Organizing peace in the Americas : collective security versus international adjudication

Abstract

American states concluded two treaties to organize peace in the postwar world: the Rio Treaty (1947) and the Pact of Bogotá (1948). At first sight, they appear to reflect a division of tasks: the Rio Treaty would address threats to the peace and security of the Americas, and the Pact of Bogotá would help solve the disputes between American states. However, the Rio Treaty’s dominance during the Cold War calls this division into question. This paper first argues that American states pursued two projects of peace. The Rio Treaty was a defence pact with an autonomous enforcement mechanism, to which the United States was strongly committed. The Pact of Bogotá reflected Latin American states’ thinking that a comprehensive framework for solving disputes would mitigate regional power asymmetries. Second, it claims that the Rio Treaty’s vague provisions and the US support it enjoyed facilitated its dominance during the Cold War.