Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Law in the Western Hemisphere pp 137–195Cite as

Human Rights and the Organization of American States

  • Chapter

  • 62 Accesses

Abstract

The historical idealistic basis of an American community of nations is posited upon the belief that the New World was to be dedicated to liberty, democracy, and peace, in contrast to the monarchy, tyranny, and belligerency which prevailed in the old.1 Since the earliest days of American independence, her leaders have called for respect for and protection of those complementary aspects of democracy — popular constitutional government and human rights. Henry Clay in 1820 and again in 1821 appealed for a hemispheric system to serve as “a rallying point of human wisdom against all the despotism of the Old World,” and as “a sort of counterpoise to the holy alliance … in favor of national independence and liberty.”2 Bolivar, in the 1826 Treaty of Union, League and Perpetual Confederation, would sanction any state which deserted the republican form of government by expulsion from the proposed inter-American organization. A continental citizenship was also to be established, and slavery in the Americas was to be abolished.3 Pedro Felix Vicuna of Chile wrote in 1837 that a hemispheric union should be established to support popular revolutions against tyrannical governments.4 Later, Juan Baptista Alberdi, then a refugee in Chile from Argentine dictatorship, maintained that intervention should be utilized to promote democratic governments in the Americas.5

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Whitaker, The Western Hemisphere Idea chs. I, II (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Id. at 32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Treaty of Perpetual Union, League, and Confederation between the Republics of Colombia, Central America, Peru, and the United Mexican States, July 15, 1826, in International Conferences of American States 1889–1928, at xix-xx (J. Scott ed. 1931). Article 29 of this treaty provides for exclusion if any of the parties should change its present form of government. Since the nations were all obstensibly possessed of a republican form of government it follows that substantial departure from the republican form would mean exclusion.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Id. arts. 23, 24, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Burr & R. Hussey, Documents on Inter-American Cooperation, 1810–1881, at Nos. 19, 23 (1955). Tobar of Ecuador and President Wilson were also advocates of multilateral protection of democracy in the hemisphere. See A. J. Thomas, Jr. & A. V. W. Thomas, The Organization of American States 216-17 (1963) [hereinafter cited as Thomas and Thomas].

    Google Scholar 

  6. P.A.U. Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, Report Submitted to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union by the Director General (Feb. 21-Mar. 8, 1945, Cong, and Conf. Series No. 47 1945).

    Google Scholar 

  7. See P.A.U. Handbook for Delegates to the Ninth International Conference of American States 88-89 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Resolution XXXVIII, Defence and Preservation of Democracy in America, P.A.U. supra note 6. On the conflict between intervention and human rights see M. Ball, Issue for the Americas, 15 Int’l Org. 21 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Resolution XL, P.A.U., supra note 6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.A.U. Consultation of the Government of Uruguay and Replies of the Governments on the Parallelism between Democracy and Peace, the International Rights of Man and Collective Action in Defense of those Principles (May, 1946). [hereinafter cited as P.A.U.].

    Google Scholar 

  11. Although Kant laid down a doctrine of non-intervention he qualified it by his statement that the civil constitution in every state shall be republican. Thus, he believed that world peace could only be maintained if and when the republican form of government had become universal. For a statement of this thesis of Kant, see K. Lowenstein, Political Reconstruction 17–20 (1946). In A. Hershey, Essentials of International Public Law and Organization 243 n.18 (1935) the author claims that Kant in Essay on Perpetual Peace published in 1795 was first to state the principle of non-intervention. Hershey fails to mention the fact that Kant’s prohibition of interventions might be considered as modified by his statement that the civil constitution in every state should be republican.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.A.U., supra note 10.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Id. Selte-Camaro Filho, A Doutrina Larreta, 3 Boletim da Sociedade de Direito Internacional 18 (1946).

    Google Scholar 

  15. On the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance see P.A.U., Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, Report on Results of Conference submitted to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union by the Director General (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.A.U. Inter-American Juridical Committee Report on the Inter-American Council of Jurists concerning Resolution XXXI of the Conference of Bogota 2 (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  17. The opposing group argued that the Charter was in the nature of a constitutional instrument and should be confined to the establishment of the OAS and the functions of its organs. All other inter-American policies should be set up in separate agreements. Ninth International Conference of American States, Report of the Delegation of the United States with Related Documents, Dept. of State Pub. 3263, at 13 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  18. O.A.S. Charter preamble.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O.A.S. Charter art. 5(j).

    Google Scholar 

  20. O.A.S. Charter art. 13. (Italics supplied)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Final Act, Resolution XXX, as contained in Ninth International Conference of American States, supra note 17, at 260.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Preamble, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. For discussion of the rights and duties delineated see Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 224-27.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 226.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance at arts. 3, 6. See also Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at ch. XV.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See 41 Dept. State Bull. 342-44 (1955). On the background of the Santiago Meeting, see id. at 279 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Declaration of Santiago, 41 Dept. State Bull. 343 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. Schwarzenberger, Frontiers of International Law 155 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Case presented by Venezuela relating to violations of human rights in the Dominican Republic (February 1960), P.A.U. Inter-American Peace Committee, Report of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Second Special Inter-American Conference on the Activities of the Committee since the Tenth Inter-American Conference 1954-1965, at 24-26 (OEA/Ser. l. iii. ii 10, English, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Id. at 26.

    Google Scholar 

  32. P.A.U. Applicaciones del Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Reciproca 1948–1960, at 393 et. seq. (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 43 Dept. State Bull. 355-58 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 236.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See note 3, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Ninth International Conference of American States, supra note 17, at 15.

    Google Scholar 

  37. N.Y. Times, Aug. 24, 1960, at 10, col. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  38. On the Punta del Este Meeting, see P.A.U. Final Act Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs Serving as Organ of Consultation in Application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Punta del Este, Uruguay, January 23-31, 1962 (OEA/Ser.C/II.8.. 1962); Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 59-60, 238-39, 326-27. Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance Applications 69 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Id. at 75.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Resolution VI, Exclusion of the Present Government of Cuba from Participation in the Inter-American System, 2 P.A.U., Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance Applications 75 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 60.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See 2 P.A.U., supra note 39, at 79-80 for statements of these states as to their votes.

    Google Scholar 

  43. For discussion of the crisis see A. J. Thomas, Jr., and A. V. W. Thomas, The Dominican Republic Crisis 1965 Background Paper and Proceedings of the Ninth Hammarskjold Forum (J. Carey ed. 1967). For account of the Tenth Meeting of the Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs see 1 O.A.S. Chronicle, Aug. 1965, at 1-10, 19-41.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Resolution, Inter-American Force, 1 O.A.S. Chronicle, Aug., 1965, at 23-24.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Convocation of the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, id. at 19.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See discussion of the various Meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the powers of the meetings in Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 79-85 and ch. XVII.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Id. at 86.

    Google Scholar 

  50. O.A.S. Charter arts. 15, 16, 17, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  51. For discussion see Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 165.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See note 45, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  53. The peace force was composed of 1, 115 men from Brazil, 21 from Costa Rica, 3 from El Salvador, 10,900 from the United States, 250 from Honduras, 164 from Nicaragua, and 183 from Paraguay. O.A.S. Chronicle, supra note 44, at 5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See note 45, supra at 24.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 164-68, for discussion of the O.A.S. and the principle of intervention.

    Google Scholar 

  56. E.g., Lieras, Report on the Ninth International Conference of American States, 1 Annals of O.A.S. 25–27 (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  57. As quoted by Mr. Yost of the United States before the Security Council, U.N. SCOR, S/PV. 1220 June 3, 1965, at 57 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  58. U.N. SCOR, S/PV. 1222 June 9, 1965, at 67-68 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, supra note 15, at 41-42.

    Google Scholar 

  60. For discussion of the various OAS cases in relation to the U.N. see MacDonald, The Developing Relationship between Superior and Subordinate Political Bodies at the International Level. A Note on the Experience of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, 2 Canadian Y.B. Int’l L. 21 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 2 P.A.U., supra note 39, at 112.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chayes, Law and the Quarantine of Cuba, 41 Foreign Affairs 550, at 554–56 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, [1962] I.C.J. Reports, at 170-71.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. 2 at 117, U.N. Doc. A/6002 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  65. U.N. SCOR, S/PV. June 9, 1965 at 66-68 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Thomas and Thomas, supra note 44, at 59 for further discussion of legality of the Peace Force.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Resolution VIII as contained in P.A.U., Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Actas y Documentos (OAE/Ser.F/II.5, 1961). See also, P.A.U. La Organizacion de los Estados Americanos 1954-1962, at 12 (OEA/Ser.D/II.2, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  69. See functions and powers of the commission as contained in the Statute which was adopted in 1960 by the Council of the O.A.S. and as amended by the Second Special Inter-American Conference. Comision Inter-Americana de Derech os Humanos, Manual de Normas Vigentes en Materia de Derechos Humanos, p. 30 et. seq., OEA/Ser. L/V/II.23, doc. 21, 1970; the statute of the commission is also contained in 1 Revue des Droits de L’Homme — Human Rights Journal 144 et. seq. (1968). For discussions of the work of the Inter-American Commission on Civil Rights see A. Schreiber, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1970); Thomas and Thomas, supra note 44, at 59-74; Cabranes, The Protection of Human Rights by the Organization of American States, 62 Am. J. Int’l L. 889, at 893-908 (1968); Sandifer, Human Rights in the Inter-American System, 11 Howard Law J. 508, 516-524 (1965); A.V.W. Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Jr., The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 20 S.W.L.J. 282 (1966). See also Van Boven, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 15 Ne-derlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 374 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  70. P.A.U. Charter of the Organization of American States as Amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1967 ch. XVIII, Treaty Series 1-c (OEA/Ser.A/2 Rev. 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  71. American Convention on Human Rights, 5 Rev. of Int’l Comm’n of Jurists 44-62 (Mar. 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Authorities cited note 70, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  74. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its First Session, Oct. 2-28, 1960, at 10 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II,I doc. 32, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Id. at 13.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Id. at 12.

    Google Scholar 

  77. P.A.U. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Reports on the Situation of Political Prisoners and their Relatives in Cuba ch. 1 (OEA/Ser.L/V/11.7, doc. 4, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Id. at 4.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Id. at 6.

    Google Scholar 

  80. P.A.U. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Republic of Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.4, doc. 30, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  81. See note 78, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Ninth Session: Oct. 5–16, 1964, at 13 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.10, doc. 21, 1965); P.A.U. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Tenth Session 9-10 (OEA/Ser. L/V/II. ll, doc. 19, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  83. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Twelfth Session: Oct. 4-15, 1965, at 17-18 (OEA/Ser.L/V/11.13, doc. 26, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  84. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During the Thirteenth Session: April 18-28, 1966, at 17 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.14, doc. 35, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  85. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Regarding the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.17, doc. 4, rev., 1967); O.A.S. Inter-American Commission of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Second Report on the Situation of Political Prisoners and Their Relatives in Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.23, doc. 6, rec. 1, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  86. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in Haiti 2-3 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.8, doc. 5, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  87. On the Nicaraguan case see P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Fifth Session, Sept. 24-Oct. 26, 1962, at 11-16 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.5, doc. 40, 1963); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its First Sessions, Jan. 3-23, 1963, at 11 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.6, doc. 18, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  88. P.A.U. supra note 87, at 4-6.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Id. at 9 et. seq.

    Google Scholar 

  90. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Requests for Information Transmitted to the Government of Haiti on the Case of Haitian Citizens Returning to their Country from the Dominican Republic and the Case of the Beauvoir-Florez Family (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.16, doc. 2, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  91. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in Haiti (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.21, doc. 6 rev., 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  92. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its First Special Session: Jan. 3-23, 1963, at 4-8 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.6, doc. 18, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  93. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Sixth Session, April 16-May 8, 1963, at 8-12 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.7, doc. 28, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  94. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Fourteenth Session, Oct. 3–21, 1966, at 12 (OEA/Ser.L/V/11.15, doc. 29, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  95. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Fifteenth Session (Special) Jan. 9–20, 1967, at 9-10 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.16, doc. 20, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  96. For report of this incident see Schreiber, supra note 70, at 74.

    Google Scholar 

  97. P.A.U. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Solicitudes de information transmitidas al gobierno Guatemala (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15, doc. 5, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  99. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Twelfth Session, Oct. 4–15, at 1965, 15–16 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.14, doc. 35, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  100. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Seventh Session, Oct. 7–25, 1963, at 16 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.8, doc. 35, 1964); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Eighth Session, April 6–20, 1964, at 12–14 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.9, doc. 24, 1964); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Ninth Session, Oct. 5–16, 1964, at 20 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.10, doc. 21, 1965); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Tenth Session 8–9 (OEA/Ser. L/V/II. ll, doc. 19, 1965); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Eleventh Session (Special), July 21–23, 1965, at 14 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.12, doc. 10, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Report of the Eighth Session, supra note 101, at 16.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Id, at 12-14; Report of the Ninth Session, supra note 101, at 19.

    Google Scholar 

  103. See P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Third Session, Oct. 2-Nov. 4, 1961, at 4-5 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.3, doc. No. 32, 1961). P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.4, doc. No. 32, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  104. See Pan American Union Symposium on Representative Democracy; Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, December 17–22, 1962, at 19 (1963); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Sixth Session, April 16–May 8, 1963, at 14–18 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.7, doc. 28, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  105. P.A.U., The Dominican Situation, 1 O.A.S. Chronicle, Aug., 1965, at 6, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Id. at 8.

    Google Scholar 

  108. P.A.U., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (Preliminary Report), (19 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.12, doc. rev., 1965). For summary of work done D. Dunshee de Abranches, A Special Protection of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic 3 (Washington World Conference on World Peace Through Law, T 7/6, Sept. 15, 1965). See also P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, June 1–Aug. 31, 1965 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.13, doc. 14 rev., 1965); P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its Activities in the Dominican Republic, Sept. 1–July 6, 1966 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15, doc. 6 rev., 1966); See also Sandifer, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic: June 1965 to June 1966 in The Dominican Republic Crises, 1965, at 132 et seq.; Thomas and Thomas, supra note 44, at 59 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  109. P.A.U., Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, doc. No. 231, at 5-18 (OEA/Ser.F. 11.10, 1965); Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (Preliminary Report), supra note 109, at 18.

    Google Scholar 

  110. P.A.U. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Work Accomplished During Its Eleventh Session (Special), July 21-23, 1965, at 11 (OEA/Ser.L/V II.12, doc. 10, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  111. O.A.S., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During Its Twenty-second Session (First and Second Parts) Aug. 5–7 and Nov. 7–22, 1969, at 7–8 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.22, doc. 15 Add. 1, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Id. at 9.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Id. at 11.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Id. at 34-41.

    Google Scholar 

  115. For discussion of intervention and its definition see A.V.W. Thomas and AJ. Thomas, Jr., Non-intervention, The Law and Its Import in the Americas ch. IV (1956). For a discussion of investigation, discussion, and recommendation as intervention see Thomas and Thomas, supra note 5, at 166-68.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Thomas and Thomas, Non-intervention, supra note 116, at 71.

    Google Scholar 

  117. P.A.U., Second Special Inter-American Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 17–30, 1965, Final Act, Resolution xxii (OCEA/Ser.C/1.13, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Authorities cited note 70, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Art. 53 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as set forth in Manual de Normas Vigentes en Materia de Derechos Humanos or 1 Revue des Droits de L’Homme-Human Rights Journal, supra note 70.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Regulations, art. 55, supra note 120

    Google Scholar 

  121. Id. at art. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  122. See Schreiber, supra note 70 at 53.

    Google Scholar 

  123. See Schreiber, supra note 70, at 67-68; Thomas and Thomas, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra note 70, at 306.

    Google Scholar 

  124. See note 72, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Art. 41 of the Convention, supra note 72.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Id. at art. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Id. at art. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Id. at arts. 50-51.

    Google Scholar 

  129. P.A.U. Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Actas y Documentes, (OEA/Ser.F/III.5 pp. 308-9 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  130. P.A.U., Inter-American Council of Jurists, Final Act of the Fourth Meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists (CIJ-43, at 48-75, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  131. P.A.U., Second Special Inter-American Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 17–30, 1965, Final Act., xxiiv (OEA/Ser.C/I.13 (English), 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  133. P.A.U., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Opinion on the Draft Convention on Human Rights Approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.16, doc. 8 (English) rev.) (April 24, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  134. O.A.S., Committee on Juridical-Political Affairs, Report on a Consultation with the Member States Regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights (Council Series, OEA/Ser.G/IV. c-i-787, at 2 (English) rev. 3, June 7, 1967). See also, Gros Espiell, Le Processus de la Réforme de la Charte de l’Organisation des ètats Américains, 14 Annuaire Francais de Droit International 139 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  135. O.A.S., at 3, supra note 135.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Id. at 4.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  138. O.A.S., Observations of the Governments Regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights (Council Series, OEA/Ser.G/V, C-d-1519 (English) Add. 2 (Sept. 13, 1967), Add. 3 (Sept. 15, 1967), Add. 6 (Oct. 3, 1967), Add. 7 (Oct. 19, 1967), Add. 8 (Nov. 17, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  139. O.A.S., Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, Nov. 7–22, 1969, Final Act (OEA/Ser.C/VI.18.1 (English) doc. 70, rev. 1, corr. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  140. The signatory nations are El Salvador, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Paraguay, Panama, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Venezuela, Costa Rica.

    Google Scholar 

  141. A.L. del Russo, International Protection of Human Rights 247 (1971); Mac-Bride, The European Court of Human Rights, 3 N.Y.U.J. Int’l L. 1, 15 (1970); American Convention of Human Rights, 5 Rev. of Int’l Comm’n Jurists 1 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  142. K. Vasak, La Commission Interamericaine des Droits de l’Homme 64 ff. (1968). Bilder, International Promotion of Human Rights: A Current Assessment, 58 Am. J. Int’l L. 728 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  143. O.A.S., American Convention on Human Rights, art. 1, para. 1 (OEA/Ser.K/XVI/I.1, English, doc. 65, rev. 1, corr. 2, Jan. 7, 1970) (hereinafter cited O.A.S. Convention).

    Google Scholar 

  144. United Nations Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, G. A. Res. 2200 A, 21 U.N.G.A.O.R. Supp. 16 at 49–60, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) (hereinafter cited as U.N. Convention).

    Google Scholar 

  145. O.A.S. Convention, art. 24; U.N. Convention art. 3, 26. The American convention does not include the United Nations treaty guarantees accorded to ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, profess and practice their own religion and use their own language. U.N. Convention, art. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  146. U.N. Convention art. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  147. O.A.S. Convention, art. 4, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Id. See also U.N. Convention, art. 6, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Hassan, The International Covenants on Human Rights: An Approach to Inter-pretation, 19 Buff. L. Rev. 35 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  150. 6 M. Whiteman, International Law 799–859 (1968); Evans Reflections upon the Political Offender in International Practice, 57 Am. J. Int’l L. 1 (1963); Green, Political Offences, War Crimes and Extradition, 11 Int’l and Comp. L.Q. 329 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  151. O.A.S. Convention, art. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Id. art. 3, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  153. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). See also Paulsen, Juvenile Courts and the Legacy of’ 67, 43 Ind. L.J. 527 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  154. O.A.S. Convention, art. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  155. U.N. Convention, art. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  156. O.A.S. Convention, art. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Id. art. 8, para. 2(a).

    Google Scholar 

  158. Id. art. 8, para. 2(d), (e).

    Google Scholar 

  159. Id. art. 8, para. 2(h).

    Google Scholar 

  160. Id. art. 8, para. 2(f); U.S. Const. amend. VI.

    Google Scholar 

  161. U.N. Convention, art. 14, para. 3(g).

    Google Scholar 

  162. O.A.S. Convention, art. 8, para. 2(g).

    Google Scholar 

  163. Id. art. 8, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Id. art. 8, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  165. U.N. Convention, art. 14, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Id. art. 14, par. 1; art. 2, par. 1; OAS Convention, art. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  167. O.A.S. Convention, art. 7; U.N. Convention, art. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  168. O.A.S. Convention, art. 25; U.N. Convention, art. 2, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  169. O.A.S. Convention, art. 7, para. 6; U.N. Convention, art. 9, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  170. O.A.S. Convention, art. 7, para. 6; U.N. Convention, art. 9, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Two typical examples can be found in the Constitutions of Honduras and Nicaragua. Art. 177 (ch. 7) of the 1965 Constitution of Honduras declares: The guarantees established (in the preceding articles) may be suspended in the event of invasion of the national territory, serious disturbance of the peace, and epidemic, or other disaster, by the President of the Republic, by means of a decree… Articles 196 and 197 of the Constitution of Nicaragua (1962) declare: The President of the Republic, whenever in his opinion the public tranquility is threatened, may order the detention of persons presumed responsible… The President of the Republic, in the Council of Ministers, may suspend or restrict, in all or a part of the national territory, the exercise of constitutional guarantees in any of the following cases: when the Republic becomes involved in an international or civil war; when there is danger that either of these may occur; in the case of epidemic, earthquake or other public disaster; whenever due to any other circumstances it is required for the protection, peace, or security of the nation or of its institutions or form of government.

    Google Scholar 

  172. O.A.S. Convention, art. 27, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Id. art. 7, para. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Id. art. 7, para. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  175. U.N. Convention, art. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Id. art. 9, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  177. O.A.S. Convention, art. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Desist v. U.S., 394 U.S. 244 (1969); Johnson v. New Jersey, 348 U.S. 719 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  179. O.A.S. Convention, art. 11, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Id. art. 11, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  181. U.N. Convention, art. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  182. O.A.S. Convention, art. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  183. O.A.S. Convention, art. 12, para. 3; U.N. Convention, art. 18, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  184. O.A.S. Convention, art. 12, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Id. art. 12, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Id. art. 13, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  187. U.N. Convention, art. 19, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  188. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 1, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). See also K. Kuh, Foolish Figleaves: Pornography In and Out of Court (1967); R. Cancel Negron, En Torno a la Obscenidad: Un Concepto Juridico Impreciso, 29 Revista del Colegio Abogados de Puerto Rico 169 (1969); W. F. Eich, From Ulysses to Portnoy: A Pornographic Primer, 53 Marquette L. Rev. 155 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  190. See generally N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  191. O.A.S. Convention, art. 13, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Id. art. 13, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  193. U.N. Convention, art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1951). But see Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  195. See note 189 and accompanying text, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  196. O.A.S. Convention, art. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Convention on the International Right of Correction, G.A. Res. 630, — U.N. GAOR Supp. 20, at 22, U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  198. O.A.S. Convention, art. 15; U.N. Convention, art. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  199. O.A.S. Convention, art. 16; U.N. Convention, art. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  200. O.A.S. Convention, art. 16; para. 3; U.N. Convention, art. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  201. O.A.S. Convention, art. 17; U.N. Convention, art. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  202. O.A.S. Convention, art. 17, para. 2; U.N. Convention, art. 23, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  203. U.N. Convention, art. 23, para. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  204. O.A.S. Convention, art. 17, para. 4. (emphasis added).

    Google Scholar 

  205. Id. art. 17, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  206. O.A.S. Convention, arts. 18, 19; U.N. Convention, art. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  207. O.A.S. Convention, art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  208. U.N. Convention, art. 24, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  209. O.A.S. Convention, art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Nottebohm Case, [1955] I.C.J. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  211. H. F. van Panhuys, The Role of Nationality in International Law (1959); de Visscher, L’Affaire Nottebohm, 60 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 238 (1956); Glazer, Affaire Nottebohm-A Critique, 44 Georgetown Law J. 313 (1955–56); Jones, The Nottebohm Case, 5 Int. and Comp. Law Quarterly 230 (1956), Loewenfield, Der Fall Nottebohm 5 Archiv des Völkerrechts 387 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  212. O.A.S. Convention, art. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  213. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 1 (Protocol No. 1, March 20, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  214. O.A.S. Convention, art. 21, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  215. O.A.S. Convention, art. 22; U.N. Convention art. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  216. O.A.S. Convention, art. 22, para. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  217. Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Cases, [1950] I.C.J. 266; [1951] I.C.J. 71; A. V. W. Thomas, A. J. Thomas, Jr., Non-Intervention: The Law and Its Import in the Americas 393-398 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  218. peru Const. art. 68 provides: No one may be banished from the territory of the Republic, nor removed from his place of residence, except by a writ of sentence or by application of the aliens law. See also Argentina Const. art. 23 which provides: But during such suspension the President of the Republic shall not convict or apply punishment upon his own authority. His power shall be limited, in such a case, with respect to persons, to arresting them, or transferring them from one point of the Nation to another, if they do not prefer to leave Argentine Territory.

    Google Scholar 

  219. O.A.S. Convention, art. 22, para. 6; UN Convention, art. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  220. O.A.S. Convention, art. 22, para. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Fenwick, Honduras-El Salvador, Procedures under Rio Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 63 Am. J. Int’l L. 769 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. O.A.S. Convention, art. 22, para. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  223. Id. art. 22, para. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  224. O.A.S. Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, Final Act 5-7 (OEA/Ser.K/SVI/I.1 (English) doc. 70, rev. 1, corr. 1, 7, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  225. Id. at 6.

    Google Scholar 

  226. Id. at 7.

    Google Scholar 

  227. O.A.S. Convention, art. 23; U.N. Convention, art. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  228. A.V.W. Thomas — A. J. Thomas Jr., The Organization of American States, 230-31 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  229. O.A.S. Convention, art. 23, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Id. art. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  231. U.N. Convention, art. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  232. O.A.S. Convention, art. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  233. See note 22, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  234. O.A.S. Convention, art. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  235. OA.S., Inter-American Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, Annotations 35 (OEA/Ser.L/V (English) II. 19. doc. 53, Mar. 21, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  236. O.A.S. Convention, art. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Thomas & Thomas, supra note 229, at 227, 232-33, 400-401.

    Google Scholar 

  238. P.A.U., Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Santiago, Chile, Aug., 1959 (OEA/Ser.C/II.5).

    Google Scholar 

  239. O.A.S. Convention, ch. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  240. A. L. del Russo, International Protection of Human Rights 107 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  241. O.A.S. Convention, art. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  242. Id. art. 70, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  243. Id. art. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  244. Id. art. 70, para. 1; art. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  245. Id. art. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  246. Id. art. 52, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  247. Id. art. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  248. Id. art. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  249. Id. arts. 58, 59, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  250. Id. ch. 8, § 2.

    Google Scholar 

  251. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  252. O.A.S. Convention, art. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  253. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  254. Id. art. 32, paras. 1,2.

    Google Scholar 

  255. O.A.S. Convention, art. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  256. Lawless Case, Hearing of Oct. 4, 1960 (Pleading, Oral Arguments, Documents) European Court of Human Rights, pp. 245, 261 (1960-61).

    Google Scholar 

  257. Lawless Case, Judgment of Nov. 14, 1960 (Preliminary objections and questions of procedure) European Court of Human Rights, pp. 11-16 (1960-61).

    Google Scholar 

  258. O.A.S. Convention, art. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  259. Id. art. 68, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  260. Id. art. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  261. Id. art. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  262. Id. art. 78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ann Wynen Van Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. Thomas Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Studies, New York University, USA

    Nigel S. Rodley (Research Fellow, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science) (Research Fellow, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science)

  2. Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research, USA

    Nigel S. Rodley (Research Fellow, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science) & C. Neale Ronning (Professor of Political Science) (Research Fellow, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science) &  (Professor of Political Science)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Thomas, A.W., Thomas, A.J. (1974). Human Rights and the Organization of American States. In: Rodley, N.S., Ronning, C.N. (eds) International Law in the Western Hemisphere. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9214-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9214-9_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8490-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9214-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation