¹ Those preænt were: Dr. A. de Mello Franco (Brazil), Chairman; Dr. Luis Anderson (Costa Rica); Mr. A. Cruchaga Ossa (Chile); Mr. Edwin Borchard (United States). The absent members were: Dr. Carlos Saavedra Lamas (Argentina), Dr. Eduardo Suárez (Mexico), Mr. J. Reuben Clark, Jr. (United States). Dr. Alberto Ulloa (Peru) sat with the Commit tee by invitation as an adviser.

² Up to 1938 only eleven countries had appointed their National Commissions. The United States has not yet appointed its commission.

³ This was to consist of seven men, to be voted on by the governments from a panel of 105, each government to nominate five.

⁴ Diario of the Lima Conference, 1938, p. 298.

⁵ Resolution XVII, Report of the Results of the Conference prepared by the Pan American Union, p. 55; Diario, p. 833.

⁶ Resolution XVIII, Report of the Results of the Conference, etc., p. 57.

⁷ Proceedings of the Buenos Aires Conference, 1936, p. 398.

⁸ Article I of this convention provides:

⁹ Mr. Cruchaga invoked Article I of the draft submitted by the American Institute of International Law to the Seventh Conference at Montevideo, which provides:

¹⁰ League of Nations, Conference on Codification of International Law, Vol. II, p. 184; Diario of the Lima Conference, p. 507.

¹¹ Diario, p. 639. Mr. Cruchaga invoked in support of his view that part of the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Phosphates in Morocco case be tween Italy and France, reading as follows: . . . “The complaint of denial of justice cannot be separated from the criticism which the Italian Government directs against the decision of the Department of Mines of January 8, 1925, for the Court could not regard the denial of justice as established unless it had first satisfied itself as to the existence of the rights of the private citizens alleged to have been refused judicial protection” (Judgments, Series A/B, No. 74, June 14, 1938, p. 29). But the Court had already held that the decision of the Department of Mines in 1925, allegedly ousting Italian nationals, was too early to be considered within the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Statute, as a fact creating a dispute earlier in date than the signing of the obligatory jurisdiction clause by France, and that the Italians in any event had no vested rights of which they were deprived. For both reasons, it was unable to consider the claim of denial of justice. It is hard to see how capital can be made of that decision.

^11a See Argentine note to Great Britain in 1876, Banque de Londres case, quoted in Clunet, Vol. 33, p. 607 (1906). At the Sixth Inter-American Conference of 1928, in the discussion of the Bustamante Code, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Paraguay took this position. Gallaix, Report to Int. Law Assn., 39th Report, pp. 61-62.

¹² Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace (1936), pp. 54-55.

¹³ The treaties, which most of the American countries have now ratified, are the following:

(1) The Gondra Treaty of 1923 for the prevention of conflicts by ad hoc commission of inquiry of five members;

(2) The Washington Convention of 1929, for the conciliation of all controversies not settled by diplomacy, the 1923 commissions of inquiry to become, as needed, conciliation commissions;

(3) The Treaty on Inter-American Arbitration of Washington, 1929, providing for the obligatory submission of legal disputes as defined in Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice with limited reservations;

(4) The Additional Protocol to the Conciliation Convention signed at Montevideo, 1933, under which the conciliation commissions may be made permanent, each ratifying party nominating to the Pan American Union two commissioners, the Union initiating the selection of the fifth member;

(5) The Anti-War Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation signed at Rio de Janeiro, October 10, 1933, open to adherence by non-American states, under which conciliation is strengthened and certain wars condemned, etc.

(6) The Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Re-establishment of Peace signed at Buenos Aires December, 1936, providing for consultation among the non-participating governments to produce a method of peaceful collaboration;

(7) The Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties, December, 1936, providing for consultation when there is a threat of war, for renunciation of hostilities for six months, but, if hostilities break, the non-participants to adopt a common attitude of neutrality, consult together, and concert measures to discourage the spread of hostilities, including the consideration of arms and loans embargoes;

(8) The Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation, December, 1936, providing for mediation by eminent citizens selected from a panel, an innovation in mediation procedure;

(9) The Treaty on Prevention of Controversies, December, 1936, providing for appointment of permanent bilateral mixed commissions.

¹⁴ Diario, p. 449.

¹⁵ Diario, p. 844.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 273.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 808.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 444.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 188.

²⁰ Diario, p. 243.