Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:19:29.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Monroe Doctrine and the Declaration of Lima

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Charles G. Fenwick
Charles G. Fenwick*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors, Delegate of the United States
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The outstanding accomplishment of the Lima Conference was without doubt the Declaration of the Principles of the Solidarity of America, known more briefly as the Declaration of Lima. Its formulation was not brought about by discussions in the committee to which problems relating to the “Organization of Peace” were entrusted, but was rather the outcome of informal and in part confidential conversations among the heads of the several delegations. Numerous drafts were submitted in the process of reconciling conflicting views. Compromises were made by delegates with more advanced views in order to secure the assent of those taking a more conservative position. The requisite of unanimity not only delayed the final adoption of an acceptable text, but of necessity introduced elements of confusion in the logical order of the Declaration and of inconsistency in the relations of its several parts. Nevertheless the final result was a document of far-reaching importance in the progress of international law within the western hemisphere; and the agreement which it embodies must for the time rank as the most significant statement of principles and pledge of concerted action in the history of Latin American conferences.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1939 , pp. 257 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1939

Access options

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

References

1 Address at Minneapolis, Aug. 30, 1923. See this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), 611, 616.

2 Address before the American Society of International Law, 1914. “Since the Monroe Doctrine is a declaration based upon this nation’s right of self-protection, it cannot be transmuted into a joint or common declaration by American states or any number of them.”

3 Address before the Second Pan American Scientific Congress, Jan. 6, 1916. “The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed by the United States on her own authority. It has always been maintained, and always will be maintained, upon her own responsibility.”

4 See Robertson, W. S., “South America and the Monroe Doctrine,” Pol. Science Quarterly, XXX, 100 Google Scholar, quoted by Stuart, G. H., in Latin America and the United States (3rd ed.), 389 Google Scholar.

5 For the implications of “Imperialism” in the mind of Latin America, see Rippy, Latin America in World Politics, Chap. XV, “Yankee Hegemony and Latin American Suspicion.”

6 Latin America and the United States (3rd ed.), 69.

7 Quoted by Stuart, op. cit., 70.

8 Address at Mobile, Oct. 27, 1913. Robinson and West, The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson, 201.

9 Address at Minneapolis, above cited.

10 Radio address. See this Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), 367, 368.

11 Address to Congress, Jan. 22, 1917. Robinson and West, op. cit., 396.

12 For details, see Fleming, The United States and the League of Nations, 1918-1920, pp. 183-190.

13 Ibid., 213-215.

14 The case of Mexico is noteworthy. See Fenwick, International Law, 172, n. 1.

15 Report of the Delegates, 165, 167.

16 By the treaty of May 30, 1934, with Cuba.

17 By the treaty of March 2, 1936.

18 See Fenwick, C. G., “The Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), 201, 203Google Scholar.

19 Report of the Delegates, 116.

20 Report of the Delegates, 124.

21 The opening address of Secretary Hull before the Conference gives a graphic picture of the situation. Department of State Press Releases, No. 480; Diario of the Conference, No. 5, p. 282.

22 The dangers were phrased by the Foreign Minister of Argentina, Dr. Cantilo, in his address before the Conference on Dec. 10, 1938, in the following language: “It is not only the piece of land which we would defend in a sacred union. We are prepared to repel with the same tenacity, by means of concordant measures of a preventive character, or by combined direct action, anything that implies a threat to the American order, any introduction of men or ideas that reflect and tend to establish in our land and in our spirits ideas foreign to our idiosyncrasies, ideals in opposition to ours, régimes against our liberties, theories dangerous to the social and moral peace of our people, political fanaticisms and fetishisms which cannot prosper under the skies of America.” Diario, No. 5, pp. 279, 281.

23 Diario, No. 5, pp. 279, 281. The address nevertheless quotes in its closing paragraph the words of Montesquieu: “An injustice done to one is a threat made to all.”

24 For the text of the Declaration, see Report on the Results of the Lima Conference, Pan American Union, 92; Diario, No. 18, p. 1108; Final Act (Torres Aguirre, Lima, 1938), 115.

25 See Diario, No. 5A, p. 302.

26 Report, Pan American Union, 61; Final Act, 46.

27 See Diario, No. 8A, p. 649, and No. 7A, p. 422.

28 Report, Pan American Union, 61; Final Act, 47.

29 Canada alone excepted. For the question of the possible inclusion of Canada in the inter-American system, see Fenwick, C. G., “Canadian Participation in Inter-American Conferences,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), 473 Google Scholar.

30 Report of the Delegation, 92, 97.

31 Department of State Press Releases, No. 482, p. 477. Alfred M. Landon, member of the United States delegation, spoke as follows in his address delivered at the plenary session of Dec. 24, 1938: “Every principle to which we have pledged ourselves, one country to another, is of universal applicability and open to all countries in the world.”

32 Ibid., No. 480, p. 427.