A history of the ninth inter-American conference, Botota, Colombia
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Woerner, Frederick Frank, 1933-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 02/10/2021 01:03:41
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317853 A HIS TORT OF TIE NINTH HTBR-AMERICA! CONFERENCE BOGOTAs COLOMBIA
by Frederick Frank Woerner9 Jr0
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements. For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In the Graduate College
THE: UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
19 6 5 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library»
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate, acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the. major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
/'B.C.. 00 6 ate Professor of Histi PREFACE
It is the author’s purpose to present a history of the Ninth Inter-American Conference held in Bogot£3 Colombia 9 in 19480 This in cludes the events both leading up to and influencing the conference9 the organization and proceedings of the conference, and the results obtained. No attempt has been made to evaluate the resulting treaties, agreements, conventions, and declarations either in terms of interna tional law or practicality. Since the documents most frequently cited in this presentation can be found in various publications, reference material has generally been placed in the form of a document title and article number. The exceptions to this rule'are# the first time that a document is men tioned and in every case when a direct quotation is made. In these instances, normal citing procedures have been followed.
The author wishes to express his appreciation to his wife,
Gennie, for her patience and to Dr, Russell C, Ewing, head of the Uni versity of Arizona Department of History, for both his professional assistance and simpatfa. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .-.o.- ....o . • » viii
ABSTRACT o o 0. 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o c © © © © o © © © © © © © © © -Ldc CHAPTER I BACKGROUND © © © © © © © © © , ©,.©©„,© = © © 1
A© Origin
B„ Selection of Bogota as site for Ninth Inter-American Conference
C© Need for Reorganization of Inter-American System
1© Expansion in Size and Scope 2© Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and.Yalta Agreement 3© Finalization of Collective Security D© Article IX, Final Act, Inter-American Conference on the Problems of .War and Peace, Mexico City, Mexico, 19^5 E„ Motivations
1© United States - Security 2© Latin America - Economic Assistance
F© Atmosphere
1© Marshall Plan 2© Animosity
CHAPTER II ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE CONFERENCE © © © 1? A© Postponements
B© Program
G. Regulations
D© Preparatory Documents
E, Organization
' TiBLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Fo Fmctioning Go Effects of the bogotazo
Ho Election of Officers
Xo Participation - Jo Inauguration of Conference
CHAPTER III THE CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ao Draft Projects
Bo Scope
Co General Content .
D„ Name of Organization
Eo Membership
Fo Voting Procedures
Go Principles
Ho Declaration of Rights and Duties of the State le Background ' 2o Diplomatic Interposition 3o ,Nonintervention 4o Economic Aggression 5o Alteration of Treaties
lo Pacific Settlement. Jo Organizational Structure
Ko New Features
I, Independent Council 20 Status of Specialized Organizations TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page L, Council“s Powers ,
Mo Military Establishment
No Ratification
CHAPTER IF THE AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT...... (PACT OF BOGOTA) , . , » 0 « 0 ...... 5^ Ao Draft Projects
Bo.: General Description Co Juridical Procedure and Arbitration Do Inter-American Peace Committee E 0 Inter-American Court of International Law
CHAPTER V - ECONOMIC AGREEMENT OF BOGOTA „ . 0 0 0 . . . . o . , 60 A. Background
Bo General Content
Co Conflict of Theories
Do Financial Cooperation
Eo Private Investment
Fo Economic Security
CHAPTER VI JURIDICAL-POLITICAL ISSUES „ „ 0 „ „ „ » 0 . . ='» . 68
A*, Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man
Bo Recognition of de facto Governments
Co Defense and Preservation of Democracy in America
Do European Colonies in America vii TABLE OF CONTESTS---Continued
Page CHAPTER VII SOCIAIr" CULTURAL ISSUES ...... ?8
A. American Charter of Social Guarantees B. Organic Statute of the Inter-American Commission of Women
C. Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women
D. Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Civil Rights to Women
CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION ...... ' ...... 82
APPENDICIES ...... : ...... 84 A. PROJECTS AND REFERENCES
B. AGENDA C. C01MTTEE PROJECTS
D. RESULTS OF CONFERENCE REFERENCE SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATIONS
E. STATUS OF CHARTER OF ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES F. INTER-AMERICAN PEACE INSTRUMENTS
G. STATUS OF THE AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT (PACT OF BOGOTA)
H. STATUS OF THE ECONOMIC AGREEMENT OF BOGOTA . I. STATUS OF THE. INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE GRANTING OF POLITICAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN
J. STATUS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE GRANTING OF CIVIL RIGHTS TO WOMEN
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... I ...... I ...... 97 LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure ;
1, Organization of American States O O o o o ABSTRACT
The Ninth Inter-American Conference met in Bogota9 Colombia, during the period March 30-May 2, 1948. Since the previous conference ten years before, the character of the inter-American system had : changed. World War II had accelerated its uncoordinated growth, and the stresses of this war and the threats of the cold war had created in the view of many Latin Americans a disproportionate emphasis on collective security. A formal organization was needed, and the pro cedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes had to be coordinated. Furthermore, the potential economic dislocation as a result of the termination of World War II and the United States8 orientation on
European recovery dictated that the conference also consider economic issues.
In spite of the disrupting influence of the bogotazo, the con ference was able to conclude the Charter of the Organization of Ameri can States, the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogoti) the Economic Agreement of Bogota, and other minor conventions and dec larations, notably the Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man. CHAPTER I
.BACKGROUND
The Ninth Inter-American Conference had its origin in 1889* when the United States0 government invited the American republics to meet in Washington» The individual most responsible for this historic meeting was the Secretary of State, James Go Blaine„ In an address to the assembled delegates , he philosophized2 61 The vision of one genera tion is the project of the next, the project of this generation is the accomplished fact of the next; the fact of this generation passes into history with the next, and all the world wonders that men have so long been blind„ This vision, in 1890, was expressed in the formation of the International Union of American Republics = Seven conferences and fifty-eight years later, the vision was to become fact in the estab lishment, on a treaty basis, of the Organization of American States.
•Resolution CVI1I of the Final Act of the Eighth International
Conference of American States, Lima, 1938, directed that the ninth con ference be held in Bogota, Colombia, on a date to be determined jointly by the government of Colombia and the Governing Board of the Pan Ameri can Union.^ Ten years passed before this conference was finally
3-Address at a banquet in honor of the delegates to the First International Conference of American States, December 20, 1889, New York, New York, Cited by Margaret Kiser, Organization of American States (Washington: Pan American Union, 1955), n.p, %*inal Act of the Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938 (Lima: Torres - Aguirre, 1938), 115. "
. .i " convened, and much occurred that was to have an influence on the activi ties and results of the 1948 Bogota meeting»
Prior to 1948, the inter-American system was based on resolu tions b The flexibility that resulted from this lack of treaty basis or formal organization served a useful purpose during the difficult years of building the system. Resolutions better fitted the empirical char acter of Pan Americanism; they made development easier and were more adaptable to changing circumstances and concomitant needs„ The system continually grew and ever increased the scope of its functions„ After
1933$ there occurred a rapid expansion in all activities but particu larly in the field of polities. The system was no longer restricted to administrative relations among the Americas; it had taken on a truly international coloration and was involved in the full spectrum of so cial, political, economic and juridical activity. To fulfill its in creased obligations, many various agencies had been established, con ferences held, and projects undertaken. World War II had particularly accelerated this expansion process, and there resulted a complex of in stitutions, agencies, and committees with very little coordination among them. There existed duplication of effort and at times conflict of purpose. Francisco Cuevas summed up the situation extremely well when he wroteI The sum total of the resolutions was, so to speak, inco herent, Of the great number of good principles put forward, many were repeated several times, others were ignored, many conventions were not ratified, and it could be said generally that Pan-Americanism could not, as a result of them, be called a system. It was undoubtedly a great spiritual movement aiming at the union and mutual understanding of the Whole Continent, but it lacked not only consistency and a clear conception of ■ , 3 what the movement as a whole meant, but also a coherent juridi cal organization.3
Earlier attempts at formal organization had failed. The Sixth International Conference of American States held in Havana9 in 1928,' attempted to put the system on a treaty basis; but it failed not only because it required unanimous ratification (Sixteen countries ratified; Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, and Paraguay did not), but primarily because the attempt was premature A However, fcy the postwar period the pragmatic arguments which had been based on the merits of flexibility resulting from a lack of formal organization were no longer valid. In view of the size of the organization and the increased com plexity of its task, closer coordination and greater integration of the various elements had become not only desirable but also necessary for efficient and effective functioning.
The preparation for future reorganization at Bogota was put in motion ty the Third Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs who met in Rio de Janeiro, in 19^2, and directed the Inter-American Juridical Com mittee to begin work on postwar problems. In 1944, the Executive Com mittee on Post War Problems (a committee of the Pan American Union’s
Governing Board) considered in detail the entire structure of the inter-
American system and made recommendations for its improvement. At Mex ico City, in 1945, there permeated the Inter-American Conference on the
^Fr an cisco Cuevas, 8,The Bogota Conference and Recent Develop ments in Pan-American Relationss A Mexican View,68 International Affairs. XXIV, Io„ 4 (October, 1948), 525-
^John L. Mecham, The United States and Inter-American Security. 1889-1960 (Austins University of Texas, 19^1), 302. Problems of War and Peace a general feeling that the intensification of international relations of the American republics necessitated a broad ening of the regional base and a general strengthening of the entire
structure of the system. The conference9 therefore, adopted Resolution
IX, ’’Consolidation and Strengthening of the Inter-American System,R which served as one of the cornerstones for the ninth conference,5
A second source of impetus to formal organization rested in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the Yalta Agreement, Dean Achison stated:
f$The Conferees at Mexico City were alive to the necessity of developing a constructive relationship between the inter-American system and the United Nations Organization, when it should be set up, so that each would constitute an element of strength for the other,ee^ At Dumbarton Oaks, the representatives of Great Britain, China, Russia, and the
United States had met in the latter part of 1944, to discuss the forma
tion of an international organization. Resulting from this meeting were the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals of which Chapter YIII, "Arrangements for Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Including Preven
tion and Suppression of Aggression," had a particular importance to the
inter-American system as a regional organization. Section C, "Regional
Arrangements ^" asserted that regional organizations were compatible with world organization if they had similar purposes and principles,
^Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico, February 21-March 8, 1945 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1946), 76-80, ^Dean Achison, "Growth of the Organization of American States," The Department of State Bulletin, XX, No, 502 (February 13, 1949), 198, and it encouraged the settlement of disputes through regional organiza tions or procedures. However, enforcement action was at the sole dis
cretion of the world organization6s Security Council. The Proposal stateds "The Security Council should, where appropriate, utilize such arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority, but no enforcement action should be taken under regional arrangements or ty regional agencies without the authority of the Security Council."7
At the Mexico City conference the Latin American delegatee were quick to point out that they had not been invited to the Dumbarton Oaks con ference, and they expressed concern over the subordinate status that the Proposals had accorded regional organizations. Their concern was intensified by the results of the Yalta Agreement of early February,
19^59 which decided the voting procedure within the proposed Security Council. The delegates in Mexico City were faced with the possibility that at the San Francisco meeting, scheduled to begin on April 25, 1945, a limit might be set beyond which the inter-American system could not develop. Consequently, the need to establish the minimum limits that would guarantee its survival became apparent. "The basic argument against a written constitution had vanished."®
A third and final factor which encouraged the establishment of the system on a formal basis was the finalization of the inter-American
^Dumbarton Oaks, comp, Robert E. Summers (New Yorks The H. ¥= H I son Co., 1945), 113. ®Alberto Lleras Camargo, "Report on the Ninth International Conference of American States," Annals of the Organization of American States, I, No. 1 (1949), 10. 6 security system at Bio de Janeiro, in 194?„ Since this security system has been incorporated ty indirect reference into the Charter of the Organization of American States, a product of the ninth conference, it is appropriate that the system be here examined. Fundamentally it em braces two main concepts, consultation and collective action.
As a result of United States* initiative at the Inter-American
Conference for Maintenance of Peace at Buenos Aires, in 1936, the con ference declared that any act which threatens the peace of the Americas
would be a cause for consultation among the member nations „ At the Lima conference in 1938, the procedure of consultation was further de
veloped in that the Declaration of Lima provided for the emergency
meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in the event of a threat to
the peace and security of the hemisphere.
Implied within the principle of consultation was that of. col lective action. At the Second Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
held in Havana, in 1940, the principle was specifically expressed in
Resolution XV which stateds "That any attempt on the part of a non-
American State against the integrity or inviolability of the territory,
the sovereignty or the political independence of an American State shall be considered as an act of aggression against the States which
sign this declaration, The Inter-American Conference on Problems of
War and Peace, in the Act of Chapultepec, virtually repeated this pro vision but with the very important omission of reference to %on-American
9s«Habana Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act and Convention,M The Department of State Bulletin, III, No, 6l (August 24, 1940), 136, State,!S making it applicable to any form of aggression regardless of origin. The Act further provided for consultation and collective ac tion; but since these provisions were to be effective only during World
War II, the conference recommended that following the establishment of peace, a treaty should be negotiated formalizing these procedures and principles
The drafting of such a treaty had to await the San Francisco conference's decision on the question of enforcement action by regional organizations„ The incorporation into the United Nations' Charter of Article 51? which recognized the inherent right of individual or col lective self-defense,^ was interpreted by the American governments as making the principles and procedures of the Act of Chapultepec consist ent with the Charter; therefore, a permanent treaty could be arranged.
This treaty, The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, was signed at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Conti nental Peace and Security at Rio de Janeiro, on September 2, 1947. The Rio treaty provides that an armed attack by any state on an
American state shall be considered an attack against all, and each one of the contracting states shall assist in meeting the attack. Each state has the right, prior to a consultative decision, to grant the violated member any assistance it may wish to extend. The nature of
^•%.enort of Delegation of United States of America to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, 72-75« llwCharter 0f the United Nations,66 comp. Amos J. Peaslee, International Governmental Organizations' Constitutional Documents (2nd ed. revT; The Hague; M. N. Jhoff, 1961), II, 1785» 8 the collective action is to be determined tgr two-thirds vote of the organ of consultation (a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs9 or in an emergency* the Governing Board of the Pan American Union act ing as a provisional organ)„ The measures which may be taken in the
event of armed attack include? recall of chiefs of diplomatic mis sions* breaking of diplomatic and/or consular relations * economic sanc tions* and armed force. The decision of the organ of consultation is binding upon all the signatories of the treaty with the single excep tion that no state will be required to use armed force without self-
consent . In the event of all other forms of aggression or situations which might endanger the peace and security of the Americas, signato ries are obliged to consult, but no prior unilateral support is author ized.-^
This formalization of the procedures for security encouraged the formal organization of the inter-American System* for without a ■ treaty basis danger existed that the solidarity of the hemisphere would be restricted to military cooperation at the expense of the equally im portant areas of economic* social and cultural cooperation. Jaime To rres Bodet, of Mexico, stated? eiIf the possibility of an Organic Pact seemed to be a desirable improvement before the Petropolis Conference, after that Conference it became evident that the preparation of such a Pact could not be delayed.
^-^Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Signed at Rio de Janeiro, on 2 September 19^7,M United Rations Treaty Series* XXI (New York? Secretariat of the United Nations, 1948), 93-ll3"% ~~"
-t-3fhe Results of Bogota (Washington? Pan American Union, 1948), 11. Thus at the Mexico City conference in 1945, the three major contributing factors to the reorganization of the inter-American system on a formal treaty basis crystallized0 The conference acknowledged the weakness of the xmcoordinated system; it expressed concern over the re sults of the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta Conference; and it provided in the Act of Chapultepec the basic principles of collective security lat er to be adopted on a permanent basis by the Treaty of Reciprocal As sistance, The summation of this course of events was the passing of
Resolution IX of the Final Act, Resolution IX, "Reorganization, Consolidation and Strengthening of the Inter-American System," provided specific guidance for the ninth conference. Some of the provisions were put into immediate effect; others had to await implementation at Bogota, The important elements of Resolution IX in summary form ares 1, The closest relations possible should be established with the proposed United Nations,
2, The Governing Board of the Pan American Union should consist of one ad hoc delegate from each republic who is not a part of the diplo matic mission accredited to the government of the country in which the Pan American Union has its seat, i,e, the United States,
3° The Governing Board shall take action, within the limitations imposed upon it by the International Conference of American States or pur suant to the specific directions of the Meeting of Minis ters of Foreign Affairs, on every matter that affects the effective functioning of the: inter-American system and the solidarity and general welfare of the American Republics, [italics mine] 10 As m i l be seen in Chapter III, this point gave rise to one of the more serious divisions of opinion during the ninth conference, 4. The incorporation of the Inter-American Commission of Women into the Pan American Union was recommended,
5 o The preparation of a draft charter for the improvement and strengthening of the system was delegated to the Governing Board. This
charter was to include as annexes a Declaration of the Eights and Du
ties of States and a Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of Man.-^'
If the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance can be accepted as one leg of the tripod supporting the inter-American system, then a second leg would need be represented by the Charter of the Organization of
American States whose groundwork was laid with the approval of Resolu
tion IX. The third and final leg was also provided for in Resolution
IX which stateds "The draft shall take into account the need of accel
erating the consolidation and extension of existing inter-American peace instruments and the simplification and improvement of the inter-
American peace structure."-45 This was to result in The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogota).
To fully appreciate the atmosphere that surrounded the confer
ence it is necessary to take cognizance of the cold war situation, for
-^"Resolution IX, “Reorganization, Consolidation and Strength ening of the Inter-American System,® Final Act, Inter-American Confer ence on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945," United States Statutes at Large, LX, Part 2 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1947), 1854-58.
^"Resolution IX," U. S. Statutes, LX, 1858. the east-west orientation of the foreign policy of the United States was to have a tremendous impact on the conference, particularly dn the field of economic assistance* The communists had executed a successful coup d*€tat in Czechoslovakia in February, 1948. Chiang Kai-shek was stead ily losing control in mainland China, Finland was being pressured into a buffer zone status fcy Russia,-*-^ and Sweden and Norway were the objects
of an intensive propaganda campaign* In Berlin, Russian harassment was on the increase* French communists intensified their attack on the
government, and the communist-led rebellion in Greece continued* New pressures were foreshadowed on Iran who the previous fall had cancelled Russian oil contracts * Of critical importance to the western hemi
sphere were the Italian elections scheduled for April 18* These would be an immediate test of communist strength. Foremost in the news of the day was the conflict in the United Nations over the proposed parti tion of Palestine. The U. S. dropped its support of the United Nation's plan for partitioning because of the possibility that Russian troops would enter the Middle last as part of an international police force and thus endanger American oil supplies.-*-7 The total effect of these many varied events was to command the attention of the United States.
Latin America believed this to be to her disadvantage* Thus, at Bogota a very fundamental divergence of motivations existed between the Latin
•^On April 6, 1948, Finland and Russia entered into a treaty whereby Finland would not permit an attack on Russia through Finnish territory; and Russia agreed not to interfere with Finnish internal . affairs. (New York Times, April 7, 1948, l). iyNew York Times, April 11* 1948, IF. 2. American republics on the one hand and the United States on the other,
Latin America was primarily interested in economic assistance to enable her to sustain the development process that was born of wartime pros perity, The United States' chief concern was security, the protection of the western hemisphere against the menace of communism. This was vividly illustrated when Secretary Marshall, at the initial meeting of the chiefs of delegations, asked if the question of "foreign inspired subversive activities directed against the institutions and peace and
security of the American republics" would be discussed,In view of his certain knowledge of the content of the agenda, this move was in terpreted to mean that the United States was interested in obtaining some sort of anti-communism resolution ,-*-9
At the Rio de Janeiro conference in 19^tY Jaime Torres Bodet, the champion of economic equality in the Americas, had asserted that political-military defense was only half of the solution, the other half being mutual aid to raise the living standard. He had declared that unless poverty, ignorance and disease were overcome "by the same unity of action as was projected against political opponents, the Amer ican states could not say that they had gone to the heart of the prob lem,*® At the first plenary session of the BogotA conference he, with
-L%e w York Times, March 31, 19%, 1,
-^chapter 4, Item V of the Agenda is entitled, "Defense and Preservation of Democracy in America in Face of the Possible Installa tion of Undemocratic Regimes on the Continent," fNinth International Conference of American States, Bogotl, Colombia, March 30-May 2, 1949, Report of the Delegation of the United States of America with Related Documents '(Vfeshingtong Government Printing Office, 1948), 291-92,] Hereafter referred to ass Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota,
2% e w York Times, August 17, 194?, , . ' 13 reference to the European Recovery Plan (Marshall Plan)9 expressed the conviction of many of the Latin American republics that the war had no greater ill effect on Europeans than the long %nder-privation" had on many men, women and children of the hemisphere. He referred to them as
%artyrs of peace. The genesis of the Marshall Plan was in a suggestion made by
Secretary Marshall in a speech at Harvard University on June 5» 19^7g in which he had recommended that the European nations jointly determine what they could do to expedite economic recovery. He had intimated that the United States would consider making up the deficiency in the interest of world p e a c e . 22 This concept rapidly materialized. In December, 1947, the Marshall Plan, calling for a $17,000,000,000 expenditure spread over a four and one half year period, was publicly revealed. Of this total amount, $7g000,000,000 was to be spent in the western hemisphere, out side of the United States, principally for food and raw materials. President Truman signed the bill on April 3g 1948, during the first week of the conference.^ The United States insisted that the Marshall
2% e w York Times. April 1, 1948, 13. '■ 2% e w York Times, April 4, 1948, 1.
^^Dollar Diplomacy at BogotA,” Business Week. No. 967 (March 1 3 , 1948), 113. 2^The first year called for: $5,300,000,000 - Europe 463.000.000 - China 275.000.000 - Greece and Turkey 60.000.000 - International Children9s Emergency Fund 167098^007000 - Total (New York Times, April 3, 1948, l), ■ 14- Plan would have great economic benefit for Latin America„ It would create a flow of dollars that would help in relieving the critical dol lar shortage5 and a mutually beneficial triangular trade arrangement among the Latin American republics 9 the United States and Western Eu rope would develop„^5 From the Latin American point of view, however, the disadvantages far outweighed the possible advantages. Their main objection was. based on the fear that the program would tend to hold them in their prewar status as economic colonies— suppliers of food and raw materials to the industrialized nations. Compounding this trend they foresaw a critical reduction in availability of industrial equip ment, an effective block to their ambitions for economic progress.^ The influence of the European Recovery Plan on the Bogota conference cannot be overemphasized.
The inclusion of the subject of economic cooperation as a major item on the agenda was probably due to a gentlemen0s agreement made at the 194-7 Rio de Janeiro conference. This cannot be documented, but the circumstantial evidence is rather convincing. After the first week of the conference which had been dominated by discussion of economic is sues, Torres Bodet made a recommendation that received unanimous sup port that such discussion be postponed until the Bogota meeting. It would appear that the United States agreed to include the subject of economic cooperation on the BogotA agenda in order that the Rio
2% e w York Times. April 4, 1948, III, 1.
^Keith Hutchison, !!Everybody°s Business,8* The Nation, CLXVT, So. 15 (April 1 0 , 1948), 397. 15 conference would concentrate solely on the realization of a mutual de fense treaty.27
The announcement that the United States9 delegation would be led by the Secretary of State and would include the Secretary of Treasury,
John W o S n y d e r ; 28 Secretary of Commerce, W. Averell Harriman; Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, William M. Martin; State Department expert on Latin American economics, William Pawley; and former economic advis er in Bio de Janeiro, Walter Oonnally, tended to reassure the Latin
American republics that the United States was ready to restore hemi sphere affairs to a priority p o s i t i o n . ^9 Any hopes, however, for a
"Marshall Plan for Latin America" were quickly dispelled by the Secre tary 9 s formal address at the second plenary session, April 1, 1948, in which he clearly and frankly placed European recovery as the prime eco nomic objective.50 His speech understandably was received with very little enthusiasm. He then made some extemporaneous remarks evoking the memory of Simon Bolf var, and these drew forth a great ovation.51
The degree, however, to which they influenced future discussion was probably negligible. Later, at the sixth plenary session held on
April .8 , the reading of President Truman9s speech requesting Congress to authorize a $500,000,000 increase in the lending authority of the
ffi'Hew York Times , August 17, 194-7 9 1. ^%Ie was later unable to attend the conference.
^% 1 'Tiempo (Bogota), March 20, 1948, 14-.
5QReport of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 309-317°
3lHew Tork Times, April 2, 1948, 1. 16 Export-Import Bank was received without any visible reaction» In the
official transcript of the conference, there is a very obvious absence of the parenthetical comment, "Aplauso" that habitually follows the termination of speeches,^ The degree of animosity resulting from the differences in motivation between Latin America and the United States is most difficult to assess, Sumner Welles believed that Mthe feeling against this country at the Bogota Conference was more bitter than at any inter-American meeting since the Habana Conference of 1928,In light of postwar events, this could well be an accurate assessment of the atmosphere that surrounded the Bogota meeting,
3%.ctas y Doeumentoss Novena Confer eh oia Interna cionaj Ameri cana, Bogota, Colombia, Marzo 30-Mayo 2 de 1948, Vol, Is Antecedentes - Secretarfa General - Reunidn Preliminar - Sesiones Plenarias (Bogota: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, 1953)s 229-230,
33^ew York Herald Tribune, April 20, 1948, cited in U, S, Con gressional Record, 80th Cong,, 2nd Sess,, 1948, XCIV, Part 7, 8985. CHAPTER II
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE CONFERENCE
Practice and custom would have scheduled the Ninth Inter- American Conference five years after the previous one or in 1943, but the exigencies of wartime had necessitated a series of emergency meet ings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and special conferences.^- There fore, the conference was not scheduled until December, 1946. A few months before this date, the Colombian representative on the Governing Board requested postponement based on the advisability of holding the special conference for the maintenance of peace and security (Rio de
Janeiro, 194?) prior to the ninth conference.^ This was approved, and the conference was rescheduled for December 20, 1947. The Governing
Board then changed the date to January 17, 1943, to permit the delegates to be home for Christmas .3 A final postponement resulted from a recom mendation made by the representatives of Bolivia., Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Uruguay and Venezuela and was’ based on the advisability of
"*"1939 s First Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Panama 1940s Second Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Havana 1942s Third Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Rio de Janeiro 1945s Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City 1947s Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Con tinental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro.
%leras. Annals, I. No. 1, 2-3. % e w York Times, May 8, 1947, 10.
17 18 having more time to evaluate the results of the United Nation’s Confer ence on Trade and Employment scheduled to begin on January 17, 1948 in Cuba. Panama alone objected but later acceded to the popular view.
Lewis Quintanilla, of Mexico, introduced a resolution that the new date be considered final and not subject to change. Both the postponement and the resolution were approved by unanimous vote of the Governing
Board. The new date of March 30 was selected to place the opening ses sion after Holy W e e k A
From past conferences ten specific projects had been referred to the consideration of the ninth conference (Appendix A). With these as a basis, a special committee of the Governing Board prepared a draft agenda which was approved by the Governing Board on March 6, 1946 and distributed to the member governments . 5 Based on the comments received from the member nations, a definitive agenda was drawn up and approved on July 27, 1947 (Appendix B). The regulations of the conference were first drafted in Febru- ary, 1946; subsequently, based on the experience of the Rio de Janeiro conference, they were revised. The three most important changes were; the deadline on introduction of new projects, the use of a coordinating committee, and the use of a style committee. The regulations were ap- proved by the Governing Board on October 20, 1947. For the convenience
^wBogoti Conference Postponed until March 30,61 The Department of State Bulletin. XVII, No. 442 (December 21, 1947), 1218.
^"Program of the Ninth Conference," Bulletin of the Pan Ameri can Union, LXXX, No. 5 (May, 1946), 277-78.
^Lleras, Annals, I, No. 1. 4, 19 of the delegates? the agenda and the regulations were printed in a handbook. This publication also contained a brief history of the back ground of each of the items on the agenda and included the pertinent documents that were available at the time of printing.^ The preparation of preliminary documents was most thorough, ill projects for consideration ty the conference had to be submitted to the Governing Board thirty days prior to the opening date in order that they could be distributed to all member governments for preconference consideration. Exceptions to this regulation could be made only with a two-thirds vote at the preliminary meeting of chiefs of delegations.&
The regulations required the prior preparation of only two draft docu ments, an Organic Pact and a Declaration Of the Rights and Duties of
S t a t e s . 9 However, as a matter of convenience many others were prepared.
Prior to the conference the governments received the following docu ments i
1. Preliminary Draft of the Organic Pact. 2. Preliminary Draft of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties
of American States.
3° Preliminary Draft, of the Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of Man.
^Handbook for Delegates to Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, Colombia. March 30, 1948 (Washington: Pan American Union, 19^7). ^Regulations,81 Art. 21. 9 Regulations,61 Art. 17d. ; . 20 4. Draft Resolution on the Establishment of the Inter-American Council of Jurists „
5« Draft Resolution for the Creation of an Inter-American Council of Cultural Cooperation, 6, Preliminary Draft of the Inter-American Peace System, Other preliminary works were presented to the delegates during the course of the conference,-*-® These formed the basis of discussion and served as a focal point for proposals and amendments. The thoroughness of the pre- conference preparations is evidenced by the minor differences that exist between the preliminary drafts and the final approved documents and ty the fact that in spite of the disruptive influence of the bogotazo of April 9S the conference was able to expeditiously complete its work.
The organization of the conference was determined in a prelimi nary session of the chairmen of delegations on March 30, The regula tions directed the formation of four Supervisory and Administrative
Committeess Initiative (Steering), Credentials, Coordination, and
Style (Drafting),-*--*- The steering committee was composed of the chair men of all the delegations and was presided over ty the president of the conference. It had the mission of supervising the development of the general work of the conference and also of formulating recommenda tions for the consideration of the plenary sessions. The committee of credentials was composed of representatives from Argentina, Brazil,
Guatemala, Haiti, and the United States, Its work would terminate once
-*-®Lleras, Annals, I, Ho, 1, 12, -*--*-"Regulations," Chap, I?, 21 it had accepted the credentials of the twentgr-one republics, The com mittee on coordination consisted of the chairman and rapporteur of each of the six working committees and was presided over by the president of the conference. It was to receive, after approval try the appropriate working committee, all projects of treaties, conventions, resolutions, and declarations. It was to examine these projects for inconsisten cies, repetitions or any other defects that could have impaired the unity or clarity of the work of the conference as a whole. It was em powered to: (l) return a document requesting reconsideration of spe cific points, (2) introduce'modifications in style, and (3) forward documents to the plenary session for approval. If subsequent to ap proval by the plenary session a deficiency were discovered, the commit tee on coordination would then report same with recommendations to the steering committee, The committee on style had representatives from
Brazil, Haiti, Paraguay and the United States representing each of the four official languages of the conference. Its mission was to make final revisions in the products of the conference, and it was author ized only to make changes in style, not content.
As to the number of working committees, the regulations pro vided that there be formed a committee for each chapter of the agenda
(Appendix B), This, however, proved to be unsatisfactory to several of the delegations and, therefore, at the preliminary session various rec ommendations were made, Colombia felt that there should be a separate committee for the consideration of the pacific settlement of disputes, Brazil agreed with Colombia but felt that an additional committee 22 should be formed to consider the issue of collective s e c u r i t y . The
Colombian point of view prevailed. Each country had the right to be represented on each of the working committees. Hie chairman of each
Committee was elected by the members from among their own membership. The chairman was given the responsibility of appointing subcommittees of not less than five and not more than eleven members, and to assign to them their particular area of the committee°s project (Appendix C).
As conceived by the planners, the starting point within the conference was the subcommittee. It would examine the project and all pertinent preliminary documents and then prepare a report containing the antecedents, an analysis of the question, and a draft resolution based on the opinions of the various delegations. This pilot resolu tion would then be distributed to all the delegations of the committee and would serve as the basis for general discussion. A definitive project would then be written by the subcommittee incorporating the majority view of the entire committee. This would be sent, via the committee on coordination, to the plenary session which would meet periodically to approve by majority vote the products of the working committees. An important point is that substantive debate on agenda topics and decisions thereon were the responsibility of the working committees. The steering committee would confine itself to the tradi tional role of general; supervision.-^ This was the planned concept
•^Actas y Documentos, I, 86-89»
-L%enort of U. S. Delegation, Bogota. 7° of conference functioning, but events were to occur which caused a change in these well-laid plans„
On April 9» Jorge ELidcer Gaitin, leader of the Liberal party, was assassinated* The resulting riots (commonly referred to as the bogotazo) affected the conference in two wayst first, a change was made in the administrative functioning! and second, the agenda item,
"Defense and Preservation of Democracy in America in Face of the Possi ble Installation of Undemocratic Regimes on the Continent" increased in importance. On April 9» the chiefs of delegations met at the residence of Marco Antonio Batres, of Honduras, first vice president of the confer ence, and created a committee composed of those delegates who were am bassadors to Colombia. This committee was assigned the mission of ar ranging for new physical facilities and security. A military committee consisting of the military representatives of Argentina,'Brazil, and the United States was created to take charge of any necessary evacua tion of conference personnel.^ In view of the disruption to the nor mal functioning of the conference, the governments of Peru and Panama offered their countries as sites for the continuation of the proceed ings. However, there existed a strong feeling among the delegations that not only was it imperative for the work of the conference to re sume, but also that it must continue in Bogota.. To do otherwise would be tantamount to admitting defeat to the forces of violence. Therefore,
-^This second point will be developed in Chapter 6.
•^Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 7. 24 on April 11, the conference unanimously declaredg
The Delegates to the Ninth Inter-American Conference of American States ■
Affirm
That the democratic solidarity of the peoples of the Amer ican continent and their common historic purpose to contribute in peace to the progress and welfare of humanity cannot be at the mercy of any transitory emergency occurring in any of their countries,
and declare Their absolute determination to continue the important work which their Governments have entrusted to them until they have fully completed the ,ask of the Assembly for which they were convened in Bogota
On April 13, at a meeting of the chairmen of delegations, Torres Bodet made a motion that major substantive issues, except those of an economic character, be brought before the steering committee with the view that the subsequent drafting could be done either ty the working committees or by ad hoc committeesThis motion, when approved, re sulted in a major change to the working arrangement of the conference.
The steering committee was now to operate with a much greater latitude than had previously been anticipated but still within the letter of the regulations. It in effect usurped much of the prerogative of the work ing committees. At the same time, it was given part of the character of the plenary session. The steering committee decided to consider the following major issuesg
^Report of U. S, Delegation, Bogota, 7=
■^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 8, 1. Organic Pact. 2. Powers of the Governing Board. 3. Rights and duties of states. 4. Rights and duties of man.
5° Collective security and hemispheric military organization. 6. Recognition of de facto governments. 7. European colonies in the western hemisphere.
8. Defense and preservation of democracy in this hemisphere^ Economic issues remained completely within committee IV. The other work ing committees drafted texts based on decisions of the steering committee and resolved such questions as were not considered hy said committee.
The steering committee by rendering decisions on the exception ally controversial points functioned as a governing body of the confer ence and expedited the tasks of the working committees .-*-9 "Within this view lies perhaps the true reason for the reorganization. The first week of the conference had been most unproductive. The riots caused the loss of only two or three working days (depending upon whether or not Saturday, April 10, is counted). This loss would hardly have jus tified such a drastic reorganization of the working arrangement of the conference had the chairmen of delegations been satisfied with the original concept. It seems likely that the bogotazo was used as an ex cuse to adopt a more streamline procedure in order that the conference might complete its work within a reasonable length of time. The fact
l8New York Times. April 15, 1?48, 1.
•^iieras. Annals, I, No. 1, 4-5. 26 that the new arrangement proved so effective can be attributed to the extensive preconference work in which the vast majority of the problem areas had been identified and discussed, Ely decree 9 the government of Colombia had on December 11, 1946, designated Camilo de Brigard Silva as secretary general of the confer ence; and on March 27, 1948, Colombia°s President, Mariano Ospina Pd- rez, had appointed his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Laureano Gdmez, provisional president of the conference, ^0 The election of Gdmez as permanent president by the delegations at the opening session brought the conference under attack from the liberal quarters; for not only was he the leader of the Colombian Conservative party, but he also had the reputation of having been pro-axis during the war. In February, 194-5, Russell H, Fitzgibbon had written of him: S8Mhether Gdmez is a Fascist depends on your definition of the word. If being instinctively sympa thetic with FEhrer principle in Latin dress makes one a Fascist, then we do him little injustice by calling him one. He certainly is in har mony, politically and spiritually, with Spain8s Fuhrer, F r a n c o , "21
Following the bogotazo when Eduardo Zuleto Angel replaced Gdmez as Co lombia 8 s Minister of Foreign Affairs, the conference ty unanimous vote made the same change. The chairmen of delegations were all conference
2^Actas y Documentos, I, 5°
^Russell H, Fitzgibbon, "Colombian Gadfly," The Inter- American, IF, No, 2 (February, 194-5), 35= 2? vice presidents, ex officio, in the order of precedence which was es tablished ty lot at the preliminary session ill twenty-one republics of the inter-imerican system attended the conferenceo A question had earlier arisen concerning Nicaragua in view of the fact that the government of Anastasio Somoza had not been recognized "by a majority of the American republics0 The Governing
Board had appointed a special committee (Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Mexico and the United States) to resolve the issue. The representatives of Haiti, Mexico and the United States argued for the inclusion of Nicara gua, They based their case on two points g First, the 1928 convention on the Pan American Union which stated that attendance at conferences was an inherent right of all the Americas; and second, the importance of the BogotA conference dictated the presence of all twenty-one repub lics, Brazil, however, objected because Nicaragua was not recognized ty a majority of the member governments, Chile thought that the issue should be decided at the conference, ty majority vote it was decided that Nicaragua should be permitted to attend; it was left to the dis cretion of Colombia whether to send invitations to each government or to convoke the conference. In either event, it would not imply diplo matic recognition, 23
2 % h e order of precedence was: (l) Honduras, (2) Guatemala, (3) Chile, (4) Uruguay, (5) Cuba, (6) United States, (7 ) Dominican Re public, (8) Bolivia, (9) Peru, (10) Nicaragua, (11) Mexico, (12) Pana ma, (1 3 ) El Salvador, (14) Paraguay, (15) Costa Rica, (l6)Bcuador, (17) Brazil, (18) Haiti, (19) Venezuela, (20) Argentina, (21) Colombia, (Report of U, S, Delegation, BogotA, 6),
^ “Nicaragua and the Ninth Conference,55 Bulletin of the Pan American Union, LXXXII, No, 5 (May, 1948), 284, 28 Future problems of attendance were subsequently eliminated try Article 83 of the Charter of the Organization of American States which instructs the General Secretariat to "transmit ex officio to Member states the convocation. On special invitation of the Governing Board to the Secretary- . General of the United Nations, the Assistant Secretary-General, %ron
Price, attended the conference as an observer in the name of the United
Nations and on behalf of all governments not directly represented.
Upon his departure, Alfonso Garofa Robles acted as said observer. In accordance with conference regulations, Article 4, Alberto Ileras Ca- margo. Director General of the Pan American Union, attended in the ca pacity of a delegate but without the right of vote. He was accompanied ty William Manger, Assistant Director General, and Charles Fenwick,
Director of the Division of Law and Organization of the Pan American
Utiion. The delegations, including advisors, secretaries, and assist ants, totaled 545 p e r S o n s . 25
The formal inaugural session was held on March 30, in the Capi- tolio. President Mariano Ospina Pdrez made the official address of wel come | Joao Neves da Fontoura, chairman of the Brazilian delegation, re sponded in behalf of all the delegations.
The Capitolio continued to be the site of conference activity until the extensive damage resulting from the bogotazo forced the
24«9charter of the Organization of American States," Actas y Documentos, Vol. Vis Conclusiones, 30.
^Lleras, Annals, I, No. 1, 4. 29 conference to relocate to a private secondary school, Gimnasio Macional, in Chopinero, a residential district about four miles outside of the capital„ There, most appropriately, the conference resumed work on
April 14, Pan American Day* It continued in session there until April 21, when the capital facilities were sufficiently restored to be able to support the activities. CHAPTER III
THE CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Resolution XIV of the Final Act of the Eighth International Conference of American States directed the International Conference of
American Jurists to prepare a project on the "Association of American
Nations" for the consideration of the Bogota conferenceThe circum stances of World War II, however, favored the retention of the flexible system of organization which permitted the creation of new committees, councils and boards by the relatively simple process of resolution; and, as a result, no action was taken»
For the reasons already, discussed in Chapter I, the Inter-
American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace passed Resolution
IX which called for a draft charter "for the improvement and strength ening of the Pan American system." The project was assigned to the
Governing Board, "availing itself of all Pan American agencies that it deems appropriate," and it was to be distributed to member nations by
December 31, 19^5 The Mexico City conference underestimated the dif ficulty of the project, and it was not until April, 1946, that- the first draft was ready. This had been prepared by the juridical sub committee of the Committee on the Organization of the Inter-American
^-Final Act of the Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938, 32.
^"Resolution IX," H. S. Statutes, IX, 1856.
30 31 System (itself a subcommittee of the Governing Board)0 The principle architects were Antonio Rocha9 Colombia; Luis Quintanilla, Mexico; and
William Manger, United States, This draft followed very closely the
guidance of Resolution IX, and it was submitted to the twenty-one re publics in early 19^-7» Most of the governments returned it with recom mended modifications; Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Panama submitted com pletely new texts. In addition, Mexico made a proposal, in the form of a note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Gov erning Board, dated April 12, 1947, which recommended that the Charter be an all encompassing document to includes Peaceful settlement of disputes, collective security, principle of nonintervention, relation ship with United Nations, rights and duties of states and man, and the status of specialized inter-American organizations. The reaction of other foreign ministries to this note was favorable. Therefore, in the preparation of the second draft consideration was taken of the various
comments made with reference to the original draft, the four new texts, and the Mexican proposal. Decisions were reached by majority vote - with the understanding that positions taken in this preliminary work would not be binding upon governments in the definitive conference work. The second draft was accepted by the Governing Board on February 4, 1948, and it formed the basis of discussion at the conference,3
With reference to the scope of the Charter, two schools of thought existed, one led by the United States and the other by Mexico,
The United States' point of view coincided with that taken by the
%uleras, Annals, I, No, 1, 11-15, . ' 32 Governing Board in its preliminary work, that is, the Charter should be limited to establishing the organization and defining its nature9 func tions s and inter-organ relationships„ All other issues should be re solved in separate agreements„ This view was based on the supposition that a more comprehensive document would unduly complicate agreement or possibly create difficulties in ratification„ The point of view sup ported by Mexico was that the Charter should be a self-contained docu ment for the entire spectrum of inter-American activity and aspiration as outlined in its note of April 12. The result was a compromise. The Charter, as it finally developed, has three major subdivisions. The first lays the foundation of the system.with a statement of principles, purposes and goals; the second deals with the instrumentalities through which the organization operates; and the third contains miscellaneous and protocolary articles, It does not contain any revolutionary inno vations or reforms; rather, it is established on the solid foundation of fifty-eight years of experience. It gathers together the basic principles embodied in numerous inter-American agreements which many years of trial and error have proven to be valid. At the same time it incorporates new features of organization which serve to improve the functioning of the system.
The problem of selecting a name for the organization was the first consideration of the steering committee meeting on April 14. The name, ’'Inter-American System," which had come into use at the Mexico
City conference received no support. Several delegations favored the retention of the original name, "Union of the American Republics," that 33 had been adopted at the first conference in 1890 <, Mexico 9 Bolivia and the Dominican Republic advocated that the title of "Pan American Union68 be applied to the entire organization» The United States took no strong stand except to point out the possibility of confusion in using the name which heretofore had been applied to the secretariat. The Argentine delegation was strongly opposed to any name that incorporated the term "association,88 "community,88 or "union,69 It argued that such terms suggest a super-state and the concomitant infringement on nation al sovereignty,^ Final arguments were over the use of the term
"states" or "nations,68 The name, "Organization of American States" was adopted by an eleven to ten v o t e , 5 The term "republic" was deliber ately avoided so that the name would continue to be an accurate de scription of membership, should in the future Canada or some other na tion— not necessarily a republic— join the Organization, The arguments over the selection of the name, particularly that of super-state, were a foreshadowing of things to come, Ileras Camargo wrote.
There was certainly no fear that the voluntary delegation of power and sovereignty by a group of States would have as its natural consequence a power superior to that which resides in each individual power and sovereignty| [All twenty-one repub lics are charter members of the United Nations,] the fear rath er was that an ambiguous basis would be established for the ■ eventual creation in America, not of a superstate, but of a single state,“
^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 16, % e w York Times, April 15, 19 % , 17»
^Lleras, Annals, I, No, 1, 19= In determining the standards for membership, the following con siderations were made:
I.. Geographic imity,
2o A feeling that there should be no provision for suspension or
expulsion, 3o Desirability of providing some formal action to signify accept
ance of membership, 4, General desire to permit Canada and any new state to become
members„
5, Point of view, particularly of Brazil, that membership should be conditional,
Brazil's recommendation limited membership to democratic nations, the criteria being: plurality of political parties, freedom of the ballot, opportunity of private enterprise, and guarantee of fundamental rights of man.^ The Peruvian proposal, however, that membership be contingent only upon ratification was adopted.® On the recommendation of EL Sal vador, provisions were made for membership for newly created political entities.9 This was the result of the recurrent attempts to create a
Central American Union. Ho specific provision was made for expulsion, but a member can voluntarily withdraw two years after giving notice if it has fulfilled all obligations.10
^Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 15=
®"Charter," Art. 2. ^Charter,M Articles 3 and 108.
lOssQharter,69 Art. 112= Itie unanimity rule of voting had long been traditional in in ternational organization and had been upheld by the World Court in its Advisory Opinion of November 21, 1925 (Number 12),^ This rule had stymied the 1928 attempt at reorganization; but by 1948 %ajoritarian- ism89 had come into vogue = The conference decided on a simple majority rule except where otherwise provided.
The principles of the Organization in the words of the Charter are a "reaffirmation"; they are in fact the synthesis of fifty-eight years of inter-American experience. ip Throughout the conference there was a preoccupation with the desire of acknowledging democracy as one of the essential foundations of peace. Brazil and Uruguay urged the inclusion of a statement of the basic elements of democracy, but the attempt was abandoned in light of the difficulty in evolving an ade quate definition.*^ v •
Pursuant to Resolution IX of the Mexico City conference, the Governing Board had prepared a "Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
States" that was largely based on the Montevideo convention of the same name signed in 1933<> 1% preconference discussion it had been decided not to incorporate the declaration into the Charter either among the principles or as a separate annex (as directed by Resolution IX);
■^"Inis L. Claude, Swords into Plowshares (New York: Random House, 1956)', 128-29= -^"Charter," Art. 5=
-^William Sanders, "The Organization of American States," International Conciliation, No. 442 (June 1948), 588. 36 instead it would be put in the form of a resolution in the final act
In conference debate, the United States took the position that only the most fundamental and generally accepted statements on the rights and duties of states should be included0 To do otherwise, it was argued, would create problems in drafting and ratifying especially in view of some of the controversial principles proposed. However, the opposing view prevailed, principally on the ground that the American states had already, in the Montevideo convention ratified by nineteen of the sig natories, reached agreement on the basic issues and that the problem was merely one of phrasing already accepted principles in a manner ap propriate for the CharterFurthermore, it was decided to include this declaration in the Charter as Chapter III, Of the various rights and duties, four in particular caused the greatest amount of debates diplomatic interposition, nonintervention, economic aggression, and al teration of treaties.
The question of diplomatic interposition has been, since the
Very first Pan American conference in 1889, a point of contention be tween Latin America and the United States, In essence it is a conflict of two concepts concerning the protection of foreigners, one expressed by the Oalvo Doctrine and the other by the rule of minimum standards.
This question was to play an important part in the ninth conference, for it was not only pertinent to Article 12 of the Charter but also
^ Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 34-36,
^Sanders, International Conciliation, So, 442, 389-90, 37 Article VII of the Pact of Bogota and Chapter TV of the Economic Agree ment » In the late ninteenth century, Calvo wrote;
America as well as Europe is inhabited today by free and independent nations9 whose. sovereign existence has the right to the same respect, and whose internal public law does not admit of intervention of any sort on the part of foreign peo ples, whoever they may be,-^°
O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O' O O O O O O O O O O 6
The responsibility of governments toward foreigners cannot be greater than that which these governments have toward their own citizens o-*-?
This is the essence of the Calvo Doctrine, nonintervention of any sort and the absolute equality of foreigners with nationals„
At the 1889 conference a resolution was passed which provided that "a nation has not, nor recognizes in favor of foreigners, any ob ligation or responsibilities than those which in favor of the natives are established, in like eases, by the constitution and the laws„"13
Latin America thus took her stand behind the Calvo Doctrine„ The
United States0 delegate, in casting the only negative vote, stated that the United States "cannot concur in any opinions which diminish the right or reduce the power of a nation by diplomatic reclamation, to
-L% e droit international tWorique et pratique (5th ed„; Paris, 1896), I, 350, translated by Donald R 0 Shea, The Calvo Clause (Minne apolis; University of Minneapolis Press, 1955), 18. -^L e droit international th^orique et pratique. I, 142, Shea, 19. , ' So Congress, Senate Executive Document Mo, 231, Minutes, ; First International Conference of American States, 51st Cong,, 1st Sess,, 1890, 810-11, cited in Mecham, 54,. ' 38 protect the rights and interests of its citizens 0 Ihe principle of absolute equality was again reiterated in Articles 9 and 10 of the Con vention on Rights and Duties of States signed at the Seventh Interna tional Conference of American States in Montevideo, 1933» The United
States signed this convention but with reservation to the effect that it retained all rights of international law, ^ International law rec ognizes the principle of minimum standards which maintains that a state which is a member of the family of nations is required by international law to meet a minimum standard in its treatment of aliens, Further? the state of origin may interpose diplomatically on behalf of its na tionals when treatment falls below that minimum standard, after the alien has exhausted the local remedies and has sustained a denial of justice,21
At the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, in 1936? Mexico and the United States were again protagonists in the same question of diplomatic interposition5 this time with respect to the project of a convention on pecuniary claims which was referred to the eighth conference. In a. memorandum that accompanied the draft, Alberto Gruchaga Ossa, of Mexico, argued that if treatment of aliens and nationals were equal, then no diplomatic claim could be justified,
• ^ S e n a t e Exec, Doc, Ho, 231, 832-33, cited in Mecham, 34, ^Charles G, Fenwick, "The Ninth International Conference of American States," The American Journal of International Law, XLII, No, 3 (Jtiy 19%), 556, . 21Ann Thomas, The Organization of American States (Dallasg Southern Methodist University Press, 1963), 174-75° 39 E d m n Bor chard, of the United States, countered that if a state de prives its own citizens of their rights, this does not justify depriv ing foreigners of the same rights»^2 j-f. is significant that at the
Lima conference, Mexico introduced a project convention on the effects of the renunciation by nationals of the diplomatic protection of their government„ This apparently represents an admission that the principle of absolute equality is not recognized as valid under international law. 23
The pertinent resolution in the draft organic pact stateds "The jurisdiction of States within the limits of national territory ap plies to all inhabitants. Nationals and aliens are under the same pro tection and owe the same obedience to the laws and the authority of the country." The United States objected to the second sentence for the traditional reason. The Article was changed to reads "The jurisdic tion of States within the limits of their national territory is exer cised equally over all the inhabitants, whether nationals or aliens."^
Mexico and Ecuador made statements for the record that approval of Ar ticle 12 did not modify or reduce the scope of Article 9 of the Monte video Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.^
The acceptance of the principle of nonintervention is unques tionably one of the most important accomplishments of the inter-American
22Shea, 85o 23shea, 88.
2^A,ctas y Document os, VI, 21.
2%eport of U. S. Delegation. Bogota, 36-3? = systemo In 1933s at the seventh conference, the United States re nounced. intervention ("Under our support of the general principle of nonintervention , * * no government need fear any intervention on the part of the United States o"^) and three years later adhered mthout reservation to the Addition Protocol to Nonintervention which states g "The High Contracting Parties declare inadmissable the intervention of any one of them, directly or indirectly and for whatever reason, in the internal or external affairs of any other of the Parties» With the signing of this protocol, intervention, as then conceived, was once and for all rejected as an element of inter-American relations„ But in 19^5, a new phase of the intervention questioned was opened0 Uruguay's
Foreign Minister, Eduardo Rodriguez Larreta, advanced the proposition that the principle of nonintervention should not be permitted to pro tect the violators of basic human rights; on the contrary, there exist ed a very definite obligation to protect the democratic principle, by collective action if necessaryo He wroteg
Peace is safe only where democratic principles of govern ment prevail. The basic rights of man are part of these prin ciples. Thus, though once exclusively domestic concerns, they now affect international interests and require international protection. In case of their violation in any American repub lic, the community of nations should take collective multilat eral action to restore full democracy there. Such action is really nothing more than the fulfillment of obligations freely assumed by the American republics, all of whom have proclaimed
^%inal Act, Seventh International Conference of American States, December 3-26, 1933,"(Montevideog J. Florenca, n.d.y, 195°
^"Additional Protocol to Non-Intervention, Buenos Aires, 1936," cited in Thomas, 23. 41 at inter-American conferences their devotion to democracy and the rights of man,,2® Though rejected fcy the majority of the American republics, it should be noted that eight did concur ■with the Larreta Doctrine. In spite of the signing of the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the question of acceptability of collective action as an inter-American practice was still an issue at Bogota, especially with Argentina who had not yet ratified the Rio treaty. Her delegate, Pascual la Rosa, argued vehemently that collective action was a basic element of the super-state and was contrary to the principle of nonintervention.2^
His remarks were amplified by Argentina's chief of delegation. Foreign Minister Juan Bramuglia, who assured questioners that Rosa8 s - condemna tion of collective action was applicable to such activity as proposed ty the Larreta Doctrine and did not pertain to obligations under the Rio treaty.30 The proponents argued that the legality of collective action is based on the prior acknowledgment of each signatory of the rights of the other signatories, acting collectively, to interfere with such conduct by any party to a treaty that violates the general agree ment. Thus, collective action is taken out of the category of inter vention by the element of previous consent.31 The conference adopted
^Eduardo Rodriguez Larreta, ^Consultation of the Government of Uruguay and Replies of the Governments on the Parallelism between De mocracy and Collective Action in Defense of those Principles, May 1946," cited in Thomas, 219»
2% e w York Times, April 6 , 1948, 1 3 .
3QNew York Times, April 7, 1948, 9°
3lThomas, 207. 42 this latter point of view but justified collective action only "for the maintenance of peace and security in accordance with existing trea-
t i e s . "32 fkg principle of nonintervention as stated in the Charter is an expansion of the Montevideo statement in two respects. It is appli cable not only to a single state but also to a "group of states#" This was a result of expressed concern over the possibility of action by a group of states to achieve objectives not previously agreed upon by the member nations. The second elaboration was the inclusion of "threat against its political, economic, and cultural elements" as a form of aggression. 33 This was a reaction against the types of indirect ag gression such as were being experienced in Eastern E u r o p e . 3^ The third problem concerned the Cuban proposal on economic ag gression which stated that before exhausting peaceful procedures, "no state may apply unilaterally against another state coercive measures of any economic, financial, or commercial character, even when the latter has refused to accede to its d e m a n d s , "35 This proposal was based on clause 202-E of the W. S. Sugar A c t in which Cuba alleged quotas on
Cuban sugar were used as a lever to obtain settlement of private claims against the Cuban government. 3& Dr. Guillermo Belt had first introduced
3^Aetas y Documentos, VI. 22,
33Actas y Documentos, VI, 21.
^Sanders, International Conciliation, No. 442, 392.
35Cited in Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota. 37-38=
3^Arthur P . "Whitaker, "Rio and Bogotas Pan American Perspec tive," Inter-American Economic Affairs, I, No. 3 (December 194?), 2?. the proposal at the Rio de Janeiro conference| but in the desire to limit the agenda to its single item of collective security9 it was de feated by a vote of fifteen to five„37 At Bogota* the proposal was reintroduced o Argentina, the United States«, and several other states felt that while the principle was valids it was unnecessary in that the subject was amply covered ty other principles.^ Nevertheless, the
Cuban delegation was adamant; therefore, the steering committee ap pointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Hector David Cas tro, of .EL Salvador, which drafted an acceptable wording of the prin ciple*^
The last controversial issue among the rights of states con cerned the revision of treaties. The pertinent article of the draft organic pact contained a clause stating that treaties could be revised only with consent of all signatories , \ The Ecuadoran delegation, strongly backed by the Bolivian, argued that this would tend to crys tallize the status quo and discourage revision by peaceful means.
Moreover, it was argued, this practice was contrary to the provisions of the United Nations6 Charter which can be amended by agreement of two thirds of the members. The clause was eliminated from the final docu ment,^
^Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Venezuela voted with Cuba, (New York Times, August 23, 1947, 4),
38"Charter," Articles 5, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 18, ^MQbarter," Art, 16,
^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 37° 44
In providing for the peaceful settlement of disputes9 committee
I anticipated the results of committee III; it, therefores limited the Charter to a simple statement that all disputes should be peacefully- settled and made indirect reference to the Pact of Bogota which would provide the proceduresSpecific reference was purposely omitted to permit the greatest elasticity in the development of American interna tional laWo It was realized that the Pact was being conceived on a more experimental basis than the Charter itself
In a similar manner the conference provided for collective se curity 0 Chapter V of the Charter is a synthesis of the Treaty of Re ciprocal Assistance, although the latter is not mentioned "by name, for at that time it had not yet been ratified by all member nations,^
In response to the persistent urging of the Mexican delegation that the Charter be an all encompassing document, Part I concludes with three short chapters on economic, social and cultural standards which are severely condensed versions of larger Mexican drafts„ Of these Charles Fenwick has written2
The provisions of Chapters VI, VII and VIII are so limited and qualified as to be with difficulty considered as legal ob ligations, except for the form in which they are cast. Rather they are to be regarded as proclamations of ideals, as declara tions of objectives to be attained when conditions permit, as
^"Charter," Chap* IV,
^Lleras, Annals, I, Mo. 1, 30,
^% e w York Times, April 199 1948, 5° 45 visions,to be made a reality at some indefinite time in the future.1* The Organization, as designed by the ninth conference, was based essentially on the coordination and integration of existing bodies and practices with only a very minimum of innovation. It con
sists of six organs g (l) Inter-American Conference which includes both
the regularly scheduled conference and the extraordinary meeting such as
the 1945 Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace| (2 ) Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs| (3) spe cialized conferencesi (4) Council; (5) Pan American Union; and. (6 ) spe
cialized organizations. Within the over-all accomplishment of general
reorganization, the ninth conference introduced two unique and very
important organizational features; an independent Council, and a system
of control and coordination with respect to the specialized organiza tions^
The predecessor of the Council was the Governing Board, created
in 1902, to supervise, the management of the international Bureau of
American Republics (itself a forerunner of the Pan American Union),
Even before the Bogota meeting gave it legality and particularly since the Mexico City conference, the Governing Board had evolved from its
original managerial role to that of a permanent executive body of the
inter-American system.
In fact, it was inconceivable that, as was provided at Mex ico City, twenty-one special representatives of the American
44charles q0 Fenwick, "Charter of the Organization of American States as the Law of the Land," The American Journal of International Law, ZLVII, Ho, 2 (April, 1953)9 284, INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE
MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF COUNCILSPECIALIZED FOREIGN MINISTERS CONFERENCES
PEACE COMMITTEE
ADVISORY DEFENSE COMMITTEE DEFENSE BOARD
PAN AMERICAN UNION
FIGURE 1 ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Legend
Policy Direction Advisory Service Administrative Service governmentsg having the rank of Ambassador, should meet perma nently in Washington and deliberate at regular and special meetings, in permanent and special committees, just to direct the activities of the Union
In establishing the Council, there developed two major points of debate the powers of the Council (to be discussed below) and the diplomatic status of the members« At the Mexico City conference it had been offi cially decided that members on the Governing Board should not also be diplomatic representatives accredited to any country. This had legally
.changed the rule established at the 1928 Havana conference, but it had not been enforced. At Bogota, the Mexican delegation opposed a return to the Havana rule arguing•that the increased responsibilities of the Council would require the full time and attention of the representa tives, El Salvador and Honduras, representing the smaller countries, favored a return basing their case on the expense and inapplicability of Mexico's argument to them. They, were successful, and Article 48 states that the post "may be given to the diplomatic representative accredited to the government of the country in which the Council has its seat, To assist in carrying out its duties, the Council has three dependent organsi the Economic and Social Council, the Cultural
Council, and the Council of Jurists, The Council has among its many duties, responsibility for the limited control and coordination of the specialized organizations„^7
^IZLeras, Annals, I, Ho, 1, 37<>
^Actas y Documentos, ¥1, 25, ^Inter-governmental organizations established ty multilateral agreements, having specific functions in technical matters of common interest to the American States, 48 It was particularly in the creation of specialized organiza tions that the inter-American system manifested its greatest tendency toward sporadic growth in response to emergency situations or special problemso Though the need for reorganization was commonly agreed upon, difficulty was encountered in arriving at a proper balance between flexibility of decentralization and technical autonomy on one hand and centralized control and unity of organization on the other. Mexico proposed that there be two classes of specialized organizations g tem porary ones to be created by the Council and permanent ones to be es tablished through treaties or conventions adopted ty the Inter-American
Conference e Colombia and Uruguay among others felt that this would un duly centralize control, upset the basis of many existing organizations, and greatly restrict the creation of new ones.^ The resulting compro mise gave a small degree of control to the Council but still permitted the specialized organizations a great deal of independence„ Specifi cally, the Charter provides s (1) The specialized organizations are to enjoy technical autonomy.
(2 ) The Council, after consultation with the specialized organiza tions, will make reeommehdations for the coordination of their activi ties .
(3 ) The specialized organizations will submit to the Council peri odic reports on the progress of their work and on their budgets,
^ Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 29« (4) Agreements will be entered into between each specialized or ganization and the Council to determine the nature of the relationship that is to existo This may include fiscal arrangements0 (5) The Council has the responsibility for recommending the crea tion of new specialized organizations and the combining, altering, or eliminating of existing o n e s <,^9 The actual, accomplishments of the con ference in correcting the situation were less than had been desired; one new committee was established, and none were eliminated„50
In drafting Part II of the Charter there were two areas in which views were especially polarized; one was functional— the politi cal powers of the Council; the other was organizational— the place of the military establishment„
From an apolitical origin, the Governing Board (Council) had gradually but steadily gained political power,, It has been seen that
Article IX of the Mexico City conference gave very definite— if tempo rary-political powers to the Governing B o a r d , 51 These were put on a . permanent basis by the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance which provides s
"The Governing Board of the Pan American Union may act provisionally as an organ of consultation until the meeting of the Organ of Consultation
, , , takes p l a c e , "52 j n this capacity it could impose sanctions„ The
^"Charter,M Articles 97 and 53=
50See Appendix D for a list of specific actions with respect to specialized organizations,
51Supra, 9,
52"Inter~Ameriean Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance," The Depart ment of State Bulletin, XFII, No. 429 (September 21, 1947), 565-67. draft organic pact reaffirmed this and statedg "The Governing Board takes cognizance,, -within the limits of this Pact and the inter-American treaties and agreements of any matter which may affect the functioning and the purposes of the Inter-American System,,,53 The provisions of the Rio treaty and the draft pact as pertain to the political powers of the Council caused concern for several governments„ Fear existed that the Council9 as provisional organ of consultation, might supercede the
Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs„ Also, there was objection to what appeared to be a granting of an unlimited field of action to the
Council by authorizing it to take cognizance of "any matter." At Bogo- ti, the delegations of Argentina, Chile and Panama argued that the
Council should have no political power whatever. Argentina9s position once again rested on the super-state theory. Chile recommended the modification of the Rio treaty to provide that the provisional organ of consultation in questions of security would be the American diplomatic corps accredited to a given American republic, the country to be chosen in rotation every five years. Panama wanted all political power of the inter-American system entrusted to a special "Council of Solidarity" in one of the other American republics. The United States felt that the
Council could serve a useful political purpose by handling the minor issues that were not of sufficient importance to justify a meeting of
Foreign Ministers, but that any politieal authority granted should be explicitly defined in the Charter and should be exercised under the
"Draft Organic Pact of the Inter-American System," cited in Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 95-111» 51 control of the governments Mexico solved one half of the problem ■with a proposal that limited the Council°s provisional organ of consul tation role to the case of "armed attack" and, furthermore, required that a meeting of consultation "shall be called immediately="55 Qn the basis of a United States0 proposal, the second half of the issue was resolvedo The Charter curtailed the political scope of the Council by providing that it can only take cognizance "within the limits of the present Charter and of the inter-American treaties and agreements, of any matter referred to it ty the Inter-American Conference or the Meet ing of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs„"56
The second major issue was that of the defense machinery, and the rather incongruous solution reached reflects the widely divergent views about the very nature of the regional system. The United States favored the establishment of a permanent military organization subject to the coordinating responsibility of the Council but with technical autonomy. This was in harmony with the draft organic pact which fore saw the formation of an Inter-American Defense Council as the fourth dependent organ of the Council.57 Argentina, however, argued that the military body should be independent of control of the Council and that it should be established not by the Charter but by a separate protocol
5%eport of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 21-22. 55Actas y Documentos, VI, 25-26. 5^Actas y Documentos. VI, 25°
57«Hraft.Organic Pact," Art. 50. ' i ' 52 added to the Rio treaty ,58 She maintained that a link between the
Council and the defense organization would subject the latter to polit ical pressures 059 Mexico felt that the military establishment should be completely divorced from the Charter and should operate on direct orders from the individual governments„ Some of the delegations were reluctant to see the establishment, in peace time, of a permanent, con tinuously operating military body o They felt that this was inconsist ent with the pacific traditions of the inter-American system. To re solve the issue, the steering committee appointed an ad hoc committee. The result was the creation of the Advisory Defense Committee as an ad junct to the organ of consultation.^ Since it is not a continuously functioning body, the Inter-American Defense Board, though not men tioned in the Charter, was retained as the "organ of preparation for collective self-defense against aggression until the American Govern ments decide by a two-thirds majority to consider its labor termi nated . The delegates in concluding the Charter decided that it should^ go into effect when ratified by two thirds of the signatories. In addition, on a United States" proposal, it was decided that the Charter
5%eport of P. S. Delegation, Bogotd, 26.
5% e w York Times, April 5, 1948, 10.
6qE1 Hempo (Bogoti), April 18, 1948, 10.
^"Charter," Articles 44-47. 62s«pinai Act, Ninth International Conference of American States," Actas y Documentos. VI, 306. should immediately become provisionally effective0 This proved to be
•wise, for it was not until December 13? 1951 that the fourteenth rati- fication (Colombia) was deposited with the Pan American Union (Appen dix E) » CHAPTER If
THE AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT (PACT OF BOGOTA)
% 1948, there existed nine different inter-American instru ments on the peaceful settlement of disputes, only one of them common to all twenty-one republics» The possible permutations and combina tions alone indicated the need for coordination (Appendix F)«
The first such attempt had been made at the seventh conference, in Montevideo, 1933= The American states were invited to adhere to the existing peace instruments which the conference felt nif coordinated and converted into obligations enforced in every country of the Ameri can Continent, would suffice to prevent the crime of war and the dis astrous consequences of every kind which it entails for the present and future of all nationalities0 The desire for coordination of the peace instruments was reiterated at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace which met at Buenos Aires in 193&° The eighth conference directed the International Conference of
American Jurists to prepare a consolidated peace code„^ This project was, in May, 1943, transferred to the Inter-American Juridical Committee
-^-Pinal Act, Seventh International Conference of American States, 20,
^Pinal Act of the Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938, Res,
54 55 which had been created on suggestion of the third meeting of Foreign Ministers in 1942, Two drafts were completed by early 1944, The first confined itself to the coordination of agreements in force, e,It was intended chiefly to emphasize the complex and inefficient nature of the present m a c h i n e r y . The second draft represented an attempt to take into account the projects and observations submitted to the lima con ference and the report of the Committee of Experts on the Codification of International Law.
In anticipation of the establishment of the United Nations and the need for coordinating the inter-American peace system with the
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court, the Mexico City conference recommended that the Inter-American Juridical Committee prepare a project, "Inter-American Peace System,66 This re sulted in a third draft (hereafter referred to as "first project66) which was completed in September, 1945 and submitted to the governments for comment. Meanwhile, the Bio de Janeiro conference of 194? directed that at the ninth conference "there be studied with a view to approval, institutions which may give effectiveness to a pacific system of secu rity and among them compulsory arbitration for any dispute which may endanger peace and which is not of a juridical nature.66^' In light of this directive and the comments made on the first project, the juridical
^"Project of Inter-American Peace System,66 Chronological Col lection of Documents (2 vols,| Washingtons Pan American Union, 1948), I, 1 8 .
^66Pinal Act, Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, September 2, 194?,66 The Department of State Bulletin, XVII, No. 429 (September 21, 1947), 571« 56 ooimnittee prepared a fourth draft (hereafter referred to as “second project86) o The first project closely followed the procedures set forth in the United Hations0 Charter» It imposed an absolute obligation of pa cific settlement of disputes but left the specific procedure to the discretion of the parties involved. Should they fail to agree on meth od, a meeting of consultation of the Foreign Ministers could assist and if necessary, determine a procedure. The second project adopted a more rigid system of compulsory arbitration in the event that either party should find that none of the other procedures were satisfactory.5 Hav ing established the principle of compulsory arbitration, it was consid ered unnecessary to include procedures for consultation. If the par ties lived up to the obligation of arbitration, there would be no need for consultation; if they did not and if there should result a threat to the peace, the situation would come within the functions of the Bio treaty.^ in preconferenee discussion these two projects were the ral lying points of two opposing schools of thought. It was thus antici pated that conference debates would take the form of argument between the advocates and opponents of compulsory arbitration. Instead several of the delegations, including those of Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay,
5Fenwick, The American Journal of International Law, XLII, Ho. 3s 559. ^“Report on the Provisions of the Project of Inter-American Peace System Relative to Obligatory Arbitration,86 Chronological Collec tion of Documents, I, 25. 57 argued for priority of judicial procedure as a definitive method for the solution of disputes.? It has earlier been said that the extensive preparatory work played a significant role in the conference activity. The Pact of Bo gota is the exception to this general observation. While parts of the second project were incorporated$ the definitive Pact was by and large the creation of committee III. The Pact of Bogota is a comprehensive document for the pacific settlement of all disputes; and for those governments that ratify9 it replaces the nine earlier instruments. It establishes procedures for good offices and mediation, investigation and conciliation, judicial procedure,and arbitration,® The essence of the system is the modified obligation to judicial and arbitral settle ment with priority to the former.
The signatories accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory ipso facto in all juridical disputes concerningg (l) the interpretation of a treaty, (2) any question of international law, (3 ) existence of any fact, which, if established, would constitute the breach of an international obligation, and (4) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an inter national obligation. In all other disputes, when conciliation has not produced a solution and parties have not agreed to voluntary arbitra tion, either of them is entitled to have recourse to the International
Court. Such action by one party binds the other to the jurisdiction of
?Lleras, Annals, I, No. 1, 50.
®"American Treaty on Pacific Settlement,M Aetas y Documentos, VI, 83-94. the Court» If the Court should declare itself without jurisdiction because the dispute is within the domestic jurisdiction of the state, the dispute had previously been officially settled, or it is based on diplomatic interposition, then "such controversy shall be declared ended.e,9 If the Court should declare itself without jurisdiction for any other reason, the parties are bound to submit to arbitration. The reservations reveal the difficulty that the conference ex perienced and possibly indicate the Pact’s potential. Bolivia, Ecua dor and Nicaragua took the position that nothing is settled until it is settled right— in their definition of right. They, therefore, objected to the elimination of matters already settled. Argentina did not ac cept any provision relating to judicial settlement or arbitration. Pa raguay would require a special agreement for the arbitration of non- juridical questions affecting national sovereignty. Peru refused to be bound by decisions of the International Court on whether or not a dis pute was domestic. The United States objected to compulsory jurisdic tion of the International Court and compulsory arbitration; it also re fused to renounce diplomatic interposition.-^ Thus, while the provi sions concerning good offices, mediation, investigation and conciliation were not the subject of reservations, the key issue of compulsory ref erence of non-juridical questions to the International Court was reject ed by four states (Appendix G).
9&ct#s y Documentos, VI, 8 8 =
•^-^Edgar Turlington, "The Pact of Bogoti, The American Journal of International Law, XLT1 , No. 3 (July, 1948), 610-1 1 . \ ' 59 Associated -with the inter-American peace system is the Commit tee for Peaceful Solution of Conflicts This committee had been es- ■ ' , ' ; ' • ■ ■ . ■ tablished in 1940, based on a resolution of the second meeting of Min isters of Foreign Affairs» It was given the mission of:
Keeping constant vigilance to insure that States between which any dispute exists or may arise, of any nature whatsoever, may solve it as quickly as possible, and of suggesting, without detriment to the methods adopted by the parties or to the pro cedures which they may agree upon, the measures and steps which may be conducive to a settlement
Actually the committee was not activated until July 31, 1948; and prob ably for this reason it was not taken into account by the Charter or the Pact of Bogota,
The proposal for the establishment of an Inter-American Court of Internal Justice met with sympathetic interest but the general con sensus was that the time was premature„ The project was referred to the International Conference of American Jurists for further study<,-3
•^"Its name was changed to ''Inter-American Peace Committee" in July, 194-9. l^'Habana Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act and Convention," The Department of State Bulletin, III, So. 6l (August 24-, 1940), 136o -L^pinal Act, Ninth International Conference of American States," Res0 IXV0 CHAPTER V
ECONOMIC AGREEMENT OF BOGOTA
At the 194-7 Rio de Janeiro conference, it was decided to post pone all discussion of economic issues until the BogotA meeting. The Inter-American Economic and Social Council was directed to prepare a draft agreement of inter-American economic cooperation for considera
tion at the ninth conference. It.was also decided that a special con ference would be called in late 1948 "to consider the best procedures for carrying out the agreement which may have been concluded, "-4
Just prior to the ninth conference the United Nations had spon
sored the Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana, This confer ence supplemented the work of the Economic and Social Council in devel
oping the critical problem areas that subsequently were to arise in
committee IV, Since trade was the, key issue of the Havana meeting, it was not included in the agenda for Bogota, The suggestion made by the
United States that a brief statement of the general trade policy agree ments reached at Havana be included in the Bogotk' agreement met with
such a variety of amendments that the issue was d r o p p e d , ^ However,
-*-"Final Act, Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, September 2, 1947," The Department of State Bulletin, XVII, No, 429 (September 21, 1947), 571, ^Henry Chalmers, "The Economic Agreement of Bogota An Inter- American Milestone," Foreign Commerce Weekly, XXXI, No, 11 (June 12, 1948), 9 , - . ■■ . ... . ; ' . ; 61 •with this one exception, the final agreement was a comprehensive docu ment of economic principles pertinent to technical cooperation; finan cial cooperation; private investment; industrial development; economic security; social guarantees; and transport, transit and travel„ Three areas were especially controversial; financial cooperation, private investments and economic security.
Unsurprisingly, there existed a most fundamental conflict of economic theories between Latin America and the United States. The
United States, with its enormous industrial production, high standard of living, and mastery of the techniques of mass production and dis tribution, stood for the free operation of private international trade and investment. Latin America, lacking these elements, was determined to adhere to protective measures and state planning.5 The job of com mittee IV was to work out a compromise between these quite opposite views. As a starting point it had the draft agreement and its draft amendments„
Of paramount interest to Latin America was the subject of fi nancial cooperation. Underlying the discussion was the disappointment that there was to be no Latin American parallel to the Marshall Plan.
Furthermore, there was dissatisfaction that funds of the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Export-Import Bank were not more readily available, particularly for local currency problems
^John E, Lockwood, "The Economic Agreement of Bogota," The American Journal of International Law, XLI1, Ho. 3 (July, 1948), 612. ^Lockwood, The American Journal of International Law. XLII, No. 3, 613. 62 The majority of. the delegations were prepared to accept the substance of the. draft concerning financial cooperation| but Argentina9 not a
member of either the International Monetary Fund or the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development3 objected to all references to
these institutions as elements of inter-American financial cooperation, 5
The compromise text, which received unanimous approval, distinguishes between the states that are members of the two international financial institutions and those that are not. To Latin Americans benefit it was
agreed that under certain circumstances, international funds could jus
tifiably be used to alleviate local currency problems,^
Argentina made a bid for economic leadership second only to the United States in the western hemisphere,? Orlando Maroglio, president
of the Central Bank of Argentina, espoused a new inter-American banking institution which his country was prepared to finance on credit. It was to have a "complimentary" mission to the three existing institu
tions (international Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Interna
tional Monetary Fund, and the United States Exports Import Bank), This was probably a political gamble on the part of President Juan Perdu, for less than a month earlier, the Argentine section of the Inter- American Council of Commerce and Production had reported an economic situation so grave as to suggest that Argentina was in need of a loan
^Report of D,' S, Delegation,. Bogotk, 62,
^"Economic Agreement of Bogot'k," Actas y Document os, VI, 141-56,
/^Argentina’s slogan was, "Mds negocios al sur del Rfo Grande y. menos a trav’ds de sus aguas," fEl Tiempo (Bogotd), March 23, 1948, 15,] 63 to bridge the gap until the anticipated Marshall Plan dollars began to arrive.® William Pawley, of the United States, argued against the new institution as unnecessary and succeeded in having the project deferred to the future economic conference to be held in Buenos Aires.
If financial assistance was of greatest interest to Latin Amer ica, the subject of private investment was the foremost economic issue in the minds of the United States® delegation. Secretary Marshall had established the United States® position in his opening address in which he stated: '•The capital required ...[for economic development] must come from private sources, both domestic and foreign .... It is ob vious that foreign capital will naturally gravitate most readily to countries where it is accorded fair and equitable treatment.'*9 The critical issue involving private investment was that of expropriation; the debate was principally between Antonio Carrello Flores, of Mexico, and William Pawley. The draft proposal read:
The American States shall take no discriminatory action against investments by virtue, of which the deprivation of property rights legally acquired by foreign capital or en terprises is carried out under.conditions different from those which the constitution or laws of each country es tablished for the expropriation of national property.^ To this the United States proposed the addition: "and there should be no expropriation of foreign-owned property except for clearly defined
% e w York Times, April 9, 1948; 10. %eorge 0. Marshall, "Address before the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth International Conference of American States, April 1, 1948g" cited in Report of U. S. Delegation. BogotA. 313-14-.
-^"Draft Agreement on Inter-American Economic Cooperation," cited in Report of U. S. Delegation, Bogota, 148. 6k public purposes and accompanied by prompt$, adequate and effective com- pensation, l,"~ The ensuing discussion revolved around three elements of the proposals (l) "foreign-owned propertys,1” (2) "public purposes," and
(3) "prompt,„„compensationThe first phrase was totally unacceptable to the majority of delegations, for it set up a special and more favor able regime for foreign-owned property than for national; it was,
therefore, eliminated. The second phrase was also deleted since sev
eral of the delegations indicated that it conflicted with their consti
tutional provisions. The third phrase was most difficult of solution, and in the United States8 view, it could not be eliminated if the eco
nomic agreement was to have treaty status,^ Mexico entered two coun tering proposalss one to eliminate the additional clause and the
other, if such elimination were unacceptable, to add to the United States’ proposal a further clause to the effect that there would be
prompt, adequate and effective compensation for expropriation "except when the constitution of any country provided otherwise,M The first of the Mexican proposals was defeated by a vote of fourteen to five,
and the second was defeated, ten to nine. The remaining element of the United States’ addition concerning compensation was accepted by a four
teen to five v o t e , -*-3 Eight countries (Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Guate
mala, Honduras, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela) made reservation to the
effect that in event of conflict between the provisions of Chapter I?
^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 66,
l% e w York Times, April 28, 1948, 15o
^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 67, ('’Private Investments") and national constitutions<, the latter would
prevails and in no case would foreigners receive a preferred status over nationals in the operation of the laws 0
Concerning the question of economic security, Ecuador and Bo livia replaced Mexico as the protagonist„ Ecuador’s proposal dealt with the disparity of prices between raw materials and finished prod ucts. In' the early l$30es, Latin America had seen the prices of raw materials fall precipitously (Chilean nitrates and Bolivian tin, for
example). World War II had brought about a recovery and great expan sion, but it also created problems of economic dislocation. At the
Mexico City conference it was agreed that when it should become neces sary to reduce purchases, an event that would undoubtedly have serious effects on the econonyr of producing nations, the purchasing country should adopt measures designed to minimise the adverse effects.^-5 By
the time the Bogota conference was held, there had been a substantial
period of peace, but there had been no appreciable reduction in the
market for raw materials. Nevertheless, the fear persisted, primarily
because the large dollar balances accumulated during the war had been
practically eliminated, leaving Latin America entirely dependent upon
foreign markets for their foreign exchange.-*-^ The result of these cir
cumstances was the acceptance of the Ecuadoran proposal as a basic
^"Economic Agreement," Reservations.
^"Final Act, Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace," Art. 21. - .
-^Lockwood, The American Journal of International Law, ZLII, No. 3, 613. 66 principle of economic cooperation. The principle in part stated that "as a general policy5 there should be taken into account the need to compensate for the disparity that is frequently noted between the
prices of raw materials and the prices of manufactured products 9 by
establishing the necessary balance between them, in a subsequent
article the signatories agreed to conclude intergovernmental agreements "to prevent or correct dislocation in international trade in regard to
raw materials that are basic and essential for the economies of the
producing countries of the H e m i s p h e r e The United States in each
case cast the only dissenting vote; it entered reservations to both articles.
A second proposal relative to economic security9 made by Boli
via $, recommended that American states be obligated to cooperate with the less developed countries of the hemisphere that were producers of
raw materials so that such countries might sell under conditions favor
able to them. This proposals however9 failed to receive support. Boli via made another recommendation, this time strongly backed by Chile,
that the American states adopt measures to end or limit the manufac turing of synthetic products that competed with the natural products
that supported the economy of any American republic. This met a fate
identical to Bolivians other proposal, A third, however, met with suc
cess; this concerned exceptions to the "most favored nation" clause in
^Actas y Documentos, 71, 141-4-2.
•^Actas y Documentos, 71, 148. . 6? favor of arrangements to promote economic development among neighboring countries or those within an economic r e g i o n , -*-9 This was approved over strong objections by the United States and the Dominican Republics both of whom entered reservations.
The responsibility of converting the principles and decisions of the Economic Agreement into working reality was delegated to the specialized. economic conference scheduled to be held in Buenos Aires in late 1948,20 The treaty is to enter into force when ratified by two thirds of the Signatories, To date only Costa Rica, Honduras and Pansu- ma have done so (Appendix H),
■L9«9EConomie Agreement,,9 Art, 31,
2®”iAnal Act, Ninth International Conference of American States,8’ Res, VIII, CHAPTER VI
JDEIDICAIj-" POLITICAI) IBSD1S
The conference agenda Included four juridical-political sub jects g (l) rights and duties of man9 (2) recognition of de facto gov ernments $, (3) defense and preservation of democracy9 and (R) European
colonies in America„ These were assigned to committee Vis but follow ing the bogotazoj the steering committee considered all but the first.
Resolution XL of the Mexico City conference directed the Inter-
American Juridical Committee to prepare a draft declaration on the in
ternational rights and duties of man that would "proclaim the adherence
of the American Republics to the principles established by internation
al law for safeguarding the essential rights of man*: and to declare
their support of international protection of these rights,Resolu tion IX further provided that said declaration should be included in the Charter as an annex. Pursuant to these resolutions the juridical
committee formulated a draft? and in December, 1946, it was distributed to the governments for comment. Based on these comments a definitive project was prepared for the consideration of the ninth conference, Mecham and Shea believe that the Latin American republics, es pecially Mexico, had ulterior motives beyond the altruistic desire to protect the fundamental rights of man. They had been unsuccessful in
^"Final Act, Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace," cited in Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 80,
68 their efforts to "win acceptance of the Cairo Doctrine over the princi ple of minimum standards.^ The proposed declaration was an attempt to define international standards. This was the first step in proving that minimum standards of civilized justice did exist in the western hemisphere| and therefore9 the legal obstacle to absolute equality was no longer valid.3
At the conference three basic theories developed. Brazil and Uruguay proposed that the declaration should create an obligation on the part of the state to take action to protect human rights and that there should be some form of international enforcement machinery. Co lombia agreed on the nature of the declaration but felt that the en forcement aspect should take the form of internal public opinion. A third point of view prevailed; it stated that the declaration should be a simple document of principles without any contractual feature nor provision for machinery of any type.^ Whereas the draft presented only the rights of man, the final declaration included duties; it also gave increased attention to social rights as compared to purely political. This trend was unsuccessfully opposed by the United States * delegation. Cuba argued for the adoption of the right of resistance to oppression, but the conference decided to refer this to the juridical committee for further s t u d y .5 Similarly
% u p r a , 36.
%hea, 96-97, and Hecham9 286. ^Sanders, International Conciliation. No. 44-2, 411.
■^Final Act, Ninth International Conference of American States,58 Res. XOTII. 70 the committee was directed to prepare a draft statute for an Inter- American Court to protect the rights of man0 ^
The conference decided9 contrary to Resolution IX9 to keep the declaration separate from the Charter; it became Resolution XXX of the Final Act;
The second juridical-political item on the agenda resulted from an Ecuadoran proposal that.recommended the abolition of the formal act of recognition of de facto governments and further declared that the establishment of a de facto government in any of the American republics should not affect the normality Or continuity of the pre-existing dip lomatic relations with other American states. This proposal had first been made at the Mexico City conference which had referred the project to study by the juridical committee,7 Prior to the Bogoti conference,
Ecuador withdrew the project9 but the Governing Board decided to retain it as an agenda item since the Mexico City conference had adopted a specific resolution on the matter and the juridical committee had com menced a study of the project,® The project in essence was a restate ment of the Estrada Doctrine,
In 1930s as a reaction against the Vilsonian” recognition practices of the United States9 the Foreign Minister of Mexico9 G-enaro
Estrada9 sent a note to all the American governments. The contents of
®MFinal Act, Ninth International Conference of American States,» Res, XXXI,
7"Final Act, Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and PeaceRes, XXXIV, ^Handbook, 87-88, ' - 71 this note were subsequently reiterated as the Estrada Doctrine on
October 2^s 1930, at the conference of El Institute) Americano de Dere- cho y Legislacidn Comparada0 It stated:
The government of Mexico limits itself to maintaining or withdrawing, as it sees fit, its diplomatic agents and to con tinue accepting, also as it considers fit, the similar diplo matic agents that the respective nations have accredited in Mexico, without qualifying, neither immediately nor posteriori, the right that foreign nations have to accept, maintain, or substitute their governments or authorities» And adds s
Mexico does not pronounce this in the sense of granting recognition, because it considers this a degrading practice that in addition to damaging the sovereignty of other nations, places them in the situation in which their internal affairs can be judged in whatever sense by other governments which in fact assume an attitude of criticism in deciding favorably or. unfavorably concerning the legal capacity of foreign r e g i m e s , 9
In short, the Estrada Doctrine seeks to eliminate the procedure of recognition and to establish a rule that when a new government comes into power, all other governments can either continue or discontinue diplomatic relations; but they must not humiliate it by going through the formality of recognition.
The antithesis of the Estrada Doctrine and that which was the basis of the opposition is the doctrine of the Ecuadoran Tobar, His doctrine was a reaction to the frequency with which certain Latin Amer ican governments were overthrown? it contends that by confirming the existence of governments established by force, the practice of de facto recognition foments revolutions, Tobar, therefore, had proposed that
^La Opinidn Universal sobre La Doctrina Estrada (Mexico: Ins- tituto Americano de Derecho y Legislacidh Comparada, 1931)9 20-21, My translation. governments established in a manner contrary to the constitution should not be recognized, 3-0
The conference 9 like the juridical committee 9 was unable to re
solve the basic issue. The compromise solution was based on a United
States' proposal amended by Mexico, It provided that continuity of diplomatic relations was desirable and that the establishment or main tenance of said relations did not imply any judgment of domestic policy the Mexican amendment added that the right of legation should not be
used to gain unjustified advantageSince the juridical committee had not completed its study9 it was directed to do so and to prepare a
report for consideration of the tenth conference,^
The third juridical-political issue on the Bogota agenda also
had its origin in a resolution of the Mexico City conference,^ Guate
mala had introduced a projects "Defense and Preservation of the Democ
racy of America in the Presence of the Possible Establishment of Anti- Democratic Regimes on the Continent," The project recommended that
each government acting individually should decide whether or not it
should recognize a new government of another American state5 basing its decision upon the extent to which the popular w i n may have contributed
-^Winiam Sanders, ."Sovereignty and Interdependence9" The De partment of State Bulletin, XVIII„ No, 449 (February 8, 1948), 173,
"Final Act* Ninth International Conference of American States 9" Res, XXXV,
^"Final Act* Ninth international Conference of American States*" Res, XXXVI,
"Final Act * Inter-American Conf erence on the Problems of War and Peace*" Res, XXXVIII, .. 73 to its establishmento It specifically recommended that the American republics refrain from granting recognition to and maintaining rela tions m t h anti-democratic regimes <, particularly those resulting from a coup d*etat against legitimately established governments of a democrat ic characterThe proposal was justified on the grounds that anti democratic regimes constitute a serious threat to the continent. In effect it was an extension of the Guani Doctrine which had resulted from suspicion of axis involvement in the 19^3 Bolivian revolution. It had recommended that for the duration of the war, diplomatic recogni tion should be withheld from any new government established by force until it was determined that said government would adhere to the inter-
American defense p r o g r a m , -*-5
The juridical committee which had been charged with a study of the project came out very strongly, against it. It reported:
The right that the project grants to each State, to decide freely whether the new government is a democratic or anti democratic one, obviously leads to an intervention in the in ternal affairs of another state ,,,, The simple fact of a Government having been put into power through a revolution is not a sufficient reason to refuse to recognize it, since it may, under certain circumstances, represent the aspirations and will of the nation, .
, -^Sanders, The Department of State Bulletin, ZVTII, No, 449, 173.“
l%echam, 231-32. ^"Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the Project Submitted by the Delegation of Guatemala to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico, 1945 - Defense and Preservation of Democracy in America against the Possible Establishment of Anti-Democratic Regimes on the Continent,18 Chronological Collection of Documents, I, 6, 74 In spite of this censure5 the project was destined to become a very- important issue at the Bogota conference. However„ the final product would resemble the original in name only, What had at first been a condemnation of the far right subsequently was made applicable to the entire political spectrum with emphasis on the extreme left,-*7
The United States came to Bogota determined on an anti- communism resolution. The riots of April 9 greatly strengthened her position. Though now generally conceded that the communists did not instigate the riots Secretary Marshall at the time set the pace when he said: e9In the action we take here in regard to the present situation Pbogotazol we must have clearly in mind that this is a world affair, and not mere ly Colombian or Latin American,"^ The majority view was perhaps well stated by Ricardo Argentina remained negative in accordance-with Per on9 s policy of a ■ - "third position,w Foreign Minister Juan Bramuglia had maintained from the very beginning of the conference that Argentina would not support any anti-communism declaration that was based on the conflict of -7E1 Tiempo (Bogota), March 21, 1948, 17, -^Robert J , Alexander, Communism in Latin America (Hew Bruns wick, Hew Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1957), 250= -*~%e w York Times, April 13, 1948, 1, 2% e w York Times, April 12, 1948, 1, ideologies,^21 Torres Bodet insisted that the defense of democracy ^ could not be adequately discussed unless measures to eliminate economic privation were also considered, ^ The principle obstacle to an anti communism resolution, however, rested in the fear that such a resolu tion would be used as a guise by which dictators or near-dictators could attack all opposition,^3 This possibility was poignantly illus trated by the almost belligerent support given the proposal by Para guay's (Msar Vasconsellos, former private secretary to dictator Higinio MoringOj who placed the blame for the Paraguayan civil war of 194? on "Moscow, ' Rdmulo Betancourt, of Venezuela, succeeded in having the pro posal made applicable not only to communism but also to any other to talitarian system. In final form it reaffirmed belief in democratic principles, condemned "international communism or any other totalitar ian doctrine,” and urged signatories to take measures within their own countries to control subversive movements under foreign direction,25 The last major juridical-political issue to be considered by the ninth conference concerned European colonies in America, The prob lem had first seriously been considered at the second meeting of Foreign Ministers in 1940, Resolution XX, "Act of Habana,” of the Final Act 23-B1 Tiempo (Bogota), larch 299 1948, 7, 2% e w York Times, April 22, 1948 , 8, ^oiive Holmes, "Bogota Talks Fail to Meet Real.Hemispheric Heeds,” Foreign Policy Bulletin, XXVII, Ho, 30 (May ?, 1948), 3, % e w York Times, May 3, 1948, 17, 2-Svetas y Document os, VI, 303= registered the determination of the American republics to prevent any transfer of colonies from one European power to another. It estab lished procedures for assuming responsibility for the administration of any colony so threatened. The specific project at Bogota was put forth by Guatemala; it declared it to be a just aspiration of the American states that colonialism be terminated in the shortest possible time, Argentina expressed vigorous support pf the thesis but also extended it to cover American territories occupied by non-American powers. In the presentation of these arguments Guatemala and Argentina made such a comprehensive claim to British Honduras and the Falkland Islands, re spectively, that George Marshall remarked: ’’Such a mass or wealth of data has been submitted for our consideration— historical, geographi cal, and legal— that the impression may have been given that this com mittee [steering], in reaching a decision, is virtually being converted into a court of law, Bolivia recommended that the problem be referred to the juridi cal committee, and Ecuador proposed the formation of a commission of all twenty-one states to study the issue,^ Brazil believed that the question, since it involved European powers, was a subject for the United Nations, The resolution was passed by unanimous vote, Brazil, the Domi nican Republic and the United States abstaining; Brazil entered a ^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 85, 27«»Conferencia de Bogoti,” Hispano Americano, XIII, No, 313 (April 3 0 , 1948), 22, 28E1 Tiempo (Bogota), March 19, 1948, 8 , 77 formal reservation,, Resolution XXXIII provides ’’that it is a just as piration of the American Republics that colonialism and the occupation of American territories by extracontinental countries should be brought to an end”| and to assist in the attainment of such a goal, there should be created an "American Committee on Dependent Territories,"29 ^Actas y Document os, 71, 304-05„ CHAPTER VII SQCIAI* CULTURAL ISSUES In. the social-cultural area, activities were by nature less dynamic but still most significanto The major issues on the agenda of committee V wereg social guarantees, a statute for the Inter-American Commission of Women, and political and civil rights for womeno The Mexico City conference had directed the juridical committee to prepare a draft charter of social guarantees in collaboration with the International Labor Office and in consideration of the nations * labor laws0^- The committee interpreted the resolution as entrusting it with the mission of establishing the basic principles which should pro tect workers of all classes„ The draft that resulted was actually a comprehensive labor code and not a statement of general principles of social rights0 Among other things it provided for: an eight hour day/ forty-eight hour week maximum; minimum industrial employment age of sixteen; specific social benefits; special rights for pregnant women workers; and job security,^ Charles G0 Fenwick,'representative of the United States, strongly objected; he stated: Our problem, it seems to me, is to formulate a philosophy of social relations, to show the world how the security of the . "Final Act, Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and PeaceRes. LVIH. : ^"Project of Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees,” Chronological Collection of Documents, I. 78 79 worker can be obtained without loss of his liberty, to pro claim democratic principles of responsibility on the part of employer and employee, to affirm and reaffirm what might be, called Christian standards of social justice =, 3 At the conference, the United States proposed that the project be re ferred to the Economic and Social Council for further study; this found no supporto The conference accepted the Charter of Social Guarantees to which the United States entered a reservation to the effect that within our federal system many of the provisions of the Charter were the prerogative of the states,^ Uruguay proposed the formation of an inter-American Institute of Social Guarantees to promote the realiza tion of the goals of the Charter, but it was the consensus of the con ference that this should be referred to the Council0 The next major item on the agenda concerned the Inter-American Commission of Women which had been functioning since 1928 without an organic statute. The Lima conference had entrusted the Governing Board with the formulation of a statute<,5 The major problem was the deter mination of the position of the commission within the inter-American system; specifically, should it continue to be a specialized organiza tion or should it be made an organ of the Governing Board, ^ Resolution H of the Mexico City conference recommended the incorporation of the ^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 160, ' ^$iFinal Act, Ninth International Conference of American States,” Res, X X H , ■ ^Pinal Act of the Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938, Res, XXIII, ^"’Project of Organic Statute of the Inter-American Commission of Women,” Chronological Collection of Documents, I, 4-5° 80 commission into the Pan American Union; this recommendation was follow ed by the ninth conference 9 and the committee became a "permanent en tity attached to the Secretariat of the Organization of American States o The final item was based on a Uruguayan project which recom mended that the American states9 on a treaty basis, agree to the grant ing to women political and civil rights equal to those enjoyed by men. Some delegations objected to the treaty feature and recommended that it be reduced to a resolution; this proposal was defeated by a seven to seven vote. The United States0 delegation stated that though it agreed in principles it could not vote affirmative for two reasons: first, because most of the civil rights and some of the political rights enu merated by the project were by our constitution reserved to the states; and second, the precise meaning of the term "civil rights" would be es sential in executing a treaty, and this did not exist« Therefore, the United States proposed to limit the Uruguayan project to providing that the right to vote and to hold office should not be denied or abridged by reason of sex,® This was accepted by the conference and formed the basis for the Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women, It was signed by representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela (Ap pendix l )0 Mexico reserved the right to sign later; and Honduras ?Actas y Documentos, VI, 283, ^Report of U, S, Delegation, Bogota, 90-91° 81 explained that under her constitution, the prerogatives, of citizenship were granted to men only„9 The Uruguayan delegate then requested consideration of his original proposal9 deleting the reference to political rights. The conference concurred and the Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Civil Rights to Women was drafted. It granted to women 88the same civil rights that men enjoy.This convention was signed by all mem ber nations with the exception of the United States (Appendix J)„ ^’’Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women9” Actas y Pocumentos, VI, 193-9^° ’’Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Civil Rights to Women,” Actas y Pocumentos, VI, 204, CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION. Representatives of the delegations assembled at Quinta Bolivar on April 30 9 19^83, and signed the Charter of the Organization of Ameri can States and the Pact of Bogota, The remaining instrumentsg the Economic Agreement of Bogota9 the Convention on the Granting of Polit ical Rights to Women, the Convention on the Granting of Civil Rights to Women, and the Final Act were signed on May 2 0 With this action the Ninth International Conference of American States was formally closed. In the eyes of many it had been one of the most significant in the his tory of Pan Americanism, and had in fact opened a new era of inter- hemispheric relations. Unquestionably a major contributing factor to the success of the conference was the extensive preparations that had been made by the.Governing Board of the Pan American Union, the Inter- American Juridical Committee, and the Inter-American Economic and Social Council. So complex and all-embracing was the agenda that without their .preconference endeavors, it would have been impossible to have completed the work within a reasonable period of time. However, even with the epitome of preparation, the efforts of the delegates would have ("plowed the sea" had not there been an acceptance and practice of the cardinal precept of inter-American association— sovereign equality. 82 83 Lleras Camargo has written2 The Ninth international. Conference of American States is probably the most notable event in the history of the rela tions among the States of the Western HemisphereWithin the space of 34 days — some of them charged with an air of drama and spent amid the ruins of a city destroyed by fire and marked by the physical and moral devastation that accompanied a destructive revolt of 24 hours — the arduous tasks that the government had entrusted to themselves during the preceeding ten years were completed, in nearly every Instance felicitous ly and decisively.1 O O O O O 0 0~$ 6 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O o The Organisation of the American States, resting on its three basic instruments, the Charter of the Organization, the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, and the Treaty on Pacific Set tlement, has reached maturity.2 This is a valid appraisal of the conference. The history of Pan Ameri canism gives ample evidence that what was once an idealistic pronounce- • ment can gradually become an accepted juridical • precept»3 This point is well illustrated by the evolution of the principle of noninterven tion from its pronouncement as an inter-American goal at the Havana conference in 1928, to its acceptance with reservations in Montevideo in 1933s and finally to its unqualified acceptance as a principle of inter-American relations, at the Buenos Aires conference in 1936. It is, therefore, reasonable to hope that the rather utopian principles and techniques formalized at Bogoti will eventually become accepted features of Pan Americanism. ^Lleras, Annals, I, No, 1, 1. ^Lleras, Annals, X, No, 1, 73-4. ^Miguel Jorrfn, ’’The New Inter-American System,53 The New Mexico Quarterly Review, XVIII, No. 4 (Winter, 1948), 389, APPENDIX A PROJECTS AND REFERENCES I* Organic Statute for the: Inter-.American Commission of. Women (Eighth International Conference of American Statesg Limas 19389 Final Act, Resolution XXIII and Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace9 Mexico City, 19^59 Final Act, Resolution IX) 2 „ Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Eighth International Conference of American States, Lima, 1938, Final Act, Resolution XV and Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolutions H and XXXIX) 3o American Charter of. Social Guarantees (Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolution LVII) 4c Abolition of Recognition of De Facto Governments (Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolution XXXIV) 5o Declaration of the Rights and Duties of States (Inter-American Con ference on the Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolution IX) 6„ Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of Man (Inter- American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolutions IX and XL) 7<> Defense and Preservation of the Democracy of America in the Pres ence of the Possible Establishment of Anti-Democratic Regimes on the Continent (Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolution XXXVIII) 80 Organic Pact (Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, 1945, Final Act, Resolution IX) 9» American Educational Charter for Peace (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, 1947, Final Act, Resolution XIII) 10a Economic Agreement (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro., 1947, Final Act, Resolution IX) 84 APPENDIX B A6ENDA1 Chapter One? Reorganization9 Consolidation, and Strengthening of the . Inter-American System, . I, Organic Pact of the Inter-American System A, Preamble B«. Aims and Principles of the System C, Members of the System D, Organization of the System 1, Inter-American Assemblies a. International Conferences of American States b. Consultative Meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs Co Special Conferences 2, Pan American Union a,. Governing Board b. Director General a. Dependent Organs of the Governing Board 3° Specialized Organizations Bo. Financing, of the System Fo Pacific Settlement of Disputes Go Collective Defense Ho Relations with the United Nations and Its Specialized Organizations I, Ratification and Entry into Force Chapter Two IIo Regulations of Dependent Organs and of the Specialized Inter- American Organizations Chapter Three? Economic Matters HI, Inter-American Economic Cooperation Chapter Four? Juridico-Political Matters IVo Recognition of de facto Governments ^Handbook, 3~5„ 85 Vo Defense and Preservation of Democracy in America in Face of the Possible installation of Undemocratic Regimes on the Continent VI0 European Colonies in America Chapter Fives Social Matters VIIo Development and Improvement of Inter-American Social Services APPENDIX C COMMITTEE PROJECTS1 Committee Is Organic pact .. Subcommittee As Preamble«, principles 9 and declaration of rights and duties of states Subcommittee Bs Nature and purpose of inter-American system, and membership „ Subcommittee Cs Miscellaneous provisions, ratification Committee IIs Organic pact Subcommittee As Organization Subcommittee Bs Relations with United Nations, specialized inter- American organizations, and regulations of the dependent organs and specialized organisations Subcommittee Cs Financial matters Committee Ills Pacific settlement of disputes and collective security Subcommittee As Pacific settlement Subcommittee Bs Collective security Committee 17s Economic, matters ...... SubcoprLttee As Principles, settlement of economic disputes, future projects, and ratification Subcommittee Bs Technical cooperation, financial cooperation, creation of new organizations, division of respon sibility between the United Nations Economic Com mission for Latin America and the Inter-American Economic and Social council. Inter-American Eco nomic Conference, private investments, cooperation for industrial development, and economic security Subcommittee Cs Maritime transportation, inter-American travel, transportation and communication, turism, and transcontinental railroads Subcommittee Ds Social guarantees, coordination with economic organizations of the United Nations, import quotas, export quotas, 68anti-dumping, ” and report of the Inter-American Commission of Commercial Arbitration for period 1938-19^7 ^Actas y Documentos, III, 3, 3191 17, 3s 24-9; 7, 3? 4-37„ 87 88 Committee Vs Social matters Subcommittee As Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees s and development and improvement of inter-American social services Sub committee Bs American Educational Charter for Peace Subcommittee Cs Organic Statute for the Inter-American Commission of Women, and project for granting of political and civil rights to women Committee Vis Juridico-politlcal matters Subcommittee As International rights and duties of man Subcommittee Bs Recognition of de facto governments9 and defense and preservation of democracy in America Subcommittee Cs European colonies in America APPEHDH D SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATIONS1 lo All existing organizations were temporarily retained, 2 , Inter-American juridical Committee, became the permanent body of the Council of Jurists (Resolution II), 3® Conference recommended that governments consider the desirability of increasing the quotas for the financing of the Inter-American Statistical Institute (Resolution IV), 4, Proposal for the establishment of an institute of musicology was referred to the Council (Resolution 7), 5o Proposal for the establishment of an institute of immigration was referred to the Economic and Social Council (Resolution XIV), 6 , Proposal for the establishment of ah inter-American bank was re ferred to the Economic and Social Council (Resolution XV), 7, Proposal for the establishment of an institute of commerce was re ferred to the Economic and Social Council (Resolution XVI), 8 , Organic Statute of Inter-American Commission of Women was approved (Resolution XXI), 9, Proposal for establishment of an inter-American Court to protect the rights of man was referred to Juridical Committee (Resolution XXXI), 10, Committee on Dependent Territories was created (Resolution XXXIII), 11, Inter-American Defense Board was to be retained until decided by two-thirds vote of member nations that its work was terminated (Resolution XXXIV), 12, Conference acknowledged the excess number of official and semi official organizations and resolved that the Council should as soon as possible take corrective action (Resolution III), ■^’Final Act, Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, 1948,^ APPENDIX E STATUS OF CHARTER OF ORGANIZATION ■' OF AMERICAN-STATES Signed April 30, 1948 DATE OF DEPOSIT OF SIGNATORIES ; INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION Argentina April 10, 1956 Bolivia October 18, 1950 Brazil March 13, 1950 Colombia December 13,. 1951 Costa Riea November 16, 1948 Cuba July 16, 1952 Chile June 5, 1953 Dominican Republic April 22, 1949 Ecuador December 28, 1950 El Salvador September 11, 1950 Guatemala April 6, 1955a Haiti March 28, 1951 Honduras February 7, 1950 Mexico November 23, 1948 Nicaragua July 269 1950 Panama March 22, 1951 Paraguay May 3, 1950 Peru February 12, 1954a United States June 19,.1951a Uruguay September 1, 1955 Venezuela December 29, 1951 Notesg a„ With reservation " . - Charter entered into force on December 13, 1951» It was regis tered with the Secretary General of the United Nations on January 16, 19520 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 119, No„ 1609) ^Tratados y Convenciones Interamericanos (Serie Sobre Tratados, No, 9, Rev, 196)4; Washington: Unidn Panamericana, 1964), 43= 90 APPENDIX F mm,AMERICA! PEACE. INSTRUMENTS^ (1) The Treaty of May 3» 1923 3 to Avoid or Prevent Conflicts be tween the American States -the procedure of inquiry by a com mission of nationals of American States, appointed at the in- , stance of any Government directly interested, upon its being found impossible to settle controversies through diplomatic procedure or by submission to arbitration or in cases of im minent danger of armed conflict0 (2) The General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation, Jan uary 5 , .1929 — the procedure.. of conciliation by a commission appointed as above with respect to all controversies which it may not have been possible to settle through diplomatic chan nels, (3) The General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and (4) The Additional Protocol of Progressive Arbitration, January 5? 1929 - the procedure of arbitration of legal questions, with the exception of (a) matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the parties and not controlled by international law, (b) matters affecting States not parties to the Treaty, and (c) matters specially reserved by the parties„ (5) The Anti-War Treaty of Nonaggression and Conciliation, Octo ber 1 0 , 1933 - the procedure of conciliation by a commission appointed as above with respect to all controversies which it has not been possible to settle by diplomatic means within a reasonable period of time, with no limitations other than those set forth in the Treaty, (6 ) The Additional Protocol of December 26, 1933@ to the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation - the procedure of conciliation by commissions established on a permanent basis by agreements between each of the parties to the General Con vention and each of the other parties„ ^Turlington, The American Journal of International Law, XLII, . No. 3, 608-09. 91 92 (?) The Convention of December 23? 193&9 to Coordinate» Extend, and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties between the American States - the procedures of inquiry9 conciliation and arbitrations as above9 and the procedures of mediation and consultation of governments, (8 ) The Treaty of December 23? 1936? on Good Offices and Mediation . the procedure of recourse to the good offices or mediation of an eminent citizen ..of one of the American States 3 preferably chosen from a permanent general list, (9) The Treaty of December .23? 1936? on the Prevention of Contro versies - the procedure of study 9 by permanent bilateral mixed commissions 9 of the causes of future difficulties or controver- S 3 . Q 5 ° As of January 1? 1948, only one of these nine agreements had been ratified by all the American States, This was the Anti-War Treaty of Nonaggression and Conciliation? fifth in the list above| seven of the ratifications of the Anti-War Treaty were subject to reservations. The first four of the nine agreements were neither signed nor ratified by Argentina; the second, third and fourth were not ratified by Bolivia or Costa Rica; the third and fourth were not ratified by .Paraguay or Uruguay; the fourth was not ratified by Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Peru? . or the United States; the sixth was not signed or ratified by Argentina? Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba? El Salvador, or Peru, and was not ratified by Uruguay; the seventh was not ratified by Argentina? Bolivia, Costa Rica? Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay or Venezuela; the eighth was not ratified by Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay? Peru, Uruguay or Venezuela; and the ninth was not ratified by Argentina? Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay or Venezuela, APPENDIX G STATUS OF THE AlffiEICM TREATY OH PACIFIC SETTLEMENT (PACT OF BOGOTA) Signed April 3 0 , 1948 . DATE OF DEPOSIT OF SIGNATORIES INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION Argentina3- Bolivia3- Brazil Colombia Costa Rica May 6 9 19^9 Cuba Chile Dominican Republic September 12, 1950 Ecuador3- El Salvador September 11s 1950 Guatemala Haiti March 2 8 , 1951 Honduras February 7 S 1950 Mexico November 23> 1948 Nicaragua3- July 269 19503 Panama April 25, 1951 Paraguay3- Peru3- United States3- Uruguay September 1 9 1955 Venezuela Notes? aD With reservations Treaty enters into force for each country upon deposit of rati fied instrumento It was registered with the Secretary General of the United Nations on May 13, 1949. (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 30, No. 449)^ -^-Tr at ados y Convenciones Interameri canos, 44. 93 APPENDIX H STATUS OF THE ECONOMIC AGREEMENT. OF BOGOTA Signed May 2 ) 1948 DATE OF DEPOSIT OF. SIGNATORIES INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION Argentina8, Bolivia Brazil Colombia8, Costa Rica October 26, 1948 Cuba8, Chile8, Dominican Republic8, Ecuador8, El Salvador Guatemala8, Haiti Honduras8, February 1950a Mexico8, Nicaragua Panama April 25, 1951 Paraguay Peru United States8 Uruguay8 ' Venezuela8 Notes s a» With reservations,' Agreement will enter into force upon deposit of ratified in strument of ratification by two thirds of the signatories -^-Tr at ados y Convenciones Inter ameri cano s, 45 o 94 APPENDIX I STATUS OF THE UTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE GRANTING OF POLITICAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN Signed May 29 1948 DATE OF DEPOSIT OF . . SIGNATORIES INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION Argentina October 2 S 1957 Brazil March 21, 1950 Colombia June 3, 1959 Costa Rica April 17, 1951 Cuba July 18, 1949 Chile Dominican Republic April 22, 1949 Ecuador March 17, 1949 El .Salvador3- April 6 , 1951s Guatemala . (b) Haiti January 319 1958 ,Hondurasa October 10, 1955a Nicaragua0 August 22, 1956 Panama April 6 , 1951 Paraguay0- August 5, 1983 Peru June 11, 1958 United States Uruguay Venezuela Notes g a« Definite adhesion, b. Ratified on May 17, 19519 but not deposited, c„. Signed April 24, 1958, d. Signed August 20, 1951, Convention enters into force for each country upon deposit of ratified instrument,1 Ifratados y Convenciones Interamericanos, 46, 95 APPENDIX J STATUS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE GRANTING; OF CIVIL RIGHTS TO WOMEN . Signed May 2 , 1948 DATE OF DEPOSIT OF SIGNATORIES INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION Argentina October 2 , 1957 Bolivia Brazil March 19, 1952 Colombia June 3, 1959 Costa Rica April 17, 1951 Cuba July 18, 1949 Chile Dominican Republic April 22, 1949 Ecuador March 1?, 1949 El Salvador April 6 , 1951 Guatemala September 7, 1951 Haiti Honduras October 1 0 , 1955 Mexico August 1 1 , 1954 Nicaragua August 22, 1956 Panama April 6 , 1951 Paraguay December 19, 1951 Peru Uruguay Venezuela Notes % Convention enters into force for each country upon deposit of ratified instrument,^ iTratados y Convenciones Interamericanos, 47= 96 ' SSEECTED BIBLIOGMPHT .. Books Actas y Document os, International Conference, Ninth,. Bogota, 1948 0 7 vols0 Bogota: Mnlsterio de Eelaciones Exteriores de Colom bia, 1953-195^0 Alexander 9 Robert J„ Commonism in- Latin Americao New Brunswick, New Jerseys Rutgers University Press, 1957<> Burr, Robert N.' (ed„) Documents in Inter-American Cooperation, 2 vols, Philadelphia! University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955= Canyes, Manuel. The Organization of ^American States* 6th edi' Washing ton# Pan American Union^”! ^ ^ -- Claude, Inis L„ Swords into Plowshares,, New Yorks Random House, 1956= Dreier, John C», The Organization of American States, and the Hemispheric Crisiso 1st ed0 New Yorks' Harper and Row, 1962c Eagleton, Clyde= , International Government= 3rd ed0 New Yorks Ronald Press Coo, 1957« Fenwick, Charles 0= The Organization of American States# the Inter- American Regional Sys’tem0" Washingtons [Pan American Union], 1963o Fluharty, Vernon L. Dance of the Millions0 Pittsburghs University of . Pittsburgh Press, 1957o Gdmez Robledo, Antonio = Idea y Experiencia de Amdrica, 1st edc Mexicog Fondo de Gultura Econdmica, 1958= Handbook for Delegates to Ninth International Conference of American * "statesBogota, Colombia, March 30* 1948= ' Washingtons [Pan American UnionJ,19^77 ' " Hogan, Willard N= International Conflict and Collective Security# the Principles of Concern in International Organization.' Lexingtons University of Kentucky, 1955° Kiser, Margaret, Organization of American States# a Handbook for use in schools, colleges and adult study groups, 4th ed= Washing tons Pan American Union, 1955° 97 Larco Herrera9 Rafael, For la Ruta de la Confederacidn Americana; Consideraciones en pro de la Unidad y la Defensa de Amdrioa, Lima, 1948 Martz, John D, Colombia? a Contemporary Political Survey, Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press, 1962, Mecham, John L, The United States and Inter-American Security, 1889- 1960, Austin? University of Texas Press, 1961, La Opinidn Universal sobre la Doctrina Bstrada, Mexico: Publicaciones del Institute Americano de Dereeho y Legislacidn Comparada, 1931o Peaslee, Amos J„ (ed,) International Governmental Organizations V Con stitutional Documents, 2 vols, 2nd ed, revised. The Hague; M, Nijhoff J"l96ir. Shea, Donald R. The Calvo Clause, Minneapolis: University of Minne sota Press, 1955, Summers, Robert E, (Comp,) Dumbarton Oaks, New York: The H, ¥, Wilson Co,, 1945, Thomas, Ann (Van Wynen), The Organization of American States, Dallas 1 Southern Methodist”U^Tverslty"Press, 1963, Tratados y Convencjones Interamericanos, (Serie Sobre Tratados No, 9 9 rev, 1964), Washington; Unidn Panamericana, 1964, Periodicals Acheson, Dean, ”G-rowbh of the Organization of American States,” The Department of State Bulletin, XX, No, 502 (February 13, 1949), 198-200, "BogotA Conference Postponed until March 30,” The Department of State Bulletin, XVII, No, 442 (December 2 1 , 194?), 1218, Brinsmead, George, "Issues at Bogoti,” Spectator, CLXXX, No, 6249 (April 2, 1948), 398-99, Canyes, Manuel S, "The Ninth International Conference of American States; Antecedents and the Juridical Relationship Between the Inter-American System and the United Nations," Bulletin of the Pan American Union, IXXXI, No, 7 (July, 1947), 351-66, . . 99 Chalmers5 Henry0 "The Economic Agreement of Bogotks in Inter-American Milestone,," Foreign Commerce Weeklyg XXXI<, Ho, 11 (June 129 1948), 3-6. "Conferencia de Bogota," BAspano Americano, XIII, No. 313 (April 30» 1948), 21-22. ; Cuevas, Francisco. "The BogotA Conference and Recent Developments in Pan-American Relations: A Mexican View,""International Affairs. XXIV, No. 4 (October, 1948), 524-33. , Davis, Harold E. "The Charter of the Organization of American States," The Western Political Quarterly. I. No.' 4 (December, 1948), 439-48. "Dollar Diplomacy at Bogota," Business Week. No. 967 (March 13, 1948), 113-14. Fenwick, Charles G. "Charter of the Organization of American States as the 'Law of the Land”," The American Journal of Interna tional Law, XLVII, No. 2 (April, 1953), 281-84. . "The Ninth International Conference of American States," . The American Journal of International Law, XLII, - No. 3 (July, 1948), 553-67. - — . "The Pact of Bogota and Other Juridical Decisions of the Ninth Conference," Bulletin of the Pan American Union. LXXXII, No. 8 (August, 1 9 m j r ^ 3 5 r ^ ~ ~~~~~ Fitzgibbon.,. Russell H. "Colombian Gadfly," The Inter-American, IV, No. 2 (February, 1945), 15-17. Ford, Eric. "The America,n Concert at BogotA," The Contemporary Review. CLXXIV, No. 991 (July, 1948), 22-26. Furniss, Edgar S. "The United States, the Inter-American System and the United Nations," Political Science Quarterly. LXV, No. 3 (September, I950), 415-30. Holmes, Olive. "BogotA Talks Fail to Meet Real Hemispheric Needs," Foreign Policy Bulletin. XXVII, No. 30 (May 7, 1948), 3 . Hutchison, Keith. "Everybody11 s Business," The Nation, CEXVI, No. 15 (April 10, 1948), 397. Jorrfn, Miguel. "The New Inter-American System," The New Mexico Quarterly Review, XVIII, No. 4 (Winter, 1948), 385-90° 100 KunZj Josef L,, "The Bogota Charter of the Organization of American States a" The American Journal of International Law, XLII? No, 3 (July, 19%), 568-89, , "The Inter-American System and the United Nations," The American Journal of International Law, XXXIX, No0 4 (October, 19%), 758-6,7 Lleras Camargo, Alberto, "Report on the Ninth International Conference of American States,w Annals of the Organization of American States, I, No. 1 (1949), 1-75= Lockisrood, John E» ’!The Economic Agreement of Bogota," The American'" Journal of International Law, XIII, No. 3 (July, 1948), 611-20. New York Times. ■ 1948. "Nicaragua and the Ninth Conference," Bulletin of the Pan American Union, LXXXII, No. 5 (May, 194817284. ~ Padilla, Ezequiel. "The American System and the World Organization," Foreign Affairs, XXI?, No. 1 (October, 1945), 99-107. "Postponement of the Ninth International Conference of American States," Bulletin of the Pan American Union, LXXFII, No. 5 (May, 19^3) s 290. "Postponement of the Ninth International Conference of American States," Bulletin of the Pan American Union, LXXXII, No. 1 (January, 1948), 46. "Program of the Ninth Conference," Bulletin of the Pan American Union, LXXX, No. 5 (May, 1946), 277-78. Roxan, Daniel. "United States Trade With the Other American Republics . in 1947,” Foreign Commerce Weekly. XXXI, No. 3 (April 1 7 , 1948), 3-6; Sanders, William. "The Organization of American States; Summary of the Conclusions of the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, Colombia, March 30-May 2, 1948," International Conciliation, No, 442 (June, 1948), 383-%6. . "Sovereignty and Interdependence in the New World," The Department of State Bulletin, XVIII, No. 449 (February 8, 1948), 155-84. Sandifer, Durward V. "Regional Aspects of the Dumbarton Oaks Propos- a l s The Department of State Bulletin, XII, No. 292 (January 28, 1945), 145-47. 101 El Tiempo (Bogota), 1948; Torres Bodets Jaimes I SpeechJs Hispano Americano, X H g No0 JIQ (April % 1949l? 25-28, Turlington, Edgar, "The Pact, of Bogota," The American Journal of International Law, XLII, lo, 3 (July, 1948), £>08-11, ~ "U, S„ Embassy Report on Colombias Facts on Rioting“s Aftermath," Foreign Commerce Weekly, XXXI, No, 6 (May 8, 1948), 3 = "Whitaker, Arthur P, "Development of American Regionalism - The Organ ization of American States'," International Conciliation, No, 469 (March, 1951), 123-64, , "Rio and.Bogota? Pan American Perspective," Inter-American Economic Affairs, I, No, 3 (December, 1947), 23-44, Willner, Ann R, "Case Study in Frustrations Latin America and Econom ic Issues at Post-War Inter-American Conferences," Inter- American Economic Affairs, H , No, 4 (Spring, 1949), 29-44, United States Public Documents Ninth International Conference of American.States, Bogota, Colombia, 30-May 2, 1948, Report of the Delegation of the United .. States of America, -with Related Documents, Washington: U, S, Government Printing Office, 1948, U. S, Congressional Record, Vol. XCIV, U, S, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States - Latin American Relations, Compilation of Studies of the Subcommittee on American Republics Affairs pursuant to Senate Res, 330, 85th Cong,, Senate Res, 31 and 250, 86th Cong,, Senate Document 125= U, S, Statutes at Large, Vol, LX, U, S, Treaties and Other International Agreements, Vol, II, Pan-American Documents (chronologically) Final Act, Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933= Final Act, Eighth International Conference of American States, Lima, Peru, December 1, 1938, 102 Final Act, Consultative Meeting of Foreign Ministers of .the American Republics9 Panama9 September 23-October 3» 1939= Final Act, Second Meeting of Ministers of Foreign"Affairs of the American Republics, Havana, Cuba, July 21-30, 1940, Final Act, .Third Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Ameri can Republics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, January 15-28, 1942, Inter-American Juridical Committee, " Report oh the Dumbarton Oaks Pro posals Submitted to the Pan-American Union for Distribution to the American Governments, December 8, 1944, Final Act, Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, . Mexico City, Mexico, February 21-March 8, 1945, Barreta, Alberto Rodriguez„ Inter-American Solidarityg Safeguarding the Democratic Ideal, Montevideos Foreign Ministry, November 22, 1945, Final Act, Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 2, 194?, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Signed at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on September 2, 1947, Actas y Documentos, International American Conference, 9th, Bogota, 1948 , 7 vols, Bogota s. MLnisterio de Relaciones Exteriors s de Colombia, 1953-1954, Unpublished Material De Shazo, Elmer A, "The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in the Inter- American System since World War II," Unpublished Ph,D, dis sertation, Indiana University, 1956-57, Pan American Union, "Chronological Collection of Documents, Ninth International American Conference, Bogota, 1948," 2 vols, Washington, 1948, (Mimeographed,) "The Results of Bogota, lecture series on Bogota conference held at the Pan American Union," Washington, 1948, (Mimeo graphed, )