Navigating the Monroe Doctrine as a Law

The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823 as he aimed to deter European intervention into Latin America. Although it was unaccepted as a rule of law in the Old Europe, the Monroe Doctrine was hailed by the states in the New World as the de jure clause to protect themselves against European trespass on their sovereign rights. Meanwhile, Washington had unilaterally took the Monroe Doctrine to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin America which was termed as the “backyard” of U.S. security in terms of geopolitics. The disputes thus arise if the Monroe Doctrine is within the realm of justice. The article argues that the Monroe Doctrine is essentially a political policy and a rule of law as well. At the turn of the 20^th century, the Drago Doctrine lifted the Monroe Doctrine to the status of international law as it underscored that nonintervention and sovereignty were the core tenets of public law consented by all states of Latin America. It was plain that the U.S. was committed to nonintervention of Latin American states which was coveted by the European powers of the day while trying to preserve intact its ability unilaterally to interpret and act on the Monroe Doctrine in whatever it deemed fit. Nonetheless, the Drago Doctrine advanced the dimensions of the Monroe Doctrine that the independence, freedom and welfare of all states in Latin America should be respected in a modern system of public international law.