¹ Subcommittee XIV, composed of Dr. Riesco, Dr. Coudert, and Lie. García Robles.

² The passage within single quotation marks was text/ually taken from the “Declaration of the Principles of the Solidarity of America,” approved at the Eighth International Conference of American States held at Lima, December 24, 1938. See this Journal,Vol. 34 (1940), Supplement, p. 190; International Conferences of American States, First Supplement (1933–1940), Washington, 1940, p. 308.

³ This Journal,Vol. 39 (1945), pp. 558–559.

⁴ Mimeographed copy distributed to the delegates, p. 24.

⁵ See the notes dated July 21, August 3, August 22, and September 2, 1938, reproduced in this Joubnal, Vol. 32 (1938), Supplement, p. 181.

⁶ Mendoza, Salvador, La Doctrina Cárdenas, Mexico City, 1939, pp. 28–29 Google Scholar. See the remarks of Brown, Philip Marshall, on “The Cárdenas Doctrine,” this Journal,Vol. 34 (1940), p. 300 Google Scholar.

⁷ Mendoza, work cited, p. 31.

⁸ For a discussion of the various legislative limitations which Latin-American States sought to place upon international claims, see Borchard, , The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, New York, 1927 Google Scholar, §§ 392 and ff., and Freeman, , The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, London, 1938, pp. 456 Google Scholar and ff.

⁹ Freeman, work cited, pp. 457–458.

¹⁰ See, for example, a Salvador law of September 29,1886 ( British and Foreign State Papers,Vol. 77, p. 121 and Moore, , Digest of International Law, Washington, 1906, Vol. 6, p. 267 Google Scholar); for other laws to the same effect, Freeman, work cited, pp. 458–459.

¹¹ Cf. De Visscher, , Le Déni de Justice en Droit International, in Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de La Haye, Vol. 52 (1935), pp. 375 Google Scholar, 381, 390; Freeman, work cited, pp. 145–146, 558; Hyde, , International Law, 2nd éd., New York, 1945, §§ 281 Google Scholar, 287, and authorities cited. For recognition of the principle in international jurisprudence, see the Chevreau award (France v. Great Britain), June 9, 1931, reported in this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), pp. 153, 160; the De Sabla claim (17. S. v. Panama), American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration, Report of Bert L. Hunt, Washington, 1934, p. 432; and the Neerclaim (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners, Washington, 1927, p. 73.

¹² Octava Conferenda Intemadonal Americana, Diario de Sesiones, Lima, 1939, pp. 302 and ff.

¹³ In addition to the cases referred to in note 11, above, see: the Chattin case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners, Washington, 1927, p. 441; the Roberta case, same, p.

105; the Hopkins case, same, p. 51; The Phare (France v. Nicaragua,), Moore, , International Arbitrations, Washington, 1898, Vol. 5, p. 4870 Google Scholar; The Orient (U. S. v. Mexico), same, Vol. 3, p. 3229; the Martini case (Italy v. Venezuela), reported in this Journal,Vol. 25 (1931), pp. 554,577. See also the advisory opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of the Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig: Publications of the Court, Series A/B, No. 44, at pp. 24–25, reproduced in Hudson, M. O., World Court Reports, Vol. II, p. 804 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Among such authorities are: De Visscher, work cited, p. 390; Borchard, work cited, pp. 336–343; Fitzmaurice, , ”The Meaning of the Term ‘Denial of Justice,’” in British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. XIII (1932), pp. 100–101 Google Scholar; Hyde, , work cited, §266; Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law, New York, 1928, p. 83 Google Scholar; Kaufmann, , Les rbgles générales du droit de la paix, in Recueü des Cours de VAcadémie de Droit International de La Haye, Vol. 54, p. 428 Google Scholar; Salvioli, in same, Vol. 46, p. 113; Eustathiadés, , La Responsar büiU de l’Etat, Paris, 1936, Vol. 1 Google Scholar, Chapter VIII, in general; Brierly, Law of Nations, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1942, pp. 172–174; Schoen, , Die Völkerrechtliche Haftung der Staaten (Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Band X), Breslau, 1917, pp. 88–90 Google Scholar; doctrinal note to the Eliza, case, La Pradelle- Politis, Recueü des Arbitrages Intemationaux, Paris, 1923, Vol. II, p. 278 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. Bevilaqua, , Direito Publico Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1911, Vol. I, p. 219 Google Scholar; Accioly, , Tratado de Direito Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1933, Vol. I Google Scholar, § 416; Maurtua, , La Responsibüidad de los Estados (address delivered at the University of Havana in November, 1929); the Comentarios del Dr. Eugenio Cantero-Herrera ante la Comisión Permanente de Washington, Washington, 1936, p. 7 Google Scholar; Ulloa, , Derecho Internacional Publico, 2nd ed., Lima, , 1938, Vol. I, pp. 224 Google Scholar, 243 and the remarks of Dr. Drago at the Second Hague Peace Conference (1907), quoted in the text (see note 58, below). Compare Lafayette Rodrigues Pereira, Principios de Direito International, Vol. I, pp. 370–371.

¹⁶ Proceedings of the Eighth American Scientific Congress, Washington (1940), Vol. X, p. 34.

¹⁷ Same, p. 47. Italics supplied.

¹⁸ Same, pp. 30–34, 40 and ff., and 47.

¹⁹ Beteta theorized that diplomatic protection was never permiasible to assert an international claim and that only a denial of justice (which for him was the “impossibility of reparation”) would warrant, not protection, but arbitration. Enforcement of the arbitral award could never be a matter for “diplomatic protection.” This nebulous conception is somewhat bewildering in view of the traditional narrow definition of denial of justice prevailing in Latin-America. But the general intent of his thesis was clear: to exclude state responsibility in this class of cases. See Proceedings of the Eighth American Scientific Congress, Washington (1940), Vol. X, pp. 31, 47–48.

²⁰ For a critical analysis of this dogma, see Freeman, work cited, pp. 123 and S., pp. 604 and S., and pp. 532 and ff.

²¹ This theory, expounded by Funck-Brentano, and Sorel, (Prids du droit des gens, Paris, 1877, pp. 224–225 Google Scholar) and reproduced in Pradier-Fodéré, (Traits de Droit International Public, Paris, 1895–1896, Vol. I, p. 329 Google Scholar) is universally rejected by contemporary publicists, not excepting the leading Latin-American authorities.

²² See, for exhaustive studies of this subject, the works of Borchard, Eagleton and De Visscher, cited in note 14, above, in general, and the present writer’s International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, London, 1938.

²³ Cf. the Neer, case (JJ. S. v. Mexico) Opinions of Commissioners, Washington, 1927, p. 71 Google Scholar, at p. 73; the Faulkner case, same, p. 86; the cases cited in notes 11 and 13, above; the authorities discussed in Freeman, work cited, pp. 540–562, and Professor Borchard’s, excellent paper on “The ‘Minimum Standard’ of the Treatment of Aliens,” in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1939, pp. 51 Google Scholar and ff.

²⁴ Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 7, p. 22 (reproduced in Hudson, , World Court Reports, Vol. I, Washington, 1934, pp. 523–524 Google Scholar). See also The Chortâw Factory case in same, Series A, No. 9, p. 27 (reproduced in Hudson, work cited, pp. 606–607).

²⁵ See the cases and authorities referred to in notes 11, 13, and 23, above; Hyde, work cited, § 266; and Professor Lauterpacht’s, recent monograph, An International Bill of the Rights of Man, New York, 1945, p. 48 Google Scholar.

²⁶ Examples are furnished by the De Sabla claim cited in note 11, above; Bronner's case (U. S. v. Mexico), discussed in Whiteman, Damages in International Law, Washington, 1937, Vol. II, p. 931; Mather and Glover case, same, pp. 870–871; Pawley’s case (U. S. v. Haiti),same, p. 872; the Howland case (Z7. S. v. Mexico), Moore, , International Arbitrations, Vol. 3, p. 3227 Google Scholar; The Norwegian Ships case (Norway v. U. S.), reported in this Journal, Vol. 17, p. 387; Umpire Huber’s Rapports, on Réclamations Britanniques dans la Zone espagnole du Maroc, La Haye, 1925, p. 60; and the authorities referred to in Freeman, work cited, p. 519, note.

²⁷ See Schwarzenberger’s, recent work, International Law, Vol. 1, London, 1945, pp. 87 Google Scholar and ff.; and Borchard, work cited, p. 62.

²⁸ Anzilotti, , Cours de Droit International, Paris, 1929, p. 480 Google Scholar. See the note to the YuiUe, Shortridge & Co. case, La Pradelle-Politis, work cited, p. 113; Schoen, work cited, pp. 83–85; Triepel, Völkerrecht, und Landesrecht, Leipzig, 1899, p. 350; Kohler, , Grundlagen des Völ- kerrechts, Stuttgart, 1918, p. 159 Google Scholar; Reply of Switzerland, Bases of Discussion drawn up by the Preparatory Committee, Vol. Ill, Responsibility of States, League of Nations Publications, Ser. V, Legal, 1929, V. 3, p. 47; Eagleton, work cited, pp. 44, 67 and ff. and authorities cited; Cavaglieri, Corso di Diritto Internationale, 1934, pp. 514r-515. See the remarks of the Italian and Spanish delegates (Cavaglieri and Vidal) at the Hague Conference on the Codification of International Law, Minutes of the Third Committee, Acts of the Conference, League of Nations Publication, Ser. V, Legal, 1930, V. 17, Vol. IV, pp. 109, 118, resp.; De Visscher, work cited, p. 376; and especially Eustathiadès, work cited, pp. 29 and ff. “The position that a sovereign is internationally liable for rulings of his courts, in violation of international law, was taken by us early in the wars growing out of the French Revolution, and was finally acceded to by the British Government against whom it was advanced . . Mr. Bayard to Mr. Jackson, Sept. 7,1886, Moore, , Digest, Vol. VI, p. 680 Google Scholar. Compare Wheaton, , Elements of International Law (Dana ed.), Oxford, 1936, pp. 410–11 Google Scholar. For general discussion, see Freeman, The International Responsibility of States fçr Denial of Justice, pp. 28 and ff.

²⁹ See Article 9 of the Resolutions voted by the Instant de Droit International, Lausanne Session, Annuaire (1927), Vol. 3, pp. 330 and ff.; De Viseoher, , La Responsabilité des Etats in Bibliotheca Visseriana, Vol. II, p. 105 Google Scholar; Root, , “The Basis of Protection to Citizens Residing Abroad,” this Journal,Vol. 4 (1910), p. 521 Google Scholar; Bourquin, , in Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de La Haye, Vol. 35 (1931), p. 215 Google Scholar; Eagleton, , The Responsibility of States in International Law, New York, 1928, p. 33 Google Scholar; Westlake, , International Law, 2nd éd., Cambridge, 1910, Part I, p. 329 Google Scholar. See the case of the Eliza, , La Pradelle-Politis, work cited, Vol. II, p. 271 Google Scholar, especially at p. 276, and authorities there cited; and the various cases of mob violence at Denver, Rock Springs, New Orleans, etc., in Moore, Digest, Vol. VI, pp. 809 and ff. In TunstaU's case (failure to prosecute the murderers of a British subject), Secretary Evarts vigorously repudiated liability for, inter alia, the unsound reason that administration of the criminal laws within the States and territories was free from Federal interference: same, p. 662 at p. 663. “ It is as little doubtful nowadays as it was in the day of the Geneva Arbitration that international law is paramount to decrees of nations and to municipal law . . North American Dredging Co. Case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions, p. 21 at p. 25. And see the Shufeldt Claim (U. S. v. Guatemala), this Journal,Vol. 24 (1930), p. 799 at p. 818; to same effect: Lauterpacht, , Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (1929–30), p. 179 Google Scholar at p. 181, and the opinion in the Y utile, Shortridge & Co. case, La Pradelle-Politis, work cited, Vol. II, p. 105.

³⁰ This meaning of the term is a carry-over from its early significance in municipal legal systems. See Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, pp. 86 and ff.

³¹ As authority for what he generously described as leaving an “ample opening for the arbitrary application of diplomatic protection,” García Robles cited the view expressed by Gustavo Guerrero in a report which he prepared as rapporteur of a sub-committee set up by the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law under the auspices of the League of Nations. But the Guerrero report was unacceptable to the Committee of Experts, which later submitted Bases of Discussion 5 and 6 to the Hague Codification Conference of 1930. The Third Committee of that Conference finally adopted the following text:

“A State is responsible if a foreigner suffers damage as a result of the fact:

“1. That a judicial decision, which is not subject to appeal, is clearly incompatible with the international obligations of the state.

“2. That, in a manner incompatible with the international obligations of the state, the foreigner has been hindered in the exercise of his rights by the judicial authorities or has encountered in his proceedings unjustifiable obstacles or delays implying a refusal to do justice. '

The claim against the state must be lodged not later than one year after the judicial decision has been given.”

The proceedings of this Committee are found in the League of Nations Publication cited in note 28, above. For a detailed criticism of the Guerrero Report, see Freeman, work cited, pp. 120 and ff.

³² De Jure Belli ac, Pacts Libri Tres, Classics of International Law edition, Book III, Chapter II, par. 5, 1, p. 627 Google Scholar.

³³ Questionum, Juris Publici Libri Duo, Classics of International Law edition, Book I, Chap. 24, pp. 135–136 Google Scholar.

³⁴ Jus Gentium Methodo ScierUifica Pertradatum, Classics of International Law edition, 8587.

³⁵ Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle, Classics of International Law edition, Book II, §350.

³⁶ “ A right is denied you if you cannot acquire by a judgment that which is your own or ought to be made your own. It is plain that this can be brought about in two ways, either if the judge refuses to hear you, or if he gives an unjust decision. . . . Therefore, since civil laws bind only members of the state in which they are promulgated, among nations the decision of a judge whether properly or improperly made is not considered correct and just, even if it shall have been confirmed by a higher court. If then in a matter not doubtful a decision has been made plainly contrary to law, the decision is considered a nullity, and therefore the right denied is properly taken”: Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo ScierUifica Pertradatum, § 587 (italics supplied). And see Hamilton’s remarks in The Federalist (Lodge ed.), New York, 1888, p. 495.

³⁷ See the authorities cited in notes 39–43, below.

³⁸ In addition to the authorities cited in notes 14 and 15, above, see Wheaton, , Elements of International Law, 5th ed., London, 1916, p. 607 Google Scholar; Article 6 of the Draft prepared by the Institut de Droit International at Lausanne in 1927, Annuaire de l'Institut, Vol. 3, pp. 330 and ff.; Article 9 of the Draft Convention on Responsibility of States prepared by the Harvard, Research in International Law, this Journal, Vol. 23 (1929), Supplement, p. 173 Google Scholar; Alvarez, , Exposé de motifs d déclaration des grands principes du droit international moderne (Paris, 1936 Google Scholar), Articles 25(b), 28, 29, 30, reproduced in Appendix V of Freeman, work cited, p. 725.

³⁹ The Way case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners, Washington, 1929, p. 94 and Lauterpacht, Annual Digest of Public IrUernational Law Cases (1927–1928), p. 210; the

Perry case (U. S. v. Panama), General Claims Arbitration, Report of Bert L. Hunt, Washington, 1934, p. 71; The Cheoreau Claim (France v. Great Britain), Compromis ... el Sentence du Tribunal d’ Arbitrage; Report distributed by the Bureau International de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, p. 48. The award is also found in this Journal,Vol. 27 (1933), p. 153; Green’s case, Moore, , International Arbitrations, Vol. 3, p. 3139 Google Scholar. And see Whiteman, , Damages in International Law, Vol. I, pp. 287–418 Google Scholar, for an exhaustive collection of cases.

⁴⁰ The Gahagan case, Moore, work cited, pp. 3240–3241; the Roberts case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 100; and cf. Article 12 of the Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with respect to Crime, and comment, Research in International Law, this Journal,Vol. 29 (1935), Supplement, pp. 596, 601. Compare the McAndrews and Forbes Co. case, American-Turkish Claims Settlement, Nielsen, , Opinions and Report, Washington, 1937, pp. 120 Google Scholar, 127.

⁴¹ The Fabiani case (France v. Venezuela), Moore, , International Arbitrations, Vol. 5, p. 4895 Google Scholar, reported also in La, Fontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale, Berne, 1902, p. 356 Google Scholar; The Cotesworth and Powell case (Great Britain v. Colombia), Moore, work cited, Vol. II, pp. 2050, 2085; the Bullis case, Ralston, , Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Washington, 1904, p. 170 Google Scholar; the Dyches case, (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners (1929), p. 193; the Consormocase (Italy v. Persia), Moore, work cited, Vol. 5, p. 5019, also reported in La Fontaine, work cited, p. 342; El Oro Mining and Railway Co. case (Great 'Britain V. Mexico) , Further Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, London, 1933, p. 150. Compare the White case (Great Britain v. Peru), La Pradelle-Politis, work cited, Vol. II, p. 305, also reported in La Fontaine, work cited, p. 46, and Moore, work cited, p. 4967. See also the authorities cited in Freeman, , The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, p. 243 Google Scholar, note.

As early as 1650 Zouche, in his Juris et Judieii Fedalis (Classics of International Law edition, p. 33) held justice to be denied where judgment could not be obtained against a debtor within a reasonable time.

⁴² See the Cotesworth and Powell case, Moore, work cited, Vol. II, pp. 2072, 2075; the BalMstini case, Ralston, , Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1908, p. 504 Google Scholar; The Fabiani case, Moore, work cited, Vol. 5, p. 4899; Idler case, same, p. 3516; the Robert E. Brown claim (I/. S. v. Great Britain), America and British Claims Arbitration, Report of Fred K. Nielsen, pp. 198199; Smith v. Compaftia Urbanixadora . . . de Marianao, this Journal,Vol. 24 (1930), p.384; the Chattin case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners, p. 435. “The refusal of a Chilean court, in 1852, on the trial for crime of an American citizen, to hear testimony on behalf of the defendant would, if sustained by the Chilean government, be considered by the United States as ‘a gross outrage to an American citizen for which it will assuredly hold Chile responsible.’ ” Mr. Conrad to Mr. Peyton, Oct. 12,1852, Moore, Digest, Vol. VI, p. 274; and the correspondence in the Coles and Croswett case, August 17, 1885, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 78, pp. 1308–1309. On judicial fraud and corruption as a bans of responsibility, see the Medina case, Moore, , Arbitrations, Vol. 3, p. 2315 Google Scholar. The subject of irregularities in the conduct of proceedings is discussed at length in Freeman, work cited, Chapter XI.

⁴³ The Martini case (Italy v. Venezuela), this Journal,Vol. 25 (1931), pp. 567, 577; the De Sabla claim (U. S. v. Panama), American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration, Report of Bert L. Bunt, pp. 434–440; the Solomon case, same, pp. 479–481; Tan Bokkelen’scase, same, Vol. 2, pp. 1807 and ff.; The Orient, Moore, work cited, p. 3229; Brenner's case, work cited, p. 3134; the Morton case, (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners (1929), pp. 160 and ff.; Interocean Transportation Co. v. United States, this Journal,Vol. 32 (1938), pp. 593, 616–617; The Betsey, Moore, , International Adjudications, Vol. 4, pp. 240–248 Google Scholar.

For an analysis of the general problem of state responsibility for the substance of a judgment see the present writer’s International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice,Chapter XII.

⁴⁴ See the Martini case (Italy v. Venezuela), Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 841; North American Dredging Co. case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of the General Claims Commission, p. 21, also reported in this Journal,Vol. 20 (1926), p. 800; International Fisheries case, (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners (1931), p. 207; Interoceanic Railway Co. case (Great Britain v. Mexico), Further Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners (1933), p. 118. '

Accord: Schwarzenberger, , International Law, Vol. I, (1945), p. 64 Google Scholar; Eagleton, work cited, p. 174; De Visscher, , in Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye, Vol. 52, p. 432 Google Scholar; Hoijer, , La Responsabilité Internationale des Etats, Paris, 1930, p. 363 Google Scholar; Fiore, Diritto Internationale Codificato, § 539. And see the replies of the following governments to the questionnaire sent out by the League of Nations Preparatory Committee for the Progressive Codification of International Law: South Africa, Germany, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Poland and Great Britain (whose reply accepted “as good law” the decision in the North American Dredging Co. case, approving, among other things, the Commission’s statement to the effect that a stipulation in a contract purporting to bind the claimant not to apply to his government to intervene in the event of a denial of justice or violation of international law is void). Bases of Discussion (publication cited in note 28, above), pp. 133–135; supp. pp. 4 and 22.

On January 28,1926, two months prior to the decision in the Dredging Company case, the Secretary of State of the United States wrote to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs that his Government did “not admit that one of its citizens can contract by declaration or otherwise to bind his own Government not to invoke its rights under the rules of international law. Under the rules applicable to intercourse between states, an injury done by one state to a citizen of another state through a denial of justice is an injury done to a state whose national is injured. The right of his state to extend what is known as diplomatic protection cannot be waived by the individual”: Senate Document No. 96, 69th Congress, 1st Session, p. 22. To the same effect: Mr. Bayard to Mr. Buck, Feb. 15, 1888, Moore, Digest, Vol. VI, p. 294; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Hall, March 27, 1888, same, p. 295; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Crawford, Sept. 4, 1893, same, p. 300; and more recently, the note from His Majesty’s Government to the Mexican Government, in the Mexican Eagle Oil Co. case, April 21, 1938, Correspondence, Mexico, No. I, p. 9. The German government also refused to consider itself bound by contracts entered into by its nationals. Mr. Loomis to Mr. Hay, June 5, 1900, as cited. Scelle declares the Clause to be juridiquement nulle: Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye, Vol. 46, p. 66.

For detailed treatment of the Calvo Clause problem see Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, pp. 469–490; Feller, The Mexican Claims Commissions, Chapter 10; Eagleton, Responsibility of States, pp. 168–176; Borchard, Diplomatic Protection, Ch. IV; Ralston, Law and Procedure of International Tribunals, Stanford, 1926, pp. 58–72; same, Supplement, 1936, pp. 34–37; Dunn, Protection of Nationals, Baltimore, 1932, pp. 169–172; same, Diplomatic protection of Americans in Mexico, New York, 1933, pp. 391–421; Harvard, Research in International Law, Responsibility of Slates, work cited, p. 203 Google Scholar; and, more briefly, De Visscher, work cited, pp. 431–432. A presentation of the Latin-American viewpoint is found in Rabasa, Responsabilidad Internacional del Estado,Mexico City, 1933, pp. 41–48; Beteta, , in Proceedings of the Eighth American Scientific Congress, Vol. X, pp. 44 Google Scholar and ff.

⁴⁵ See the North American Dredging Co. case, cited in note 44, above.

⁴⁶ For recent reaffirmation of the principle see the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Paneveeys-Saldutiskis Railway case, Publications of the Court,Series A/B No. 76, p. 18. The cases are collected and analyzed in Freeman, work cited, Ch. XV. ^f

⁴⁷ A clear statement of this distinction was given by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Chorzów Factory case. Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 17, p. 27.

⁴⁸ See Alvarez, , Le Droit International Américain (Paris, 1910), pp. 121–122 Google Scholar, where the same view is expressed, and Freeman, work cited, pp. 470 and ff.

⁴⁹ This was one of the arguments advanced by Garcia Robles in his paper on La Protección Diplomática, La Clausula Calvo y La Salvaguardia de los Derechos Internacionales del Hombreat Mexico City, p. 21.

⁵⁰ “There can be no doubt that a state may exclude aliens entirely from its territory, provided no treaty provisions are violated. It might be urged that the power to exclude implies the power to admit on conditions. If it were permissible, however, to impose any condition whatever on such admission, all the protection furnished by the laboriously constructed system of international law could be destroyed by the act of a single state. The result might well be a universal destruction of the rules sheltering aliens from injury ” : Feller, in this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 468 Google Scholar. And cf. the note from His Majesty’s Government to the Mexican Government in the Mexican Eagle Oil Co. case, April 21, 1938, Correspondence, Mexico No. I, p. 9.

⁵¹ Work cited, p. 22. '

⁵² Le, Droit International Théorique et Pratique, 5th éd., Paris, 1896, Vol. 3 Google Scholar, § 1276.

⁵³ This is clear from the illustration which he gives of Great Britain’s interference in the normal processes of criminal justice in the case of Captain MacDonald, who had been arrested by Prussian authorities; same, pp. 140 and ff.

⁵⁴ Work cited, p. 136

⁵⁵ Work cited, Vol. 6, p. 231; and see especially Vol. 3, p. 143.

⁵⁶ The cases are collected in Freeman, work cited, Chapter XIII. See also : Hyde, , International Law, Vol. II, § 289 Google Scholar; Borchard, , The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 127 Google Scholar; Dunn, , The Protection of Nationals, pp. 150–151 Google Scholar; Hershey, , The Essentials of International Public Law, p. 257 Google Scholar; Hall, , International Law, 8th ed., p. 269 Google Scholar; Halleck, , International Law, (4th ed., 1908), pp. 227–228 Google Scholar; Fenwick, , International Law, p. 390 Google Scholar; Stowell, , International Law, p. 169 Google Scholar; Bluntschli, , Das Moderne Völkerrecht (Fr. ed., 1873), p. 223 Google Scholar; Salvioli, , in Recueil des Cours, Vol. 46 (1933), reprint, p. 115 Google Scholar; Whiteman, work cited, Vol. I, p. 38, Triepel, work cited, pp. 324–325; Huber, , in Réclamations Britanniques, p. 59 Google Scholar, and his awards in the Haj Mohammed Harrej and Rtim cases, same, pp. 137 and 129, resp. See also the opinion of Umpire Findlay in De Bris sot’s case, Moore, Arbitrations, Vol. 3, p. 2969; Commissioner Nielsen in the Chapman case {TJ. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of Commissioners (1930–31), p. 121; the declaration of M. Urrutia at the Plenary Session of the Fourth Assembly of the League of Nations, Sept. 28, 1923, Acts of the Fourth Assembly, pp. 143–144; and the correspondence between Great Britain and Uruguay in the case of Captain Cornwall of the Bobycito, , British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 67 (1876), p. 130 Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ La Doctrina Cárdenas, p. 22, note, and p. 23.

⁵⁸ Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, New York, 1920, Vol. II, pp. 247–9.

⁵⁹ Same, p. 273.

⁶⁰ Same, p. 275.

⁶¹ Convention II of 1907, Paragraph 2, Article 1. Malloy, , Treaties, etc. Vol. II, p. 2254 Google Scholar; Scott, , The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1907, New York, 1915, p. 89 Google Scholar.

⁶² Proceedings of The Hague Peace Conference of 1907, Vol. II, pp. 246–248.

⁶³ See Hyde, , International Law, 2nd ed. (1945 Google Scholar), § 309. On the Drago doctrine generally, see Drago, in this Journal,Vol. I (1907), p. 692; Hershey, same, p. 26; Alfredo N. Vivot, La Doctrina Drago, Buenos Aires, 1911; Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, § 119.

⁶⁴ International Conferencea of American States, First Supplement (1933–1940), Washington, 1940, p. 121.

⁶⁵ The Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reëstablishment of Peace, December 23, 1936, same, p. 189.

⁶⁶ Same, p. 160.

⁶⁷ Same, p. 191.

⁶⁸ Same, p. 309, Par. 1.

⁶⁹ Same, p. 308.

⁷⁰ See the remarks of Mr.Braden, in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 323, p. 329 Google Scholar.

⁷¹ International Conferences of American States, First Supplement (1933–1940).

⁷² See Paragraph No. 2 of the Declaration, as cited.

⁷³ Proc. of the Eighth American Scientific Congress, Washington (1940), Vol. X, p. 71.

⁷⁴ International Conferences of American States, First Supplement (1933–1940), p. 191.

⁷⁵ See Paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the Declaration, game, p. 309.

⁷⁶ Same, p. 122.

⁷⁷ See Article 3 of the Resolution on “International Responsibility of the State,” approved at the Seventh International Conference of American States at Montevideo in 1933. Same, p. 91; and the recommendation on “Pecuniary Claims” approved at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace (1936), same, p. 165.

⁷⁸ Mimeographed copy of his Mexico City Address, p. 2.

⁷⁹ Same, p. 28; and cf. Beteta’s address in Proc. Eighth American Scientific Congress,Vol. X, p. 30.

⁸⁰ Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2, p. 12. Accord: Oschwind v. Swiss Confederation, in Lauterpacht, , Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (1931–32), p. 242 Google Scholar. And see the opinion of Max Huber, in Réclamations Britanniques dans la Zone espagnole du Maroc, Rapports, p. 159: “. . . it is unquestionable, that, up to a certain point, the interest of the state in being able to protect its nationals and their property must carry more weight than respect for territorial sovereignty, even in the absence of conventional obligations.”

Delegates from Latin-American countries to the Hague Peace Conference of 1907 took this principle for granted in discussing the proposed Drago Doctrine. Cf. Proceedings of the Conference, Vol. II, pp. 246 and ff.

⁸¹ Work cited, p. 29.

⁸² Borchard, , The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 6 Google Scholar.

⁸³ Freeman, work cited, p. 63.

⁸⁴ See Da Legnano, Tractaius de BeUo, de Reprxsaliis et de Duello (1360), Chapter CXXIII. See also Clark, , “The English Practice with regard to Reprisals by private Persons,” in this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 695 Google Scholar, at pp. 709–711.

⁸⁵ Garcia Robles, as cited.

⁸⁶ International Conferences of American States (1889–1928), Washington, 1931, p. 45.

⁸⁷ Only six States ratified it. See the Statue of the Pan American Treaties and Conventions,revised to July 1,1945, published by the Pan American Union.

⁸⁸ International Conferences of American States (1389–1928), p. 90.

⁸⁹ Same, First Supplement (1933–1940), p. 122.

⁹⁰ Same, p. 91.

⁹¹ Same, p. 92.

⁹² At the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held at Buenos Aires in 1936, the effort to formulate principles tending to the elimination of diplomatic protection encountered such resistance that the Commission on Juridical Problems acknowledged that no sufficient unanimity existed as might serve as the basis of a convention; same, pp. 165, 166.

⁹³ See note 95, below.

⁹⁴ Note addressed by Mr. Hull to the Mexican Ambassador, August 22, 1938, this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 198. And see the comments of Professor Verdross, in Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye, Vol. 37, p. 352 Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ See the Blue Book of the Cuban Department of State, Habana, 1933, containing the diplomatic notes exchanged in this case; the Green Book on Denegación de Justicia en Perjuicio de Cuidadanos Cubanos, Habana, 1933, and the Comentarios of Dr. Cantero-Herrera before the Permanent Commission of Washington, Washington, D. C., 1936,

⁹⁶ Scott, , Hague Court Reports, 2nd Series, p. 39 Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ The New York Times, September 11, 1945, p. 28. Even during the oil expropriation controversy it was reported that the Mexican Government was seeking financial aid from American interests to develop a better railway across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, primarily for the purpose of facilitating the export of oil to Japan. Same, June 11, 1939, p. 3, and July 13, 1939, p. 36.

⁹⁸ The Dickson Car Wheel case (U. S. v. Mexico), Opinions of the Commissioners (1930–1931), p. 188; and see Oppenheim, , International Law, Vol I Google Scholar, 5th edition, § 312; Freeman’s remarks in Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law (1941), p. 19; and Lauterpacht, , An International Bill of the Rights of Man, New York, 1945, pp. 47–48 Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ See Jan Hoetie’B remarks in Proc. Am. Soe. Int. Law (1940), p. 43.

¹⁰⁰ See the authorities eked in notes 23 and 25, above, and especially, Borchard’s discussion of-the “minimum standard” in Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law (1939), pp. 60 and ff.

¹⁰¹ Mr.Frelinghuysen, to Mr.Lowell, , April 25, 1882 Google Scholar, Moore, , Digest, Vol. VI, pp. 276–277 Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Note from Senor Hay to the American Ambassador in Mexico City, September 2, 1938, this Journal,Vol. 32 (1938), p. 204.