Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Diplomatic Asylum pp 24–41Cite as

The Historical Development of Diplomatic Asylum in Latin America

  • Chapter

Abstract

The development of the practice of diplomatic asylum in Latin America seems to be less the result of a conscious application of European patterns than of the fact that history often shows the development of similar institutions as a product of human interaction confronted by similar circumstances in different times and different places. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in this case the very circumstances and antecedents which gave rise to the practice of diplomatic asylum in Latin America were in large part a product of Spanish culture which was transferred to the New World. Thus, Eduardo Anze Martienzo concludes that, in Latin America, Spain and Italy, religious asylum was defended the longest due to the intense struggle between the civil power and the power of the church. A case in point is the decree of Philip II which abolished the practice of asylum in all his possession but “which was shattered against the resistence of the people and the clergy. Thus it was possible for San Carlos Borromeo to maintain the ecclesiastical privileges against the Spanish government.” 1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. “Acotaciones sobre el derecho de asilo,” Pan-America: revista de derecho international americano, II (Buenos Aires: febrero de 1947), p. 21. See also Aviles Soriano, “El derecho de asilo, institution religiosa,” Informatión juridica, nums. 62-63 (Madrid: julio-agosto, 1948), pp. 31-35. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  2. “Aspectos históricos del derecho de asilo en Guatemala,” Revista de la asociación guatemalteca de derecho international, N. 1 (Guatemala, Centroamérica, enero de 1954), pp. 106-119.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Recopilación de leyes de Indias, Madrid, 1681, Libro I, titulo III, Ley II, ibid., 109. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Archivo Nacional de Guatemala, documento A. 1–28. I, 4669, ibid., pp. 116-117.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Domingo Cavalario, Instituciones de derecho canónico (Valencia: 1864), p. 241, paraphrase, ibid., 117. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Molino Orantes, op. cit., p. 117. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alejandro Maure, Bosquejo histórico de las revoluciones de Centro América (Paris: 1913), p. 159, cited ibid., pp. 177-188.

    Google Scholar 

  10. El derecho de asilo eclesiástico en el reino de Chile, Publicaciones de los Seminarios de la Facultad de Ciencias Juridicas y Sociales de la Universidad Católica de Chile (Santiago: [1925?]).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid., pp. 25-26. (Titles are my translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Colección de historiadores de la independencia de Chile, XIX, pp. 235-262, cited ibid., pp. 46-47.

    Google Scholar 

  13. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  14. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1934), pp. 502-503.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Buchanan, Secretary of State, to Shields, U. S. Chargé d’Affaires at Caracas, March 22, 1848, Wm. R. Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter-American Affairs, 1831–1860 (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1939), XII, p. 470.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Webster, Secretary of State, to Peyton, July 2, 1851, ibid., V, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cass, Secretary of State, to Bigler, U. S. Minister to Chile, June 1859, Moore, op. cit., p. 789.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See notes reprinted in Venezuela, Cuestión promovida a Venezuela por los agentes de Fraucia y de la Gran Bretaña and in Planas-Suárez, op. cit., pp. 399-500.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Levraud and Bingham, French and English Chargés d’Affaires in Venezuela, April 15, 1858, ibid., p. 405. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 412. (My italics.)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Toro, Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Relations, to Bingham and Levraud, April 30, 1858. ibid., pp. 465. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  23. “Translation of Protocol,” [January 29, 1867], For. Rel. of the U. S., 1867, II, p. 740.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., pp. 740, 741.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., pp. 741.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pacheco, Perúvian Minister of Foreign Relations, to the Perúvian Minister to Chile, July 23, 1866, Perú, Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores Correspondencia diplomática relativa a la cuestión sobre asilo, publicado por orden de S. E. el Jefe Supremo Provisorio para ser presentada al Congreso Constituyente (Lima: Imprenta del Estado por Enrique del Campo, 1867), p. 25. (My translation and italics.) Hereafter cited as Correspondencia diplomática relativa a la cuestión sobre asilo.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., pp. 25-26.

    Google Scholar 

  30. This note apparently was addressed to the Perúvian Foreign Office since it is published by the latter. It is signed by E. de Lesseps and came from the French Legation in Perú, see ibid., pp. 19-20. Although de Lesseps’ title is not given it appears that he was then French Chargé d’Affaires, see For. Rel. of the U. S., 1867, II, p. 740; Satow, op. cit., p. 303. The second quotation given here is a paraphrase of instructions received from the French Foreign Office.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Infra, ch. VI, On British practice see McNair, op. cit., pp. 74-75.

    Google Scholar 

  32. International Conference of American States, Sixth, 1928, Minutes and Reports of the Committees, Part I (Havana, 1928), various pagings. (Binder’s title.)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Only five governments replied; see Colombia, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, La opinión americana y el derecho de asilo (Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ponce, Minister of Foreign Relations of Ecuador, to Canessa, Minister of Foreign Relations of El Savador, December 8, 1950, ibid., p. 9. (My translation).

    Google Scholar 

  35. “Note sent to the Court by the Chancellery of Guatemala,” November 16, 1950, ibid., p. 12. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Canessa, Minister of Foreign Relations of El Salvador, to the International Court of Justice, November 17, 1950, ibid., p. 9. (My translation).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  38. “Statement Presented before the International Court of Justice by the Government of the Republic of Cuba,” February 15, 1951, in Perú, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Proceso sobre asilo entre el Perú y Colombia ante La Corte Internacional de Justicia, segunda parte (Lima, 1952), p. 70. (My translation.) Hereafter cited as Proceso, II.

    Google Scholar 

  39. “Memorandum,” July 30, 1946, in Chile, Memoria, 1946, p. 51. (My translation).

    Google Scholar 

  40. “Memorandum,” August 4, 1946, ibid., p. 52. (My translation).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  42. “Notes of the Argentine Ministry to the Foreign Diplomatic Representatives,” July 27, 1937, Argentine Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Project of Convention on the Right of Asylum (Buenos Aires, 1937), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Perú, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Proceso sobre asilo entre el Perú y Colombia ante la Corte International de Justicia: documentation pertinente al desarrollo del juicio sentencia del 20 de noviembre de 1950 (Lima, 1951), p. 256. (My translation.) Hereafter cited as Proceso.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid., pp. 78-199, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid., p. 147. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  46. General Assembly, 3d committee, Official Records, 3d sess., part I, 121st Meeting, December 3, 1948, p. 340.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid., 122d Meeting, December 4, 1948, p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Infra, ch. V.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Op. cit., p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See bibliography, ibid., p. 185, n. 2. See also C. G. Fenwick, The Inter-American Regional System (New York: The Declan X. McMullen Co., 1949), pp. 33-61.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Law and Society in the Relations of States (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1951), pp. 75-76.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Alejandro Alvarez, Después de la guerra (Buenos Aires, Imprenta de la Universidad, 1943), pp. 182–183. Translation provided in H.B. Jacobini, A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as seen in Works of Latin American Writers (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1954), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dissenting opinion by Judge Alvarez, Colombian-Perúvian Asylum Case, Judgment of November 20th, 1950; I. C. J. Reports 1950, p. 293. The Colombian Government argued in the Colombian-Perúvian Asylum Case that “American International Law, such as we conceive of it, is not contrary to universal international law. On the contrary, it is an extension and complement of the latter.” Perú, Proceso, p. 348. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Op. cit., I, p. 3. (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tratado de derecho international público en tiempo de paz (Buenos Aires: Juan Roldan y Cia., 1924), I. 256. Quoting F. de Holtzendorf, Introduction au droit des gens (My translation.)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid., pp. 256-260.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Op. cit., pp. 121-136.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid. In. support of the thesis that there exists an American International Law, see Alejandro Alvarez, Le droit international américain (Paris: A. Pedone, 1910), pp. 259-261; Alvarez, La reconstructión del derecho de gentes: el nuevo orden y la renovatión social (Santiago de Chile, 1944) and, by the same author, “Latin America and International Law,” A.J.I.L., III (1909), pp. 269-353. For a similar but cautious American view, see C. H. Fenwick, “The Juridical Nature of the Organization of American States,” Cursos Monográficos, IV, publication of the Academia Interamericana de Derecho Comparado y Internacional (La Habana, Cuba: Editorial Lex, 1954), pp. 255-261. For an excellent discussion of the development of rules governing inter-American intercourse, see C. G. Fenwick, The Inter-American Regional System (New York: the Declan X. McMullen Company, 1949), pp. 33-61. For a different view see V. Savelberg, Le problème du droit international américain, étudié spécialement à la lumière des conventions panaméricaines de La Havane (The Hague: Stols, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Perhaps it should be no more difficult to ascertain at what point a group of nations can no longer claim certain rules as applicable among themselves and in derogation of general international rules of law than it is to ascertain at what point a given practice has been accepted as legally binding by a sufficient number of states in order to term it a rule of law.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Op. cit., p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Colombian-Perúvian Asylum Case, Judgment of November 20th, 1950: International Court of Justice Reports 1950, p. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., pp. 276-277. (My italics.)

    Google Scholar 

  64. The Court does not appear to have been particularly concerned over the precise interpretation of Article 38, paragraph 1, clause b, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which provides that the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” In other words, can “international custom” mean “regional custom” and can “general practice accepted as law” mean “regional practice accepted as law.”? See Colombian-Perúvian Asylum Case, Judgment of November 20th, 1950: I. C. J. Reports 1950, pp. 276-277.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tulane University, New Orleans, USA

    C. Neale Ronning

Authors
  1. C. Neale Ronning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1965 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ronning, C.N. (1965). The Historical Development of Diplomatic Asylum in Latin America. In: Diplomatic Asylum. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9032-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9032-9_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8351-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9032-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation