Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:27:14.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Practice of Asylum in Legations and Consulates of the United States1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Barry Gilbert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The practice of extending protection, or “ asylum,” within the walls of legations and consulates to refugees and unfortunates, rests upon no very satisfactory legal basis, but rather upon considerations of humanity. Though from time to time certain recognized doctrines of international law and certain doctrines of somewhat more doubtful recognition have been asserted in justification, it will be found that the so-called “ right of asylum ” is no right at all, but only a privilege granted or claimed where its use seems necessary by reason of an unstable condition of society.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 1909 , pp. 562 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1909

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.)

Footnotes

1

The writer has previously published portions of this article in the Harvard Law Review. These are reprinted by the courtesy of that publication.

References

2 The discussion is confined to cases arising in Central and South American countries. There are but few other instances in our diplomatic reports.

3 (1) 1851, Chili. (2) 1853, Peru. (3) 1854, Peru. (4) 1855, Nicaragua. (5)1859, Chili. (6) 1865, Hayti. (7) 1865, Peru. (8) 1867, Peru. (9) 1888, Paraguay. (10) 1868, Hayti. (11) 1869, Hayti. (12) 1870, Guatemala. (13) 1871, Salvador. (14) 1872, Hayti. (15) 1873, Hayti. (16) 1875, Bolivia, Jan. 19. (17) 1875, Bolivia, Feb. 20. (18) 1875, Bolivia, March 20. (19) 1875, Hayti, May 1. (20) 1875, Bolivia, Oct. 5. (21) 1877, Mexico. (22) 1878, Hayti. (23) 1879, Hayti. (24) 1885, Colombia, Feb. 23. (25) 1885, Hayti, Nov. 7. (26) 1888, Hayti. (27) 1890, Hayti. (28) 1890, Guatemala. (29) 1891, Chili. (30) 1892, Hayti. (31) 1893, Nicaragua. (32) 1893, Chili, April 10. (33) 1895, Ecuador. (34) 1896, Hayti, Feb. 3. (35) 1896, Ecuador, March 12. (36) 1898, Bolivia. (37) 1899, Ecuador. (38) 1899, Hayti, Aug. 2. (39) 1899, Hayti, July 17. (40) 1899, Hayti, Aug. 14. (41) 1904, Santo Domingo, Feb. 1. (42) 1904, Paraguay, Aug. 11. (43) 1905, Hayti.

4 At the time of the writing of this article the last two current volumes of the Foreign Relations Reports are not yet made public.

5 As in cases 7, 19, 29, 32, and 35.

6 Cf. Foreign Relations Reports, 1876, p. 682.

7 Fish to Preston, case 19.

8 Polson, Law of Nations, sec. 32.

9 See cases 7, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 32, 37, and 40, and par. 51, of Standing Diplomatic Instructions.

10 See also case 29, semble, as a reason for refusing safe conducts.

11 7 P. S. Q., p. 229.

12 Cf. also Foreign Relations Reports, 1891.

13 These are cases 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 28, 30, 31, and 40.

14 These are cases 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, and 43.

15 Foreign Relations Reports, 1876, p. 739.

16 Ib., p. 701.

17 Cases 10, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 39, and 42.