Original date: October 20, 1945; first postponed to March, 1946, then postponed sine die.

5 The New York Times, April 15, 1947, pp. 1, 16.

6 Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, United States, Uruguay.

7 Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security. Pan American Union. Washington, 1946 (mimeographed), p. 143 Google Scholar.

8 Consultation on the principal points of the treaty to be signed at Sio de Janeiro.Washington, 1947 (mimeographed), p. 37 Google Scholar.

9 Inter-American Treaty of Beciprocal Assistance. Washington, 1947 (mimeographed), p. 7. The text is also reprinted in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 42 (September 21, 1947), pp. 565–572;Google Scholar The New York Times, August 31, 1947, p. 26; American Bar Association Journal, October, 1947, pp. 1058–1060; Current History, October, 1947,pp. 229–231.

10 Final Act. Washington, 1947 (mimeographed), p. 7.

11 The Governing Board had also—in 1945—prepared a Handbook for the use of delegates.

12 The President of the Conference was the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Baul Fernandes. Apart from a Central Commission, composed of the Chairmen of all the delegations, a Credentials Commission and a Commission of Redaction and Coördination, the Conference was organized in three Commissions: I(preamble, principles, general articles) ; chairman: Mateo Marquez Castro (Uruguay); II (measures to be taken in case of threat or acts of aggression); chairman: Ricardo J.Alfaro (Panama); III (procedures and organs); chairman: Luis Anderson (Costa Eica).

13 Conferencia Inter-Americana para el mantenimiento de la pan y de la Seguridad del continente. Informe sobre los resultados de la Conferencia presentado al Consejo Directivo de la Unión Pan Americana por el Director General, Washington, 1947 mimeographed),p. 83 (hereafter cited as Informe). This report by the Director General, Alberto Lleras Camargo, is unusual for a document of this type. It is a most excellent and interesting report, giving a detailed legal analysis of the Treaty. Fine legal investigation is combined with blunt critique, where necessary, and courageous leadership for future developments.

14 List of delegations in Informe, pp. 74–79.

15 Yet the Eio Conference was not a reunion of the permanent organ, known as the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the American Eepublics, but a special Inter-American conference.

16 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII,No. 424 (August 17, 1947), pp.325–326 Google Scholar.

17 Informe, pp. 5–8.

18 For months prior to the Bio Conference a serious civil war had been going on in Paraguay and just at the time of the opening of the conference the insurgents were beseiging Asunción. But they were, while the conference was still in session, defeated and fled. Another issue, Santo Domingo’s charge that armed Communists are being trained in Cuba for the purpose of invading Santo Domingo and overthrowing the Trujillo-regime, was not brought before the Conference.

19 See Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 424 (August 17, 1947),pp. 324–325 Google Scholar, and Secretary of State Marshall's speech at Petropolis on August 20, 1947: D.S.B. No. 426 (August 31, 1947), pp. 414–415.

20 Final Act, Res. IX.

21 Article 22.

22 Article 23.

23 Article 24.

24 Article 25.

25 Venezuela stood originally for two different instruments, the one covering aggressions by non-American, the other by American states. Argentina’s move at Eio to bar collective action between American states was defeated.

26 Article 3, par. 3.

27 Articles 3, par. 3 and 6.

28 Article 6.

29 Article 3.

30 Article 3, par. 2.

31 A map of this zone is to be found in The New York Times, August 30, 1947, p. 7.

32 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 428 (September 14, 1947), p. 504 Google Scholar.

33 Final Act, p. 7.

34 See Philip, C. Jessup in this Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 117–119 Google Scholar.

35 Art. 7

36 The Informe (pp. 44–45) speaks of the descripción del agresor, whereas it means thedifferent problem of the definition of aggression.

37 Armed attack constitutes aggression. As in Art. 51 of the Charter, it should, therefore, read: “unlawful armed attack .” Art. 9 gives only examples of armed attack and leaves the determination of other aggressions to the Organ of Consultation. Art. 9 (a)speaks also of unprovoked armed attack “against the land, sea or air forces” of an American State. If such attack is made within the region of Art. 4 or within the territory of an American State (as at Pearl Harbor), the case falls under hypotheses one and two and leads to the double duty of immediate assistance and consultation; if made outside of these areas (as against the American Fleet in the Mediterranean), only the duty of consultation arises.

38 Article 6.

39 Recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions, breaking of diplomatic relations, breaking of consular relations, complete or partial interruption of economic relations or of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, telephonic and radio-telephonic or radiotelegraphic communications (Art. 8).

40 Article 12.

41 Article 11.

42 Informe, pp. 45–46.

43 Article 14.

44 Article 18.

45 Article 17. This norm was, after debate, adopted. Argentina had stood for unanimity, Uruguay had originally proposed a mere absolute majority. Contrary to some Toting norms of the UN Charter, the two-thirds majority is here that of the states that have ratified the Treaty, whether they are present at the consultation meeting or not. Art. 19 lays down the necessary quorum.

46 Article 20. This norm was also adopted after debate. In their earlier proposals Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Panama and the United States suggested that the decisions be binding only upon those states which had concurred in them. The United States modified its original position in the sense of the present Art. 20; Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 425 (August 24, 1947), p. 367 Google Scholar.

47 Sohn, L. in American Bar Association Journal, October, 1947, p. 1058 Google Scholar.

48 Final Act, Ees. XIII.

49 Final Act, Res. X; see also the preamble of the Treaty.

50 See the sharp critique by the Director General and his telling remark that failure of such improvement would lead to the paradoxical situation of a system of sanctions without peace machinery (Informe, pp. 25–27).

51 Final Act, Ees. XI.

52 The problem of U. S. help for the armament of the Latin American Republics and for standardizing equipment is also pending, since the Congress has not yet acted upon the respective proposals of the President of the United States.

53 Article 15.

54 Martinez de Rosas, Catecismo politieo-cristiano, Santiago, 1810. Juan Egafia, Proyecto de una declaración de los derechos del pueblo de Chile, 1810, reprinted in Ram6n Briceno, Memoria histórico-critica del Derecho Público Chileno, Santiago, 1849. The proposals of José Cecilio del Valle can be found in José Rodriguez Cerna, Central América en el Congreso de Bolivar, Guatemala City, 1938. Bernardo Monteagudo, Ensayo sobre la necesidad de una federatión general entre los Estados hispano-americanos y plan de su organización, Buenos Aires, 1825.

55 Colombia-Peru, July 6, 1822 ( Venezuela: Tratados Públicos y Acuerdos Internationales de Venezuela, Vol. I, 1820–1900, pp. 11–18 Google Scholar). Colombia-Chile, Santiago,October 29, 1822 (work cited, pp. 19–24). Colombia-Mexico, October 3, 1823 (same, pp. 26–37). Colombia-Central America, Bogota, March 15, 1825 (same, pp. 43–49). Peru-Chile, December 23, 1822 ( Ricardo, , Congresos y Conferencias en que ha tornado parte el Perú, Vol. I , Lima, 1909, pp. 167–192 Google Scholar).

56 Barrenechea, Raúl Parras, El Congreso de Panamá. Archivos Diplomáticos Peruanos, Vol. I, Lima, 1930 Google Scholar.

57 See Ullóa, Alberto, Congresos Americanos de Lima, Lima, 1938, Vol. I. On the Lima treaties and the Washington Treaty also Aranda, Vol. I; on the Washington Treaty also Cerna, pp. 306–323 Google Scholar.

58 Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 24.

59 The Director General points out (Informe, p. 32) that the “collective” quality of “collective self-defense” does not lie in the application of collective measures, previously agreed upon, but in the right and duty to take individual measures of assistance by states which have not been the direct object of attack.