Importance of the Pact of Bogotá of 1948

It is the main current resource available to the American nations when it comes to resolving a dispute between them, through and only by peaceful means.

Promote dialogue and peaceful solutions among the American states

In the article that opens it, the spirit that it presents is already manifested: reject any type of threat, coercion, or use of force to resolve any controversy.

The international agreement was signed in the Colombian city of Bogotá, in 1948, among a large part of the nations of the American continent, within the framework of the IX Pan-American Conference, and had the mission of forcing the acceding states to commit themselves to the search for peaceful solutions when a conflict arises between them, avoiding, of course, the taking up of arms to work it out.

peace and integration of the countries in the region was the motivation for those years of the birth of this pact, and also of the Organization of American States (OAS) that saw the light in said conference.

It was raised as a prior alternative to resorting directly to the Security Council of the Organization of

Mediate, conciliate, submit to justice, but never opt for violence

It attributed jurisdiction to the International Court in The Hague and chose as resolution options: mediation, arbitration, conciliation, legal proceedings, investigations, among others.

Mediation, which is one of the most used mechanisms, may fall to one of the countries participating in the treaty that does not has no association in the conflict to be resolved, and should try to bring the parties together to find a solution in peace.

On the other hand, a committee of investigation composed of specialists can submit the disputed issue to analysis and investigation.

And finally you can request the opening of judicial or arbitration proceedings.

A path that was not spared from questioning

One year after its origin, in 1949, it entered into force and was accepted by the UN, although not all countries that in the beginning they had supported it continued to do so and became the departures from the pact and the questions.

Ecuador, Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, adopted it with observations, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Brazil, Honduras, and Panama accepted it without conditions, while Argentina, Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, and the United States did not. ratified; and El Salvador and Colombia filed a complaint against him.

The last two countries mentioned are the only ones that have so far denounced the pact in their entire history.

One year after said complaint, the departure of the complainant state becomes official, but this does not exempt it from responding to pre-existing problems.

The withdrawal from Colombia, for example, was associated with their anger and disagreement with the decision of the court of the hague that ceded territory in the sea and in the air to Nicaragua and to the detriment of Colombia.

But the disagreement has not been confined solely to Colombia, but rather many of the countries that initially supported him have criticized him when they had to resolve any related issue.

Chile has been another of the countries that threatened to abandon the agreement due to its disagreements with Peru and Bolivia.

It is worth noting that it is usually designated as: American Treaty of Pacific Settlements.