No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Neutrality and the Sale of Arms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
The extent to which belligerents may interfere with the commerce of neutrals, on sea or land, has been in all wars a question of warm and continued dispute. A powerful belligerent is apt to proceed lawlessly, and a powerful neutral is apt to claim more rights than the authorities concede. It could-not be expected that the present state of war, involving every first class Power in the world, except the United States, and many of the lesser states as well, would be free from such complications, and this expectation has certainly been realized.
It would be improvident to undertake the discussion of so broad a topic as the whole of this controversy. This writer has several times, before considerable assemblies and in various publications, ventured to express his opinion on one limited portion of this dispute, namely, as to the right of neutrals to export munitions of war to belligerents and the extent to which the other belligerents are entitled to complain of or interrupt such trade.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1916
References
1 See The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, July, 1915, Publication No. 913.
2 Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to British Minister, May 15, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 105; 1 American State Papers, 69, 147; 3 Jefferson’s Works, pp. 558, 560; quoted 7 Moore’s Digest, p. 955.
3 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, p. 140; quoted Moore’s Digest, p. 955.
4 Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, to Mr. Adet, Jan. 20, and May 25, 1796, 1 American State Papers, For. Rel. 645–649; 7 Moore’s Digest, 956.
5 Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Romero, Mexican Minister, December 15, 1862, MS. Notes to Mexico, VII, 215; 7 Moore’s Digest, p. 958.
6 See 7 Moore’s Digest, pp. 955–973.
7 See Ex parte Chavasse, in Re Grazebrook, 34 L. J., n. s., Bankruptcy, 17 (Scott’s cases International Law, p. 779).
8 7 Wheaton, 340.
9 See Pearson v. Parsons, 108 Fed. R. 461. Many more judicial decisions might be cited if deemed necessary.
10 See Law Guarantee and Trust Soc. v. Russian Banks, K. B. Div. H., Ct. Law Times, Vol. XVIII, p. 503. See also, 2 Oppenheim, International Law, p. 431; Taylor, International Law, p. 741.
11 See Hershey’s Essentials of International Law, pp. 459 and 467.
12 Mr. Roosevelt quotes this statement by this writer and commends the article, in his late book Fear God and Take Your Own Part, pp. 156, 158, 160.
13 Special Supplement to this Journal for July, 1915, p. 255.
14 Ibid., p. 125.
16 Ibid., p. 127.
16 Annals of American Acad. Political and Social Science, July, 1915, p. 195.
17 See Campbell’s Neutral Rights in Anglo-Boer War, p. 60.
18 Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1915, p. 189.
19 See Spl. Sup. this Journal, July, 1915, p. 146.
20 Ibid., p. 166.
21 Annals American Academy Political and Social Science, July, 1915. Publication No. 913; New York Herald, May 16, 1915.
22 Mr. Roosevelt in his Fear God and Take Your Own Part, p. 162, quotes this passage too kindly, attributing it to “a great expert on international law.”
23 Collated Papers, Westlake on Public International Law, p. 391.
24 Navy League of the United States, Pamphlet 16.