Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:11:43.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Real Status of the Panama Canal as Regards Neutralization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

H. S. Knapp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Preceding any intelligent discussion of the status of the Panama Canal regarding freedom of passage and inviolability in war, which have so generally and so loosely been spoken of as "neutralization" even in official documents of the latest date, it will be necessary first to examine the treaty obligations of the United States under which the Canal is now under construction, and which define the powers of control over it when it shall be finished.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1910 , pp. 314 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1910

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Compilation of Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 609.

3 Compilation of Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 380.

4 Senate Document No. 151, 56th Congress, 1st Session.

5 See Part IV of this paper.

6 Italics tha writer’s.

7 Italics tha writer’s.

8 Italics tha writer’s.

9 Quoted in a paper by Professor Latané on the Neutralization Features of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902.

10 Compilation of Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 194.

11 Italics the writer’s.

12 Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1887, p. 440.

13 Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 243.

14 Italics the writer’s.

15 Italics the writer’s

16 Snow’s Topics in American Diplomacy, p. 340.

17 Henderson, p. 138.

18 Snow’s Topics, p-. 338.

19 Henderson, p. 139.

20 This statement appears to have been too broad; one American military writer, at least, has advocated this view in print since the statement was originally written. – H. S. K.

21 The Neutralization Features of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, cited above.

22 Studies in International Law, pp. 271 and 275.

23 The Principles of International Law, sec. 245, pp. 485 and 486.

24 International Law Digest, Vol. II, sec. 145, p. 114.

25 The statement of (3) is open to discussion, but is quoted here as written.

26 The Neutralization Features of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, cited above.

27 Studies in International Law, Holland, p. 288.

28 London Times, August 9, 1904.

29 International Law, Oppenheim, Vol. I, p. 587, Appendix.

30 London Times, April 13, 1904; also Pari. Papers, France, No. 1, 1904, Cd. 1952.

31 Neutral Duties in a Maritime War, p. 2, reprint from the Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. II, 1905.

32 Int. Law. Vol. II, p. 234, footnote.

33 Int. Law, Pt. I, pp. 328-329.

34 Cours de Droit International Public, 1905, pp. 503-504.

35 Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Tome XI, 1904, p. 697.

36 It may be added in this connection that the United States guarantees the independence of Panama, though no mention of the bearing of this guarantee on the question of fortification was made in the original paper. – H. S. K.