Abstract
Latin America has traditionally been absent from larger narratives about the history of international humanitarian law and its role in the formation of key instruments such as the Geneva Conventions has been limited. This contrasts with the region’s more successful attempts at influencing the regulation of war from the point of view of the jus ad bellum. In order to explain this dichotomy, this chapter foregrounds Latin America’s experience with the laws of war in the late 19th and early 20th century, focusing on the work of scholars, jurists and diplomats who contested the dominant von Clausewitz-inspired Western-centred paradigms of the time. It explains Latin America’s absence through a process of progressive disenchantment with the laws of war, coupled to its well-known strong defence of absolute non-intervention in international law. The chapter concludes that Latin America’s relative absence from the history of modern international humanitarian law should be properly contextualised, not as a story of disinterest, but as an effort to protect itself from war altogether rather than humanising it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Many of the sources analysed to write this chapter were originally in Spanish and French. I have translated them to English for ease of reading. All translations are my own. Whenever I felt that a specific translation required clarification, I have added the original language in brackets.
- 2.
- 3.
Ruda, for instance, argues that “[a]n analysis of Latin-American legal doctrine in the nineteenth century reveals great interest in the development of humanitarian law”, while lamenting that it was “not until the early twentieth century” that Latin America started to be invited international conferences. Despite this interest, he paradoxically admits that “few Latin American delegations played an active part” in the negotiations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Rodiles, for his part, admits that prior to World War II, Latin America’s involvement in international humanitarian law conferences “was a rather modest one”, focusing instead in Latin America’s 20th century accomplishments. His account of post-World-War-II landmarks, however, completely skips the Geneva Conference of 1949, and readily admits that the region’s practice “does not translate easily into a Latin American ‘block’ in international humanitarian law-making”. See: Ruda 1988, p. 52 and Rodiles 2021, p. 228.
- 4.
See: van Dijk 2022, p. 20.
- 5.
It should be noted that these findings apply solely to inter-state war and that a comprehensive study of Latin America’s historical approach to intra-state conflict is beyond the scope of this chapter.
- 6.
Solis 2021, p. 34.
- 7.
Ibid., p. 38.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Fleck 2021.
- 10.
Ibid., p. 30.
- 11.
- 12.
Solis 2021, p. 41.
- 13.
Henckaerts 2020, p. 4.
- 14.
Meron 2000, p. 243.
- 15.
Ruda 1988, p. 45.
- 16.
Conférence de Bruxelles 1874, p. 67.
- 17.
Ibid., p. 69.
- 18.
Yepes 1930, p. 740.
- 19.
Ruda 1988, p. 44.
- 20.
Moyn 2021, p. 105.
- 21.
Witt 2013, p. 181.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
Lieber 1863, Article 29.
- 24.
Kalmanovitz 2020, p. 134.
- 25.
Moyn 2021, p. 29.
- 26.
Kinsella 2011, p. 87.
- 27.
Ibid., p. 86.
- 28.
Lieber 1863, Article 156.
- 29.
Conférence de Bruxelles 1874, p. 40.
- 30.
Ibid., pp. 40–41.
- 31.
Ibid., p. 41.
- 32.
Ibid., p. 41.
- 33.
Ibid., p. 273.
- 34.
Scott 1920, p. 343.
- 35.
Mégret 2006, p. 286.
- 36.
Wagner 2018, p. 231.
- 37.
Ibid., p. 103.
- 38.
Benvenisti and Lustig 2020, p. 1.
- 39.
Benvenisti and Lustig 2017, p. 19.
- 40.
van Dijk 2019, p. 23.
- 41.
Rodiles 2021, p. 286.
- 42.
Obregón 2006a, p. 815.
- 43.
Ibid., p. 817.
- 44.
Yepes 1930, p. 700.
- 45.
Kohen 2001, p. 59.
- 46.
Ibid., p. 77.
- 47.
See Survival International’s profile of the Yanomami here: https://www.survival.es/indigenas/yanomami. Accessed 22 March 2022.
- 48.
See, e.g.: Pérez Godoy 2019.
- 49.
Ibid., p. 496.
- 50.
Calvo 1868, pp. 186–187.
- 51.
See, generally: Fernandes Carvalho 2020, p. 74.
- 52.
See, generally: Espinosa de Rivero 2009, p. 123.
- 53.
Obregón 2006b, p. 257.
- 54.
Obregón 2006a, p. 815.
- 55.
Pérez Godoy 2019, p. 500.
- 56.
McEvoy 2012, p. 78.
- 57.
Ibid., p. 78.
- 58.
Pérez Godoy 2019, p. 501.
- 59.
Republic of Chile 1879.
- 60.
Paz Soldán 1884, p. 132.
- 61.
Vargas Cariola and Silva Vargas 2019.
- 62.
- 63.
Paz Soldán 1884, p. 144.
- 64.
Vargas Cariola and Silva Vargas 2019.
- 65.
Ibid.
- 66.
Williams Rebolledo 1882, p. 30.
- 67.
Letter of 28 January 1880 from Rafael Sotomayor to the Minister of War, quoted by Vicuña Mackenna 1881, p. 276.
- 68.
Ibid., p. 276.
- 69.
Ibid., p. 277.
- 70.
Letter of 3 February 1880 from the War Minister to Rafael Sotomayor, quoted by Vicuña Mackenna 1881, p. 276.
- 71.
Pérez Godoy 2019, p. 504.
- 72.
Paz Soldán 1884, p. 146.
- 73.
Ibid., pp. 146–147.
- 74.
Leguizamon 1881.
- 75.
Ibid., p. 1.
- 76.
Ibid., p. 8. Curiously, though, at the same time as he sternly rejects the “sharp wars” paradigm, Leguizamón equally praises the Lieber Code, calling it the body of laws that “encapsulates the most liberal and humanitarian principles that any civilised nation can observe in its wars, be them foreign or civil”.
- 77.
Ibid., p. 9.
- 78.
- 79.
See: Rubilar Luengo 2015, p. 83.
- 80.
Pérez Godoy 2019, 504–505.
- 81.
Barros Van Buren 1970, p. 481.
- 82.
See, generally: Greenman 2021.
- 83.
Letter of 23 June 1884 from Francis Pakenham to Phillip W. Currie, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the UK Foreign Office, UK National Archives (hereinafter, TNA), FO 16/227.
- 84.
Letter of 14 September 1884 from Francis Pakenham to George Leveson Gower, Earl Granville, UK Foreign Secretary, TNA, FO 16/227.
- 85.
Cavani Rosas 2014, p. 291.
- 86.
de Carvalho 1908, p. 174.
- 87.
Barão de Vasconcellos and Barão Smith de Vasconcellos 1918, p. 259.
- 88.
O Diario Novo (24 November 1848), Year VII, No. 256.
- 89.
Tribunal Arbitral Anglo-Chileno 1888, p. 40.
- 90.
Letter of 9 January 1885 from Francis Pakenham to Phillip W. Currie, TNA, FO 16/236. Pakenham says that Lopes Netto “persists in drawing [the awards] up himself” and that “an effort of mine to assist in this direction while he was ill was very coldly received”.
- 91.
Tribunal Arbitral Ítalo-Chileno 1891, p. 49.
- 92.
Ibid., p. 50.
- 93.
Ibid., p. 49.
- 94.
Ibid., p. 50.
- 95.
Ibid., p. 51.
- 96.
Letter of 12 December 1884 from Francis Pakenham to Phillip W. Currie, TNA, FO 16/228.
- 97.
Ibid.
- 98.
Letter of 11 December 1884 from Francis Pakenham to Earl Grainville, TNA, FO 16/228.
- 99.
Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores de Chile 1884, p. 2067.
- 100.
Ibid., p. 2070.
- 101.
Ibid., p. 2070.
- 102.
Mixed Commission on British and American Claims 1873.
- 103.
Moore 1898, p. 3702. It should be noted that Lopes Netto does not distinguish these cases from the Cuneo case with any rigour. His decision simply states that cases before the Anglo-American Commission could not be invoked before the Italo-Chilean Mixed Commission because those bombardments had been “justified by absolute military necessities” and cannot sustain any “analogies” to the bombardment of Pisagua. See: Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores de Chile 1884, p. 2068.
- 104.
See for example the words of renowned contemporaneous publicist Henry Wheaton recalling the 1854 bombardment of Greytown (modern-day San Juan, Nicaragua) by the United States by saying that “the rule was adopted by the United States, and acquiesced in by the British and French governments, that if a person takes up residence in a foreign place, and his property suffers there by reason of belligerent acts committed against that place by another foreign nation, he cannot have remuneration from the latter nation by the intervention of his own sovereign”. Wheaton 1866, p. 145.
- 105.
Lieber 1863, Article 16.
- 106.
Ibid., Article 15.
- 107.
Barros Van Buren 1970, p. 483.
- 108.
See: Session of 25 May 1885. House of Representatives of the Empire of Brazil 1885, p. 78. According to Deputado Andrade Figueira, the Chilean press referred to Brazilians as “monkeys”.
- 109.
Decimus Magnus Ausonius 1885, p. 21.
- 110.
Jornal do Recife (28 January 1885) Year XXVIII, No. 22.
- 111.
The session’s transcript is not available from Chilean sources, but the key sections were transcribed during a similar hearing in the Brazilian Parliament. See: House of Representatives of the Empire of Brazil 1885, p. 78.
- 112.
Ibid., p. 78.
- 113.
Diario de Pernambuco (30 January 1885) Year LXI, No. 24.
- 114.
The exchange was chronicled in: Decimus Magnus Ausonius 1885, p. 20.
- 115.
Letter of 9 January 1885, from Francis Pakenham to Earl Grainville, TNA, FO 16/236.
- 116.
Ibid.
- 117.
Gazeta de Noticias (Rio de Janeiro) (18 January 1885), Year XI, No. 18.
- 118.
Ibid.
- 119.
Letter of 19 February 1885 from Francis Pakenham to Earl Granville, TNA, FO 16/236.
- 120.
Letter of 10 July 1885 from Francis Pakenham to Earl Granville, TNA, FO 16/236.
- 121.
According to the transcript of a Brazilian Parliament meeting, Lopes Netto requests a license to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 February. This is reported by Pakenham to London on the next day, and eventually notified to the Anglo-Italian Commission on 7 February. See House of Representatives of the Empire of Brazil 1885, p. 70. See also Letter of 2 February 1885 from Francis Pakenham to Earl Granville, TNA, FO 16/236.
- 122.
Villalobos 2002, p. 260.
- 123.
Barros Van Buren 1970, p. 482.
- 124.
- 125.
Ruda 1988, p. 45.
- 126.
Rodiles 2021, pp. 277–278.
- 127.
Ibid., p. 291.
- 128.
Vauthier de Macedo and Ramos Araújo 2020, p. 289.
- 129.
Becker Lorca 2015, p. 159.
- 130.
Vauthier de Macedo and Ramos Araújo 2020, p. 284.
- 131.
Rodiles 2021, pp. 287–291.
- 132.
Ruda 1988, p. 52.
- 133.
van Dijk 2022, p. 20.
- 134.
Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Cuba Embodying Provisions Defining Their Future Relations as Contained in the Act of Congress Approved March 2, 1901, opened for signature 22 May 1903, Bevans TS 437, entered into force 1 July 1904 (US-Cuba Treaty of Relations), Article III.
- 135.
Scarfi 2013, p. 81.
- 136.
Rinke 2017, p. 208.
- 137.
Ibid., pp. 215 and 218.
- 138.
Ibid., p. 219.
- 139.
Ibid., p. 222.
- 140.
Ibid., p. 223.
- 141.
Vauthier de Macedo and Ramos Araújo 2020, p. 282.
- 142.
Barbosa 1951.
- 143.
Ibid., p. 50.
- 144.
Ibid.
- 145.
Ibid., pp. 51 and 70.
- 146.
Ibid., p. 53.
- 147.
Ibid., p. 55.
- 148.
Barbosa 1988, p. 59.
- 149.
- 150.
While the inter-war period also saw a process of European disenchantment with war and the emergence of an active peace movement, even leading to the adoption of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, this disenchantment did not survive beyond World War II. As van Dijk notes, by 1949, at the negotiations of the Geneva Conference, the European powers were once again “preparing for war”. See: van Dijk 2022.
- 151.
See, generally: Scarfi 2017.
- 152.
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, opened for signature 26 December 1933, League of Nations Treaty Series Vol. CLXV, No. 3801–3824 (Montevideo Convention), p. 19.
- 153.
See the original Dumbarton Oaks proposal: United States Department of State 1945.
- 154.
Minutes of the Third Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments (Part I), Held at San Francisco, Saturday, 12 May 1945, 2:30 p.m., RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99.
- 155.
Ibid.
- 156.
As noted earlier, this conclusion applies to inter-state war only. In the context of intra-state violence, Latin America has a long history of ignoring, even manipulating, international humanitarian law in the fight against non-state actors. For example, see: Fernandez Carter 2021, p. 36 and Gurmendi Dunkelberg 2020, p. 1. A study of Latin America’s history with internal conflict, however, is beyond the scope of this chapter.
- 157.
Moorehead 2018.
- 158.
See e.g. Mexico’s proposal for an Arria Formula on the use of force against non-state actors or Brazil’s proposal of “responsibility while protecting” (see: Tuffi Saliba et al. 2015, p. 32).
- 159.
van Dijk 2019, p. 23.
References
Articles, Books and Other Documents
Ausonius DM (1885) El Arbitraje: Tribunal Internacional Chileno y ‘La Nacion’ Periódico de Buenos Aires. La Famiglia Italiana, Buenos Aires.
Barbosa R (1951) Conceptos Modernos del Derecho Internacional. In: Jacobina Lacombe A (ed) Obras Completas de Rui Barbosa, Vol. XLIII. Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa – Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro.
Barbosa R (1988) Revogação Da Neutralidade Do Brasil. In: Jacobina Lacombe A (ed) Obras Completas de Rui Barbosa, Vol. XLIV. Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa – Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro.
Becker Lorca A (2015) Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Benvenisti E, Lustig D (2017) Taming Democracy: Codifying the Laws of War to Restore the European Order, 1856–1874. SSRN Electronic Journal http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2985781. Accessed 27 April 2021.
Benvenisti E, Lustig D (2020) Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874. European Journal of International Law 31:127.
Calvo C (1868) Derecho Internacional Teórico y Práctico de Europa y América. D’Amyot Librairie Diplomatique, Paris.
Carnahan BM (1998) Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity. The American Journal of International Law 92:213.
Cavani Rosas S (2014) Da ‘Constituinte Soberana’ a ‘Conciliação Política sobre as Bases das Reformas’: O Partido Liberal em Pernambuco e o Gabinete Paraná de 1853. Revista de História 170: 291–316.
Conférence de Bruxelles (1874) Actes de la Conférence de Bruxelles. L’Académie Royale de Belgique, Brussels.
Connolly C (2017) ‘Necessity Knows No Law’: The Resurrection of Kriegsraison through the US Targeted Killing Programme. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 22: 463–496.
de Carvalho A (1908) Annaes da imprensa periodica pernambucana de 1821–1908. Typographia do Jornal do Recife, Recife.
De Vasconcellos R, Smith de Vasconcellos J (1918) Archivo nobiliarchico brasileiro. Imprimerie La Concorde, Lausanne.
Espinosa de Rivero O (2009) ¿Salvajes Opuestos al Progreso?: Aproximaciones Históricas y Antropológicas a las Movilizaciones Indígenas en la Amazonía Peruana. Anthropologica 27: 123–168.
Fernandes Carvalho F (2020) Resisting Intervention through Sovereign Debt: A Redescription of the Drago Doctrine. TWAIL Review 1:74.
Fernandez Carter C (2021) La Aplicación de los Convenios de Ginebra en Ausencia de un Conflicto Armado: El Caso de la Dictadura Militar Chilena. Ius et Veritas 63:36–58.
Fleck D (2021) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Greenman K (2021) State Responsibility and Rebels: The History and Legacy of Protecting Investment Against Revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gurmendi Dunkelberg A (2020) ‘Si Vis Pacem’: La Aplicación del Derecho Internacional Humanitario en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Peruano. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional 7:1–32.
Haque A (2017) Law and Morality at War. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Henckaerts JM (2020) History and Sources. In: Saul B, Akande D (eds) The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hill-Cawthorne L (2014) The Role of Necessity in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law. Israel Law Review 47: 225–251.
Horton S (2006) Kriegsraison or Military Necessity? The Bush Administration’s Wilhelmine Attitude Towards the Conduct of War. Fordham International Law Journal 30(3) 576–598.
House of Representatives of the Empire of Brazil (1885) Annaes, Volume 1. Tipographia do Imperial Instituto Artístico, Rio de Janeiro.
Hull IV (2005) Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Institute of International Law (1880) Oxford Manual on the Laws of War on Land. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kalmanovitz P (2020) The Laws of War in International Thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kinsella HM (2011) The Image before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Kohen MG (2001) La Contribución de América Latina al Desarrollo Progresivo del Derecho Internacional en Materia Territorial. Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional XVII: 57–77.
Lieber F (1863) Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field: General Orders No. 100. Adjutant General’s Office, Washington.
Leguizamón M (1881) Las Leyes de la Guerra Continental: Manual Publicado por el Instituto de Derecho Internacional y Sometido á la Aprobación de Todos los Gobiernos. Imprenta de Pablo E. Coni, Buenos Aires.
Mantilla G (2020) Lawmaking Under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
McEvoy C (2012) Civilización, masculinidad y superioridad racial: una aproximación al discurso republicano chileno durante la Guerra del Pacífico (1879–1884). Revista de Sociologia e Política 20(42): 73–92.
Mégret F (2006) From “Savages” to “Unlawful Combatants”: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s “Other”’. International Law and its Others. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Meron T (2000) The Humanization of Humanitarian Law. The American Journal of International Law 94: 239–278.
Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores de Chile (1884) Reclamo Arbitral Ítalo-Chileno, Num. 4. Diario Oficial de la República de Chile 112: 2067.
Mixed Commission on British and American Claims (1873) British and American Claims: British Claims No. 1 to 478 Memorials, Demurrers, Briefs, and Decisions. Mixed Commission on British and American Claims, Washington DC.
Moore JB (1898) History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party: Together with Appendices Containing the Treaties Relating to Such Arbitrations, and Historical Legal Notes. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Moorehead A (2018) Brazil’s Robust Defense of the Legal Prohibition on the Use of Force and Self Defense. Just Security https://www.justsecurity.org/55126/brazils-robust-defense-legal-prohibition-force/. Accessed 22 March 2022.
Moyn S (2021) Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Obregón L (2006a) Between Civilisation and Barbarism: Creole Interventions in International Law. Third World Quarterly 27: 815.
Obregón L (2006b) Completing Civilization: Creole Consciousness and International Law in Nineteenth-Century Latin America. In: Orford A (ed) International Law and its Others. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Paz Soldán MF (1884) Narración Histórica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia. Imprenta y Librería de Mayo, Buenos Aires.
Pérez Godoy F (2019) The Co-Creation of Imperial Logic in South American Legal History. Journal of the History of International Law 21: 485–517.
Rebolledo JW (1882) Operaciones de La Escuadra Chilena Mientras Estuvo a Las Órdenes Del Contra-Almirante Williams Rebolledo. Imprenta del Progreso, Santiago.
República de Chile (1879) El Derecho de La Guerra Según Los Últimos Progresos de La Civilización. Imprenta Nacional, Santiago.
Rinke S (2017) Latin America and the First World War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodiles A (2021) International Humanitarian Lawmaking in Latin America: Between the International Community, Humanity, and Extreme Violence. In: Krieger H (ed) Legitimacy and Law-Making in International Humanitarian Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rubilar Luengo M (2015) “La Prusia Americana”: Prensa Argentina e Imaginario Internacional de Chile Durante la Guerra del Pacífico (1879–1881). Revista de Historia y Geografía 33: 83–122.
Ruda JM (1988) The Latin American Concept of Humanitarian Law. In: International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law. Henri Dunant Institute/UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff.
Scarfi JP (2013) La Emergencia de un Imaginario Latinoamericanista y Antiestadounidense del Orden Hemisférico: de la Unión Panamericana a la Unión Latinoamericana (1880–1913). Revista Complutense de Historia de América 39:81.
Scarfi JP (2017) The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Scott JB (1920) The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences. Oxford University Press, New York.
Solis GD (2021) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tribunal Arbitral Anglo-Chileno (1888) Sentencias Pronunciadas por el Tribunal Anglo-Chileno en las Reclamaciones Deducidas por Súbditos Ingleses contra el Gobierno de Chile, 1884–1887. Imprenta Nacional, Santiago.
Tribunal Arbitral Ítalo-Chileno (1891) Sentencias Pronunciadas por el Tribunal Ítalo-Chileno en las Reclamaciones Deducidas por Súbditos Italianos contra el Gobierno de Chile, 1884–1888. Imprenta nacional, Santiago.
Tuffi Saliba A, Belém Lopez D, Vieira P (2015) Brazil’s Rendition of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine: Promising or Stillborn Diplomatic Proposal? Brasiliana: Journal for Brazilian Studies 3:32.
United States Department of State (1945) The United Nations Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for a General International Organization. Publication 2297, Conference Series 66:1.
Van Buren MB (1970) Historia diplomática de Chile (1541–1938). Andres Bello, Santiago.
Van Dijk B (2019) ‘The Great Humanitarian’: The Soviet Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Law and History Review 37: 209–235.
Van Dijk B (2022) Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Vargas Cariola JE, Silva Vargas F (2019) Historia de la República de Chile: La Búsqueda de un Orden Republicano 1826–1881, Volumen 2, Segunda Parte. Ediciones UC, Santiago.
Vauthier de Macedo PE, Ramos Araújo BM (2020) A Man against a War: Rui Barbosa and the Struggle against a Thought. Journal of the History of International Law 23:284.
Vicuña Mackenna B (1880) Historia de La Campaña de Tarapacá: Desde La Ocupación de Antofagasta Hasta La Proclamación de La Dictadura En El Perú, Volumen 1. Rafael Jover, Santiago.
Vicuña Mackenna B (1881) Historia de La Campaña de Tacna y Arica, 1879–1880. Rafael Jover, Santiago.
Villalobos S (2002) Chile y Perú: la historia que nos une y nos separa, 1535–1883. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago.
Wagner KA (2018) Savage Warfare: Violence and the Rule of Colonial Difference in Early British Counterinsurgency. History Workshop Journal 85: 217–237.
Wheaton H (1866) Elements of International Law. Sampson Low, Son, and Company, London.
Witt JF (2013) Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History. Free Press, New York.
Yepes JM (1930) La Contribution de l’Amérique Latine Au Développement Du Droit International Public et Privé. In: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Brill, The Hague.
Treaties
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, opened for signature 26 December 1933, League of Nations Treaty Series Vol. CLXV, No. 3801–3824 (Montevideo Convention). p 19.
Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Cuba Embodying Provisions Defining Their Future Relations as Contained in the Act of Congress Approved March 2, 1901, signed 22 May 1903 (US-Cuba Treaty of Relations).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gurmendi Dunkelberg, A. (2023). Des-Encanto: Latin America and International Humanitarian Law. In: Krieger, H., Kalmanovitz, P., Lieblich, E., Mignot-Mahdavi, R. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 24 (2021). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-558-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-559-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)