² Panama Resolution XI, Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Oct. 7, 1939, p. 331 Google Scholar; Habana Resolutions II, III, V, VI, VII, Pinal Act, Dept. of State Bull., Aug. 24, 1940, pp. 130–134 Google Scholar;Rio de Janeiro Resolutions XVII, XVIII, XIX, Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7,1942, pp. 128–132 Google Scholar. These Final Acts are also printed in this Journal, Supplement, asfollows: Panama (1939), Vol. 34 (1940), pp. 1–20; Habana (1940), Vol. 35 (1941), pp. 1–32 Google Scholar;Rio de Janeiro (1942), this number, pp. 61–95 Google Scholar.

³ Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7, 1942, p. 128.

⁴ Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 21, 1942, pp. 164, 165.

⁵ Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7, 1942, p. 128.

⁶ Address before the Cuban Chamber of Commerce in the United States, Feb. 16, 1942,Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 21, 1942, pp. 164, 167.

⁷ “Article I.—In the event that the peace of the American Republics is menaced, and in order to coordinate efforts to prevent war, any of the Governments of the American Republics signatory to the Treaty of Paris of 1928 or to the Treaty of Non-Aggression andConciliation of 1933, or to both, whether or not a member of other peace organizations, shall consult with the other Governments of the American Republics, which, in such event, shall consult together for the purpose of finding and adopting methods of peaceful coöperation.

“Article II.—In the event of war, or a virtual state of war between American States, the Governments of the American Republics represented at this Conference shall undertake without delay the necessary mutual consultations, in order to exchange views and to seek, within the obligations resulting from the pacts above mentioned and from the standards of international morality, a method of peaceful collaboration; and, in the event of an international war outside America which might menace the peace of the AmericanRepublics, such consultation shall also take place to determine the proper time and manner in which the signatory states, if they so desire, may eventually cooperate in some action tending to preserve the peace of the American Continent.” (51 Stat. 15, 18; U. S. Treaty Series, No. 922; 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938), 4817, 4819; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 31 (1937),p. 53.)

⁸ The Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Coöperation, signed at Buenos Aires at the same time as the convention, seems clearly to be of such a nature. Sec.2 of this declaration provides that every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation “provided for in the Convention forthe Maintenance, Preservation and Reëstablishment of Peace, signed at this Conference”.(Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to theInter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, Dept. of State Pub. No. 1088 [Conf. Series No. 33], pp. 227,228.) The Declaration of Lima is the lineal successor to the Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Coöperation.Google Scholar

Some idea of the binding nature of the Declaration of Lima emerges from the practical fact that,since its enunciation, there has been unanimous response to all calls for meetings of Foreign Ministers, as provided for therein. It may be noted too that Assistant Secretary of State Berle pronounced the declaration ““a solemn and binding covenant.”(Dept. of State Press Releases, Mar. 11, 1939, pp. 167, 168.)Google Scholar For certain observations on the legal effect of declarations, see 27 Am. Bar Assn. Jour., 342, 348–349 [1941]. See also Rules of Land Warfare (1940 ed.), par. 26, p. 8.

⁹ Final Act, Eighth Int. Conf. of Am. States (1938), pp. 115,116; Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Eighth Int. onf. of Am. States, Dept. of State Pub.No. 1624 [Conf. Series No. 50], pp. 189, 190; this JOURNAL, Supplement, Vol. 34 (1940),p. 199 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁰ The recent settlement of the century-and-a-quarter-old Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute at the Rio consultative meeting is a good illustration of this. Even though the matterwas not on the agenda, it was dealt with in a highly successful manner. Under Secretary of State Welles has described the results, in part, as follows: “As you all know, that long-standing controversy had time and again given rise to the most serious difficulties between those two neighboring republics. Tragically enough, it had even resultedin actual hostilities last year. It had for generations thwarted and handicapped the prosperous development and the peaceful stability of the two nations involved. Its continuation had jeopardized the well-being of the entire hemisphere. I am happy to say that since the signing of the agreement the arrangements provided therein have been scrupulously carried out by both parties thereto, and it is the hope of all of us that theremaining and final steps will be taken in the immediate future, so that this last remaining important controversy in our hemisphere may be regarded as finally liquidated.”(Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 21, 1942, pp. 164, 166.)An English translation of the agreement ( Protocol of Peace, Friendship, and Boundaries) appears in id., Feb. 28, 1942, pp. 194, 195–196 Google ScholarPubMed. It is a noteworthy document, which states that it is signed “under the auspices” of the President of Brazil and “in the presence of” the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile and the Under Secretary of State of the United States. The execution of the Protocol is stated to be under the “guarantee” of these four countries which will coöperate in adjusting the occupation and retirement of the troops (by means of military observers), assist in resolving doubts or disagreements which may arise in the execution of the Protocol, and collaborate in minor rectifications of the boundary line to be fixed. The Protocol is accordingly signed, not only by the representatives of Ecuador and Peru, but by representatives of the so-called ABC Powers and the United States.

¹¹ Proceedings, pp. 90–91.

¹² Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Aug. 24, 1940, pp. 132, 133–134 Google Scholar.

¹³ Resolution XVII, Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7,1942, p. 128. This resolution also contains a recommendation that the Governments of the American Republics, within their respective national jurisdictions, take control of the activities of “organizations directed or supported by elements of non-American states which are now or mayin the future be at war with American countries, whose activities are harmful to American security; and proceed to terminate their existence if it is established that they are centers of totalitarian propaganda.” (Id. at 129.)

¹⁴ Though not pertinent to the subject hereof, it may be observed that the differing nature of the various provisions of these two resolutions serves to illustrate the proposition that the effect of all inter-American resolutions should not be assumed facilely, on principle, to be the same. It suggests that each should be studied separately. There is little doubt that even ordinary inter-American “resolutions” are designed to,and do, create some sense of commitment. A clear inference as to the degrees of obligation emerges in the technique employed in Sec. 3 of Resolution XVII, adopted at the Rio de Janeiro meeting, in relation to the attachment thereto of a “ Memorandum on the Regulation of Subversive Activities,” Final Act,Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7, 1942, p. 129.Google Scholar Cf. the following official observations of Secretary Hull, made in his report of the Habana consultative meeting (1940): “The Act of Habana consists of a declaration and a resolution. . . . The general provisions of the declaration and resolution are permanent in character. They authorize action by the American states, individually or collectively, at any time, whether before or after the convention [concerning the provisional administration of European colonies and possessions in the Americas]comes into operation.” (Dept. of State Pub. No. 1575 [Conf. Series, 48], pp. 20–21; U. S. Executive Agreement Series, No. 227; and U. S. v. Pink, 62 Sup. Ct. 552 (1942) this Journal, infra, p. 309.)

¹⁵ The procedure of consultation might also possibly be properly initiated under the Rio declaration on continental solidarity in the observance of agreements (acuerdos) and treaties(No. XXI, Final Act, Dept. of State Bull., Feb. 7, 1942, pp. 132–133).Google Scholar

¹⁶ 51 Stat. 41, 44; U. S. Treaty Series, No. 923; 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938), 4821, 4822–4823; this JOURNAL, Supplement, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 57.

¹⁷ Art. 4 of the Protocol stipulates that “The present Additional Protocol shall remain in effect indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year’s notice after the expiration of which period the Protocol shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces it but shall remain in effect for the remaining signatory states. Denunciations shall be addressed to the Government of the Argentine Republic which shallnotify them to the other contracting states.” The denunciation clause was inserted at the request of the Argentine delegate, Dr. Daniel Antokoletz (Proceedings of the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, p. 683). There have been no denunciations to date.

¹⁸ The Spanish word used was “intervención,” not “reclamación” or any other similar Spanish word having broader import. The Portuguese equivalent is “intervengão” and the French, “intervention.” The draft of the Protocol used the word “intromission” (intromisión). It was changed to “intervention” in order “to express what is meant” and “so as to leave no doubt about it, in the interpretations or translations” (Proceedings, Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, p. 82).

¹⁹ It is hard to believe that the American governments would have agreed to give up all claims for injuries to their nationals no matter how grave they might be. Recommendation No. XXXV on Pecuniary Claims, adopted at the same conference at which the Protocol was signed, is virtually conclusive proof that there was no such intent. (Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, Dept. of State Pub. No. 1088 [ Conf. Series No. 33], p. 232.)Google Scholar

²⁰ See 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938), 4821 and 4817.

²¹ See, e.g., Proceedings of the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace,pp. 86, 87, 90.Google Scholar

²² In Art. 2 of the Protocol it is agreed that every question concerning its interpretation,which is not settled by diplomacy, shall be submitted to conciliation or arbitration. There is nothing in the Protocol which purports to stay any such joint action, pending a determination of any interpretative question.

²³ This JOURNAL, Supplement, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 183.Google Scholar

²⁴ The first paragraph of Art. 5 stipulates that: “Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the members of the League represented at the meeting.”