INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

Embed Size (px)

Text of INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

  • World Affairs Institute

    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATIONSource: Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 91, No. 2 (February, 1929), pp. 112-120Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20681250 .Accessed: 10/06/2014 12:56

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

    .

    World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Advocate of Peace through Justice.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 195.34.78.148 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:56:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=waihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20681250?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 112 ADVOCATE OF PEACE February

    significance, and the Croats maintain an attitude of nonpossumus accompanied by veiled but none the less seditious declara tions, the people of Jugoslavia are suffer

    ing in morale and in pocket-book. Busi ness is stagnant, private foreign capital is withdrawing, and the prospect of

    getting a large state loan upon suitable terms becomes very remote.

    There are one or two aspects of the Serbo-Croat problem which seem to have been ignored both in America and in western Europe. The first is that the

    struggle now going on is not a dispute be tween Serbs and Croats as such. If it were, the Serbs in Croatia, who form

    nearly one third of the population of that

    province, would not be associated with the Croats in the fight against the cen tral government. Neither is it an issue between centralists and federalists; for if this were the case the present government would not have expressed its willingness to consider revision of the Constitution in the direction of decentralization. Nor, indeed, would they have chosen Dr. Koro

    setz, a federalist, for Prime Minister. The present impasse seems to have been

    reached rather by continual irritation aris

    ing out of contacts between two widely differing cultural systems. Serbia still contains a large residual deposit of Turkish ideas of government with all the administrative defects common to the old Ottoman system; whilst Croatia has the Eoman and Teutonic heritage with a

    respect for law and a talent for adminis

    tering it. The Serbs of old Serbia are not to be blamed for having, under five hundred years of Turkish rule, acquired the characteristics of their rulers, nor are the Croats to be praised for showing simi lar adaptability.

    Not one of the political leaders on either side with the exception of Macek has a history of consistent political life. Each has shown, by his past record that he is prepared to join hands with another

    holding diametrically opposed views if

    by so doing he can retain the power and other perquisites of a long period in office.

    But the peasants of both Serbia and Croatia are sound. In the latter country, Raditeli their great leader has not worked in vain. He has made the peasant con scious of himself as the principal factor of production in the state. With this con sciousness has come a realization of the

    injustices and abuses of a corrupt cen tral administration. Although indif

    ferently led the Croat citizen is groping toward something better of his own mak

    ing. Secession or separation from Serbia

    seems out of the question for reasons of foreign policy. Unification of laws for the whole kingdom, of which some prov inces are highly organized whilst others are inhabited by peoples just emerging from tribal forms, is equally unpractical.

    Hence decentralization in some form is inevitable, and the sooner it takes place by free negotiation the better for everyone.

    INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

    INTERNATIONAL CONFER ENCE OF AMERICAN STATES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

    Washington, December 10, 1928?January 5, 1929

    ARBITRATION Protocol of Pbogressive Arbitration

    Whereas, a General Treaty of Inter

    American Arbitration has this day been

    signed at Washington by Plenipotentiaries

    of the Governments of Venezuela, Chile,

    Bolivia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Per?, Hon

    duras, Guatemala, Haiti, Ecuador, Colombia,

    Brazil, Panama, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Mex

    ico, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and the United States of America;

    Whereas, that treaty by its terms excepts certain controversies from the stipulations thereof ;

    Whereas, by means of reservations at

    tached to the treaty at the time of signing, ratifying or adhering, certain other con

    troversies have been or may be also excepted

    This content downloaded from 195.34.78.148 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:56:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 1929 INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS 113

    from the stipulations of the treaty or re

    served from the operation thereof;

    Whereas, it is deemed desirable to estab

    lish a procedure whereby such exceptions or

    reservations may from time to time be aban

    doned in whole or in part by the Parties to said treaty, thus progressively extending the field of arbitration;

    The Governments named above have

    agreed as follows:

    Article 1

    Any Party to the General Treaty of Inter. American Arbitration signed at Washington the fifth day of January, 1929, may at any time deposit with the Department of State of the United States of America an appro

    priate instrument evidencing that it has

    abandoned in whole or in part the exceptions from arbitration stipulated in the said treaty or the reservation or reservations attached

    by it thereto.

    Article 2

    A certified copy of each instrument de*

    posited with the Department of State of the United States of America pursuant to the

    provisions of Article 1 of this protocol shall be transmitted by the said Department through diplomatic channels to every other

    Party to the above-mentioned General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration.

    In witness whereof the above-mentioned

    Plenipotentiaries have signed this protocol in

    English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French

    and hereunto afl?x their respective seals.

    Done at the city of Washington, on this

    fifth day of January, 1929.

    GENERAL TREATY OF INTER AMERICAN ARBITRATION

    The Governments of Venezuela, Chile, Bo

    livia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Per?, Honduras,

    Guatemala, Haiti, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil,

    Panam?, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Mexico, El

    Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and the United States of America, repre sented at the Conference on Conciliation and

    Arbitration, assembled at Washington, pur suant to the Resolution adopted on February

    18, 1928, by the Sixth International Confer

    ence of American States held in the City of Habana;

    In accordance with the solemn declara

    tions made at said Conference to the effect

    that the American Republics condemn war

    as an instrument of national policy and

    adopt obligatory arbitration as the means

    for the settlement of their international dif ferences of a juridical character;

    Being convinced that the Republics of the New World, governed by the principles, in

    stitutions and practices of democracy and

    bound furthermore by mutual interests, which are increasing each day, have not only the necessity but also the duty of avoiding the disturbance of continental harmony when

    ever differences which are susceptible of

    judicial decision arise among them; Conscious of the great moral and material

    benefits which peace offers to humanity and

    that the sentiment and opinion of America

    demand, without delay, the organization of

    an arbitral system which shall strengthen the permanent reign of justice and law; And animated by the purpose of giving

    conventional form to these postulates and

    aspirations with the minimum exceptions which they have considered indispensable to safeguard the independence and sover

    eignty of the States and in the most ample manner possible under present international

    conditions, have resolved to effect the pres ent treaty, and for that purpose have desig nated the Plenipotentiaries hereinafter

    named :

    Venezuela : Carlos F. Grisanti. Francisco Arroyo Parejo.

    Chile : Manuel Foster Recabarren. Antonio Planet.

    Bolivia : Eduardo Diez de Medina.

    Uruguay : Jos? Pedro V?rela.

    Costa Rica: Manuel Castro Quesada. Jos? Tibie-Machado.

    Per? : Hern?n Velarde. Victor M. Ma?rtua.

    Honduras : R?mulo Dur?n. Marcos L?pez Ponce.

    Guatemala : Adri?n Recinos. Jos? Falla.

    Hait?:

    Auguste Bonamy. Raoul Lizaire.

    Ecuador : Gonzalo Zaldumbide.

    Colombia :

    Enrique Olaya Herrera. Carlos Escall?n.

    Brazil : S. Gurgel do Amarai.

    A. G. de Araujo-Jorge.

    This content downloaded from 195.34.78.148 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:56:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/abou