Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:35:54.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Isolation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

John Bassett Moore
John Bassett Moore*
Affiliation:
Permanent Court of International Justice
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For some years it has been the fashion of certain coöperative groups and their organs, here and abroad, to dub as “ isolationists” all persons in theUnited States who were unable impulsively to accept certain plans and modesof action, by no means so untried as their proponents assumed them to be, as the instrumentalities of a new and peaceful world order. But, as Grotius sagely observes, it is easy to push things too far, and, by losing sight of what is fundamental, to go to extremes and assume untenable positions. In this way those who would, in the speed of their desire, leave others behind, may perchance find themselves in a state of isolation, with injury to the cause which all may wish to serve. In the present instance, the cause I particularly have in mind is that of international law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 1933 , pp. 607 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

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 International Law, 3d ed., p. 216.

2 In the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1913, at page 440, there is a telegram sent on December 5,1913, by Mr. James M. Sullivan, United States Minister to the Dominican Republic, to Mr. Bryan, Secretary of State, saying that he had told the Dominican cabinet “ that President Wilson's declaration of principles concerning Latin America reserved the right to enter any Latin American country to see that the people's rights were not lost by force or fraud.” Although we may properly assume that Mr. Sullivan was not instructed to interpret the declaration in these precise terms, yet, as his interpretation is published in the official record without any accompanying expression of disapproval, it must be accepted as proof that the declaration strongly stimulated new thoughts on international order.

3 Beginning with September, 1930, we may cite, as examples, the recognition of new governments in Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Spain, and again in Peru, as officially announced in the Press Releases of Sept. 20, 1930, pp. 192-193; Nov. 8,1930, p. 322; Jan. 10,1931, p. 21; April 15,1931, p. 341, and May 23,1931, p. 410. Although in several of these cases, no mention whatever was made of the “de facto” character of the new government, it is specially gratifying to observe that, in the case of Brazil, the Secretary of State, after referring to the request of “ the de facto Government of Brazil” for recognition, formally announced that our Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro had been instructed to reply that the United States would “ be happy to continue with the new Government of Brazil the same friendly relations as with its predecessors.” The term “ de facto” was thus expressly made to run the entire gamut of legality. It was a welcome relief from the fitful but monotonous discords of “de jure” jazz.

4 Yrisarri v. Clement, 2 C. & P. 223,225 (1825).

5 Consul of Spain v. The Concepcion, Fed. Cas. 3137 (1819).

6 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1892, p. 635.

7 Underhill v. Hernandez, 65 F. 577; 26 U. S. App. 573; 168 U. S. 250,18 S. Ct. 83.

8 Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297, 38 S. Ct. 309 (1918), this Journal , Vol. 12 (1918), p. 421; cf. Terrazas v. Holmes, 115 Tex. 32, 275S. W. 392 (1925); Princess Paley Olga v. Weisz, [1929] 1 K. B. 718.

I forbear to go more extensively into the analysis of judicial decisions on the point now under consideration because this task has been so well performed by Prof. Borchard, Edwin M. in his article on “ The Unrecognized Government in American Courts,”published in this Journal , Vol. 26 (1932), pp. 261-71 Google Scholar. I desire further to say that I fully concur in all the positions taken and all the comments made by Prof. Borchard in that, article.

9 8 Wall. 1,9-11 (1868).

10 1 Moore, Digest of Int. Law, pp. 52-60.

11 Selected Writings of James Hardy Dillard: John F. Slater Fund, Occasional Papers, No. 27, p. 67.

12 United States v. Arjona (1887), 120 U. S. 479.

13 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsey (1804), 2 Cranch, 64.

14 Le Louis, 2 Dodson's Adm. 239.

15 Moore, , International Law and Some Current Illusions, and Other Essays (1924), pp. 124-29 Google Scholar.

16 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 7, §1288, p. 863.

17 The Virginia Quarterly Review, July, 1932, p. 388.

18 “ An Appeal to Reason,” Foreign Affairs, July, 1933, pp. 566-674.

19 “ Aggression and Aggressive Weapons,” Army Ordnance, July-August, 1933, pp. 7-11.

20 “Anglo-American Friendship,” by Herbert Agar in The Nineteenth Century (London), January, 1933, pp. 62-69.