the treaty calling for action to meet aggression (arts. 3 and 6), should apply with equal force whether the aggression was committed by an American state or by a non-American state. Thus, the treaty makes no distinction in principle between aggression from inside and aggression from outside the continent, considering that all crimes against the peace are equally to be condemned, whatever the source. However, in the case of an intra-American conflict, in which the states involved would be parties to the obligations of the regional arrangement, and to the inter-American tradition of pacific settlement, article 7 provides that, without lessening the obligations of article 3, the first objective of the collective action should be to order the contending states to suspend hostilities and restore the situation existing before the outbreak of the conflict and to take all other measures necessary to reestablish peace and seek a solution of the issue by peaceful means, if possible. To this extent, therefore, different initial collective procedure is provided for in the event of a conflict in which no extracontinental power is involved. This provision is considered in greater detail below.

Action in the Event of an Armed Attack

Having agreed to separate the concept of "act of aggression" as contained in the Act of Chapultepec into its component elements of armed attack and other aggression, the framers of the treaty then decided to preface the provisions dealing with armed attack with a restatement of the principle of the Act of Chapultepec, that an attack against one is an attack against all, specifying its application to an armed attack. This statement is contained in the first part of paragraph 1 of article 3 and thus provides a specific motivation for the two concomitant obligations which are set forth in the article.

The extent of the obligation laid upon the parties in the event of armed attack is a principal feature of the treaty. Three of the original eight proposals submitted for the treaty by the American Republics in December 1945-those of Chile, United States, and Uruguay-envisaged the possibility of immediate individual or collective action to repel the attack, permissive in the Chilean draft and obligatory in the United States and Uruguayan drafts. In the consultations undertaken by the American Republics prior to the Conference on the principal points to be included in the treaty, the specific question was asked, in the light of the proposal in the United States draft, whether in event of armed attack the parties were obligated by the principles of inter-American solidarity and in the right of self-defense recognized

in article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations to assist the state which is the immediate victim of the aggression. All 20 republics replied in the affirmative. To the corollary question as to whether it is understood that in such case each of the parties "shall determine the nature, extent and timing of the immediate measures which it should take," the answer of 18 of the 20 republics was likewise in the affirmative.1

In recognition of this, the proposals submitted at the Conference by Bolivia, Mexico, and Uruguay laid such a specific obligation on the parties in the event of an armed attack to assist in meeting the attack. The proposals submitted by Argentina and Guatemala provided only for an obligation to consult in the case of an armed attack.

However, the Mexican proposals referred to above contained a provision that for the purposes of the treaty an armed attack shall be understood to mean

66

any operation carried on by a state against the territory or the land, sea, or air forces of an American state, whenever those forces are within the geographic zone delimited by the Declaration of Panama of October 3, 1939, or in any place, even outside the said zone, which is an integral part of the territory of an American state."

The Mexican delegation explained that its purpose in presenting this proposal was to limit to the defined region this additional obligation of assisting in meeting an armed attack, pointing out that an armed attack outside the region, since it would affect the peace of America, would therefore bring into operation the obligation to consult contained in other articles of the treaty.

While the initial reaction of the various delegations to this proposal was a divided one, the majority sentiment seemed to favor the proposal. It was argued on the one hand that such a zone would be based on an obsolete spatial concept of peace and war and would constitute a deflection from the principle that an attack against one republic should be considered as an attack against all. The proponents of the proposal took the position, however, that the boundaries of the region could be broadly defined to include all areas in which any serious attack against an American republic would be likely to occur and that thus, from a practical point of view, the effectiveness of the treaty would not be impaired. They pointed out that possible military action outside the zone involving the forces of an American republic would not constitute such a direct and immediate danger to the hemisphere as to require individual assistance from the other republics in advance of consultation, and that the smaller countries, whose resources were

limited, need not be required to expend them in advance of consultation, the purpose of which would be to plan the most effective joint methods of dealing with the situation.

The United States delegation took the position that if the majority favored the inclusion of such a provision in the treaty, the United States would be agreeable, but that it would suggest three modifications of the original proposal: (1) the area to be embraced within the region should be very broadly defined so as to include all areas in which any attack directed against the Americas would be likely to occur; (2) the limitations of the area should not be stated in the form of a definition of an armed attack, since such a definition should be independent of geographical limitations; and (3) further to avoid any implication that the establishment of the region indicated any intention to detract from the obligations of the American Republics toward the maintenance of general peace and security or any lessening of their interest in their world-wide responsibilities, a provision should likewise be included that the treaty in no way impairs the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations.

These suggestions found general acceptance in the drafting subcommittee and were incorporated in the final proposals. Thus the region as finally agreed upon is much larger than that included in the Declaration of Panama and embraces both the North and South American Continents including Canada and Alaska, together with Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic regions adjacent to the continents, and all of the area lying between. The technical delineation of the boundaries of the region was entrusted to an expert subcommittee composed of representatives of Argentina, Chile, and the United States and, as agreed upon, was made a separate article (art. 4).1 It is then provided in article 3, which sets forth the obligations in the event of an armed attack, that "The provisions of this Article shall be applied in case of any armed attack which takes place within the region described in Article 4 or within the territory of an American State. When the attack takes place outside of the said areas, the provisions of Article 6 shall be applied." This form has the dual advantage of avoiding any implied geographical limitation on the concept of an armed attack and of making clear that the regional limitation applies only to the specific obligations of assistance contained in article 3, and that an armed attack outside the region will bring the provisions of article 6 into operation.

In order to assure that neither these nor other provisions of the

1For a map showing the boundaries of the region, see appendix one, part 2.

treaty affect the world-wide obligations of all the republics, the drafting subcommittee uniformly agreed to an inclusion of a special article (art. 10) providing that—

"None of the provisions of this Treaty shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the High Contracting Parties under the Charter of the United Nations."

The inclusion within the region of some territories of non-American states led certain of the American Republics to reiterate in statements in the Final Act claims which they had previously asserted to portions of these territories.1 It is clear, however, that the treaty provision calling for measures of self-defense by the American Republics in case of an attack upon such territories does not affect questions of jurisdiction or ownership over them. The United States delegation sought to make this position clear by inserting the following statement in the Final Act:

"With reference to the reservations made by other Delegations concerning territories located within the region defined in the Treaty, their boundaries, and questions of sovereignty over them, the Delegation of the United States of America wishes to record its position that the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro has no effect upon the sovereignty, [or] national or international status of any of the territories included in the region defined in Article 4 of the Treaty.

With general agreement as to the inclusion of reference to the region in which the provision would operate, there was unanimous agreement as to the twofold character of the obligation to be laid upon the parties if an armed attack should occur. First, each one of the parties is obligated "to assist in meeting the attack" (art. 3, par. 1). By this language the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized in article 51 of the United Nations Charter is converted into an obligation. Paragraph 2 of article 3 provides that until the republics agree in consultation upon the collective measures to be taken, each of them shall determine the nature of the "immediate measures" to be taken in fulfillment of its obligation. The Organ of Consultation is then to meet immediately in order to examine these measures and to agree upon collective measures. Thus the provision contemplates that the parties may begin to carry out their obligation to assist prior to consultation, and in the case of a sudden attack this element of time might prove decisive.

It was recognized as impractical to seek to determine in advance in the treaty itself the nature, timing, and exact extent of the immedi

ate measures, and this determination is consequently explicitly given to each of the parties by the language of article 3, paragraph 2. This decision is in accord with the general views on this matter expressed in the pre-conference consultation referred to above on the principal points to be incorporated in the treaty. This paragraph reads in part:

"On the request of the State or States directly attacked and until the decision of the Organ of Consultation of the Inter-American System, each one of the Contracting Parties may determine the immediate measures which it may individually take in fulfillment of the obligation contained in the preceding paragraph and in accordance with the principle of continental solidarity."

The decision referred to is agreement upon appropriate collective measures or, under article 7, a call upon the parties to cease hostilities. As discussed subsequently, the later decision would terminate the obligation to take individual measures of assistance under article 3, but neither decision would terminate the right of a state to take such measures in individual or collective self-defense.

The second obligation in the event of an armed attack is contained in the following language:

"The Organ of Consultation shall meet without delay for the purpose of examining those measures [the immediate measures of assistance] and agreeing upon the measures of a collective character that should be taken.”

This provision parallels that in the Act of Chapultepec and, although worded more in the form of a directive to the organ of consultation, it is clear in the obligation it lays upon the parties to consult to agree upon collective measures.

In order to insure perfect harmony between this portion of the treaty and the Charter of the United Nations, paragraph 4 of this article stipulates, in the language of article 51 of the Charter, that the measures, both individual and collective, may be taken "until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

This analysis of the two obligations laid upon the parties in the event of an armed attack and of the definition of the region within which the attack takes place may be found in briefer form in a statement issued by the United States delegation during the Conference and attached as a part of this report.1

Article 9 of the treaty contains two examples of aggression in terms of "unprovoked armed attack" and "invasion by the armed forces of

'Appendix three, part 1.