XXVIII, appendix 54, p. 228); the Bolivian project on the definition of an aggressor and the application of sanctions (resolution XXX, appendix 56, p. 229); the Brazilian project relative to the strengthening of the means for the prevention of war (resolution XXX, appendix 56, p. 229); and the project on the coordination of conciliation and arbitration treaties (resolution XXXI, appendix 57, p. 230).

SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP

Resolution XXXII (appendix 58, p. 230) recommended the establishment of an association of a social and cultural character under the patronage of Dr. Harmodio Arias M., ex-President of Panama, to be called the Society of American Friendship, for the purpose of providing closer personal contact among representative men of the American republics and thereby strengthening the policy of the "good neighbor".

COORDINATION OF PACIFIC INSTRUMENTS WITH THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

The United States Delegation abstained from voting on resolution XXIX relative to the Coordination of Pacific Instruments with the Covenant of the League of Nations (appendix 55, p. 229). This resolution recommends to the American states members of the League of Nations and signatories to the Pact of Paris, the Saavedra Lamas treaty, and any other similar agreements to be signed in the future, that they request the states which are not members of the League but which are parties to the above-mentioned treaties to cooperate with the League of Nations in the study of the projects for the coordination of the various instruments with the Covenant of the League of Nations. It also recommends that the American states which are not members of the League cooperate with the Geneva organization in any measures which the League may adopt to prevent war or to settle international conflicts by pacific means. It likewise recommends that the resolution be brought to the attention of the special committee in Geneva established to study the coordination of the Covenant of the League of Nations with other peace instruments.

The United States Delegation, in abstaining from voting on this resolution, endeavored to avoid giving the impression that it wished to interfere with any project which some other American nations wished to adopt concerning their relations with the League of Nations. With this in view, Secretary Hull released to the press the following statement explaining the position of the United States:

The policy of the United States has been and is to aid in promoting and preserving peace by the fullest international cooperation practicable and consistent with its policy of non-involvement or non-entanglement in political affairs abroad. In doing so, however, it reserves entire freedom of action. In these circumstances the United States Delegation withheld its vote on the pending motion.

Resolution V (appendix 31, p. 211) recommends that the treaties and conventions adopted at inter-American conferences shall be open to the accession or adherence of American states which may not have signed them and that whenever it is so provided in such instruments they shall be open to the accession or adherence of all states.

COMMITTEE II: NEUTRALITY

3. Consideration of rules regarding the rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents.

CONVENTION TO COORDINATE, Extend and Assure the FULFILLMENT OF THE EXISTING TREATIES BETWEEN THE AMERICAN STATES Questions relating to neutrality received serious attention and were given extended consideration by Committee II. The Conference adopted a single instrument on this subject entitled "Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties Between the American States" (appendix 17, p. 131).

This convention was submitted to the Conference as a joint project signed by the chairman of each of the twenty-one delegations, and it represents one of the strongest assurances of peace which the Western Hemisphere has ever had. It provides machinery for the coordination of the existing peace instruments and envisages the general objective of a common neutrality policy. The convention refers specifically to the five peace instruments which provide a general framework for the pacific settlement of disputes between the American republics and to which most of the American republics are already parties. These five instruments are the Treaty to Avoid and Prevent Conflicts (Gondra treaty, 1933), the Pact of Paris (1928), the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation (1929), the General Treaty of InterAmerican Arbitration (1929), and the Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation (1933).

The general scope and purposes of this convention may be summarized as follows:

(1) The primary purpose is to coordinate and make more effective by means of consultations the five peace agencies calculated to insure peace on this continent.

(2) It proposes a common neutrality policy as a general objective but leaves to the various nations the liberty to act under it in accordance with their treaty commitments and domestic legislation, including obligations to other peace agencies.

(3) It provides a method for determining the time at which hostilities become a state of war, so as to bring into effect neutrality legislation.

The governments reaffirm their obligation to settle by pacific means controversies of an international character which may arise between

them. Whenever an emergency arises which affects their common interest in the maintenance of peace, the contracting parties agree, through consultation and cooperation, to assist each other in fulfilling their existing obligations for pacific settlement, recognizing at the same time their general right to individual liberty of action. It is further provided that, should a controversy arise between two or more of the parties, the disputants will not have recourse to hostilities or take any military action whatever while consultation is in progress and during a period of not more than six months. The American governments which may be involved in a controversy and which have been unable to solve it by diplomatic negotiations, agree not only to have recourse to one or more of the peace instruments cited above but also to report to the other American governments the methods of pacific settlement which they select, as well as the progress made in the adjustment of the controversy.

In the event that any of the American republics should fail in the effort to settle disputes arising between them by pacific means the governments also agree, through consultation, immediately to "endeavor to ad[o]pt in their character as neutrals a common and solidary attitude, in order to discourage or prevent the spread or prolongation of hostilities". They also obligate themselves to consult immediately with one another to "consider the imposition of prohibitions or restrictions on the sale or shipment of arms, munitions and implements of war, loans or other financial help to the states in conflict, in accordance with the municipal legislation of the High Contracting Parties, and without detriment to their obligations derived from other treaties to which they are or may become parties".

Although the convention envisages a common neutrality policy, it is important to note that every contracting government remains in a position to act in accordance with its domestic legislation and consistent with its multilateral treaties. It also should be noted that while the convention obligates the governments to consult, it contains no provision with respect to the determination of an aggressor in any conflict, and it does not cover the question of equality of treatment in applying embargoes and other restrictions.

Some of the delegations favored the inclusion of a provision making a distinction between the treatment to be accorded an aggressor and the nation which might be attacked. The feeling prevailed in certain quarters that the victim of aggression should not be penalized to the same extent, if at all, as a state which violates its obligations. The Conference referred to the Committee of Experts on Codification of International Law the Bolivian project on the definition of an aggressor and the application of sanctions (resolution XXX, appendix 56, p. 229). The convention also provides that each of the contracting parties shall reach a prompt decision in regard to the question of whether hostilities actually in progress constitute a state of war and shall

adopt such an attitude as would be consistent with other multilateral treaties to which it is a party or in accordance with its municipal legislation. "Such action shall not be deemed an unfriendly act on the part of any state affected thereby." The latter provision prevents any conflict between the terms of the convention and the terms of the Additional Protocol Relative to Non-Intervention.

The convention was signed by all the twenty-one governments but with reservations by the Delegations of Argentina, Paraguay, El Salvador, and Colombia. The Argentine and Paraguayan reservations, which are identical, state that foodstuffs or raw materials destined for the civil populations of belligerent countries shall not be considered, under article 6, as contraband of war, nor shall there exist any duty to prohibit credits for the acquisition of the said foodstuffs or raw materials which have the destination indicated; and further state that with reference to the embargo on arms each nation may reserve freedom of action in the face of a war of aggression. El Salvador made a reservation with respect to the idea of continental solidarity when confronted by foreign aggression. The Delegation of Colombia noted its understanding that the phrasing of articles 5 and 6 implies a new concept of international law which allows a distinction to be drawn between the aggressor and the attacked and allows them to be treated differently, and included in its reservation a definition of the aggressor.

COMMITTEE III: LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS

4. Necessity of limiting the organization and armaments of national defense, so as only to guarantee internal security of the States and their defense against foreign aggression.

Six meetings were held in the course of which the Committee agreed on two resolutions which were later accepted by the Conference.

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution XXXIII on Limitation of Armaments (appendix 59, p. 231) was based on a project of the Chilean Delegation. This resolution recommends that the governments which are in a position to do so, conclude general or bilateral agreements to limit their armaments to the greatest possible extent within the requirements of internal order and the justified defense of their sovereignty. Paraguay gave its approval to this resolution with the reservation that it does not accept limitation beyond that stated in its bilateral agreements, mentioning the protocol in force between Bolivia and itself expressly limiting armaments.

Resolution XXXIV on Humanization of War (appendix 60, p. 232) was originally presented by the Delegation of Uruguay and was

modified to meet the views of the Delegations of Brazil and Peru. In this resolution the Conference declares the formal repudiation of war as a means of settling differences between states; proscribes the use of chemical elements in war which may cause unnecessary damage; excludes civil populations, so far as possible, from the effects of international conflagrations; and recommends to the American governments that in the pacts of limitation of armaments which they may sign they include stipulations of a humanitarian character.

COMMITTEE IV: JURIDICAL PROBLEMS

5. Consideration of methods for the future codification of International Law. 6. Formulation of principles with respect to the elimination of force and of diplomatic intervention in cases of pecuniary claims and other private actions. 7. Unification of the international American principle and of national legislation with respect to the problems of nationality.

RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The deliberations of the Committee on Juridical Problems were not extensive because the primary interest of the Conference was in questions closely related to peace. Also, the Committee of Experts on Codification of International Law was to meet in the near future; and, in addition, it was considered advisable to refer some juridical problems to the Eighth International Conference of American States. Resolution XI (appendix 37, p. 215) was adopted giving a vote of applause to the Permanent Committee on Codification of Public International Law of Rio de Janeiro and to its president, Dr. Epitacio Pessoa, and extended homage to a number of American jurists and publicists. Resolution VIII (appendix 34, p. 213) recommended the establishment of an American academy of international law.

Resolution VII (appendix 33, p. 212) recommended that the American governments promote the publication of texts or digests setting forth the doctrines maintained by each on questions of international law and also recommended that the Pan American Union publish a summary of these works.

Projects Referred to Committee of Experts on Codification of International Law

Projects concerning a number of subjects were referred to the Committee of Experts on Codification of International Law, which was organized in accordance with a resolution of the Montevideo Conference.* Resolution XXXV (appendix 61, p. 232) submitted to the Committee of Experts the question of pecuniary claims and suggested

*Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934), pp. 16 and 263 et seq.