Coordenação de Raul Mendes Silva
THE HAGUE: RUI BARBOSA AND THE BRAZILIAN DELEGATION TO THE SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE
RUI BARBOSA AT THE HAGUE
Almost everything has already been written about Rui Barbosa, which is why this introduction is limited to brief bibliographical notes meant especially for the uninitiated and young readers. When we look into the life of this erudite public figure, we stand before a peculiar case of precociousness, brilliant intelligence, deep culture and exemplary patriotism.
He was born in Salvador, Bahia in 1849, the son of a local politician and educator, whose steps he decided to follow. In many passages of his writings he venerated the memory of his parents. He attended the Ginásio Baiano high school in his native city, where he completed his studies in 1864, so young that the laws of the day did not allow him immediate entry into University, so he had to wait for another year.
It should be recalled that this same year saw the start of the Paraguayan War, a tragic and lengthy conflict between South-American countries, a fraternal fight, a wrong and devastating war. The sequels of that dramatic period stretched out for decades, involving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
Rui passed quickly through the Law School in Recife, where he felt unfairly treated in an episode that upset him so much that he decided to transfer to São Paulo. The city was brewing with the challenging political movements that were espoused especially by the young. In the São Paulo metropolis, that small and slightly built young man got to know and cultivated illustrious friends, while his multifaceted and restless talent quickly led him to the world of the arts, the press and to politics. In an etching of the time (1869) he is seen standing at a window delivering a speech to the soldiers returning from the Paraguay War, exhorting them to fight against slavery.
In 1872, back in Salvador, he began his career as lawyer and at the same time occupied the position of head editor of the Diário da Bahia newspaper. This was an ideal and popular tribunal to make his theses public: the need to abolish slavery immediately; religious freedom with complete separation between Church and State; and structural reforms, especially in the laws on political organization. Six years later he was elected Provincial Representative and then Deputy-General for the Imperial Chambers. Finally in 1880 he managed to make his Electoral Reform project a Law, thus putting an end to indirect elections and instituting the direct vote.
Although Rui cultivated ideas that differed from the establishment, Emperor D. Pedro II granted him the title of Councillor. Nonetheless, his fight had created strong resistance among the local authorities and when he became candidate in 1884 he failed to be re-elected. The pressure of the Catholic Church and the social might of the slave owners had partially blocked his activities as a public figure. His national prestige, however, kept on growing.
In 1888, after long periods of painstaking efforts on the part of the abolitionists (let alone the suffering of the slaves!), the Lei Áurea (Golden Law) was enacted, thereby extinguishing slavery throughout the country. When the Republic was inaugurated the following year, President Marshal Deodoro invited Rui to occupy the position of Minister of Finance of the Provisional Government. At once he presented a project proposing the separation of State and Church. When elections were held to install the Constituent Assembly, Rui assumed the position of Senator for Bahia.
The early days of the Republic were disturbed by serious regional conflicts caused by the popular uprising in the face of the hesitation and incompetence shown by the newly-installed authorities, just as had happened at the end of the Empire. In 1893 the social convulsions led to revolt breaking out in Rio Grande do Sul and Rio de Janeiro. Rui’s enemies threw the responsibility at him, accusing him of being the intellectual leader of the popular dissatisfaction.
He made the decision to leave for exile, first in Buenos Aires and then Lisbon, but the Portuguese Government refused him asylum so he headed for London, returning in 1895, dissatisfied with his loneliness and missing his homeland very much. When he returned to Brazil, he went to live in Rio de Janeiro (at 134 São Clemente Street in the Botafogo district, where today stands the Foundation named after him, a true sanctuary dedicated to the study of the patron).
In 1903, with the Baron of Rio Branco acting as Minister of Foreign Affairs, border conflicts broke out between Bolivia and Brazil in an episode that came to be known as the “Acre Question”. The Baron named Rui plenipotentiary representative of the Brazilian Delegation, although his points of view did not coincide exactly with those of the Minister, which led to the Bahia politician eventually asking to be exonerated from the position.
In 1906, considered a figure of national morals and intelligence, he was re-elected Senator of the Republic and assumed the vice-presidency of the House. The Hague in Holland awaited in patience. The following year was to be installed the Second Peace Conference. At first the Baron of Rio Branco preferred the figure of Joaquim Nabuco, at that time our Ambassador in Washington, but he refused. Nabuco and Rui were friends, and the former felt that the person to be appointed would need to have considerable legal knowledge, which made the Bahian the more suited for the thorny mission. The suggestion of Rui to be the appointee had also appeared in the pages of the prestigious newspaper Correio da Manhã. Rui hesitated for a few weeks, foreseeing the immensity of the difficulties ahead.
The invitation was made by the Baron of Rio Branco on 27 February 1907. Following a few episodes concerning questions with politicians and discussed publicly in the newspapers, Rui declined the appointment, but then, on 28 March he finally wrote to the Baron of Rio Branco, head of Itamaraty, accepting the mission, being then appointed by President Afonso Pena as Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador and Brazilian Delegate to the Second Peace Conference. Also appointed were Eduardo S. Lisboa (2nd delegate); Roberto Trompowski and Tancredro Burlamaqui de Moura (adjunct delegates); Artur de Carvalho Moreira and Rodrigo Otávio (first secretaries); and Antonio Batista Pereira (in addition to other second secretaries).
On 20 May a large group of Rui’s admirers offered him a banquet - Rui was Vice-President of the Senate – with the presence of authorities, an occasion when Senator Pedro Velho delivered a speech exalting the politician from Bahia.
At 10:30 in the morning of 22 May 1907, the Brazilian Delegation, accompanied by an entourage, set sail for Europe at the Pharoux Quay in Rio de Janeiro, aboard the Araguaia. In the middle of the afternoon two days later, the vessel docked in Salvador, where the Delegation was received by Governor José Marcelino, who paid them tribute that same evening with a banquet in the State Palace. Early the following morning, the Delegation left for Lisbon. We can only imagine how Rui Barbosa felt on reaching this city now as Plenipotentiary Ambassador at the height of his prestige, years after the Portuguese Government had denied him political asylum. They arrived in the Portuguese capital on 5 May, lunched at the Legation of Brazil, then occupied by Minister Alberto Fialho, and the same day again set off again for the French port of Cherbourg.
They reached this city after a journey of three days and proceeded by train to Paris, where they stayed in a hotel on the Rue Rivoli. On the 12th they received the greetings and solidarity of the Minister of Brazil, Gabriel de Toledo Pisa e Almeida, at a meeting also attended by the Brazilian Ambassador in Washington, Joaquim Nabuco, as well as personalities connected to French political life.
On the 13 June, without the company of the family, who were to join him later on, Rui Barbosa arrived at The Hague and took lodgings at the Palace Hotel in Sheveningen, an extremely pleasant place on the Dutch coast.
Two days later the official opening of the II Peace Conference took place in the Binnenhof Palace. The Russian First Delegate, Alexandre Ivanovitch Nélidow, assumed the presidency of the Assembly. Rui, head of the Brazilian Delegation, was appointed honorary president of the First Committee.
According to the methodology adopted, the II Conference was divided into four Committees which discussed the most prominent international conflicts. The Brazilian Delegation was enrolled in the first and fourth committees.
1. Committee: arbitration and international law enquiries.
2. Conventions and laws of terrestrial wars. Study on the start of hostilities (among belligerent nations).
3. Bombardment by naval forces on land territories. Planting war mines. Decisions on war vessels belonging to belligerent countries berthed in neutral ports.
4. Private property in offshore waters. War contraband. Transforming merchant ships into war vessels. Blocking and destroying seized vessels.
During the work the figure of Rui Barbosa, initially not given much consideration, grew gigantic in historical interventions that included the speech on 11 July against discrimination between countries with powerful navies and weak countries. The following day, once again with supreme eloquence, he defended politics as science, ethics and history, separating it from militant politics; on 23 July he dealt with international settlement of debts among States, an extremely controversial issue at the time that served as a pretext for powerful countries to invade other territories; on 17 July he criticised the projects of the powerful nations who wanted to form the Court for Seizing Ships only for their own interests; on 20 August Rui Barbosa presented a project of the Brazilian Delegation for the new Court of Arbitral Justice. The jurist’s performance gained such visibility that the Secretary-General of the Bureau Internacional de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage in The Hague, Michiels van Verduyuler, appointed him member of this Court.
At the session of 5 October 1907, the Brazilian Delegation created an impasse when Rui Barbosa defended vehemently the principle that all States should be given equal treatment in the international legal system. Without this point being established, there was no reason for any body of international law to exist. The solution was handed over to a Committee which became known as the SevenWiseMen, Rui being one of them.
On 18 October the Conference brought its work to an end. It had been a verbal marathon of brilliant theses presented by our Delegation. Rui Barbosa passed through Paris again and his speeches were published there in French. He returned to Lisbon, again on board the Araguaia, but this time did not disembark because his wife Maria Augusta had taken ill. On his return to Brazil he was received as a hero in Pernambuco, Bahia and Rio de Janeiro. In the latter city the Baron of Rio Branco welcomed him with an embrace of gratitude, and then they were accompanied by an enthusiastic throng of people as far as the Catete Palace, where they were awaited by President Afonso Pena. In the Senate, Francisco Glicério received him triumphantly. The thin boy from the Ginásio Baiano high school had opened his immense wings as intellectual and patriot and now could rest on the laurels of the mission. But that was not in his nature. The warrior of ideas was soon to take up arms once more.
Texts extracted from Tome II, Vol. XXXIV of the Complete Works of Rui Barbosa edited (in French) in 1907 by W. P. Van Stochum et Fils, The Hague and re-edited in Rio de Janeiro in 1966, also in the original, by the Brazilian Ministry of Education and Culture.
(The free translation and emphases are the responsibility of the author of this chapter)
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BRAZILIAN DELEGATION
From the introduction by the Dutch editor: “... On editing now this volume containing the proposals, declarations and speeches by Mr. Rui Barbosa presented at the Second Peace Conference, we aim only to underscore the principles behind the attitudes of the great Latin-American Republic ... (Brazil) and (to show) the results that this country has achieved in this world assembly. We shall see that it was always guided by the most liberal ideas, always supported or proposed the most advanced solutions, never strayed far from the understanding or the practical sense of things, and immediately won the deep respect of part of the representatives of other States. In the case of one of the capital questions of the Conference, dealing in particular with the legal equality of States and the role of this principle in composing the International Court of Arbitration, it was Brazil that presented the initiative and greatest efforts to oppose ... (any contrary) resistance, otherwise the fate of the less powerful States would have been for ever endangered.“
THE FORMATION OF A PERMANENT TRIBUNAL AND THE COMPOSITION OF ITS JUDGES
Session of 11 July on ORGANIZATION OF THE APPEAL COURT FOR CASES OF SEIZURE (of ships). Third Session.
“... the idea of setting up an appeal court to (judge) seizures (only) when hostilities are begun (between countries) does not strike us as the best solution. This being so, we would have only occasional courts, accidental courts, mutant and ephemeral courts, courts that would not manage to inspire or deserve the full trust of the interested parties nor of general opinion, which is absolutely necessary for the full success of this institution. We would have ad hoc magistrates, transitory and chosen at the moment when a war breaks out, when evident conflicts sharpen between the interests of nations and when more serious disturbances happen in people’s conscience. They would not have the stability, the knowledge of jurisprudence nor the habit of judging, nor often even impartiality of spirit, I mean, not even the conditions of professional capacity nor the material and moral independence that are essential to the inflexible application of the law.
These qualities that make a good judge are conferred by the permanence of his function.
(If judges were) ... appointed only on the occasion, their options would be exposed to all sorts of influences that would appear as soon as hostilities start. War, especially when it is declared between great powers, produces passionate currents of opinion that shake the world and divide preferences between the two belligerent nations .... As to the composition of the Court, we disagree with the English proposal to reserve the right to appoint (the judges) only to those powers that on the date of the convention that creates (the courts) have a total merchant navy of more than 800,000 tons ... When premises of this sort are adopted to establish an authority, it would seem that the only concern is to preserve the interest of the powerful, or at least to recognise their supremacy. But it is not just a matter of interests, but also of exercising a function that ought to be strictly legal. And according to our point of view it is difficult to admit that the legitimacy of competence is based on the least tonnage ...
Whatever the relation may be (that they defend) between the spirit of justice and the spirit of interests, this will be unable to satisfy the general sentiment of the nations.
Think well: we are not trying to give legal guarantees only (to those nations that possess) more than 800,000 tons. What we are going to set up is a court of international jurisdiction. All navies, large or small, are going to depend on this. Can you believe that (all the navies) will have the same reasons to trust judges if they continued nothing to their being appointed?
Do not forget that under such a system the weak will have to submit to the justice of the strong. The latter may have common concerns that lead them not to have enough respect for certain considerations related to the right of others (the weak). Generally it is the most powerful that have less reasons for following the law. So how can we reserve for (the strongest) the privilege of legal authority?
This is as inadmissible as it would be if we adopted for the seizures court a completely different principle from what we practice with the arbitration court. In the latter case we observe the principle of general representation of (all) the nations involved. If there are reasons to change (the criterion of the application) of this principle with regard to the seizures, in this case we can neither transgress it nor openly refuse it. Consequently we propose that the nations that possess navies with a total tonnage less than the value set (800,000 tons) be admitted by indication of the members of the court by means of an agreement among them to choose the judges – or some other system – so that the same result is achieved.
TRANSFORMING MERCHANT SHIPS INTO WAR VESSELS.
THE CONCEPT OF POLITICS IN THE CONFERENCE DEBATES. AN INCIDENT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND RUI BARBOSA.
Fourth Committee, Fifth Session, 12 July 1907
Rui Barbosa: “... The nations that signed the Declaration of de Paris, as is the case of Brazil, cannot fail to accompany with special interest the debate to held today on the transformation of merchant ships into war vessels. This is no simple detail, as we might suppose if we were to look at the case superficially ... This Conference has been given the name Parliament of the Nations. The essence of parliaments is that they talk, that is, they are not limited to just voting, they discuss matters with ample freedom. Words are not harmful, not even when they exaggerate. And that is why I cannot agree with the sentence of an illustrious member of this assembly when he says that the more we discuss here the more we accentuate our divergences. From my point of view the evidence of the facts proves exactly the opposite. If we had not discussed certain points with so much breadth in our plenary committees we would not have reached the examining committees. It is (precisely) in the countries where words are mistrusted, where words are proscribed, that agreement is never reached and antagonisms become irreducible. In those countries where there is always discussion, such as England and the United States, agreements always become possible and there is no such thing as a problem that cannot be solved.
What assures the victory of the good human causes is always the coincidence between interest and justice ... Besides this, all the other maritime States (that are great powers) encourage their large (merchant) shipping companies to build their ships in such a way that they can be transformed into cruisers when wartime comes ... They only change the names; private maritime war takes on the name of public maritime war, corsairs are called cruisers, marks are replaced by committee patents and corsair captains become commissioned officers ... Look at what happened in 1870. In August of that year a decree passed by the German government ordered the creation of a volunteer navy. The owners of merchant ships were invited to prepare them (to fit them out) in order to attack the French war vessels. The crews of this navy, supplied by the ship-owners, were forced to submit themselves to military discipline ... (in this respect, Mr. Edward Hall, an eminent British authority in matters of international law, wrote) The only true difference between corsairs and a volunteer navy is that the latter is submitted to a naval discipline, so there remains the doubt as to whether corsairs could not also be submitted to this ... the first of our duties is not to subscribe to any novelty that could compromise the results accomplished so far in the sense of making war better and keeping it as much as possible within the limits of the rules of law, it seems to me that this discussion will have consequences beyond the present technical horizon. By no means am I a pessimist. Yesterday I joined here with those who have hope in the future (in this case) of the immunity of property in offshore waters ...
At this same session of 12 July, after an intervention by the Bahia jurist, the President declared to applause that politics should be excluded from the deliberations of the Committee, and that the circular sent by the Russian Government (one of the sponsors of the Conference) formally declared that politics could have no place at the Conference. To Rui this sounded like a reprimand, and he responded at once: “... I cannot leave this sort of censorship unanswered, and if that is what it was then I did not deserve it. I have grown old in parliamentary life, where I have been engaged for no less than twenty-five years. I have the honour of presiding over the Senate of my country, where parliamentary institutions have existed for over seventy years. I ought to know a little about the duties of the courts in deliberative assemblies, and I would be incapable of abusing this ... Yes, indeed I did refer to politics, but accidentally, very accidentally, precisely to tell you that it was not forbidden to us ... Of course politics is not the issue here. Politics is not the object of our programme ... Let us not forget that His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, in his act to convoke this Conference, clearly removed politics from our programme. But this (my) defence obviously referred only to militant politics, the politics of action and combat, that which disturbs, agitates, separates nations in their internal and international relations, never to politics seen as a science, politics studied as history, politics understood as a moral rule. Because when it is matter of making laws for nations, whether they be domestic or international (laws), in the first place it is necessary to examine in any project the possibility of the need and utility of these measures in the face of tradition, the current state of sentiments, ideas and interests that animate nations and guide rulers. So now, isn’t all this politics?
Politics in the vulgar sense ... is forbidden to us ... we have nothing to do with the internal affairs of States ... But in the other acceptation of the term, the highest and for that very reason the least practical, when we consider the supreme interests of nations in their mutual relations, in this case should politics be forbidden to us? No, gentlemen. In this world nothing is so eminently political as sovereignty ... Isn’t (what you do) absolutely political ... and of the clearest nature, when you organize obligatory arbitration, which is a barrier against the arbitration of sovereigns? And here, gentlemen, in all that we deliberate, deny and transact, isn’t it the politics of our countries and our governments that always stands there us as the cause and the inspiration and the drive behind all our acts? (Politics) ... has transformed private law, revolutionized penal law, made constitutional law, and created international law. It is the very life of nations ... How can you forbid an assembly of free men gathered together in the early 20th century (from practicing politics)? ... How, if (the law of nations) is politics itself? ... Just because we are a diplomatic assembly? But diplomacy is nothing other than politics under a more delicate, more refined, more elegant form ...”
RECOVERING DEBTS OF (national) STATES
Note: Luis Maria Drago (Buenos Aires 1859, idem 1921) magistrate and politician, was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of General Roca. During his administration at the head of the Ministry there was a serious international incident when England, Germany and Italy blockaded Venezuela invoking non-payment of debts. On 29 December 1902 the Argentinean Minister sent to the government of the United States a letter that became famous in international law, a protest against the blockade that considered it illegitimate in Latin America to demand payment of any debts by the use of arms. The points defended in this letter would become known as the Drago Doctrine.
Session of 23 July 1907
“... Mr President, we cannot return in silence to the proposal under debate ... This question has for nearly sixty years appeared in the acts of government and in controversies (on things) public ... (As to Great Britain), in 1848 Lord Palmerston wrote in a famous circular directed to the English representatives abroad that the debts of States are cases of total discretion and not an international question ... are such complaints to be considered diplomatic matters (?) ... the British position has not changed. They have always reserved the possibility of consulting the circumstances and answering the complaints of bearers of papers of foreign debts according to the inspiration of the moment without acknowledging any link between (these debts) and any principle of law. (The English government) has always abstained, except in rare exceptions such as Mexico, Egypt and Venezuela. But even in these episodes it always denied that the interest of the bearers of debt papers bore any weight on the decision to intervene ... As to the United States, their attitude was quite different ... as seen especially in 1906 (when) Secretary Root, in his instructions to the United States representatives at the Pan-American Conference in Rio de Janeiro. This document, recalling the practice established by the United States Republic as regards this matter, qualified the use of force to ensure charging these debts (of States) when they are the result of contractual pledges, as being irreconcilable with the independence and sovereignty of the States ... we could find some examples to the contrary in the history of United States diplomacy. But (these examples) do not alter the firmness of its general and almost constant rule … whereas in England one only looked at simple conveniences, in the United States legal considerations were invoked ... (Rui analyses the position of Argentina and quotes jurist Drago and his doctrine. He then refers to the thesis of United States jurist Hamilton, according to whom) ... contracts signed between a nation and individuals are only binding if the principles of sovereignty are observed and, since they cannot be the object of any force of constraint, confer no right other than the will of sovereignty ... Is this true, gentlemen? Is there really a legal axiom here? In modern concepts, does sovereignty truly constitute this power without any limits other than its own arbitration? I believe not ... (Rui elaborates his argument against the position taken by Hamilton) ... so what is lacking for sovereignty to be, in the field of justice and concerning civil obligations, on the same level as private parties? Very simply, (what lacks) is for them to be able to take away its goods ... The State, at least in our country, is sued and made to pay. Whoever sues obtains a sentence and with this legally makes the State pay ... what makes wars unjust is the injustice of their motives ... what is at stake is to know whether the violation of the law, as practiced by a nation that fails to honour its debts, is sufficient for international force to be used against it ...
A person may have honestly invested all his fortune in goods of a foreign State ... if (the State) that borrowed from him fails to honour its solemn commitments ... this will be the ruin of all those ... that the (public) character of the loan guaranteed against bankruptcy ... how can we admit that a contract was made under legal form just to later obtain a moral reparation? ... We (Brazilians) were and are an indebted nation and we might still come to resort to foreign markets. However, we dare not risk losing the trust of those who so often (helped us) to collaborate with the development of our prosperity; because God blessed us with not having to know usury, nor have we ever come to know the ferocity of that capital against which (nations) strive to defend themselves. Our creditors have proved intelligent and reasonable collaborators with regard to our progress.
It is with this in mind that (with this text) I dare propose to you the American formula, along with the modifications that strike you as convenient for the success of the idea.
“... None of the signing powers will seek to alter the present limits of their territory by means of war, at the cost of any other power, except after that other power has denied arbitration aimed at altering (the limits), or when that other power disobeys or violates this commitment. (Other than in these cases) the loss of territory imposed by arms shall have no legal validity.”
(Translated by JM)
II Peace Conference. Interventions by Rui Barbosa, Brazilian Ambassador and First Delegate, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
In “Complete Works of Rui Barbosa “ edited by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Rio de Janeiro, 1966, The Second Peace Conference is contained in Tome II of volume XXXIV, containing 401 pages of text in the original French. The Preface is by Ambassador Hildebrando Accioly, Legal Consultant at Itamaraty.
The themes discussed, in order of Session, were as follows
1. Order of the Works 2. Abolition of capture 3. Tribunal (to judge captures and seizure of ships) 4. Abolition of capture 5. Obligatory arbitration and pending litigations 6. International committees of enquiry 7. Capture and war contraband
8. Organization of an Appeal Court for cases of seizure (of ships) 9. Transformation of merchant ships into war vessels. Politics in the debates of the Conference (incident with the President of the Committee) 10. Inviolability of private property in offshore waters 11. Inviolability ... (continued) 12. Charging State debts. The Drago Doctrine and the right of conquest 13. Moratoria conceded 14. Abolition of war contraband 15. Idem,
regulation 16. The Bloc (of countries) 17. Permanence of belligerent war ships in neutral ports 18. The Bloc 19. Obligatory arbitration 20. Obligatory arbitration, but not an obligatory Court 21. Transformation of merchant ships into war vessels 22. (National) honour in case of arbitration 23. Reservations made by the Brazilian Government as to good offices, mediations and questions judged by the courts 24. Private property in offshore waters 25. Obligatory arbitration 26. Moratoria conceded 27. War contraband 28. Arbitration and justice. Composition of the Court
29. Obligatory arbitration. Non-retroactivity (of the decisions) of the Convention. Review of arbitral sentences 30. War contraband 31. Obligatory arbitration and the competency of national courts 32. Composition foreign the Court (for seizure of ships) 33. New Permanent Arbitration Court. Its composition. The Brazilian proposal 34. Composition of the Court 35. Obligatory arbitration and the decisions of national justice 36. Arbitration and commitment 37. Organization of the Permanent Arbitration Court
38. Planting (war) mines de minas by neutrals 39. Arbitration and competency of national justice 40. Arbitral commitment and the case of the United States Senate
41. The New Arbitration Court and justice 42. Obligatory arbitration
43. Organization of the Permanent Tribunal. Misunderstandings against the Brazilian proposal 44. Duties of neutral countries on land; reservations of the Brazilian Delegation 45. International Tribunal to (judge) seizure of ships. The Brazilian attitude
46. Transformation of merchant ships into war vessels 47. Composition of the new Arbitration Court 48. The International Court for Seizures. Convocation of the Third Conference 49. After declaration of war, surrender of war ships by neutral countries to belligerent countries 50. Obligatory arbitration 51. Idem
52. Idem 53. The New Permanent Arbitration Tribunal 54. Court of Arbitral Justice. Reservations of the Brazilian Delegation
Social events parallel to the II Conference
During and parallel to the period when work was being carried out in the plenary and the committees, intense diplomatic efforts were developed at social meetings, receptions, banquets, excursions and even regattas. An agenda was drawn up to register events on a daily basis, beginning on 5 May 1907 with a gala ball offered in The Hague by the Argentinean Delegation on board the Araguaia, and closing in Paris on 18 November with a reception of the French Comité Republicain du Commerce, de l’Industrie et de l’Agriculture at the Hotel du Palais d’Orsay.
Events promoted involving especially the Brazilian Delegation:
On 8 August, a banquet in honour of the Delegation of the United States in the Palace Hotel at The Hague;
On 26 August, a banquet held in the same place, with various personalities invited;
On 27 August, Minister Lisbon (Brazil) and his wife entertained the Brazilian Delegation in the same hotel, with various delegates attending;
On 30 August Fernando Mendes de Almeida, representing the Jornal do Brasil newspaper, offered a luncheon for the Brazilian Delegation in the Hotel des Indes;
On 15 November, Minister Gabriel de Toledo Piza e Almeida and his wife entertained the Brazilian Delegation in a restaurant in the Place Malesherbes in Paris;
On their return to Brazil, the Delegation was paid tribute with a banquet in the Hotel Sul Americano in Salvador, offered by the Government of Bahia
Acioli, Hildebrando, O Barão do Rio Branco e a Segunda Conferência de Haia. Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Rio de Janeiro, 1945
Araújo Jorge, A. G. de, Introdução ás obras do Barão do Rio Branco, Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Rio de Janeiro, 1945
Arquivo da Casa de Rui Barbosa, Rio de Janeiro
Arquivo Histórico do Itamaraty, Rio de Janeiro
Azevedo Sobrinho, José Vicente de, Efemérides da Academia, Rio de Janeiro, 1926
Barbosa, Rui, A Conferência de Haia, dois autógrafos no arquivo da Casa de Rui Barbosa prefaciados por João Neves da Fontoura
Barbosa, Rui, Correspondência. Seleccionada, revista e anotada por Homero Pires, São Paulo, 1933
Barbosa, Rui, Ditadura e República, prefácio e notas de Fernando Néri, Rio de Janeiro, 1933
Barbosa, Rui, Mocidade e Exílio. Cartas anotadas por Américo Jacobina Lacombe, São Paulo, 1940
Barbosa, Rui, O Brasil e as Nações Latino-Americanas em Haia, Rio de Janeiro, 1908
Barbosa, Rui, Obras Completas, Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro, 1966
Brito, Lemos, Rui Barbosa e a igualdade das soberanias, Casa Rui Barbosa, 1954
Bustamante y Servén, Antonio S. de, La Segunda Conferencia de la Paz de la Haya, de 1907, Madrid,Libreria General de Victoriano Suarez, 1908
Campos, Raul Adalberto de, Legislação Internacional do Brasil,
Rio de Janeiro, 1929, vol. II
Carneiro, Levi, Rio Branco e "a sempre tão limpa e generosa política internacional do Brasil ". Anuário do Museu Imperial, IV, 1943
Costa, Pedro Penner da Costa, A Diplomacia da Paz. Rui Barbosa em Haia. MEC /
FCRB, Rio de Janeiro, 1977
Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa, Rui Barbosa, Cronologia da vida e da obra, 2.edição revista, Casa de Rui Barbosa, 1999.
Gaston, J. M. Ramirez, El cincuentenario de la Conferencia de la Paz de la Haya, 1907
y las doctrinas de los internacionalistas americanos. Ruy Barbosa, Diago y Batle Ordoñes ( Conferência )
Haia, II Conferência Internacional da Paz, 1907. Las convenciones y declaraciones de la Haya de 1899 y 1907, acompanãdas de cuadros de firmas, ratificaciones y adhesiones de las diferentes potencias y textos de las reservas, compiladas por James Brown Scott, director. Nova York, Oxford University Press, sucursal americana, 1916
Lacerda, Virginia Cortes de ; Real, Monteiro, Rui Barbosa em Haia. Cinqüentenário da Segunda Conferência da Paz. Casa Rui Barbosa, 1957.
Lacombe, Américo Jacobina, Rio Branco e Rui Barbosa, Casa de Rui Barbosa, 1955
Lacombe, Américo Jacobina, Dois momentos na Haia. Conselho Federal da OAB, 1977
Le Courrier de la Conférence, La Haya, 1907
Lima, Herman, Rui Barbosa e a caricatura, Casa de Rui Barbosa, 1949
Lins, Álvaro, Rio Branco, 1945, 2 vols
Mangabeira, João, Rui, o Estadista da República, Rio de Janeiro, 1943
Meira, Augusto, Rio Barbosa e Rio Branco, Pará, 1918
Neves, Fernão, A Academia Brasileira de Letras, Rio de Janeiro, 1940
Nunes, Reginaldo, As duas Conferências de Haia, Editora Forense, Rio de Janeiro,
Saenz Peña, Roque; Drago Luis, M; Larreta, C. Rodriguez; La Republica Argentina en la Segunda Conferencia Internacional de la Paz. Buenos Aires, Impr. y Lit.A. Pech, 1908
Stead, William, O Brasil em Haia, Rio de Janeiro, 1909
Viana, Hélio, Rui Barbosa e Eduardo Prado. História de uma amizade. ( Revista
Brasileira n. 6, junho de 1943 )
The Seven Wise Men of the Hague
"The Embrace", as depicted in a cartoon showing the Baron of Rio Branco receiving "Mr." Rui
Rui Barbosa, "The Eagle of The Hague"
Cartoon of the period showing Rui delivering one of his lengthy speeches in the Hague.
Binnenhof Palace, the venue of the II Peace Conference, in a Photograph of the period
The Brazilian Delegation to the II Peace Conference. Standing, from left to right: Antonio
Batista Pereira, José Rodrigues Alves, Rodrigo Otávio de Langgaard Meneses,
Artur de Carvalho Moreira, Abelardo Roças, Leopoldo de Magalhães Castro,
Fernando Gustavo Dobbert. Sitting: Tancredo B. de Moura,
Eduardo F. R. dos Santos Lisboa, Rui Barbosa, Roberto Trompowsky
Leitão de Almeida and Carlos Lemgruber Kropf.