Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:23:02.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The rise of Latin American legal anti-imperialism in the face of the modern US and hemispheric redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

Juan Pablo Scarfi
Juan Pablo Scarfi*
Affiliation:
Universidad de San Andres, Campus Victoria, Vito Dumas 284, B1644BID, Victoria, Pcia. de Bs. As., Argentina, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Monroe Doctrine was originally formulated as a US foreign policy principle, but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it began to be redefined in relation to both the hemispheric policy of Pan-Americanism and the interventionist policies of the US in Central America and the Caribbean. Although historians and social scientists have devoted a great deal of attention to Latin American anti-imperialist ideologies, there was a distinct legal tradition within the broader Latin American anti-imperialist traditions especially concerned with the nature and application of the Monroe Doctrine, which has been overlooked by international law scholars and the scholarship focusing on Latin America. In recent years, a new revisionist body of research has emerged exploring the complicity between the history of modern international law and imperialism, as well as Third World perspectives on international law, but this scholarship has begun only recently to explore legal anti-imperialist contributions and their legacy. The purpose of this article is to trace the rise of this Latin American anti-imperialist legal tradition, assessing its legal critique of the Monroe Doctrine and its implications for current debates about US exceptionalism and elastic behaviour in international law and organizations, especially since 2001.

Keywords

anti-imperialismLatin AmericaMonroe Doctrinenon-interventionUS interventionism
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 541 - 555
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2020

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the American Historical Association (AHA) 2016 Congress held in Atlanta, USA, in January 2016, and the Sixth Annual Junior Faculty Forum for International Law held at the University of Nottingham, UK, in May 2017. I am grateful to Dino Kritsiotis, José Moya, Anne Orford, Margaret Power, Gerry Simpson, Lisa Ubelaker Andrade, and Fabia Vecoso for their comments and feedback to those two versions of this paper.

References

1 A. B. Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842-1933 (2014), 305.

2 M. P. Friedman, ‘Fracas in Caracas: Latin American Diplomatic Resistance to United States Intervention in Guatemala in 1954’, (2010) 21 Diplomacy and Statecraft 669; M. Power, ‘The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party: Transnational Latin American Solidarity, and the United States during the Cold War’, in J. S. Mor (ed.), Human Rights and Transnational Solidarity in Cold War Latin America (2013), 21.

3 A. J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (2002), 224.

4 M. Ignatieff, ‘Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights’, in M. Ignatieff (ed.), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005), 14.

5 See J. P. Scarfi, ‘In the Name of the Americas: The Pan-American Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine and the Emerging Language of American International Law in the Western Hemisphere, 1898–1933’, (2016) 40 Diplomatic History 189.

6 See P. Bourdieu, ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, (1987) 38 Hastings Law Journal 814.

7 G. Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (2004), 6.

8 Ibid.

9 See N. Krisch, ‘International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order’, (2005) 16 EJIL 369.

10 M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870-1960 (2001); A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2005); A. Orford, ‘The Past as Law or History? The Relevance of Imperialism for Modern International Law’, International Law and Justice Working Papers, Series 2012/2, University of Melbourne, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 600; B. A. Coates, Legalist Empire: International Law and American Foreign Relations in the Early Twentieth Century (2016); J. P. Scarfi, The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks (2017).

11 There are only a few exceptions in the literature. See, for instance, L. Eslava et al. (eds.), Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures (2017); B. Rajagopal, International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance (2003); M. Koskenniemi et al. (eds.), International Law and Empire: Historical Explorations (2017).

12 On the precedents of the Monroe Doctrine and the influence of the Canning Doctrine see J. Sexton, The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America (2011), 49.

13 The Mexican-US War was a direct product of the US annexation of Texas in 1845 and it led to an armed conflict between the US and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. US President James K. Polk invoked the Monroe Doctrine as an expansionist principle over Latin America, and regarded the annexation of Texas as an initial move associated with US manifest destiny leading to its progressive expansion over the continent. As the annexation was not recognized by the Mexican government, Mexico sent forces to Texas to attack and displace US forces from the area and thus the US declared war on Mexico. The US increased 50% of its territory following the War. On the Mexican-US War see B. DeLay, The War of a Thousand Deserts (2008); W. LaFeber, The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad. Vol 1: to 1920 (1994), 125.

14 W. LaFeber, ‘The Evolution of the Monroe Doctrine from Monroe to Reagan’, in L. C. Gardner (ed.), Redifining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams (1986), at 132; Scarfi, supra note 5.

15 L. Obregón, ‘Between Civilization and Barbarism: Creole Interventions in International Law’, (2006) 27 Third World Quarterly 815.

16 See V. G. Quesada, ‘Derecho internacional latino-americano: del principio conservador de las nacionalidades en nuestro continente’, (1882) 4 Nueva Revista de Buenos Aires 575; V. G. Quesada, ‘Derecho internacional latino-americano: el uti possidetis juris y el derecho constitucional’, (1882) 5 Nueva Revista de Buenos Aires 240.

17 D. Sheinin, ‘Rethinking Pan Americanism: An Introduction’, in D. Sheinin (ed.), Beyond the Ideal: Pan Americanism in Inter-American Affairs (2000), 1. On Pan-Americanism as a US-led policy and the contribution of James Blaine to the construction and consolidation of Pan-Americanism see D. Healy, James G. Blaine and Latin America (2001), 138.

18 J. P. Scarfi, ‘La emergencia de un imaginario latinoamericanista y antiestadounidense del orden hemisférico: de la Unión Panamericana a la Unión Latinoamericana (1880–1913)’, (2013) 39 Revista Complutense de Historia de América 81.

19 R. Sáenz Peña, ‘Los Estados Unidos en Sud-América: La doctrina de Monroe y su evolución (1897)’, in R. Sáenz Peña (ed.), Americanismo y democracia (2006), 76, at 86.

20 Ibid., at 109.

21 Scarfi, supra note 18.

22 T. Roosevelt, ‘Annual Message of the President to Congress’, in Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States Vol. 1, XLVIII (1904).

23 S. Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (2001), 36–7.

24 M. Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (2003), 53; M. Akehurst, ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in H. Bull (ed.), Intervention in World Politics (1984), 97, at 103; M. Wight, Power Politics (1979), 195.

25 J. P. Scarfi, supra note 10.

26 Ibid., at 33.

27 M. T. Gilderhus, Pan American Visions: Woodrow Wilson in the Western Hemisphere, 1913–1921 (1986); Scarfi, supra note 10, at 63.

28 La Vanguardia, Buenos Aires, 6th July, 1915, cited in P. Yankelevich, Miradas australes: Propaganda, cabildeo y proyección de las Revolución Mexicana en el Río de la Plata, 1910-1930 (1997), 97.

29 F. Serrano Migallón, Isidro Fabela y la diplomacia mexicana (1981), 154.

30 Yankelevich, supra note 28.

31 See J. A. Britton, ‘Redefining Intervention: Mexico’s Contribution to Anti-Americanism’, in A. McPherson (ed.), Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the Caribbean (2006), 37; on the tensions between Mexico and the US in this period see also M. T. Gilderhus, Diplomacy and Revolution: U.S.-Mexican Relations under Wilson and Carranza (1977).

32 See A. Kozel and S. Montiel, ‘Carlos Pereyra y el mito de Monroe’, in A. Pita González and C. Marichal (eds.), Pensar el antiimperialismo: Ensayos de historia intelectual latinoamericana, 1900-1930 (2012), 69, at 86.

33 Ibid., at 82.

34 See C. Pereyra, El mito de Monroe (1916), 25.

35 Ibid., at 37; on Alvarez and solidarism see S. Neff, Justice Among Nations: A History of International Law (2014), 291; Scarfi, supra note 10.

36 Pereyra, supra note 34, at 13.

37 Ibid.

38 On Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring’s solidarity with the movement for Puerto Rican independence see Power, supra note 2, at 34.

39 N. Miller, In the Shadow of the State: Intellectuals and the Quest for National Identity in Twentieth-Century Spanish America (1999), 204.

40 A. McPherson, The Invaded: How Latin American and their Allies Fought and Ended U.S. Occupations (2014), 35.

41 Ibid., at 34.

42 E. Roig de Leuchsenring, La ocupación de la República Dominicana por los Estados Unidos y el derecho de las pequeñas nacionalidades de América (1919), 62.

43 Ibid., at 63.

44 Ibid., at 64.

45 A. McPherson, supra note 40; M. P. Friedman, supra note 2; R. J. Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (1974), 113, 233; I. Hurd, International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice (2018), 48, 73.

46 Sáenz Peña, supra note 19, at 109; The University Reform began in Cordoba (Argentina) as a student rebellion calling for the democratization of higher education. The student movement extended itself into the rest of the universities of Argentina first and later to many other public universities throughout Latin America. This led eventually to the reform of university laws and norms, the co-government shared between students and university authorities, and the establishment of free education and the non-payment of any fees for public university education. The University Reform regarded itself as a political and pedagogical movement with a Latin American and anti-imperialist mission. For a detailed overview of the regional impact of the University Reform see J. C. Portantiero, Estudiantes y política en América Latina, 1918-1938: El proceso de la reforma universitaria (1978); M. Bergel and R. Martínez Mazzola, ‘América Latina como práctica: Modos de sociabilidad intelectual de los reformistas universitarios (1918-1930)’, in C. Altamirano (ed.), Historia de los intelectuales en América Latina. Tomo II (2010), 119.

47 Portantiero, ibid.

48 Yankelevich, supra note 28.

49 A. McPherson, ‘Anti-Imperialism and the Failure of the League of Nations’, in A. McPherson and Y. Wehrli (eds.), Beyond Geopolitics: New Histories of Latin America at the League of Nations (2015), 21.

50 J. P. Scarfi, ‘Mexican Revolutionary Constituencies and the Latin American Critique of US Intervention’, in A. Orford et al. (eds.), Revolutions in International Law: The Legacies of 1917 (forthcoming).

51 On Fabela’s career and his connections with the Ateneo de la Juventud see F. S. Migallón, supra note 29; F. S. Migallón, ‘Estudio preliminar’, in F. S. Migallón (ed.), Con certera visión: Isidro Fabela y su tiempo (2000), at 17.

52 I. Fabela, Los Estados Unidos contra la libertad: Estudios de historia diplomática americana (1920), 308; see also F. S. Migallón, supra note 29, at 76.

53 L. O. Bilbao, ‘Radiografía del imperio: Los Estados Unidos contra la libertad, de Isidro Fabela’, in A. P. González and C. Marichal (eds.), Pensar el antiimperialismo: Ensayos de historia intelectual latinoamericana, 1900-1930 (2012), 101, at 103.

54 Fabela, supra note 52, at 10.

55 See, for example, his two later works: I. Fabela, Las doctrinas Monroe y Drago (1957); I. Fabela, Intervención (1959).

56 E. R. de Leuchsenring, ‘Cuba en la obra antimperialista de Isidro Fabela’, in I. Fabela and B. S. García (eds.), Homenaje a Isidro Fabela, Vol. II (1959), 571, at 571–2.

57 Fabela, supra note 52, at 108.

58 W. Wilson, ‘Address to Senate, January 22, 1917’, in A. S. Link (ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (1982), at 538–9.

59 F. S. Northedge, The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920-1946 (1998), 324.

60 W. LaFeber, supra note 14, at 134. Prominent US international lawyers, such as Philip Jessup, advanced in the 1940s the idea of globalizing the Monroe Doctrine in order to amplify the US orbit of defence. See P. Jessup, ‘The Monroe Doctrine in 1940’, (1940) 34 AJIL 704.

61 D. Perkins, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (1960), 304, 305.

62 Fabela, supra note 52.

63 Ibid., at 306.

64 Ibid., at 310.

65 Ibid., at 309.

66 Ibid., at 310.

67 E. R. de Leuchsenring, La Doctrina de Monroe y el Pacto de la Liga de las Naciones (1921), 18–19.

68 Ibid., at 25.

69 Ibid., at 43.

70 M. Goebel, Anti-imperial Metropolis: Interwar Paris and the Seeds of Third World Nationalism (2015), 1–20, 116–48.

71 I. Fabela, ‘A los señores Delegados Latinoamericanos’, in I. Fabela, ‘Los Estados Unidos y la América Latina (1921-1929)’, (1955) 16 Cuadernos Americanos 71, at 71.

72 I. Fabela, Intervención (1959), 154, 161.

73 On the Havana Conference see Scarfi, supra note 10, at 119.

74 E. R. de Leuchsenring, ‘El principio de no intervención en el Instituto Americano de Derecho Internacional y en la Comisión de Jurisconsultos Americanos’, (1928) 7 Revista de Derecho Internacional 367, at 385.

75 G. Grandin, ‘The Liberal Traditions in the Americas: Rights, Sovereignty, and the Origins of Liberal Multilateralism’, (2012) 117 The American Historical Review 68; Scarfi, supra note 10, at 119.

76 W. LaFeber, supra note 14, at 135.

77 Bacevich, supra note 3, at 228.

78 Ibid., at 229.

79 Bourdieu, supra note 6.