Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:34:28.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Far Eastern Policies of the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

W. W. Willoughby
W. W. Willoughby*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whether or not it was possible at the time for those who framed the treaties which terminated the World War of 1914–1918 to have better provided for the years of peace which were to follow, it is now generally recognized that the terms agreed upon by the Allied Powers and imposed upon Germany were not as wise as they might have been. This is a conclusion which experience has demonstrated, and, from this experience, it is proper that nations should derive wisdom with regard to any future treaties of peace which may be entered into. Hence it is that, since the outbreak of the present European war, there has been much discussion as to what terms should be imposed upon Germany if and when she is compelled to sue for peace.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1940 , pp. 193 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1940

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 Note of Oct. 6, 1938. Dept. of State Press Releases, Oct. 29,1938, Vol. 19, pp. 283–286.

2 Note of Dec. 31, 1938. Ibid., Dec. 31, 1938, Vol. 19, pp. 490–493.

3 Dept. of State Publication No. 296.

4 London Times, Jan. 16, 1939, p. 11; New York Times, Jan. 16, 1939, p. 7.

5 That is, until that-treaty is amended or replaced by another treaty in accordance with the orderly processes prescribed by international law for the creation or amendment of international agreements. Both the United States, in its note of Dec. 31, 1938, and Great Britain, in its note of Jan. 14, 1939, declared to Japan that they did not regard treaties as necessarily eternal, and that they were prepared to consider any such changes in the Nine Power Treaty as existing facts might make desirable, but that such changes could rightfully be made only by orderly processes and agreement among the parties thereto.

6 Dept. of State Press Releases, Jan. 9, 1932, pp. 41–42.

7 This Journal, Supplement, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 119, at p. 151. For details as to this, see the author’s The Sino-Japanese Controversy and the League of Nations, p. 520 ff.

8 Black, in his Law Dictionary, defines a sanction as “a penalty or punishment provided as a means of enforcing obedience to a law.”

9 The Significance to the World of the Conflict in the Far East. Published by the Chinese Cultural Society, New York City.

10 Dept. of State Press Releases, Jan. 15, 1938, Vol. 18, pp. 100–105.

11 Dept. of State Bulletin, Nov. 11, 1939, Vol. I, pp. 509–516.

12 Extracts in New York Times, Dec. 10, 1939, p. 43; Dec. 21, 1939, p. 16.

13 Dept. of Commerce release, from Finance Division to all district offices.

14 Since the above was written, the author’s attention has been called to the article by Professor Quincy Wright entitled “Legal Status of Economic Sanctions,” in Amerasia, February, 1939, in which he takes substantially the same position. The subject was discussed by the Sanctions Committee of the League of Nations in the Italy-Abyssinia case, but in that case there was the Covenant of the League which could be held to overcome earlier treaty commitments.

15 For a list of the bills and resolutions relating to the Far East pending in the present Congress, see Amerasia, January, 1940, pp. 508–509.