Woodburn, James Albert. Monroe Doctrine and Some of Its Mahan, A. T. Monroe Doctrine. ix . American Journal of International Law 56 Latané, John Holladay. Effects of the Panama Canal on Our Relations with Latin America.... .Annals of the American Academy 58 Woolsey, Theodore S. Monroe Doctrine Fundamentals...... Kraus, Herbert. What European Countries Think of the Monroe Doctrine....... Annals of the American Academy 71 Wheless, Joseph. Monroe Doctrine and Latin America.... . Annals of the American Academy 76 Blakeslee, George H. Should the Monroe Doctrine Continue to Be a Foreign Policy of the United States?.. 278194 Hull, William I. Monroe Doctrine: National or Interna- tional? American Society of Internationl Law. Proceedings 108 Root, Elihu. Real Monroe Doctrine.... ....American Society of International Law. Proceedings 123 Taft, William H. Monroe Doctrine: Its Limitations and Implications Roberts, W. Carman. Vitality of the Monroe Doctrine.... Callahan, J. M. Modern Meaning of the Monroe Doctrine. ..Journal of Race Development 143 Scruggs, William L. Monroe Doctrine-Its Origin and Import Stanwood, Edward. Moral Aspects of the Monroe Doctrine. Chester, Colby N. Present Status of the Monroe Doctrine. Annals of the American Academy 160 MacCorkle, William A. Monroe Doctrine and Its Applica- tion to Haiti. . . . . . . . . . Annals of the American Academy 167 Bingham, Hiram. Should We Abandon the Monroe Doctrine? ..Journal of Race Development 179 BRIEF Resolved, That the Monroe Doctrine should be continued as part of the permanent foreign policy of the United States. INTRODUCTION I. The Monroe Doctrine has been the subject of considerable discussion in the past few years. A. In conferences which have convened for the special study of our international relations. B. In the press, on the platform, and by the people, not only in the United States, but also in Europe and in Central and South America. C. It has been condemned by some and vigorously reasserted by others as part of our foreign policy. II. The Monroe Doctrine, as formulated in President Monroe's message of 1823, was the result of two circumstances. A. The claim of Russia to occupy territory in the Northwest. B. The threatened intervention of the Holy Alliance to restore to Spain her former South American colonies. III. President Monroe's declaration was A. That the American continents were thereafter not to be considered open to colonization by European Powers. B. That any intervention in South American affairs would be regarded as unfriendly toward the United States. IV. It is generally admitted that the Doctrine has been extended to include A. That the United States has a paramount interest in American affairs. B. That it will resist, forcibly if necessary, all European 3. The extension of existing boundaries. 4. The transfer of sovereignty or territory, if against the interests of the United States. AFFIRMATIVE I. Both reason and authority support the Monroe Doctrine as part of our foreign policy. A. It is based on the right of self-defense which is supported by international law. N B. It is also based on the duty of preserving the peace and safety and the desirability of maintaining the republican governments of our weaker neighbors. C. It has been declared and followed by the United States ever since it was first stated. I. It has been declared and acted upon again and again by the executive branch of our Government. 2. Although it has never been enacted into law by Congress, every resolution relating to it has been in its support. D. It has been supported by other nations. 1. European Powers have acquiesced in its mainte nance. 2. Every Latin-American republic has at some time or other affirmed it. E. The argument that it has been extended, and without justification, beyond the limits set by Monroe is unsound. I The underlying principle is the same. 2. The extensions have been in harmony with the development of the interests of the United States. F. It is not true that the Monroe Doctrine prevents European Powers from enforcing their just claims against Latin-American republics. 1. European Powers have every right to intervene in behalf of their own interests or that of their subjects so long as they do not contemplate permanent occupation of Latin-American territory. |