El Museo Social Argentino, institución que cada día adquiere mayores prestigios, solicitó del gobierno, de la prensa, y en general de todas las corporaciones científicas de América, la cooperación moral e intelectual, encaminada a obtener estos dos resultados: el estricto cumplimiento de los principios que garantizan la libertad del comercio neutral, y el reconocimiento de un nuevo postulado que afiance la existencia del cabotaje interamericano; con lo cual se logrará dar a este Continente todo el respeto indispensable para el próspero desarrollo del comercio y todo el cúmulo de beneficios a que tiene perfecto derecho por su posición geográfica y política, excepcionales.

La sugestión es hermosa. En verdad, los tiempos y las circunstancias han cambiado. Ya la doctrina novísima sobre neutralidad dista mucho de parecerse a la de aquella época en que los intereses de todos los pueblos de la tierra no se habían "internacionalizado," por obra de un alejamiento que la civilización ha desterrado.

Hoy, un conflicto armado en Europa o Asia repercute en América con toda intensidad. Aparte de que el golpe rudo asestado a las conquistas más valiosas del Derecho de Gentes pone a este Continente en la necesidad indeclinable de huir del contagio y de crear un Derecho nuevo, protector eficaz de sus más caros intereses morales y materiales; al propio tiempo que sea exponente de sus altas aspiraciones.

Toca a nuestros estadistas cristalizar esta tendencia y defenderla con amor cívico, en los próximos Congresos Panamericanos, o cuando de nuevo se nos invite a suscribir pomposas Convenciones de La Haya.

Esta materia, de suyo grave y trascendental, puede tener oportuna solución aceptando con entusiasmo las nobles proposiciones del Gobierno de Chile, adicionadas por el luminoso pensamiento del Museo Social Argentino, que anhela dar vida libre y fecunda al cabotaje interamericano. Cuando esos postulados hayan sido sancionados por la conciencia de toda América y presentados al respeto de las Potencias europeas, se habrá conquistado el bello ideal de la "neutralidad continental."

Huelga, por consiguiente, formular proposiciones concretas, ya que bien claro hablan las iniciativas surgidas del Gobierno chileno y del Museo Social.

RESUMEN.

Los capítulos anteriores, sometidos a la concisión que demandan trabajos de este género, en que la idea debe flotar sobre el ropaje de la forma, tienden a demostrar la necesidad de dar vida al Derecho Internacional Americano, en sujeción a elevados intereses continentales, puestos de manifiesto, hoy más que nunca, con motivo de la tremenda conflagración europea.

América, por su devoción absoluta al régimen democrático y su posición geográfica excepcional, debe desterrar todo antagonismo de razas, y realizar, sin sacrificio ni detrimento de ninguno de sus componentes históricos, el ideal del verdadero Panamericanismo.

Pero para llegar a esa finalidad, habrá que definir en líneas concretas la naturaleza y alcance de esa doctrina, que tiende a atar con ligaduras de afecto a los americanos de origen sajón y a los americanos de origen español.

Decir qué es de la esencia del panamericanismo y qué se opone a su estructura política y moral, es labor que debe realizarse con amplitud de miras. Los pueblos latinos no alimentan odios, sino que abrigan recelos. Despejar éstos, mediante la definición de ideales y tendencias fijas, es labor provechosa al porvenir venturoso del Continente Americano.

Demostrar, a su vez, que existen problemas que especialmente nos afectan e interesan, es otro objetivo de los anteriores capítulos. En ellos se persigue obtener una categórica definición de la Doctrina de Monroe, convirtiéndola en

doctrina panamericana; consagrar en forma absoluta la Doctrina de Drago; incorporar al Derecho Público de todos los países americanos la fórmula política de Tobar, llamada a redimirnos del peso de graves acusaciones; y, por último, obtener la neutralidad efectiva de América en los conflictos europeos, como un medio eficaz de salvaguardiar grandes intereses materiales y morales.

Quizá el Segundo Congreso Científico Panamericano, de índole puramente especulativa, no se sienta capacitado para discutir las bases concretas sobre que debe descansar el Derecho Público Americano; pero, en todo caso, será conveniente que quede constancia de que hay problemas que la conciencia continental anhela que sean definidos, si no se quiere ahondar diferencias y dar el triste espectáculo de una división en el seno del mundo de Colón.

Las conclusiones prácticas a que se apetece llegar, y que forman, por decirlo así, el decálogo del nuevo Derecho que deberá regir las relaciones continentales, son las siguientes:

I. Por obra del Panamericanismo no existe antagonismo entre las razas anglo-sajona e indo-latina.

II. El Panamericanismo consiste en la unión moral de los Estados Unidos del Norte con las Repúblicas latinas del Centro y Sud-América; descansando tal entente sobre la base del más recíproco respeto y perfecta igualdad.

III. Es opuesto al ideal panamericano toda tendencia expansionista, exteriorizada en forma de adquisición de territorio, por venta, arrendamiento o cesión, o en forma alguna que implique disminución de soberanía.

IV. La adquisición de bases navales es una forma disfrazada de apropiación de territorio.

V. La intervención en el manejo de las rentas públicas por medio de recaudadores de aduana o en otra forma que lesione la potestad soberana, no será cláusula lícita en los contratos que celebren las naciones americanas.

VI. Los Estados Unidos afirman por el órgano de sus representantes en el Congreso que las declaraciones de Monroe contenidas en su célebre Mensaje de 2 de diciembre de 1823 no tienen otra interpretación lógica y natural que una prevención a las potencias europeas en el sentido de impedir toda tentativa de colonización en el Continente Americano; las cuales, caso de exteriorizarse, ya sea con objeto de oprimir algún país o para dirigir sus destinos, serán consideradas como poco amistosas (unfriendly).

VII. Los representantes de los demás países ibero-americanos, por su parte, en consorcio de los Delegados de Instituciones o Corporaciones científicas de Latino-América, aceptan la interpretación auténtica de la doctrina Monroe expresada por los representantes norte-americanos, y declaran que por su trascendencia histórica, política y moral ella forma parte integrante del Derecho Público de América.

VIII. Queda proscrito en América el empleo de la fuerza en apoyo de una reclamación pecuniaria, de cualquiera índole que sea.

IX. El Estado o particular deudor, antes de ocurrir a la vía diplomática, deberá reclamar su derecho por los medios que franquee la Legislación interna de cada país; y

X. En cuanto a la neutralidad continental, propónese la adopción de las reglas indicadas por el Gobierno de Chile y por el Museo Social Argentino. ¿Se logrará el intento? No importa el éxito. Quizá el frío de la realidad desvanezca nuestros ardores patrióticos; pero nadie osará negar que pusimos el concurso de nuestras ideas al servicio de la causa de la armonía y de la concordia de dos razas; señalando el camino único que es dable seguir a los pueblos para conquistar honra y gloria: el de la justicia internacional.

GENERAL SESSION OF SECTION VI.

SHOREHAM HOTEL,

Thursday morning, January 6, 1916.

Chairman, CHARLES NOBLE Gregory.

Pan American Conference.

The session was called to order at 10.30 o'clock by the chairman. Various resolutions were presented to and received by the section and submitted, according to the rules of the congress, to the executive committee of the congress for consideration.

The following papers were presented:

On the new orientation that has become necessary in the study of international law. Rapprochement of the Anglo-Saxon and LatinAmerican schools, by Alejandro Alvarez.

The study of international law in American countries, and means by which it may be made more effective, by José Matos.

Should international law be codified? And if so, should it be done through governmental agencies or by private scientific societies? by Alonso Reyes Guerra.

Paraguay and America, by Juan F. Pérez.

The attitude of American countries toward international arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, by Benito Javier Pérez-Verdía.

Papers reported:

The Drago doctrine; its importance in American international law, by Ernesto Restelli (reviewed by Eduardo Sarmiento Laspiur). The diplomatic history of Brazil in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, by A. G. de Araujo-Jorge.

ON THE NEW ORIENTATION THAT HAS BECOME NECESSARY IN THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. RAPPROCHEMENT OF THE ANGLOSAXON AND LATIN-AMERICAN SCHOOLS

By ALEJANDRO ÁLVAREZ,

Secretary General of the American Institute of International Law.

I.

The necessity of reforming the study of the law of nations was felt many years ago, especially at the time of the international conferences. Differences of theory then became apparent, but a comparison of these theories showed it to be possible either to reach an agreement on them or to ascertain that they are irreconcilable. The

international conferences thus brought to light the need of reforming the method of studying international law and at the same time mapped out the course to be followed. It is well to relate in this connection what took place at the Second Hague Conference in 1907 and at the London Naval Conference of 1908-9. The Second Hague Conference in its final act, expressed the hope that the draft annexed to the convention for the establishment of a court of arbitral justice might be adopted by the powers represented. The first article of this draft reads as follows:

With a view to promoting the cause of arbitration, the contracting powers agree to constitute, without altering the status of the permanent court of arbitration, a court of arbitral justice, of free and easy access, composed of judges representing the various juridical systems of the world, and capable of ensuring continuity in jurisprudence of arbitration.

The London Naval Conference, convened for the express purpose of making the views of all countries uniform, in so far as naval warfare is concerned, said in the preamble to the convention:

Having regard to the divergences often found in the methods by which it is sought to apply in practice the general principles of international law; animated by the desire to ensure henceforward a greater measure of uniformity in this respect.

America has outstripped Europe in taking the initiative in the movement for the formulation of a new method of study of international law.

In the month of April, 1914, there met at Washington, on the initiative of the American Society of International Law, a conference of professors representing 41 colleges and universities in the United States. This conference adopted 16 resolutions bearing, for the most part, on the popularization of international law. Since that time the question has been under consideration, and at the last meeting of the society, which took place in April of the present year (1916), the question was again taken up and a very important report was handed to the committee appointed to consider the matter.

For its part the American Institute of International Law had set forth in its constitution as one of its chief objects the popularization of international law, the harmonizing of international theories, and the formulation of a method of study for that law. Section 5 of article 2 of its constitution reads as follows:

To organize the study of international law along truly scientific and practical lines in a way that meets the needs of modern life, and taking into account the problems of our hemisphere and American doctrines.

At the present critical time it is incumbent upon our continent to take the initiative in the work of reconstructing international law. Our geographical position, the close ties that exist between us and Europe, the liberal ideas pervading our international doctrines, the absence of rivalry between our countries, our solidarity—in short, our Pan Americanism-are so many factors that fit America for this great mission. I will explain the duties of the universities of our continent in this work of reconstructing international law. I refer to the uniformity of conception and of doctrine with respect to this law, which must come into existence, and to the most effectual means of bringing this about—namely, uniformity in the method of its study.

II.

America has had, and still possesses, a uniform doctrine on a great many subjects pertaining to the interests of civilization in general or that of our continent—a logical consequence of the fact that all the countries of the New World have passed through the same struggle for independence and have had practically the same interests and the same problems. But on a great many questions, particularly those that do not relate to the interests of our continent, the countries of the New World have continued

to feel the influence of the traditional international theories of their mother countries, from which they have received their scientific culture. Thus, the United States has followed English theories, and the Latin-American countries so-called continental theories, especially French theories.

From an international point of view our situation is, therefore, one that is peculiar to the Western World. On the one hand, there are the liberal theories of continental scope held by all the American countries; but, on the other hand, and as a result of the influence of European science, the countries of our continent find themselves divided into two very different schools, with striking individual characteristics the Anglo-Saxon and the continental or Latin American school.

Unlike the natural and social sciences, which, thanks to a uniform method of study, made great progress during the nineteenth century, international law has remained at a standstill. Even to-day there is no uniformity in the method of its study. Hence the diversity of theories which prevails even on fundamental points in this branch of human knowledge.

In the seventeenth century, when international law became a science, its field of action was dominated by three rival schools-the metaphysical or philosophical, the bistorical or positive, and the eclectic.

These different schools remained in existence throughout the nineteenth century, but they were not so conspicuous then as they once were. Nevertheless the publicists of the last century found themselves divided by various factors such as national interests, the body of private laws, and the dominant philosophical systems-into six distinct schools-the English, the North American, the German, the Italian, the French, and the Latin American.

Under the influence of certain circumstances, chief among them the ever-increasing contact of the countries, the differences between these schools have in recent years become less marked; but two schools, with distinctive characteristics, differing in their methods of study and in the theories which they hold, still remain-the Anglo North American and the Latin American. I shall not attempt to describe the characteristics of these two schools, nor shall I dwell upon the possibility that the existing schools in Europe may undergo changes after the great war and give rise to two new schools, the one representing the tendencies and doctrines of the allies during the present conflict and the other those of the central empires. What we have to consider now is whether it is possible in our continent if not to blend, at least to draw the two existing schools more closely together and thus bring into being a truly American, or Pan American, school.

III.

Certain of the differences between the Anglo North American and the LatinAmerican schools are fundamental, others of a national character, and still others proceed from the method adopted in the study of international law.

The fundamental differences in these schools are two in number and are the result of the kind of legal education given in the respective countries. The one relates to the sources from which the rules of law are derived and the manner in which they are established, especially as regards the weight to be attached to judicial precedents. The other concerns the place held by international law in the legislation of each State; for, while it is part of the law of the land in the United States, such, with a few exceptions, is not the case in the countries of Latin America. These fundamental differences are not irreconcilable, for they can be eliminated, especially by means of a uniform method in the study of international law.

The differences of a national character, which are by no means unimportant, are the most difficult to reconcile, because they proceed from the national interests of the respective countries. Examples of these differences concern the diplomatic claims, the protection of citizens abroad, etc.