No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
1 Harvard Research draft convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 20, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 29 (1935), p. 977.
2 Ibid., p. 987. See critique by Josef L. Kunz of this theory advanced by Verdross, and Kelsen, , “The Vienna School and International Law,” N. Y, University Law Quar. Rev., March, 1934, Vol. 11, p. 34.Google Scholar
3 Dept. of State Publications, No. 1079, Washington, 1937. Secretary Hull emphasized these principles in his National Press Club address of March 17, 1938, and in his Nashville address of June 3, 1938.
4 Dept. of State Press Releases, April 30, 1938, p. 511.
5 Vattel, , Le Droit des Gens, Vol. III, c. 12, sec. 188, Trans. Carnegie ed., p. 304.Google Scholar
6 The Three Stages in the Evolution of the Law of Nations, The Hague, 1919, p. 28.
7 Vattel, op. cit., sec. 190.
8 Van Vollenhoven, op. cit., p. 27.
9 See, for example, Introduction, sec. 16, and Vol. III, c. 3, sec. 40.
10 Moore, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 1, p. 222 Google Scholar; Vol. 7, p. 124; Department of State Press Releases, Jan. 29, 1931; March 6, 20, 1937; Stowell, , “Respect due to Foreign Sovereigns,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 301 ff.Google Scholar
11 Comments made by officials not responsible to the chief executive, or not acting in the scope of their official functions, are not usually attributed to the state. The subject is elaborately dealt with in an unpublished study on “State Responsibility for the Hostile Utterances of Its Officers” by Sidney Hyman, U. of Chicago Library, 1938.
12 See U. S. Diplomatic Instructions, 1927, VIII, 10.
13 Stowell, Ellery, International Law, N. Y., 1931, p. 349 ff.Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community; Jessup, , “The defense of oppressed peoples,” this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 116 Google Scholar; Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles’ address in Baltimore, May 24, 1938.
14 Stowell, op. cit., p. 427; Borchard, , Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, 1919, pp. 440–441.Google Scholar
15 The documents are printed in International Conciliation, June, 1925, No. 211, pp. 186, 192. See also Akagi, Roy H., Japan’s Foreign Relations, Tokyo, 1936, p. 442 ffGoogle Scholar.
16 Tariff Act of 1929, Hearings before the Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate, 71st Cong., 1st Sess., on H. R. 2667, Vol. 18, p. 126.
17 See Dept. of State Order, March 26, 1925, final paragraph, which requires permission from foreign governments for publication only of documents received from them.
18 The correspondence is printed in Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Sen. Doc. 474, pp. 85, 99, 101.
19 Bernard, Montague, Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War, London, 1870, p. 196 ff.Google Scholar
20 Garner, J. W., International Law and the World War, London, 1920, Vol. 1, p. 177 Google Scholar. On June 3,1938, Acting Secretary of State Welles made a formal statement to the press expressing “emphatic reprobation” at the bombing of civilians in the Spanish and Far Eastern hostilities.
21 “Wherever in the world the laws which should protect the independence of nations, the inviolability of their territory, the lives and property of their citizens, are violated, all other nations have a right to protest against the breaking down of the law. Such a protest would not be an interference in the quarrels of others. It would be an assertion of the protesting nation’s own right against the injury done to it by the destruction of the law upon which it relies for its peace and security.” Root, Elihu, “The Outlook for International Law,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1915.Google Scholar
22 Root, Elihu, “The Outlook for International Law,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1915.Google Scholar
23 Plutarch, Solon, Sec. 18, quoted by Creasy, Sir Edward, First Platform of International Law, London, 1876, p. 44 Google Scholar; note 21 supra.
24 Root, op. cit. The same distinction was recognized by Sec. Hull in his press interview of May 7, 1938 (Press Releases, May 7, 1938, p. 559), when he urged his interlocutor to “lift your attention, vision, and thought up to these great treaties that really have been violated like the Nine Power Pact, the Kellogg Pact, and all the others that go to the very heart of the peace situation.”
25 See letter of Secretary of State Hull, Sept. 11, 1933 (Press Releases, Sept. 22, 1934, p. 1), calling attention to the obligation of Germany under Arts. 1 and 2 of the Treaty of Berlin between the United States and Germany incorporating Art. 170 of the Treaty of Versailles, by which Germany agreed to prohibit the importation and exportation of arms, munitions and war materials of every kind and stating that consequently “This Government would view the export of military planes from this country to Germany with grave disapproval.” (See comment of Secretary Hull, May 6, 1938, Press Releases, May 7, 1938, p. 545 ff., explaining that even if there was an obligation of Germany to prohibit import of arms, there was no obligation of the United States to prohibit export of arms to Germany, consequently licenses could not be refused for such export under Sec. 5 (f) of the Neutrality Act of April 29, 1937.) The continued licensing of arms shipments from the United States to Germany indicates that Germany has been violating her treaty obligation to the United States. See also note of the United States to the Union of Soviet Republics protesting against activities in connection with the All-World Congress of the Communist International as “a flagrant violation of the pledge given by the U.S.S.R. on November 16, 1933, with respect to noninterference in the internal affairs of the United States.” (Press Releases, Aug. 31, 1935, p. 1.) Since the Welles letter, the United States has alleged another treaty violation by Germany in connection with the Jewish property declaration decree. Ibid., May 14, 1938, p. 576.
26 International Law Assn. Report of 38th Conference, 1934, pp. 49–52, 67. Some doubt was expressed on this point in the House of Lords debate of Feb. 20, 1935, ibid., pp. 318, 321.
27 Press Releases, April 9, 1938, p. 465.
28 Ibid., May 14, 1938, pp. 575–6.