ART. 3. The three mediating governments agree on their part to recognize the provisional government organized as provided by Article 1 of this protocol.1

h. RESOLUTION OF THE PAN AMERICAN UNION, MAY 6, 1914.2

"The official Pan American response to the mediatory efforts occurred in the meeting of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union on May 6, 1914. During that meeting Secretary of State Bryan, who as chairman ex officio was the representative of the United States on the board, expressed his appreciation of the tender of three of the Governments of the Union, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, for mediation on behalf of peace on this continent, to which the Brazilian ambassador, Senhor Domicio da Gama, replied in appropriate terms. At the conclusion of the remarks, Dr. Gonzalo S. Córdova, the minister from Ecuador, acting under instructions from his Government, introduced the following resolution, which was seconded by the other diplomats present, and approved by unanimous vote:

"The Pan American Union applauds and supports the mediation offered by the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, through the medium of their distinguished representatives, for the preservation of the peace of the American Continent."

The Mexican Senate in a short, secret session on July 11, 1914, expressed its approval of the protocol. Though the protocol did not require formal ratification, it was submitted to the Senate in order that the Executive might be guided by its opinion and advice. (New York Times, July 11, 1914.)

Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Vol. 38, page 853.

4. The Pan American Union and Neutrality.

a. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF PAN AMERICAN UNION, DECEMBER 8, 1914.1

The Governing Board of the Pan American Union declares:

1. That the magnitude of the present European war presents new problems of international law, the solution of which is of equal interest to the entire world.

2. That in the form in which the operations of the belligerents are developing, they redound to the injury of the neutrals.

3. That the principal cause for this result is that the respective rights of the belligerents and of the neutrals are not clearly defined, notwithstanding that such definition is demanded both by general convenience and by the spirit of justice, which doubtless animates the belligerents with respect to the interests of the neutrals.

4. That considerations of every character call for a definition of such rights as promptly as possible upon the principle that liberty of commerce should not be restricted beyond the point indispensable for military operations.

On these grounds the Governing Board of the Pan American. Union resolves:

I. A special commission of the same is hereby appointed to consist of nine members, of which the Secretary of State of the United States shall form part, acting as chairman thereof ex officio.

2. This commission shall study the problems presented by the present European war and shall submit to the Governing Board the suggestions it may deem of common interest. In the study of

At the meeting delegates from eight American Republics, most of them acting under specific instructions from their Governments, urged united action by the American nations to assert the necessity of newer and clearer definitions of neutral and belligerent rights, and to consider some of the burdens placed upon commerce by the European war. It was declared by some of the speakers that the complications between American and European states already resulting from the presence of belligerent warships in American waters had demonstrated anew the vital need of Pan American solidarity.

questions of technical character this commission will consult the Board of Jurists.1

3. Each Government may submit to the committee such plans or suggested resolutions as may be deemed convenient, on the different subjects that circumstances suggest.

b. STATEMENT OF THE VENEZUELAN MINISTER IN SUBMITTING VENEZUELA'S PROPOSITION TO THE SPECIAL NEUTRALITY COMMITTEE OF THE PAN AMERICAN UNION, JANUARY 7, 1915.

I am profoundly grateful for the invitation extended to me by the Special Committee of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union to present at this meeting the memorandum of Venezuela relative to the rights of neutrals.

I have already had the honor to deliver to each one of the members of the Committee, as well as to each of the diplomatic representatives of the neutral powers accredited to Washington, the statement of the reasons upon which the Venezuelan Government has based its suggestion to the neutral nations for the gathering of a special congress.

We all agree that the circumstances attending modern warfare demand, more sternly each day, new limitations of the rights of belligerents in order to safeguard the rights of neutrals, and that it is beyond discussion that over against the rights of belligerents, stand the rights of neutrals to prepare and organize an effective action for their own security.

This is the action proposed by Venezuela, in the shape of a Congress of Neutrals to define, in the light of modern warfare, the rights and duties of neutrals, and in time to submit their conclusions to a

The International Commission of Jurists exists under a convention signed at Third International American Conference on August 23, 1906, "for the purpose of preparing a draft of a code of private international law and one of public international law regulating the relations between the nations of America." The commission met and organized at Rio de Janeiro, June 26-July 20, 1912, since which time committees of delegates have been at work.

2

The committee was immediately appointed, to consist of the secretary of state of the United States, and the ambassadors from Brazil, Chile and Argentina; and the ministers from Uruguay, Peru, Ecuador and Honduras.

congress of all nations; these conclusions, after being unanimously accepted, as it is meet they should be, as a matter of justice and expediency, because the belligerent of to-day is the neutral of tomorrow, should be embodied definitely in international law.

The Venezuelan Government also believes that such a congress might establish a new duty, that of a union of neutrals in case of conflicts of the magnitude of the present, in order to protect their own interests: a duty the logical consequence of which would be a new right, that of mediating, which should of course be exercised with all such restrictions and limitations as would make it compatible with the respect due to the rights of belligerents. Thus we should, by a further step, come to the creation of a permanent body, which from the very beginning of a conflict would represent such union of neutrals, and in the exercise of its right to be heard might in the majority of cases avoid a rupture, and in any case might limit the extent, duration and range of hostilities.

The initiation of a congress of such a character should come from the American Republics, which, beside their traditional efforts for the success of international arbitration, enjoy the possession of absolute neutrality.

My Government, therefore, believes that your Committee is the one called upon to consider and prepare all questions relating to such congress.

Finally, the Government of Venezuela would be especially gratified, should the suggestion be adopted, that the initiative for the holding of such congress should come from the United States of America, because of the exceptional position it now holds in relation to both belligerents and neutrals, and as a fitting crown to the labors in which both President Wilson and Secretary of State Bryan have been engaged, with earnest and serene enthusiasm, in behalf of universal peace.

The suggestion of Venezuela is, in short, to embody, as soon as possible, in the law of nations, as finally defined and accepted by all nations, both the modifications that the present war has already indicated, and those that may be foreseen from its own evolution. The preparation of the program of such questions would devolve

upon the American nations which have initiated the idea of revising the rights and duties of neutrals. As to the calling of the congress, the proper time and place of meeting, as well as whether the gathering is to take place in one session or two, i.e., whether the neutrals only are to be invited first, and then the belligerents, or whether both belligerents and neutrals are to meet together, Venezuela proposes that this be left to the wise decision of the Government of the United States of America.

(1) Memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States of Venezuela concerning the Rights of Neutrals.

(TRANSLATION.)

In time of war the duties of neutrality are invoked at every stage. Neutrals themselves, in order to justify any action demanded or opposed by any of the belligerents, adduce the duties which their position as neutrals makes apparent to them. But, fundamentally, they have not only duties to perform: they also have rights which they may claim. Like every juridic situation, neutrality will engender correlative rights and duties. Modern internationalists, Richard Kleen in particular, have expounded the principle upon this point with such clarity that its remotest consequences can be foreseen and defined. In the light of pure doctrine, then, it seems that the rights of neutrals must be preserved in all their integrity, in order to be as sacred as those of belligerents. Nevertheless it is customarily admitted that neutrals, because international relationship obliges them not to limit the liberty of belligerents in operations of war, have to suffer not a diminution of their rights but a certain temporary modification in the exercise of their rights. This concept, by reason of its elasticity, seems not to accord with a criterion of strict justice. It is applicable to many cases in which neutrals suffer, not a momentary modification in the exercise of their rights, but an evident violation, more or less grave, of the rights themselves. Here are the two tendencies which, before war begins, struggle for predominance in international practice: on the one hand, the pretension that the rights of war suspend those of neutrals, that the interest of the belligerent prevails; on the other hand, the