"In the Name of the Americas: The Pan-American Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine and the Emerging Language of American International Law in the Western Hemisphere, 1898-1933,” Diplomatic History 40, No. 2 (2016): 189-218. (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of International Law
This article explores three important dimensions of the work and trajectory of Camilo Barcia Trelles: his understanding of the Monroe Doctrine; his vision and contribution to the debates in Latin America and the United States over intervention and the codification of American international law; and how his own understanding of the intellectual legacy of Francisco de Vitoria shaped his views and approaches to these topics. The article argues that Barcia Trelles provided a Spanish Americanist version of international law in the Americas, according to which, following the Spanish conquest of America and Vitoria’s important contribution to international law, a irreversible division began to emerge between the two Americas, that is, the Latin American and US traditions of international law, especially since the US Declaration of Independence, the collapse of the Spanish Monarchy and the independence of the Spanish American republics.
Call for papers The Monroe Doctrine: History, Interpretations, Legacy
December 2nd, 2023, will mark the bicentenary of President James Monroe’s famous State of the Union to the U.S. Congress. Out of the 6500 words of his full address, two sentences are remembered as the Monroe Doctrine: « no future colonization by any European power » in the American continents and « not to interfere in the internal concerns » of any other countries
Santiago Perez Triana (1898-1916) and the Pan-Americanization of the Monroe Doctrine
Historia y Sociedad, 2018
Abstract | In recent years, historians have focused on efforts at the turn of the 20th century by Alejandro Álvarez, Luis María Drago, and Baltasar Brum (all Southern Cone diplomats) to foster continental cooperation by Pan-Americanizing the Monroe Doctrine. Overlooked in this endeavor are the remarkable activities of Colombian author, journalist, and diplomat, Santiago Pérez Triana. Using primary and secondary sources, this article analyzes Pérez Triana’s support of the Drago Doctrine at the 1907 Hague Convention, his speeches at the Pan-American Financial Conference in 1915, and his essays published in Hispania, a journal that he edited between 1912 and 1916, to show how he won the respect of American and European diplomats by emerging as an influential spokesman for Pan-Americanizing the Monroe Doctrine and for hemispheric unity. Resumen | En los últimos años, los historiadores se han concentrado en los esfuerzos realizados a comienzos del siglo XX por Alejandro Álvarez, Luis María Drago y Baltasar Brum (todos diplomáticos del Cono Sur) para fomentar la cooperación continental mediante la panamericanización de la Doctrina Monroe. Se han pasado por alto en este esfuerzo las notables actividades del autor, periodista y diplomático colombiano, Santiago Pérez Triana. Utilizando fuentes primarias y secundarias, este artículo analiza el apoyo de Pérez Triana a la Doctrina Drago en la Convención de la Haya de 1907, sus discursos en la Conferencia Financiera Panamericana de 1915 y sus ensayos publicados en Hispania —revista editada por él mismo entre 1912 y 1916— para mostrar cómo él ganó el respeto de los diplomáticos americanos y europeos al constituirse en un portavoz influyente de la panamericanización de la Doctrina Monroe y de la unidad hemisférica.
The Literary Construction of the Monroe Doctrine
Diplomatic History, 2007
r i c a r d o d . s a l va t o r e BOOK REVIEW The Literary Construction of the Monroe Doctrine Gretchen Murphy. Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.S. Empire. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2005. 195 pp. Bibliography, illustrations. r21.95 (paper).
The Philhellenic Monroe Doctrine (English edition)
Issues of Greek History, Dec 5, 2018
The enormous power and the chaotic dynamic of nationalism when it becomes idealistic (patriotic), are implied in the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), whereby the President Monroe attributed the military and naval triumphs of the Greeks in the Greek War of Independence, against the armies and fleets of the huge (tricontinental) Ottoman Empire, to the purely idealistic value system of the Greek forefighters, by his saying that “the ordinary calculations of interest and of acquisition with a view to aggrandizement, which mingles so much in the transactions of nations, seem to have had no effect in regard to them” in 1821-1823. That splendid deduction of John Quincy Adams (mastermind and author of the Monroe Doctrine proclamation) as to the ethno-liberating or even chaotic potential of (idealistic) patriotism, would be ever since, until World War II, the cornerstone of the anti-colonial foreign policy of the U.S., that for many decades was looking forward to the inevitable (or even teleological) dissolution of all colonial empires. Another pertinent deduction of John Quincy Adams, as proclaimed in the Monroe Doctrine, is of lasting importance: President Monroe stated that the prime factors of the victories of the Greeks were “their cause and their name” that “have protected them from dangers which might ere this have overwhelmed any other people”. That is, according to the view of the U.S. Government, the Greek victories in war zones of the Greek War of Independence were due to the idealistic ehno-patriotic cause of the Greek revolutionaries (national independence and political freedom), while the effective protection of Ecumenical Hellenism by Russia in non-combatant regions, under the shield of the Russian ultimatum (1821) and the subsequent threat of Russo-Turkish war in 1821-1826, was due to the historical name of Greece as the cradle of Western (Greco-Roman and Christian) Civilization. In sum, according to the mutual point of view of Monroe and Adams, as far as Greece is concerned, the ethno-patriotic cause of the Greeks and their uniquely great name legacy (“Greece”, “Hellas”, “Ionia”, “Crete”, "Cyprus", "Epirus", “Macedonia” and so on) are fundamental factors of national security and, as such, non-negotiable and hardly amenable to any cession, then and ever after.