Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:50:54.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and the United States Cuban Quarantine of 1962*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Larman C. Wilson
Larman C. Wilson*
Affiliation:
English, History, and Government Department, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In carrying out this order [“Interdiction of the Delivery of Offensive Weapons to Cuba“], force shall not be used except in case of failure or refusal to comply with directions, or with regulations or directives of the Secretary of Defense after reasonable efforts have been made to communicate them to the vessel or craft, or in case of self-defense. In any case, force shall be used only to the extent necessary.

President Kennedy

On October 16, 1962, the President of the United States — the late President Kennedy — was informed of the results of aerial surveillance of Cuba: missiles with a definite “offensive” capability were being prepared for launching! Six days later, on October 22, in an evening radio and television address to the nation, President Kennedy presented, in no mistakable terms, the new military threat to the United States posed by Cuba, and announced actions to be taken that were equally unequivocal and dramatic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Inter-American Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1965 , pp. 485 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1965

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.)

Footnotes

*

See bibliographical note at end of article.

References

1 Kennedy, John F., Proclamation No. 3504, Interdiction of the Delivery of Offensive Weapons to Cuba, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, XLVII (November 12, 1962), 717 Google Scholar.

2 For complete text of his address, see Bulletin pp. 715-720.

3 The Swedish note was presented in Stockholm on October 26 by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The note had been approved by both the Cabinet and the Foreign Affairs Council, which includes the leaders of all the political parties. Wilfrid Fleisher, “Quarantine Is Protested by Sweden,” Washington Post, October 26, 1962.

4 Historically and traditionally, the United States has usually been opposed to blockades of all types and has viewed them as “acts of war.” This was, however, before the advent of the missile age, whether in Cuba or elsewhere.

5 As presented by the Department of State's Legal Adviser, Abram Chayes, and Deputy Legal Adviser, Leonard C. Meeker, op. cit, (Mr. Chayes resigned in June, 1964.)

6 The views of Mr. Abram Chayes, the Legal Adviser of the State Department, toward international law were expressed before the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law on April 25, 1963. For a much fuller presentation of his criticisms of and dismissal of international law, see his two articles cited in the Bibliographical note. Mr. Chayes’ view of the Cuban crisis was that the only alternative for the United States was to act. Although legal counsel was available throughout the crisis, it did not determine the outcome, though it did shape the nature of the response. He admitted that he was not an international lawyer, but had been trained in the procedures of corporations and the common law. Further, he stated that he had been appalled during the Cuban crisis by the views, abstractions, and questions of the international lawyers.

7 Professor Schwarzenberger's views were presented in his inaugural lecture — The Misery and Grandeur of International Law—of October 24, 1963, on the occasion of his elevation to a Chair of International Law in the University of London.

He maintained that the United States “quarantine'” was neither belligerent blockade nor pacific blockade, and that Cuba's preparation for her own defense was no basis for the United States to act in the name of self-defense. Also, since there is no real distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” weapons and Cuba had not violated International law, the United States self-defense position was not valid. The Year Book of World Affairs 1964 (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), pp. 329-330.

8 The summary of his views is taken from “The Cuban Quarantine,” American Journal of International Law, LVII (July 1963), 546-565.

9 Ibid., p. 548.

10 Ibid., p. 549.

11 Ibid., p. 551.

12 Ibid., p. 552.

13 Ibid., p. 553.

14 Ibid., p. 555.

15 Ibid., p. 557.

16 Ibid., p. 558.

17 Ibid., p. 559.

18 Ibid., pp. 560-561.

19 Ibid., p. 562.

20 Ibid., p. 563.