1 See, for example, the following monographs: Enrique Aguirre y F. Harris, La no intervención y ¡a quiebra de la soberanía nacional (Mexico, 1946); Xavier Terrazas Sánchez, El principio de la no intervención (Mexico, 1955); Ismael Augusto Rueda Villarreal, La no intervención en el derecho internacional americano (Mexico, 1948); Ramón López Jiménez, El principio de no intervención en América y la nota Uruguaya (Buenos Aires, 1947); Manuel Guzman Vial, La intervención y la no intervención, (Santiago de Chile, 1948); Isidro Fabela, Intervención (Mexico, 1959); Bernardo Jiménez Montellano, Fundamentos jurídicos de la solidaridad americana (Mexico, 1948). See also the following textbooks on International law: Luicio Moreno Quintana y Carlos Bollini Shaw, Derecho internacional público (Buenos Aires, 1950), pp. 126-136; Manuel J. Sierra, Tratado de derecho internacional público (segunda edición; Mexico, 1955), pp. 171-177; Alfred Cock Arango, Derecho internacional público contemporáneo (segunda edición; Bogotá, 1955), p. 218 refers at least to Nicaraguan interventions in Costa Rica; Alberto Avellan Vite, Anotaciones de derecho internacional público (segunda edición, Guayaquil,, 1956), pp. 160-63, 449-460. Even Alberto Ulloa's superb text, 4th ed.; Madrid, 1957, Vol. I, deals lightly with a few Caribbean interventions as “accusations,” see p. 331.

2 Estudios de política internacional y derecho de gentes (Madrid, 1949), pp. 87-136.

3 International Commission of Jurists, Public International Law Project No. II, reprinted in American Journal of International Law. XXII, Spec. Suppl. (1928), p. 240.

4 Samuel F. Bemis, The Latin American Policy of the United States (1943), p. 251; International Conference of American States, Sixth, Diario, pp. 486-505.

5 Ibid., p. 492.

6 International Conference of American States, Sixth, Actas de las Sesiones Plenarias, p. 108.

7 Diario, p. 503.

8 Adas, pp. 109-110.

9 Víctor M. Maúrtua, Intervención, conciliación, arbitraje en las conferencias de La Habana, 1928 y Washington, 1929 (Habana, n.d.), p. 111.

10 Ibid., pp. 11-114.

11 The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement, 1933- 1940 (Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1940), pp. 121- 123. The United States attached a reservation which in effect stated that it reserved its rights as generally recognized under international law but Secretary of State Hull gave his assurance that the government of President Roosevelt would respect the principle of non-intervention, ibid.

12 Doc. CIJ-39 (English).

13 Ibid., pp. 10-14.

14 Ibid., p. 9.

15 Infra, n. 43.

16 American Journal of International Law, LIU (October, 1959), p. 875.

17 By far the best coverage of this meeting will be found in La Prensa of Lima and La Prensa of Buenos Aires, August 12-18, 1949.

18 George I. Blanksten, Perórís Argentina (Chicago, 1953), pp. 402-403. Robert J. Alexander, The Perón Era (1951), p. 197.

19 Ibid., p. 195.

20 Alexander, op. cit., p. 197.

21 Ibid. In 1949, Ex-President Rómulo Betancourt of Venezuela filed charges before the United Nations alleging that the Argentine Military Attache in Caracas had played a prominent part in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Venezuela. He said, “there is in America a ‘Reactionary International’ headed by Argentina and General Perón,” Ibid., p. 196.

22 Uruguay, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Paralelismo entre la democracia y la paz. Protección internacional de los derechos del hombre. Acción colectiva en defensa de esos principios (Montevideo, 1946), pp. 7-12.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid. He noted, for example, that at the Buenos Aires conference in 1936 “the existence of a democratic solidarity in America was proclaimed.” Resolution XXII of the Panama conference of 1939 resolved that “more than once the American republics have affirmed their adhesion to the democratic ideal which prevails in this hemisphere; that this ideal could be endangered by action of foreign ideologies inspired by principles diametrically opposed and that it is opportune, consequently, to guard against their intangibility through adoptions of appropriate measures.” Resolution VIII of the Habana conference, 1940, referred to the “propogation of doctrines tending to endanger the common ideal of inter-American democracy.” In Resolution VII of the Mexico City conference, 1945, the parties affirmed “their adhesion to the democratic ideal.”

25 See for example, Maúrtua, “La Declaración sobre Derechos y Deberes de los Estados en las Naciones Unidas,” Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional, IX (1949), pp. 227-245, and Supra, p. 11.

26 Op. cit.

27 The Tobar Doctrine called for the withholding of recognition of any government which might come into existence by revolutionary means.

28 Op. cit, p. 135.

29 Uruguay, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, op. cit., p. 5.

30 Replies reprinted ibid., pp. 12 ff. Costa Rica gave a very qualified approval.

31 Ibid.

32 Signed at Habana, 1928. Provides that the contracting parties must use all means at their disposal to prevent nationals as well as aliens within their territory from participating in civil strife in another American state by gathering elements for it, or crossing the boundary or sailing from their territory for purposes of starting or promoting such strife. Each party is called upon to disarm and intern rebel forces entering its territory, forbid traffic in arms (except with the recognized government of the country) when the belligerency of the rebels has not been recognized and prevent the arming or equipping of any vessel intended to operate in favor of the rebellion.

33 The earlier cases are treated in Edgar S. Furness, Jr., “The Inter-American System and Present Caribbean Disputes,” International Organization, IV (1950). These and more recent cases are treated in Pan American Union, Applications of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 1948-1956 (1957).

34 Ibid., p. 19.

35 Ibid., pp. 26-28, 48.

36 Ibid., p. 109.

37 Ibid., p. 111.

38 Ibid., p. 115. Even the assumption that small powers cannot intervene in the affairs of great powers seems to have been challenged during these years. In 1954, a British investigation showed that definite assistance had been offered by the Guatemalan government to the Peoples United Party of British Honduras, a party actively seeking separation from Britain. It showed payment of $500 by the Guatemalan consul at Belize in connection with the costs of defense of party members on trial for sedition. It also showed that an extremely seditious broadcast was made from the Government Broadcasting Station in Guatemala City, based upon materials supplied through the instrumentality of the Peoples United Party. Other less active support had also been offered by officials of the Guatemalan government: Reginald Sharpe, British Honduras: Report of an Inquiry held by Sir Reginald Sharpe into Allegations of Contacts between the Peoples United Party and Guatemala (1954).

39 Inter-American Conference, Tenth, Report of the Delegation of the United States of America (1955), p. 157.

40 Ibid., p. 9.

41 Resolutions XCIV and XCV, ibid., pp. 158-159.

42 See Inter-American Conference, Tenth, Actas y Documentos, II, esp. pp. 262-265, 270-277, 288-290.

43 Refers to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), signed at Rio de Janeiro, Sept. 2, 1947. Article 6 provides that “If the inviolability or integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any American State should be affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by an extra-continental or intracontinental conflict, or by any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the Organ of Consultation shall meet immediately in order to agree on the measures which must be taken in case of aggression to assist the victim of the aggression or, in any case, the measures which should be taken for common defense and for the maintenance of the peace and security of the Continent.” Article 25 of the Charter of the O.A.S. incorporates this treaty by reference.

44 See, for example, the Panamanian, Bolivian, Uruguayan, and Guatemalan amendments and resolutions in Inter-American Conference, Tenth, Actas y Documentos, III, pp. 278, 282-283, 292, 313, 118.

45 Pan American Union, Applications of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 1948-1956, p. 153.

46 Ibid.

47 O.A.S., Document C-a-155, Acta de la Sesión Extraordinaria celebrada el 2 de julio de 1954, (1954), pp. 920-922.

48 New York Times, February 20, 1959.

49 Ibid.

50 La Prensa (Buenos Aires), August 15, 1959.

51 La Prensa (Lima), August 15, 1959.

52 Ibid., August 12, August 16, La Prensa (Buenos Aires), August 16.

53 Ibid., August 15, La Prensa (Lima), August 14.

54 Ibid.

55 U. S. Department of State Bulletin, XLI, Sept. 7, 1959, pp. 343-344. Subsequent to completion of this paper a Study on the Juridical Relations between the Respect for Human Rights and the Exercise of Democracy was prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee (presumably at the request of the Inter-American Peace Committee). In this report a majority of delegates felt that there was not, at the present time, any legal basis in the Charter of the O.A.S. or elsewhere for Organization action “in defense of democracy, for its maintenance or for its restoration.” Comité Jurídico Interamericano, Estudio sobre la relación jurídica entre el respecto de los derechos humanos y el ejercicio de la democracia (Pan American Union, 1960), p. 18. The Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (San José, Costa Rica, August, 1960) was convened in response to Venezuelan charges that the Dominican Republic had been involved in efforts of certain Venezuelans to assassinate President Rómulo Betancourt and was thus guilty of aggression and of intervention in Venezuelan affairs. Upon substantiation of the facts by a committee appointed by the O.A.S. Council, the Meeting voted to condemn the action of the Dominican Republic as aggression and intervention in the domestic affairs of Venezuela. A break in diplomatic relations and an arms embargo was recommended to all O.A.S. members. United States, Department of State, Bulletin (Sept. 5, 1960), pp. 355-359. Although action was taken under the Rio Treaty, there is much to suggest that the nature of the Trujillo regime played an important part in the decision. U. S. Secretary of State Herter noted, for example, that “these measures are intended to contribute to the establishment there of a government which will be both representative and responsive to its obligations within the inter- American system.” See ibid. (Sept. 12, 1960), p. 408. The Venezuelan Foreign Minister declared that “it has been noted that the treaty was intended by the United States to intervene in the life of the Latin American nations, but it is being used for the first time against a ferocious dictatorship.” New York Times, August 18, 1960. This was further suggested by a subsequent decision of the Council of the O.A.S. calling for economic sanctions even though, as the six abstainers pointed out, there had been no further acts of aggression to justify this. Ibid., January 5, 1961.

56 The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement, p. 160.

57 U. S. Department of State Bulletin, XLI, Sept. 7, 1959, p. 343.

58 Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Jr. Non-intervention: The Late and Its Import in the Americas (1956), p. 389.

59 Uruguay, op. cit., p. 42.

60 La Prensa (Buenos Aires), August 13, 1959.

61 New York Times, January 31, 1960.

62 Ibid., February 8, 1960.

63 La Prensa (Lima), August 14, 1959.

64 New York Times, March 7, 1954.

65 Furness, op. cit., p. 597. Reference is, of course, to problems of economic and social injustice. The Declaration of Santiago at least calls for a study of these problems in relation to tensions in the area.