Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:25:19.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Coming of Economic Sanctions into American Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Benjamin H. Williams
Benjamin H. Williams*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political institutions attain their stature largely by organic growth, taking form through a process of evolving practice. In this connection the economic sanctions developed by the United States in the years immediately preceding Pearl Harbor have much significance. As the architects of a new world order now draw up plans for the defense of the international community against war, they can include economic sanctions with greater assurance of American approval than in 1919. For certain types of such sanctions have in the last few years taken their place among our precedents, and the United States may well be expected to view proposals for their use with a more friendly eye than at the close of the first World War.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 1943 , pp. 386 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1943

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

1 The word “sanction” as used in municipal law refers to the punishment and coercion of the law-breaker. Since in international relations the aggressor is put at a disadvantage by aid given to his opponent, the extension of the term “sanction” to include such positive action appears justified.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 16, 1939, Vol. I, p. 685.

3 Other countries which discriminated against the United States in the allocation of exchange, such as Argentina, were hot placed upon the disfavored list, although for a time Australia suffered from this penalty.

4 Department of State, Press Releases, March 18, 1939, pp. 199–200.

5 Ibid., p. 203.

6 Margaret S. Gordon, Barriers to World Trade (Macmillan, New York, 1941), p. 408, note 51.

7 It has been argued that, on principles of reprisal, economic discriminations were permissible, because of Japan’s violation of various treaties, in spite of the commercial convention of 1911. See Q. Wright, “The Legal Status of Economic Sanctions,” Amerasia, February, 1939, p. 569.

8 For the various orders see Department of State Bulletin, July 6, 1940, Vol. I l l , p. 11; Aug. 3, 1940, Vol. III, p. 94; Sept. 28, 1940, Vol. III, p. 250.

9 Department of State Bulletin, June 14, 1941, Vol. IV, p. 718; 6 Federal Register, 2897 (Ex. Order 8785).

10 Office of Facts and Figures, Report to the Nation (Washington, 1942), p. 23.

11 Department of State Bulletin, July 26, 1941, Vol. V, p. 73; 6 Federal Register, 3715 (Ex. Order 8832).

12 Ibid., July 19, 1941, Vol. V, p. 41. Many other names were added to the list by subsequent proclamations.

13 Ibid., Aug. 2, 1941, Vol. V, p. 99.

14 Whittlesey, Charles R., “ Gold Policy and Foreign Policy,” The New Republic, June 30, 1941, p. 879 Google Scholar.

15 The items making the total are R.F.C. credits of $50,000,000 in 1933, and Export-Import Bank credits of $1,500,000 in 1937, $25,000,000 in 1938, $20,000,000 in March, 1940, $25,000,000 in October, 1940, and $50,000,000 in November, 1940. These are the sums of the authorizations of credit. In some cases, particularly the earlier ones, the credits were not fully used.

16 Three credits were announced in the following sums: $10,000,000 in December, 1939, $20,000,000 in March, 1940, and $5,000,000 in March, 1941. The information regarding the Chinese and Finnish credits is found in Export-Import Bank of Washington, Statement of Loans and Commitments, June 30, 1941.

17 China may well be defined as a belligerent in fact after July, 1937, although war was not formally declared. Governmental loans to China under these circumstances cannot, in a realistic sense, be regarded as consistent with the spirit of impartial neutrality.

18 Department of State Bulletin, July 15, 1939, Vol. I, p. 45.

19 Department of State Bulletin, January 18, 1941, Vol. IV, p. 91.

20 Office of Facts and Figures, op. cit., p. 17.

21 “ I t is manifestly out of the question that the government of the United States should acquiesce in such methods or applications of punishment to its citizens.” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1916 (Supplement), p. 422.