¹ See Anderson, C. P., “The Central American Policy of Non-Recognition,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 164 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Sen. Doc. No. 316, 58th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 147.

³ Secretary Kellogg, note of Jan. 25, 1926, declining to recognize General Emiliano Chamorro of Nicaragua. A. J. I. L., Vol. 20 (1926), p. 543.

⁴ “The United States and the Other American Republics,” Address Feb. 6, 1931, before the New York Council on Foreign Relations. Pub. of Dept. of State, Latin American Series, No. 4, p. 6 ff. See C. C. Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, (1922), Vol. I, p. 73, for an interpretation of the theory of recognition of de facto governments held by the United States.

⁵ Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Vol. 15 (1910), p. 847.

⁶ Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Vol. 53 (1913), p. 346.

⁷ Lauterpacht, H., Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (1927), p. 100 Google Scholar.

⁸ Quoted in M. F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, p. 173.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 173-174.

¹⁰ Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, Sec. ’87, p. 292. The arbitration plan adopted by the conference was never put into operation.

¹¹ See A. J. I. L., Special Supplement, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 384.

¹² League of Nations, Record of the Second Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, pp. 400-401. The Brazilian amendment was as follows:

All the members of the League of Nations consider null and void, pleno jure, the provisions of any international treaty concluded in the future which grant to a state which has made war contrary to Articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Covenant, the following:

(a) Indemnity for war costs and reparations for damage caused by the war;

(b) Clauses relating to economic pressure against the conquered country;

(c) The annexation of territory;

Consequently, all the members of the League of Nations agree to introduce at once into their legal systems provisions for the purpose of investing their governments with the following powers:

1. To prohibit in the commercial centres of the country the issue of loans for the above mentioned indemnities, and the quotation on their stock exchange of any bonds representing these indemnities;

2. To prohibit stock exchange transactions which are subject to the laws of the aggressor state, not only in respect of currency, but also in respect of any public or private securities whatever;

3. To forbid nationals of the aggressor state to use the postal, telegraph and telephone services and the means of transport of those states which have remained faithful to the CoAienant;

4. To adopt prohibitive duties on the import and export of goods from or to the aggressor state;

5. To break off, prohibit or generally bring to an end all the relations referred to in the first paragraph of Article 16;

6. Not to recognize in any form, in their diplomatic and consular services, the sovereignty of the aggressor over the territories of the state attacked.

It shall be the duty of the Council to recommend to the various governments the measures to be applied, the sanctions will remain in force until, in the Council’s opinion, the exceptional measures imposed by the aggressor state on the conquered country cease and until the usurped territory has been restored.

All the members of the League recognize the competence of the Court of International Justice, in case of doubt, to determine de piano, at the request of one of the members, which has been the aggressor state.

(Signed) C. BRAGA.

¹³ Records of the Ninth Ordinary Session of the Assembly, Special Supplement No. 64, p. 75.

¹⁴ Records of the Tenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly, Special Supplement No. 75, p. 168.

¹⁵ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1915, p. 146.

¹⁶ The Protocol of Troppau and the 1907 and 1923 Conventions of the Central American States are exceptions.

¹⁷ See Proceedings of American Society of International Law, 1931.

¹⁸ International Law and Some Current Illusions and other Essays (1924), p. 306.

¹⁹ A. J. I. L., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 342.

²⁰ “The Pact of Paris, Three Years of Development,” Address before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, Aug. 8, 1932. Pub. No. 357, Dept. of State, p. 5.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid., p. 7.

²³ See French Strother, Administrative Assistant to President Hoover, New York Times, Feb. 26, 1933.

²⁴ Ibid. See also Secretary Stimson’s address of Aug. 8, 1933, loc. cit.

²⁵ Armistice Day Address of 1929.

²⁶ See address on “The United States and World Peace” delivered before the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Atlantic City, N. J., May 6, 1932. Dept. of State Press Releases, weekly issue, No. 136, p. 443.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 444.

²⁸ Address by Acting Secretary Castle on “Recent Developments in the Kellogg Pact,” delivered before the American Conference on Institutions for the Establishment of International Justice, Washington, D. C., May 4, 1932. Dept. of State Press Releases, weekly issue, No. 136, p. 417.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 417–418.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 444.

³¹ Address by Acting Secretary Castle on “Recent Developments in the Kellogg Pact,” supra, p. 444.

³² Ibid., p. 418. In his acceptance speech of Aug. 11, 1932, President Hoover stated that he had projected a new doctrine in international affairs, “the doctrine that we do not and never will recognize title to possession of territory gained in violation of the peace pacts which were signed with us.” (New York Times, Aug. 12, 1932.) It should be noted that this represents a more restricted commitment than that contained in the identic notes of Jan. 7, 1932.

³³ Ibid., p. 445.

³⁴ Twelve members of the Council had, on Feb. 16, in their appeal to the Japanese Govern ment, declared “that no infringement of the territorial integrity and no change in the political independence of any member of the League brought about in disregard of Article X of the Covenant ought to be recognized as valid and effectual by members of the League.”

³⁵ Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Vols. 261, 262.

³⁶ See P. S. Wild, Jr., “Treaty Sanctions,” A. J. I. L., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 498 ff. . See also Project No. 30 of the proposed codification of Pan American International Law (1925). In 1930 Peru proposed an amendment to Art. 18 of the League Covenant under which the League Secretariat would not be permitted to register “any treaty of peace imposed by force as a consequence of a war undertaken in violation of the Pact of Paris. The League of Nations shall consider null and void any stipulations which it may contain, and shall render every assistance in restoring the status quo destroyed by force.” (League of Nations Official Journal, 1930, p. 78.)

³⁷ There have been at least nine statements made on the conditions under which the doctrine applies, each of which differs in some degree from all the others. Six of these variations are to be found in public statements of American statesmen.

³⁸ New York Times, Aug. 4, 1932, p. 9.

³⁹ See Quincy Wright, “The Meaning of the Pact of Paris” and Edwin M. Borchard, “War and Peace,” A. J. I. L., Vol. 27 (January, 1933).

⁴⁰ Secretary Stimson’s address of Aug. 8, 1933, loc. cit., p. 6.

⁴¹ Note of the Japanese Government of Jan. 16, 1932. “Conditions in Manchuria,” Sen. Doc. No. 55, p. 55.

⁴² In an address delivered at Dairen on Aug. 9, 1932, Mr. Y. Matsuoka, who was then about to leave for Geneva, made the following statement: “It is a fact that Manchukuo has made her advent. Who has made her, who has helped her, or under what circumstances she was brought into being make but little difference. The cold fact that Manchukuo, an independent state, has been brought into existence is beyond question.” The Manchurian Daily News, monthly supplement, October, 1932.

⁴³ See R. F. Roxburgh, International Conventions and Third States, pp. 31–32.

⁴⁴ Lindley, op. cit., pp. 135–136.

⁴⁵ Borchard, E. M., “The Unrecognized Government in American Courts,” A. J. I. L., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 265 Google Scholar. See also E. D. Dickinson, “The Unrecognized Government or State in English and American Law,” Mich. Law Rev., Vol. 22; E. D. Dickinson, “Recognition Cases 1925–1930,” A. J. I. L., Vol. 25 (1931); Houghton, N. D., “The Position of Unrecognized Governments before the Courts of Foreign States,” Ind. Law Journal, Vol. 4, May, 1929 Google Scholar; Houghton, N. D., “Recognition in International Law,” Amer. Law Rev., Vol. 62,1928 Google Scholar, for the effect of non-recognition on judicial remedies.

⁴⁶ Dickinson, Mich. Law Rev., Vol. 27, p. 122.

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 124 ff.

⁴⁸ United States consuls are still carrying on their functions in what is now Manchukuo. American consuls in China do not function under exequaturs; therefore, the question of granting recognition through the acceptance of an exequatur does not arise, i.e., if Manchukuo is presumed to succeed to China in this area. The procedure in appointing consuls to China is for the American Government merely to notify the Chinese Government of the assignment of consular officers to the various parts in China where American consular offices are maintained.

⁴⁹ Acceptance speech, Aug. 11, 1932, New York Times, Aug. 12, 1932.

⁵⁰ Address of Aug. 8, 1932, loc. cit., pp. 10–11.

⁵¹ Spain withheld recognition from the Netherlands for some seventy years, and from the Braganza dynasty of Portugal from 1640 until 1688. See Rivier, A., Princeps du Droll des Gens (1896), Vol. I, p. 58 ff.Google Scholar for cases of delayed recognition.

⁵² See “The United States and Central American Revolutions,” Foreign Policy Reports, Vol. VII, No. 10 (July 22, 1931). Among the five signatories, Costa Rica, on Dec. 23, 1932, and El Salvador, on Dec. 26, 1932, denounced the treaty of 1923. The treaty remains in effect only as long as a minimum of three signatories are bound, and this minimum number has now been reached. See Dept. of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 39 (Dec. 31, 1932) pp. 4–5.

⁵³ Verbatim Record of the Special Session of the Assembly (Feb. 24, 1933), 17th Plenary Session, p. 10.