The Department has given careful consideration to the note of the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the draft “Convention on the Right of
Asylum” transmitted therewith, and encloses a draft note in reply which
you are requested, if no objection is perceived, to present in proper
form to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
[Enclosure]
Draft Note From, the American Ambassador
(Weddell) to the Argentine
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Saavedra Lamas)
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to
Your Excellency’s note of July 27, 1937 transmitting a draft
“Convention on the Right of Asylum” and requesting that I obtain the
opinion of my Government with respect thereto. Copies of Your
Excellency’s note under reference and its enclosure were duly
submitted to my Government, and I have now been authorized to submit
the following views on the project in question.
The Government of the United States of America views with profound
sympathy all sincere efforts directed towards the establishment of
relations between nations on an orderly and civilized basis
consistent with the basic principles of international law and with
the higher ideals of humanitarianism. It is in such a spirit that my
Government has given careful consideration to the provisions of the
draft convention on asylum which has been submitted to it for study,
particularly in view of the distinguished sponsorship of this new
proposal, and the noble motives which have inspired it. With respect
to the basic objective of clarifying the problems relating to the
general subject of asylum, and with respect to the desirability of
taking all practical measures for the promotion of cultured and
civilized human relations, there can be no disagreement. However,
with respect to the most feasible means for achieving these
desirable ends, my Government regrets to observe that its considered
policy is one which would render it difficult to adhere to the
provisions set forth in the proposed convention.
My Government feels that the recognition of the so-called right of
asylum on such broad terms as those set forth in the draft
convention would involve an extension of the traditional immunities
and privileges
[Page 148]
enjoyed by
diplomatic representatives transcending the original purposes for
which such immunities and privileges were created, namely, to accord
full protection and freedom from interference to the diplomatic
representatives of one state within the territorial jurisdiction of
another, with a view to promoting peaceful and orderly relations
between those states. For these privileges and immunities to be
extended in the manner contemplated by the proposed convention might
give rise to certain complications which, in the opinion of my
Government, might run counter to the basic objective
contemplated.
As Your Excellency is aware, the point of view set forth above is
consistent with the traditional policy of the Government of the
United States of America. It will be recalled that at the Sixth
International Conference of American States, which convened at
Habana, Cuba, in 1928, there was adopted a convention fixing the
rules for the granting of asylum. In signing this convention on
behalf of its Government, the Delegation of the United States of
America made the following specific reservation:
“The delegation of the United States of America, in signing
the present convention, establishes an explicit reservation,
placing on record that the United States does not recognize
or subscribe to as part of international law, the so-called
doctrine of asylum.”11
Subsequently at the Seventh International Conference of American
States, which convened at Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1933, there was
presented to the Conference for approval a “Convention on Political
Asylum”. With respect to this convention the Delegation of the
United States of America made the following declaration:
“Since the United States of America does not recognize or
subscribe to, as part of international law, the doctrine of
asylum, the delegation of the United States of America
refrains from signing the present Convention on Political
Asylum.”12
It is the sincere desire of my Government to consolidate, so far as
possible its traditional policy with such agreements as may be made
between the other American states. However, in the light of the
considerations set forth above, which are believed to be in accord
with public opinion in my country, the Government of the United
States of America finds itself regretfully unable to agree to the
draft “Convention on the Eight of Asylum.”
Accept [etc.]
