No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
This article suggests the existence of two rival solutions to the political problem of territorial possession and appropriation among states. If we take territorial control as the analytical starting point, it is possible to examine the evolution, over the last two centuries, of two divergent solutions to this issue. The nineteenth-century European response of supreme sovereignty within the context of a true community of states may be contrasted with that of the comity of republican American states sharing a moral vision and, more recently, US refinements of an aterritorial logic. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 may be understood as marking the resumption of the historical rivalry between these two logics and the widening of the application of US state practices and principles. Tracing the expansion of the American logic in this way helps to explain the greater focus among states on problems of economic production and distribution and the lesser focus on territorial appropriation.
Deux solutions rivales peuvent être avancées afin de tenter de résoudre le problème politique que pose la possession et l'appropriation du territoire. En prenant la maîtrise du territoire comme point de départ, on peut voir évoluer la rivalité de ces deux solutions au cours des deux derniers siècles. Le contraste apparaît entre, d'une part, la solution de l'Europe du 19e siècle, fondée sur la souveraineté suprême, dans le contexte d'une véritable communauté d'États et, d'autre part, la solution des États républicans américains, fondée sur une conception de la morale qui a évolué, dans ses raffinements récents, vers une logique a-territoriale. L'invasion de Panama en 1989 marque une résurgence de la rivalité historique entre ces deux logiques, ainsi que la mise en application plus poussée des principes et des pratiques des États américains. Poser en ces termes l'importance prise par la logique américaine aide à expliquer la priorité accordée par les États à la distribution et à la production économique plutôt qu'à l'appropriation du territoire.
1 See Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline (Boston: Allen and Unwin. 1985).Google Scholar
2 Recent examples include James, Alan, “The Realism of Realism: The State and the Study of International Relations,” Review of International Studies 15 (1989). 215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Keating, Tom, “The State and International Relations.” in Haglundand, David G.Hawes, Michael K., eds., World Politics: Power, Interdependence and Dependence (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1990), 16–37.Google Scholar
3 See Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Wight, Martin, Power Politics, ed. by Bull, Hedley and Holbraad, Carsten (2nd ed.; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985)Google Scholar.
4 Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations between States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 196.Google Scholar
5 Ibid., 189–90.
6 Ulmen, G. L., “American Imperialism and International Law: Carl Schmitt on the US in World Affairs,” Telos 72 (1987), 43–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Schwab, George, “Enemy or Foe: A Conflict of Modern Politics,” Telos 72 (1987), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Quoted in Ulmen, G. L., “Return of the Foe,” Telos 72 (1987), 189.Google Scholar
8 Ulmen, “American Imperialism,” 65.
9 Millett, Richard L., “The Aftermath of Intervention: Panama 1990,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 32 (1990), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Maechling, Charles Jr., “Washington's Illegal Invasion,” Foreign Policy 79 (1990), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Nanda, Ved P., “The Validity of United States Intervention in Panama under International Law,” American Journal of International Law 84 (1990), 494–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Farer, Tom J., “Panama: Beyond the Charter Paradigm,” American Journal of International Law 84 (1990), 503–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An opposing view appears in Anthony D'Amato, “The Invasion of Panama Was a Lawful Response to Tyranny,” American Journal of International Law 84 (1990), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 See the OAS, Permanent Council (OEA/Ser.G CP/INF.2940/90) January 2, 1990, (OEA/Ser.G CP/INF.2946/90) January 5. 1990 and (OEA/Ser.G CP/RES. 536 [802/90]) January 8, 1990.
12 Cited in Nanda, “The Validity,” 501.
13 OAS, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (OEA/Ser.F/II.21 Doc.24/89), June 2, 1989, 9.
14 OAS, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (OEA/Ser.F/II.21 Doc.61/89), August 29, 1989.
15 US, Department of State, Panama and the Canal Treaties: The Second Decade, Gist series (August 1990).
16 US, President, Executive Order, “Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Panama,” Federal Register 53, no. 70, April 12, 1988, 12134–12135.Google Scholar
17 US, President, “Proclamation 5779,” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1990)Google Scholar, Ronald Reagan, 1988, Book I, 373.
18 Lombard, Joseph C., “The Survival of Noriega: Lessons from the U.S. Sanctions Against Panama,” Stanford Journal of International Law 26 (1989), 278.Google Scholar
19 OAS, Permanent Council (OEA/Ser.G CP/INF.2876/89), September 8, 1989.
20 OAS, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (OEA/Ser.F/II.21 Doc.24/89), June 2, 1989, 12–13.
21 Lombard, “Survival of Noriega,” 272.
22 US, Congress, House, The Political Situation in Panama and Options for U.S. Policy, 1988: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 127, cited in ibid., 288.
23 Lombard, “Survival of Noriega,” 293.
24 Leich, Marian Nash, “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,” American Journal of International Law 84 (1990), 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Maechling, “Illegal Invasion,” 124.
26 Farer, “Beyond the Charter,” 514.
27 Ibid., 509.
28 US, Department of State, The OAS and the Crisis in Panama. Current Policy No. 1205 (August 1989).
29 US, Department of State, Panama: A Just Cause, Current Policy No. 1240 (1989).
30 US, Department of State, Human Rights Problems in a Democratic Hemisphere. Public Information Series (July 1990).
31 Alvarez, Alejandro, “Latin America and International Law,” American Journal of International Law 3(1909), 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also by the same author. “The New International Law,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 15 (1929), 35–51Google Scholar: “Le developpement du Droit des Gens dans le Nouveau-Monde,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 25(1939), 169–184Google Scholar; and Le Droit Internationale Nouveau (Paris: Pedone. 1959).Google Scholar
32 Ibid., 311–12
33 See de Aréchaga, Eduardo Jiménez, “Boundaries in Latin America: uti possidetis Doctrine,” Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 6, 45–49.Google Scholar
34 The borders agreed upon were those delimited by the previous viceroyalties. captaincies-general, audiencias, presidencias and provinces. The date selected for the application of the uti possidetis doctrine in Central America was 1821.
35 Dawson, Frank Griffith, “Contributions of Lesser Developed Nations to International Law: The Latin American Experience,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 13 (1981), 42.Google Scholar
36 Jacobini, H. B., A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as Seen in Works of Latin American Writers (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Ronning, C. Neale, Law and Politics in Inter-American Diplomacy (New York: Wiley, 1963), 3.Google Scholar
38 Alvarez, “Latin America,” 276.
39 Ibid., 284 and 287.
40 See Hummer, Waldemar, “Boundary Disputes in Latin America,” Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 6, 60–66.Google Scholar
41 The outstanding controversy over the Misiones region was resolved by an 1895 arbitral award of US President Cleveland.
42 US, Congress, House, The Ostend Conference, Executive Document No. 93, 33d Cong., 2d sess., 1854–1855, 131.
43 US, Department of State, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776–1949, Vol. 6Google Scholar, “Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce,” 879–80, by Bevans, Charles I. (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1971).Google Scholar
44 US, Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, Vol. 5Google Scholar, “New Granada: 1846,” 151–52, ed. by Miller, Hunter (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1937).Google Scholar
45 “New Granada: 1846,” 157.
46 US, Congress, The Ostend Conference, 131; see also Hill, Charles E., Leading American Treaties (New York: AMS Press, 1922), 317.Google Scholar
47 Ulmen, “American Imperialism,” 49–50 and 53–54.
48 Graham, Malbone W., American Diplomacy in the International Community (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1948), x.Google Scholar
49 Boyle, Francis A., “American Foreign Policy Toward International Law and Organizations: 1898–1917,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 6(1983), 294.Google Scholar
50 See Alvarez, Alejandro, The Monroe Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1924), 18–19Google Scholar, and Dawson, “Contributions of Lesser Developed Nations,” 48–54, for discussions of salient moments in Latin diplomacy.
51 Moore, John Bassett, The Principles of American Diplomacy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1905), 248.Google Scholar
52 Alvarez, Monroe Doctrine, 18.
53 See Hummer, “Boundary Disputes,” 62–66.
54 Calderon, F. Garcia, Latin America: Its Rise and Progress, trans, by Miall, Bernard (London, 1913), 290Google Scholar, quoted in Garner, James Wilford, American Foreign Policies (New York: New York University Press, 1928), 118.Google Scholar
55 The Latins have increasingly focussed on state rights in relation to developmental issues, but not without divergent views; see Dawson, “Contributions of Lesser Developed Nations,” 64–69, and Garcia-Amador, F. V., “Regional Cooperation and Organization: American States,” Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 6, 308–314.Google Scholar
56 Boyle, “American Foreign Policy,” 263–64.
57 Ibid., 266.
58 The Lansing Papers, II, 461–62, quoted in Graham, American Diplomacy. 166.
59 Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 12 (1929), Cmd. 3452, 10, quoted in Wilson, Robert Renbert, The International Law Standard in Treaties of the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60 Ulmen, “American Imperialism,” 60.
61 H. L. Stimson, The Far Eastern Crisis, 5–6, quoted in Graham, American Diplomacy, 232, n. 7.
62 See “Decline or Renewal: America's Role in the World,” Dialogue, no. 86 (1989), 30–52, for the views of leading scholars in this debate.
63 The views of Nau, Henry R., The Myth of America's Decline (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, reinforce the general sense here of American power and potential: its ideational bases have not been adequately articulated in the discipline.
64 Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “American Strategy after Bipolarity,” International Affairs 66 (1990), 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65 Gill, Stephen and Law, David, The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems and Policies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), 347–355.Google Scholar
66 Wilson, International Law Standard, 4.
67 Strange, Susan, “Cave! hie dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” International Organization 36 (1982), 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68 Graham, American Diplomacy, 74.
69 Ibid., 23.