¹ Invitations have been issued by the Pan American Union in the name of the Government of Brazil for May 22 next.

² The other two organs are the Inter-American Economic and Social Council and the Inter-American Cultural Council.

³ Art. 67 of the Charter of the Organization of American States.

⁴ Eliminated at Bogotá were: The Committee of Experts on the Codification of International Law; the Permanent Committee on Public International Law; the Permanent Committee on Comparative Legislation and the Unification of Legislation; and the Permanent Committee of Jurists for the Unification of Civil and Commercial Law of America. For a summary of the activities of the inter-American system in the legal field prior to Bogotá, see Sanders, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, No. 449 (Feb. 8, 1948), pp. 176 ff.

⁵ It was the Brazilian Government’s position that the meeting of the Council of Jurists should be postponed because the Charter of the Organization had not yet entered into effect, only three ratifications having been received. Note of July 26, 1949, from Ambassador Accioly to Secretary General Alberto Lleras. But as the United States representative on the Council of the Organization aptly observed, Resolution XL of the Bogotá Conference (cf. Final Act of the Ninth International Conference of American States, p. 52) provides explicitly that pending the entry into force of the Charter, the new organs which it contemplates should be established on a provisional (e. g., coöperative) basis; and, in fact, such is presently the basis upon which the Organization itself is functioning. Letter of Aug. 30, 1949, from Mr. Daniels to Secretary General Lleras. For the date finally agreed upon, see above, note 1.

⁶ Mr. Morris to the Secretary of State, July 12, 1949.

⁷ Resolution XXVI, adopted at Rio de Janeiro. See the Carnegie Endowment’s Conferencias Internationales Americanos, Primer Suplemento (1938-1942), p. 206, for text. The Inter-American Neutrality Committee had been established in 1939 for the purpose of formulating recommendations on neutrality problems presented by the European war. At Eio, it was adapted to the new circumstances resulting from American involvement in the war. For a study of the early history and activities of this body, see Fenwick, this JOURNAL, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 1; and ibid., Vol. 37 (1943), p. 5.

⁸ Resolution II of the Conference (cf. Final Act, p. 8, and Arts. 68-69 of the Charter).

⁹ E. g., the Council of Jurists, the Inter-American Conference, the Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers, or the Council of the Organization. Charter, Art. 70.

¹⁰ Art. 4, Report of the Juridical Committee, p. 38.

¹¹ Art. 5, ibid., p. 39.

¹² Report of the International Law Commission, General Assembly, Official Records, 4th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (A/925), p. 3; text in this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), p. 1.

¹³ See this JOURNAL, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 273.

¹⁴ Art. 6 of the Committee’s draft, p. 39.

¹⁵ The distinction of method drawn between the two large fields of codification was unacceptable to the Mexican member of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, who argued, first, that merely listing a number of subjects as susceptible of codification was not a proper way to prepare a program (it happens to have been the procedure followed in the United Nations) ; and that, on the other hand, there was no point in talking about drafting a code of private international law, since the Bustamante Code of 1928 was already in existence. The fact that it had not been accepted by the United States was, in his view, indicative of the futility of further effort in that direction. (Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, pp. 42 ff.) Whether the basic differences between the civil and the common law systems will frustrate all measures to introduce some uniformity in legislation on this matter would seem, however, to warrant further study.

¹⁶ Art. 17 of the Committee’s draft, Eeport, p. 42.

¹⁷ See Resolution XXXIV adopted at the Inter-American Conference on Problems of Peace and War in 1945 (Mexico City), concerning the project presented by the Delegation of Ecuador. Report submitted to the Pan American Union, 1945 (Congress and Conference Series, No. 47), p. 66. See also the United States Delegation’s Report on the Ninth International Conference of American States (Department of State Publication 3263), pp. 82 and 83.

¹⁸ Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Recognition of De Facto Governments (Sept. 27, 1949), p. 24.

¹⁹ For a contrary view, cf. Fenwick, “The Problem of the Recognition of De Facto Governments,” Inter-American Juridical Yearbook, 1948, p. 3, note (reprint). And see, generally, Jiménez de Aréchaga, Reconocimiento de Gobiernos (1947), Ch. 1, pt. C.

²⁰ The Report of the Committee accompanying this draft attempts to reduce the scope of the prohibition by asserting that recognition may not be used as an instrument for obtaining special privileges or unjustified concessions. But such an intention could have been more precisely worded in the draft.

²¹ Text in this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), p. 127. See General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Pt. I, Official Records (1948), pp. 875 ff. (debates); and the Annexes thereto, p. 535. Separate reprints of the Declaration are available as Department of State Publication 3381.

²² Resolution XXX of the Ninth Conference of American States, Final Act, pp. 38 ff.; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), p. 133.

²³ See Simsarian in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXI, No. 523 (July 11, 1949), p. 3 ; and the introduction in Publication 3381 referred to above.

²⁴ 35 American Bar Association Journal (July, 1949), p. 551, and particularly at pp. 619 ff. A recent illustration of some of these implications was presented by the announcement of Mr. Paul Robeson that the prosecution and conviction of the eleven Communist leaders will be protested before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. New York Times, Oct. 18, 1949.

²⁵ See the writer’s “Recent Aspects of the Calvo Doctrine,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 40 (1946), p. 121.