political and military dominance of the USA in the western hemisphere limits
the utility of the OAS as a vehicle for genuine regional co-operation, and this
imbalance was not significantly altered by Canada becoming a member in
- While the USA has tended to view the OAS as a means of preserving
security, in terms of US interests, in Latin America (seeMonroe Doctrine),
many of the other members would prefer to concentrate on regional economic
and technical development. Most regional political initiatives of the OAS have
probably had little influence on the behaviour of members, and that has been
particularly true in the case of the USA. Although the US actions during the
Cuban missile crisisin 1962 (Cuba’s membership has subsequently been in
suspension) and in the Dominican Republic in 1965 were genuinely supported
by most OAS members, on other occasions the USA has acted in defiance of
the OAS. For example, in 1982 while the OAS was urging a negotiated
settlement between Argentina and the United Kingdom of the Falkland Islands
dispute, the USA and Chile gave moderate logistical support to the UK; while
the OAS was supporting the Contadora Group initiative for peace in Central
America during the mid-1980s, the USA was continuing to provide the
Contra guerrillas fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua with covert
aid; and in 1989 the OAS criticized the US military intervention in Panama.
Original Position
There are two meanings to the idea of the original position, compatible with
each other, but of different derivation. The original position is sometimes used
by political theorists, especially those committed to a social contract
approach, with the same meaning as thestate of naturewhich existed before
the creation of deliberate political institutions. More recently the term has
become of considerable importance in US constitutional law, particularly
associated with the arguments of Judge Robert Bork, the rejection of whose
nomination to the Supreme Court by the Senate in 1987 highlighted the
controversy over the original position thesis. In this context the thesis basically
states that the words in the US Constitution, agreed upon during 1787, and
understood as they would have been at the time, are the binding law of the
USA unless specifically altered by a full constitutional amendment subse-
quently passed. If the words in the 1787 document are not clear enough, they
must be interpreted ‘restrictively’, to import as little judicial initiative as
possible.
The intention of the original position theorists is to reduce judicial activism,
to prohibit the creation of citizen rights or governmental duties unless very
clearly authorized by Congress or a constitutional amending process. Although
it is obviously democratic to insist that non-elected judges do not have the
right to invent law, original position theorists are obviously inherently con-
Original Position