Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:22:58.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oas Reforms and the Future of Pacific Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

Mary Jeanne Reid Martz
Mary Jeanne Reid Martz*
Affiliation:
Clemson University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As in the case of Mark Twain, the reports of the death of the Organization of American States (OAS) are greatly exaggerated. Certainly it is not operating at peak performance. However, neither is it the moribund institution that the mass media would have us believe—although some recent reports of the General Assembly meeting in Santiago have given us glimmerings of hope for a rebirth. It is the purpose of this report to investigate the status of one of the major aspects of the contemporary OAS reform efforts—the peaceful settlement of disputes within the organization's structure. The indefinite postponement of this particular issue cannot belie the fact—amply demonstrated in the debates of the Special Committee to Study the Inter-American System and Propose Measures for Restructuring It, the Conference of Plenipotentiaries to Amend the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, and the Permanent Council—that the resolution of disputes is of fundamental importance to the nations of the hemisphere and that there is some degree of relative satisfaction over past OAS performance in that area. It would thus be appropriate for students of inter-American relations to take a greater scholarly interest in the OAS than is now the case.

Type
Research Reports and Notes
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , 1977 , pp. 176 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the University of Texas Press

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to various members of the Secretariat of the Organization of American States for assisting me in assembling the data for this report.

References

Notes

1. Charles G. Fenwick, The Organization of American States: The Inter-American Regional System (Washington, D. C.: Kauffman Printing Co., Inc., 1963).

2. Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Jr., The Organization of American States (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1963).

3. J. Lloyd Mecham, The United States and Inter-American Security (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961).

4. John C. Dreier, The Organization of American States and the Hemisphere Crisis (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962).

5. William Manger, Pan America in Crisis: The Future of the OAS (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1961).

6. Inter-American Institute of International Legal Studies, The Inter-American System: Its Development and Strengthening (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1966).

7. Gordon Connell-Smith, The Inter-American System (London: Oxford University Press, 1966).

8. Jerome Slater, The OAS and United States Foreign Policy (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967). Slater also published a short monograph: A Revaluation of Collective Security: The OAS in Action (Ohio State University Mershon Center for Education in National Security, Social Science Program, Pamphlet Series No. 1, Ohio State University Press, March 1965).

9. M. Margaret Ball, The OAS in Transition (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1969).

10. See, e.g., George Meek, “Revising the Rio Treaty,” Américas 27 (October 1975):16-19. Such articles are short and neither detailed nor footnoted.

11. The only scholarly article in English on OAS reform efforts since 1970 appears to be Henry H. Han, “The San José Conference 1975: The Forces of Change and the Question of Cuba,” South Eastern Latin Americanist 19, no. 4 (March 1976):1-5. This piece considers only a few major aspects of Rio Treaty changes. There is little on the 1970 amended charter. These articles include M. Margaret Ball, “New Format, Old Problems: The OAS Under the Revised Charter,” Annals of the South Eastern Conference on Latin American Studies 3 (March 1972):24-36; William Manger, “Reform of the OAS: The 1967 Buenos Aires Protocol of Amendment to the 1958 Charter of Bogotá; An Appraisal,” Journal of Inter-American Studies 10 (January 1968):1-14; and César Sepúlveda, “The Reform of the Charter of the OAS,” Hague Academy of International Law Recueil des cours 3 (1972):82-140. There have been a few articles on the role of the OAS in specific controversies published since 1970. These include: Martin Ira Glassner, “The Rio Lauca: Dispute Over an International River,” Geographic Review 60 (April 1970):192-207; Mary Jeanne Reid Martz, “OAS Settlement Procedures and the El Salvador-Honduras Conflict,” South Eastern Latin Americanist 19, no. 2 (September 1975): 1-7. The PAU has a new edition of Pan American Union, Department of Legal Affairs, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance: Applications, 1948-1970, 2 vols., 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Pan American Union, 1974).

12. See, e.g., Gordon Connell-Smith, The United States and Latin America: An Historical Analysis of Inter-American Relations (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974); Julio Cotler and Richard Fagen, The U.S. & Latin America (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974); Federico G. Gil, Latin American-United States Relations (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, Inc., 1971); Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, The Americas in a Changing World: A Report of the Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, with a preface by Sol M. Linowitz and selected papers (New York: Quadrangle, 1975).

13. See, e.g., Harold E. Davis et. al, Foreign Policies of Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1975); Herbert Goldhamer, The Foreign Powers in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972); Ronald G. Hellman and H. Jon Rosenbaum (ed.), Latin America: The Search for a New International Role (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975); F. Parkinson, Latin America, The Cold War, and The World Powers, 19451973 (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1974).

14. Special Committee to Study the Inter-American System and Propose Measures for Restructuring It (CEESI), Final Act 12 (OEA/Ser. P/CEESI/doc. 26/75, rev. 1; 20 February 1975).

15. Ibid., pp. 2-3.

16. Organization of American States (OAS), Permanent Council, Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, Report of the Chairman of the Working Group (OEA/Ser.K/XXIII.1.1.CPTIAR/doc.9/75; 8 July 1975). For the comparative documents of the Rio Treaty including the original, the CEESI proposals, and the permanent council draft, see Conference of Plenipotentiaries to Amend the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Actas y documentos (OEA/Ser.K/XXII.1.1/CPTIAR/doc.5/75; 3 July 1975).

17. CEESI, Final Report 12 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/doc.26/75, rev. 1; 20 February 1975), p. 4.

18. CEESI, Actas y documentos, 12 vols., 8, no. 1 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/doc. 56/74; 22 March 1974), p. 613.

19. Meeting of Consultation, Sixteenth, Final Act (OEA/Ser.F/II. 16/doc.9/75, rev. 1; 29 July 1975).

20. See Conference of Plenipotentiaries, Actas y documentos (OEA/Ser.K/XXIII.1.1./CPTIAR/doc.57/75; 26 July 1975), p. 6 for this closing address of the conference.

21. Comparison of amendments in CEESI, Actas y documentos 4, no. 2 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom. I/doc. 13/73, rev. 7; 31 October 1973), p. 52.

22. Ibid. (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom. I/doc.12/73; 4 September 1973), p. 28.

23. Although the organ of consultation has been convoked sixteen times under the Rio Treaty, in ten cases it never met. However, there have also been ten other meetings held. These include the three held prior to 1947 and also seven held under the OAS charter rather than under the Rio Treaty. Thus the sixteenth convocation of the Rio Treaty actually coincides with the sixteenth meeting of consultation held in San José in 1975.

24. No controversy has been considered under article 7 which specifically concerns pacific settlement.

25. CEESI, Actas y documentos 1 (OEA/Ser. P/CEESI/Subcom.CG/doc.7/73; 6 July 1975), p. 5.

26. See the comparative documents in Conference of Plentipotentiaries, Actas y documentos (OEA/Ser.K/XXIII.1.1/CPTIAR/doc.5/75; 3 July 1975), p. 3.

27. Ibid. (OEA/Ser.K/XXIII.1.1/CPTIAR/doc.15/75; 16 July 1975), pp. 12-13. See also the statement of the Costa Rican delegate to the CEESI that the Rio Treaty is “the principal element of its national defense” for a country without an army of its own. CEESI, Actas y documentos 5, no. 1 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Acta 7/73, corr. 1; 1 October 1973), pp. 8-16/

28. The arrangement of the ceasefire was, of course, a peacekeeping function. However, this task has been considered a part of the over-all OAS pacific settlement effort which has included good offices, mediation, and conciliation.

29. CEESI, Final Act 12 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/doc.26/75, rev.1; 20 February 1975), p. 7.

30. For text see CEESI, Actas y documentos 11, no. 2 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/doc. 110/75, rev.1; 4 February 1975), pp. 149-50.

31. Ibid. 11, no. 1 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/Acta 92/75, corr.1; 27 January 1975), pp. 199-211; and 11, no. 1 (Acta 78/75; 4 February 1975), pp. 389-90.

32. For text see ibid. (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/doc.30/73, corr.1; 24 October 1973).

33. Ibid. 8, no. 2 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/Acta 59/74; 14 March 1974), p. 173.

34. Ibid. 8, no. 2 (OEA/Ser.P/CEESI/Subcom.I/Acta 62/74; 19 March 1974), pp. 216-18.