Suchergebnisse

to Part I -- I. Nature and Scope of the Problem -- II. The Historical Development of Diplomatic Asylum in Latin America -- III. Opinio Juris Sive Necessitatis and the Practice of Diplomatic Asylum -- IV. Establishing a Legal Basis through Multilateral Conventions and Treaties -- V. Diplomatic Asylum in Latin American Practice -- VI. United States Practice in Latin America -- VII. Asylum in Consulates -- To Part II -- VIII. Qualification of the Offence: Treaties -- IX. The problem of "Political" Offences -- X. Qualification of the Offence: Practice -- XI. Legal Norms and Political Reality -- Appendices -- Convention on Asylum, La Habana, 1928 -- Convention on Asylum, Montevideo, 1933 -- Convention on Asylum, Caracas, 1954 -- Summary of Cases cited by Colombia in the Colombian-Perúvian -- Asylum Case -- Summary of Cases to which the U.S. has been a Party Cited by Colombia in the Colombian Perúvian Asylum Case.

The growing frequency of conflicts in the Caribbean and Central America reveals some new and significant aspects of the old problem of intervention. Failure to recognize these new and significant aspects accounts for much of the confusion evident at the Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American States held at Santiago de Chile, in 1959.A number of strains have been placed upon the principle of nonintervention and it is important at the outset to note the forces behind them. Two developments which have been proceeding in opposite directions are basic here. The first of these is the mounting exactitude and breadth of the non-intervention doctrine itself. It has been applied to collective action as well as action by individual states; to indirect action such as diplomatic protests and economic pressure as well as to more direct action.