C. PROPOSALS FOR ACTION IN CASE OF Argentina A). Armed Attack: Paragraph 2 of the article attached as Annex 1 states that: "Without prejudice to other acts which might be characterized as aggression and which should be determined as such in each case by the Meeting for Consultation provided for in paragraph 1, invasion of the territory of a State by the armed forces of another State, trespassing the boundaries of the former which have been established by treaties or conventions and demarcated in accordance therewith, shall be considered as aggression." The case in the above-quoted paragraph 2 obviously falls within the category referred to in the section on "Armed Attack", with respect to which Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense". In conformity with the provisions of the aforesaid Article 51, paragraph 3 of the proposed article reads: "Whenever the case referred to in paragraph 2 requires the use of urgent measures to maintain or restore peace, such measures may be taken by the High Contracting Parties, which shall immediately furnish the Security Council with complete information thereon, without prejudice to the promotion of the consultations provided for in paragraph 1." In view of the fact that the United Nations Charter authorizes regional action without prior authorization only in the event of armed attack, the Argentine Delegation is of the opinion, that this type of aggression should be segregated from the other acts of aggression for which the Charter does not authorize regional action without previous consultation. As to the nature of the obligation, the article provides that whenever the case in view requires the use of emergency measures, they may be taken by the High Contracting Parties. The extent of the measures to be taken in this case will be determined by the seriousness of the situation, until the Meeting for Consultation specifically provides what measures it is advisable to take. B). Other Acts and Threats of Aggression: 1. Occasion for invoking the provisions: Paragraph 1 of the proposed article covers this heading in stating: "Every act of aggression or attack by a non-American State against the integrity or the inviolability of the territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American signatory State shall be considered as an act of aggression committed against the other States which sign this Treaty, and the High Contracting Parties undertake in such case to resort to the procedure of consultation established in the Inter-American System, for the purpose of agreeing upon the measures which it may be advisable to take." This paragraph coincides in general with the first sentence of paragraph 3 and with paragraph 4 of Part I of the Act of Chapultepec. That is, the provisions of the article will be invoked whenever there is an "act of aggression or attack by a non-American State against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American signatory State." It is considered inadvisable to maintain the distinction between "aggression" and "threat of aggression", because a "threat of aggression" would have to be based on subjective factors the judging of which may violate the principle of "non-intervention". This is not so in the case of "aggression", for that must be based on concrete, objective facts. With respect to the question as to whether the Treaty should contain comprehensive language generally similar to that of the Act of Chapultepec, or whether some particular specification of that language should also be included, such as reference to a conflict that might endanger continental peace, the Argentine Delegation does not consider the proposed inclusion advisable. With respect to the question as to whether there is a distinction between aggression by an American State and aggression by a nonAmerican State, the analyzed part of the Argentine proposal refers only to threats of aggression or attacks on the part of an extracontinental State. The Argentine Delegation holds the view that the settlement of disputes arising between American States should be governed by the methods of peaceful solution of the Inter-American Peace System, the principles of which should be stated in general terms in the preamble and articles of the Treaty. To proceed otherwise would be a departure from what is traditional in America, which has always settled its disputes without resort to measures of force and by invoking in each case the means of persuasion established in American Public International Law. Resolution XXXIX of the Chapultepec Final Act states that “the American Republics have repeatedly expressed their adherence to the ideals of peace and solidarity, proscribing the use of force in their relations and providing for the settlement by peaceful means of all differences arising between them", and in the same resolution they reaffirm "the principle of law that all international controversies should be settled by peaceful means." Application of enforcement measures to the American States themselves would mean a disruption of the existing solidarity and disregard of the peace-loving spirit which heretofore has made it possible to settle conflicts in the New World. On the other hand, the distinction made in excluding the application of any enforcement measure when an act of aggression is committed by an American State, is in accord with paragraph 2, Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which states: "The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council." It would suffice, the Argentine Delegation believes, for the High Contracting Parties to undertake in the Treaty: 1. Not to have recourse to force in their relations with other States; and 2. To settle disputes which may arise among them by the means of peaceful solution established in the Inter-American Peace System. These two points coincide with the ones stated in Chapter I “Principles and Procedures of Pacific Settlement" of the Report presented by the Committee appointed by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union 1 and fall within the competence of Committee I. Unless conflicts or controversies which may arise between American States are settled, solely and exclusively by the peaceful means indicated by the Inter-American Peace System, the essence of the solidarity of the countries concurring in the application of enforcement measures against a sister nation will be impaired. The Inter-American Peace System will be adequate to maintain domestic peace. America reveres the principle of non-recognition of territorial conquest by force, and the consultation system would assure every American State of the settlement of any question with another American State, with the guarantee of the remaining countries of the Continent that they would not hesitate, in a given case, to establish peace in America by every available means, just as they would not hesitate to take up arms to maintain the security of the Continent if any American State were attacked by an extracontinental power. This is the Argentine view on the distinction between continental and extracontinental aggression. Article (Annex 1) 1. Every act of aggression or attack by a non-American State against the integrity or the inviolability of the territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American signatory State shall be considered as an act of aggression committed against the other States which sign this Treaty, and the High Contracting Parties undertake in such case to resort to the procedure of consultation established in the Inter-American System, for the purpose of agreeing upon the measures which it may be advisable to take. 2. Without prejudice to other acts which might be characterized as aggression and which should be determined as such in each case by the Meeting for Consultation provided for in paragraph 1, invasion of the territory of a State by the armed forces of another State, trespassing the boundaries of the former which have been established by treaties or conventions and demarcated in accordance therewith, shall be considered as aggression. 3. Whenever the case referred to in paragraph 2 requires the use of urgent measures to maintain or restore peace, such measures may be taken by the High Contracting Parties, which shall immediately furnish the Security Council with complete information thereon, without prejudice to the promotion of the consultations provided for in paragraph 1. Article (Annex 2) In order to meet acts of aggression, the High Contracting Parties should coordinate among themselves, by means of the procedure of consultation, the application of any of the following measures: a) Recall of chiefs of Diplomatic Missions; b) The breaking of diplomatic relations; c) The breaking of consular relations; d) The breaking of postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and radiotelephonic relations; e) The interruption of economic, commercial, and financial relations; f) The use of armed force, solely to avoid or repel aggression. Bolivia I Article 3 Any controversy or situation, regardless of origin which may prejudice the General welfare or the friendly relations among the American Republics or might endanger the maintenance of Inter-American peace or security and which can not be resolved peacefully by direct negotiation shall be referred to the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union to the end that as a security agency it propose the procedures of investigation, conciliation, or mediation accepted in American juridical tradition and determine, whenever necessary, the precautionary measures which the American States should take together for the preservation of continental peace. The decisions which the Governing Board of the Pan American Union may adopt for the pacific settlements indicated in the preceding paragraph shall be taken by a simple majority of the countries present. In the event that the proposals and precautionary measures should fail, the subject matter of the controversy shall be submitted to the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Article 4 Any attempt by a state against the integrity or the inviolability of the territory or against sovereignty and political independence of an American State in non-compliance with the guarantees set forth in Article 2 shall be considered as an act of aggression against the other American States which solemnly obligate themselves to use all means, including force, to re-establish continental harmony, eliminating the factor of disturbance of peace and determining the collective action in conformity with the provisions of the following articles. Article 5 In the event of a threat of aggression or in the event that there are reasons to believe that aggression is being prepared by any State against the territory or the sovereignty of an American State, the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union, officially at the request of the interested State or of any American Republic, shall initiate consultation among the contracting States, with the exception of the parties to the dispute in order to agree upon the measures it may be desirable to take. Article 6 Among the measures which the Contracting States may apply in order to deal with threats of aggression against one or more of them |