a state," thus helping to define two situations which would bring the treaty into operation. The article states:

"In addition to other acts which the Organ of Consultation may characterize as aggression, the following shall be considered as such : "a. Unprovoked armed attack by a State against the territory, the people, or the land, sea, or air forces of another State;

"b. Invasion, by the armed forces of a State, of the territory of an American State, through the trespassing of boundaries demarcated in accordance with a treaty, judicial decision, or arbitral award, or, in the absence of frontiers thus demarcated, invasion affecting a region which is under the effective jurisdiction of another State."

This article was the result of a number of proposals seeking to define or characterize aggression and to provide special procedures whereby other acts of aggression were to be determined. And it will be recalled that the Act of Chapultepec contained an example along the lines of paragraph b.1

The United States delegation urged that no attempt should be made in the treaty to define aggression beyond the inclusion of the accepted example contained in the Act of Chapultepec, pointing out that, after exhaustive discussion at the San Francisco Conference, it was finally concluded that no definition should be contained in the United Nations Charter. The delegation argued that it was manifestly impossible to frame a complete definition, particularly at a time when the forms of aggression are less foreseeable than ever, and that to include some and exclude others would lessen the effectiveness of the treaty and give an advantage to would-be aggressors.

There was general agreement on including the reference from Chapultepec to invasion by armed forces. On the proposal of the delegation from Honduras, it was decided to expand that language to include invasion not only of boundaries demarcated by treaty, but all those set by judicial decision or arbitral award. It was subsequently agreed to add additional language referring to invasion "affecting a region which is under the effective jurisdiction of another state."

Although it was agreed that no comprehensive definition should be included, a majority of the delegations also favored the inclusion of the language which became paragraph a. This makes clear that the attack need not be against the territory of an American state, but might be directed against the people or the military forces of a state, wherever they might be. This language is considerably broader than

the Act of Chapultepec, since the latter referred only to attacks against "the integrity or inviolability of the territory" and to invasion by armed forces of "the territory" of an American state. The specific obligations in article 6 are discussed in the following section.

Action in the Event of Other Situations
Which May Endanger the Peace

Having thus provided for procedures to deal with an armed attack it then remained to determine what additional situations should be embraced within the treaty and to agree upon the action to deal with them. As the occasion for the operation of its provisions, the Act of Chapultepec stipulated the occurrence of "acts of aggression" or the existence of "reasons to believe that an aggression is being prepared by any other state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American State." Of the proposals submitted at the Conference, the United States included reference to "an act of aggression other than an armed attack." The drafts submitted by Brazil, Mexico, and Panama referred not only to "acts or threats of aggression," but also to a "conflict which may threaten or endanger the peace of the continent." The Argentine delegation expressed opposition to the use of the concept, "threat of aggression," on the ground that it would be "based on subjective factors the judgment on which might violate the principle of nonintervention."

The Uruguayan proposals originally submitted referred to an "attack" or a "threat of aggression" and added that "the violation of the essential rights of man or the departure from the democratic system shall require the joint and voluntary action of the countries of the continent." Revised proposals submitted by Uruguay to the Conference, while directed in large part to making compulsory pacific settlement methods for "any political, economic, or other situation which may lead the parties into a conflict," likewise provided for consultation in the case of "serious attempt" against the basic rights and freedoms of the individual. A somewhat similar proposal was vigorously urged at the Conference by the delegation of Guatemala, which proposed that the treaty be operative upon the occurrence of any fact or situation that might endanger the "democratic structure of the American continent." As so worded, the Guatemalan proposal did not receive suffi

cient votes to obtain the approval of the Conference. The Cuban delegation urged inclusion in the treaty of reference to "economic aggression" and proposed a specific amendment to make the treaty operative whenever "the political or economic independence of any American state is affected." The proposal failed of approval.

In view of the variety of proposals for specifying the situations other than an armed attack which would bring the treaty into operation, and in view of the fact that under existing inter-American practice the widest latitude is granted for bringing the procedure of consultation into operation, it was finally decided to employ very general language in setting out the occasions, other than an armed attack, for invoking the treaty. Consequently, the procedures and obligations in article 6 are declared to be operative whenever:

a. The inviolability or integrity of the territory;

b. the sovereignty; or

c. the political independence of any American State is affected by:

1. An act of aggression other than an armed attack;

2. An extracontinental or intracontinental conflict; or

3. Any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America.

The reference to "any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America" was considered by the framers to be sufficiently broad to include most if not all of the occasions specified in the various proposals as calling for consultation.

Under the article, the occurrence of these events brings into operation similar but differently worded obligations. In case aggression is committed, the parties shall meet in consultation "in order to agree on the measures which must be taken . . . to assist the victim of the aggression." In the case of an extracontinental conflict or of other situations that might endanger continental peace, the parties shall meet in consultation "in order to agree on . . the measures which should be taken for the common defense and for the maintenance of the peace and security of the Continent." [Emphasis added.] The delegation of Uruguay which proposed this distinction made clear in the discussion that it was intended in the case of aggression to make obligatory agreement on measures to aid the victim, thus approximating more closely the obligation for collective assistance imposed by article 3 in the event of an actual armed attack. This language is thus more precise than the corresponding language contained in the various proposals submitted to the Conference.

Specific Measures To Be Taken

Practically all of the proposals submitted included an enumeration of the specific measures to be agreed upon at the consultation.1 The enumeration in general followed that of the Act of Chapultepec, with the addition of a reference to "rights of passage" in the Brazilian and Panamanian drafts, a reference to the treatment of the party attacked as a non-belligerent in the Ecuadoran draft, to suspension of the right of participation in inter-American meetings in the revised Uruguayan proposals and of certain other minor alterations. As to the occasion for the employment of the measures, the original proposals of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Panama, the United States, and Uruguay referred to their use in the event of a threat of aggression. Those of Ecuador specified that the measures might be used in case of an act of aggression committed by an American state. The revised draft submitted to the Conference by the Uruguayan delegation restricted the measures there listed in the case of an armed attack. The revised United States proposals indicated that the measures might be used in case of either an armed attack or threat of aggression. All of the proposals, except those put forward by the United States to the Conference, listed the measures as permissive and not restrictive, indicating that the parties were free under the treaty to decide upon measures other than those specified. After considering these various projects the framers of the treaty agreed upon the following language which became article 8:

"For the purposes of this Treaty, the measures on which the Organ of Consultation may agree will comprise one or more of the following: recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions; breaking of diplomatic relations; breaking of consular relations; partial or complete interruption of economic relations or of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and radiotelephonic or radiotelegraphic communications; and use of armed force."

In effect this wording is a combination of the language of Chapultepec and that of article 41 of the United Nations Charter which contains the concept of "complete or partial interruption" of economic relations and communications, thus permitting greater flexibility in the severity of the measures decided upon.

The opening phrase, "For the purposes of this treaty," indicates

'Appendix two, part 1C.

that these measures may be decided upon in the event either of an armed attack or of any other situation which would bring the treaty into operation. The permissive character of the provision as originally drafted was changed to make it clear that the measures which may be agreed upon "will comprise one or more of the following."

Thus, in agreeing upon measures to be taken in a given situation under the treaty, the organ of consultation is, with one exception, required to select from those enumerated in article 8.

That exception is provided by the language of article 7 which refers to additional measures to be agreed upon in the event of an inter-American conflict. The article reads as follows:

"In the case of a conflict between two or more American States, without prejudice to the right of self-defense in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, the High Contracting Parties, meeting in consultation shall call upon the contending States to suspend hostilities and restore matters to the statu quo ante bellum, and shall take in addition all other necessary measures to reestablish or maintain inter-American peace and security and for the solution of the conflict by peaceful means. The rejection of the pacifying action will be considered in the determination of the aggressor and in the application of the measures which the consultative meeting may agree upon."

Its true scope requires some explanation. As set forth above, it was decided by the Conference that no distinction should be made in the principles or in the basic obligations of the treaty between an attack by one American state against another and an attack by a non-American state against an American state. It was felt, however, that in the case of an intra-American attack where both parties would be members of the regional arrangement, it might be possible to induce the cessation of hostilities by collective action, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a resort to armed force. This is the purpose and intent of article 7. It comes into play only in the event of "a conflict," that is to say when hostilities have broken out, and provides that when the republics meet in consultation the first collective measure on which they should agree is the issuance of a call to the parties to suspend hostilities. If the "pacifying action" fails, however, collective enforcement measures may be promptly applied. The article states that failure to heed the call "will be considered in the determination of the aggressor."

Article 7 likewise provided that in the event of an inter-American conflict the parties shall "take in addition all other necessary measures to reestablish or maintain inter-American peace and security