Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:19:26.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the League of Nations Covenant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Quincy Wright
Quincy Wright
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The League of Nations covenant is designed to “promote international coöperation and to achieve international peace and security.” To accomplish the first it provides organs of conference and recommendation and coördinates the numerous international unions already existing with some new ones. To accomplish the second, the members of the league covenant to refrain from acting or to act in a specified manner, in specified circumstances. “Scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations” is emphasized; thus in relation to the treaty of peace of which it is a part, the covenant is comparable to the various forms of oaths, hostages, and guaranties of previous peace treaties.

No intention of modifying international law is expressed. On the contrary “the understandings of international law” are to be firmly established “as the actual rules of conduct among governments.” In fact, however, the character of law is dependent upon the character of its sanction. Law and organization are interdependent, and the covenant when put in operation will modify international law, though less in its specific rules than in certain assumptions upon which they have heretofore been supposed to rest.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , November 1919 , pp. 556 - 576
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1919

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 Phillipson, , Termination of War and Treaties of Peace, 1916, pp. 207–213.Google Scholar

2 “For as he that violates the laws of his country for the sake of some present advantage to himself, destroys that which is made for the perpetual security of what himself or his posterity shall be able to acquire; so that people which violates the Laws of Nature and Nations break down the bulwarks of their future happiness and tranquillity.” Grotius, , De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Proleg., sec. 18.Google Scholar See also Proleg., sec. 23; Vattel, , Le Droit des Gens, Prelim., sec. 22Google Scholar; I Corinthians 12: 26.

3 “Public international law proposes to reach a compromise (transaction) between two actions, contrary in fact, that of the principle of autonomy of states, and that of the notion of the cosmopolitan society. Neither of these two principles ought to supplant the other, nor to be put completely to its practical application.” Bonfils, , Manuel de droit international public, 6th ed. (Fauchille), Paris, 1912, sec. 24, p. 10.Google Scholar These opposites may be synthesized in a more fundamental principle than either, maintenance of the law defining the compromise.

4 Hall, , International Law, 7th ed. (Higgins), London, 1917Google Scholar, sec. 7; Wilson, aud Tucker, , International Law, 7th ed., 1917, p. 73.Google Scholar

5 Plutarch, , Solon, sec. 18Google Scholar, quoted by Grotius, op. cit., I, c. 5, sec. 2.

6 Op. cit. II, c. 20, sec. 40, par. 1, 4; c. 25, sec. 6. See also, Hall, op. cit., sec. 92, p. 298; Bluntschli, , Le droit international codifie, secs. 471, 478.Google Scholar

7 Op. cit. II, c. 24, sec. 1; I, c. 5, sec. 1.

8 Creasy, , First Platform of International Law, London, 1876, p. 44Google Scholar; Amos, Sheldon, Jurisprudence, London, 1872, pp. 411, 456Google Scholar; Kaltenborn, , Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenshaft, (1861), vol. 27, p. 86Google Scholar, quoted by Schücking, , The International Union of the Hague Conferences (trans. Fenwick, C. G.), N. Y., 1918, p. 46Google Scholar; Scott, , American Journal of International Law, vol. 10, p. 343.Google Scholar

9 Protests by France, Austria and Prussia to United States in Trent Case, Supp. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, pp. 67–72Google Scholar; by United States to Germany in case of Belgian deportations, ibid., Special Supplement, Vol. 11, p. 251. Protests based on humanity or political sympathy have been more common and are of more doubjtful propriety, see Hall, op. cit., sec. 92; Moore's, Digest, Vol. 6, pp. 32, 349, 359, 363Google Scholar; Green, , American Interest in Popular Government Abroad, U. S. War Information Series, No. 8 (1917).Google Scholar

10 This was assumed to be the basis of the interventions of the quadruple alliance of 1815, see Declaration of Aix la Chapelle, Nov. 15, 1818, Great Britain, Parl. Pap., 1819, Vol. XVIII, p. 351.Google Scholar Gladstone referred British interest in Belgian independence to the general European interest in the maintenance of public right, Aug. 10, 1870, Hansard, Vol. 203, p. 1786. See also speeches of Sir E. Grey, Aug. 3, 1914, Parl. Deb., series 5, commons, Vol. 65, p. 822, and of Pres. Wilson, Apr. 2, 1917, Cong. Rec., Vol. 55, pp. 102, 118.

11 Though a change he approved, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, p. 9.

12 Ibid. See also Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 464.

13 Victoria, , Relectiones Theologicae (1557), ed. 1696, p. 428Google Scholar, Classics of International Law series, pp. 170, 278, 428.

14 Flemming v. Page, 9 How. 603 (1850).

15 Moore's, Digest, Vol. 6, p. 402.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 292.

17 Cobbett, , Leading Cases on International Law, London, 1913, Vol. 2, p. 245.Google Scholar

18 Secretary Hay to Mr. Reyes, Jan. 5, 1904, Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, Washington, 1914, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Doc. No. 474, p. 503.

19 Letters of Historicus, p. 41.

20 Wilson and Tucker, op. cit., p. 87.

21 Hall, op. cit., sec. 92. See also footnotes 8, 9, 10 supra.

22 If referred to the council, but if referred to the assembly the recommendation need be concurred in only by the representatives of members of the league represented on the council and a majority of other members of the league, in both cases with exception of the representatives of the parties to the dispute.

23 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 122 (1825).

24 Le Louis, 2 Dods. 217 (1817), Scott, , Cases, p. 357.Google Scholar

25 Sayre, , Experiments in International Administration, N. Y., 1919, pp. 23, 30.Google Scholar

26 Grotius, op. cit., I, c. 1, sec. 8, par. 3.

27 Cobbett, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 60; Wilson and Tucker, op. cit., p. 98; Lawrence doubts even legal equality, but he gives the term a wider sense than here intended (Principles of International Law, 4th ed., N. Y., 1910, sec. 114).

28 U. S. Army, General Orders, No. 100 (1863), art. 67.

29 See discussion on question of Chinese delegate at the second Hague Conference as to effect of a refusal to accept a declaration of war, in Higgins, , The Hague Peace Conferences, Cambridge, 1909, p. 205.Google Scholar

30 III Hague Convention, 1907.

31 Wilson-Bryan Peace Treaties, concluded by United States with 20 states, 1913–14.

32 II Hague Convention, 1907.

33 I Hague Convention, 1907, arts. 1, 38. United States arbitration treaties, concluded with about 20 states, 1908–9, See Malloy, , Treaties, etc., p. 814.Google Scholar

34 See footnote 21, supra.

35 Wheaton, , Elements of International Law, 8th ed. (Dana), 1866, p. 509.Google Scholar

36 Walker, , History of the Law of Nations, 1899, Vol. 1, p. 135.Google Scholar

37 The Prince, ch, 21.

38 Standards of neutral duty were really first established by the practice of the United States after 1793; see Hall, op. cit., sec. 213, p. 632.

39 King, Bolton, Mazzini, p. 305Google Scholar, quoted in Beer, , The English Speaking Peoples, N. Y., 1917, p. 134.Google Scholar

40 Wilson and Tucker, op. cit., p. 81.

41 Principles of International Law, 4th ed., 1910, sec. 58, p. 119. For specific rights included by the term “independence,” especially right of regulating immigration, see Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698 (1893), Hershey, , Essentials of International Public Law, 1912, p. 147Google Scholar; Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 441, p. 273.

42 Lowell, , The Covenanter, N. Y., 1919Google Scholar, Letter No. 2.

43 Wilson and Tucker, op. cit., p. 216.

44 It was questioned in the senate whether delegates to the proposed Panama Congress of 1826, were “diplomatic officers.” See Benton's, Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, Vol. 8, p. 463Google Scholar; Elliot's, Debates on the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed., 1836, Vol. 4, p. 480Google Scholar; Corwin, , The President's Control of Foreign Relations, Princeton, 1916, p. 56.Google Scholar

45 I Hague 1907, art. 46.

46 Bracton, , De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (written, 1250–66), Twiss, , ed., London, 1878, ch. VIII, sec. 5, Vol. 1, p. 39.Google Scholar

47 Moore's, Digest, Vol. 6, pp. 32–33, 347–367.Google Scholar

48 Hershey, , Essentials of International Public Law, 1912, p. 147Google Scholar; Wilson, , Handbook of International Law, St. Paul, 1910, p. 56Google Scholar; Bonfils, , Manuel de droit international public, 6th ed., Paris, 1912, sec. 441, p. 273Google Scholar; Bluntschli, , Le droit international codifie, Paris, 1870, secs. 381, 382.Google Scholar

49 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698 (1893); The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812), Scott, , Cases, pp. 208, 209.Google Scholar

50 Vattel, , Le Droit des Gens, II, c. 17, sec. 265.Google Scholar “Nemo debet esse judex in sua propria causa” is so fundamental a principle of the common law that Coke and others have thought a conflicting act of Parliament would be void. Dr. Bonham's case, 8 Rep. 118 a; Thayer, , Cases on Constitutional Law, I, 48–51.Google Scholar

51 Our Chief Magistrate and his Powers, N. Y., 1916, p. 106–108.

52 62nd Cong., 1st Sess,, Senate Doc. No. 98, p. 9.

53 American Year Book, 1913, p. 93.

54 Address, Second Pan-American Scientific Congress, Jan. 6, 1916, Myers, , “The New Pan-Americanism,” World Peace Foundation, Pamphlet Series, Vol. VI, No. 2, p. 108.Google Scholar

55 Secretary Hay to Mr. Reyes, Jan. 5, 1904, Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Doc. No. 474, p. 503.

56 Marriott, J. A. R., “The Foreign Policy of the United States,” The Living Age, Vol. 302, p. 328 (Aug. 9, 1919).Google Scholar

57 League of Nations Magazine, Vol. II, No. 2 (April, 1919).

58 President Roosevelt, Annual Message, Dec. 6, 1904, Moore's, Digest, Vol. 6, p. 596.Google Scholar

59 Yucatan, 1845, Magdalena Bay, 1912.

60 Foster, , A Century of American Diplomacy, N. Y., 1901, p. 161 et seq.Google Scholar

61 St. Domingo, 1905, Hayti, 1916, Nicaragua, 1916.

62 The Covenanter, N. Y., 1919, p. 159.

63 Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897, Richardson, , Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 10, p. 17.Google Scholar See also, A League of Nations, Vol. I, No. 1 (Oct., 1919), pp. 9–42.

64 See treaty with Great Britain, 1908, art. 1, Malloy, , Treaties, etc., p. 814.Google Scholar

65 I Hague Convention 1907, art. 37. See also Eoosevelt, instructions to delegates to Second Pan-American Conference, Oct. 8, 1901, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate Doc. No. 330, p. 34.

66 Adams, Henry, History of the United States of America during the First Administration of Thomas Jefferson, N. Y., 1889, Vol. I, p. 146.Google Scholar

67 1st annual message, Dec. 8, 1801, Richardson, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 329. Adams, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 238, 242.

68 Act Aug. 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 618.

69 Malloy, , Treaties, p. 244Google Scholar et seq.

70 Ibid., p. 1046.

71 American Year Book, 1917, p. 61.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.