1 Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, February, 1945, Handbook for the use of delegates. Prepared by the Pan-American Union. 1945 (pp. 207, mimeographed).

2 This topic was intrusted to the Third Commission (Alb. Lleras Camargo, Foreign Minister of Colombia, Chairman). See Acta Final, Pan American Union, 1945, pp. 127, mimeographed; and Final Act, P.A.U., Washington, 1945, pp. 121, printed.

3 Resolution IX, Final Act, pp. 44-48.

4 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 291 (January 21, 1945), p. 91.

5 The same, No. 290 (January 14, 1945), p. 61.

6 El Salvador, originally not invited, later joined the Conference, after her de facto Government had been recognized.

7 Sumner Welles, in his article of January 24,1945, speaks of “violating the Inter-American Agreement on Consultation and gravely weakening the PAU.” Walter B. Sharp says that the present procedure of calling Consultative Meetings “may, at the worst, result in maneuvres like the calling of the Mexico City Conference, outside of the jurisdiction of the Pan- American System, in order to exclude one or more American Republics“: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 3 (April, 1945), p. 452.

8 As provided by Resolution LIX (Final Act, pp. 107-108).

9 “The organs (of political coöperation) are not an integral part of the PAU, but go, so to speak, parallel with it“: Report of the Governing Board to the Lima Conference (Octaia Conferencia International Americana, Diario de Sesiones, Lima, 1939, pp. 129-132).

10 Report of the Director General on the Third Consultative Meeting, Washington, 1942, p. 20 and ff.

11 Rather unsuccessful attempts at a reorganization of the Inter-American peace machinery have been made since the Buenos Aires Conference of 1936.

12 Inter-American Agencies for the Codification, Unification and Uniformity of Law in the Americas, Washington, 1944 (pp. 23, mimeographed) and: General Report . . . on the Codification of International Law … , Washington, 1944 (34 pp., mimeographed). Handbook, pp. 53-56.

13 Charles G. Fenwick, “The Inter-American Juridical Committee at Rio de Janeiro,” in this Journal, Vol. 37 (1943), pp. 6-29, and: Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 294 (February 11, 1945), pp. 194-196; Carl B. Spaeth and William Sanders, “The Emergency Advisory Committee for Political Defense at Montevideo,” this Journal, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 218-241; Annual Report of (this) Committee, July, 1943, Montevideo (pp. 281, printed); Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 289 (January 7, 1945), pp. 3-10.

14 The International Conferences of American States, 1st Supplement, 1938-1940, Washington, 1940, Appendix A, pp. 381-452.

15 The same, Appendix B, pp. 453—494, but which contains also non-official organs; John P. Humphrey, The Inter-American System: A Canadian View, Toronto, 1942. See also brief but excellent book by Margaret Ball: The Problem of Inter-American Organization, Stanford, 1944. Handbook, pp. 42-43.

16 The proposal of Ullóa (Peru) for a partially new organization in the sense of a centralization of all non-political Inter-American organs in the PAU (Proceedings of the 8th American Scientific Congress, May 10-18, 1940, Washington, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 141-147. See further the proposals by the Executive Committee on Postwar Problems of the Governing Board: Pan American Postwar Organization. Washington, 1944 (pp. 71, printed). On pp. 31-71 of this publication is printed the Report and Project of March 6, 1944, on the Coordination of Inter-American Peace Agreements, made by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Ball, work cited; Handbook, pp. 44-68.

17 Such as the problem of a treaty basis, the problem of the entry of Canada (P. E. Corbett, in Inter-American Quarterly, Vol. I (1939), pp. 30-34), and in Foreign Affairs, Vol. XIX (1941), pp. 778-789; Reginald G. Trotter, in Inter-American Quarterly, Vol. II (1940), pp. 5-10 and in Queen's Quarterly, Vol. III (1941), pp. 5-13. Chapters I and IX of Humphrey's book, cited in note 15. See Resolution XXII of the Mexico City Conference (Final Act, pp. 64-65), which paid a tribute to Canada's war effort and expressed the wish of ever closer collaboration between Canada and Pan America. Finally the problem of the relations between Pan America and what may be called Pan-American subregionalism (Central Americanism, River Plate Regional Economic Conference, Montevideo, January 27 to February 6, 1941). At the 3rd International Conference of the Caribbean (Port-au-Prince, Haiti, April 22-29, 1941) the observers from the United States and Colombia objected to the plan for an “Inter-American Union of the Caribbean” on the ground that it would involve an unnecessary duplication of the work of the PAU and would set a bad example to other regional groups which might lead to the fragmentation of Pan Americanism P. Whitaker, Inter-American Affairs, 1941, New York, 1942, p. 59). 18 See the proposals of Aréalo (Ecuador) in 1906 (Tercera Conferencia International Americana, Rio de Janeiro, 1907, pp. 166-172); proposals by Alvarado Quirós (Costa Rica) in 1923 (Quinta Conferencia International Americana, Adas de la Sesiones Plenarias, Santiago, 1923, Vol. I, pp. 484-492); the proposals of a Nicaraguan delegate in 1926 to transfer the PAU to Panama (Congreso Pan Americano Conmemoraiivo del de Bolivar, Panama, 1297, pp. 208-211) and the Mexican proposals at the 6th Conference at Havana (1928) (Diario, pp. 194-5).

19 Report of the Delegates of the U. S. to the 5th International Conference of American States, Washington, 1924, p. 3 and ff.

20 Dana G. Munro in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 301 (April 1,1945), p. 528.

21 Resolution VIII (Fined Act, pp. 40-44).

22 Dana G. Munro, as cited, p. 526.

23 Final Act, pp. 36-37.

24 Same, pp. 83-85.

25 Same, pp. 54-55 and 89-90.

26 Same, pp. 66-68.

27 Same, pp. 78-79.

28 See Resolution IX, point 9, 2nd paragraph. Executive Committee on Post-War Problems of the Governing Board, The Basic Principles of the Inter-American System, Washington, 1943 (pp. 40, printed).