¹ “That commonwealth is best administered, in which any wrongs, that are done to individuals, are resented and redressed by the other members of the community, as promptly and as vigorously, as if they themselves were personal sufferers” (Plutarch, Life of Solon, sect. 18). Creasy (First Platform of International Law, London, 1875, p. 44) asserts that this maxim “applies to the great Commonwealth of civilized states,” and finds some support in Grotius (I, c. 5, sec. 2; II, c. 20, sec. 40; c. 25, sec. 6) and Vattel (Prelim. sec. 22; II, c. 1, sec. 4; c. 23, sec. 283), but admits that Sheldon Amos (Jurisprudence, p. 456) goes beyond these authorities in calling for “a general and determined resolution among all states to hold the breaking of a single clause in a treaty by any state as a crime deserving instant and condign punishment at the hands, not of the immediate sufferers alone but of all.” Most writers agree that a distinction must be made between serious and minor infractions of treaty or international law in the application of the Soloman maxim to the family of nations. See Oppenheim, International Law, 3rd ed., London, 1920, Vol. 1, pp. 225–226; Stowell, International Law, New York, 1931, pp. 625–632; Root, Am. Journ. Int. Law, 1916, Vol. 10, p. 9; Wright, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1919, Vol. 13, pp. 556–558; Research in International Law Since the War, Washington, 1930, pp. 27–29.

² Hudson, International Legislation, Washington, 1931.

³ Habicht, Post War Treaties for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Cambridge, 1931.

⁴ Darby, International Tribunals, London, 1904, pp. 5–6; York, Leagues of Nations, Ancient, Medieval and Modern, London, 1919, p. 5; Walker, A History of the Law of Nations, Cambridge, 1899, p. 39; Freeman, History of Federal Government, 2nd ed., London, 1893, p. 98ff.

⁵ Krey, The International State of the Middle Ages, Am. Hist. Rev., Oct. 1922, Vol. 28, p. 4ff.

⁶ “Sovereignty, Seisin and the League,” British Year Book of Int. Law., 1926, p. 36 .

⁷ Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History, New York 1906, pp. 51–52. This article (61) was omittedin reissues of Magna Carta after 1215.

⁸ Sayre, Experiments in International Administration, New York, 1919, p. 173.

⁹ Phillips, The Confederation of Europe, 2nd ed., London, 1920, pp. 74, 140, 147, 305.

¹⁰ Darby,op. cit., pp. 30, 57, 74–82, 149. See also Great Britain, Foreign Office, Peace Handbooks, London, 1920, Vol. 25, p. 12ff.

¹¹ Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question, Oxford, 1885, p. 2.

¹² Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia, New York, 1922, pp. 663–668, 677–681; Blakeslee, The Pacific Area, Boston, 1929, pp. 131–138; Whyte, China and Foreign Powers, Oxford, 1927, pp. 37–38, 50.

¹³ Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference, New York, 1923, pp.279–286; Dunn, The Practice and Procedure of International Conferences, Baltimore, 1929, pp. 99–110.

¹⁴ Hall, International Law, 8th ed., Oxford, 1924, pp. 347–348.

¹⁵ See Oppenheim, op. cit., pp. 228–229;Hyde, International Law, Boston, 1922, Vol. 1, pp. 122–123; Stowell, op. cit., p. 628.

¹⁶ See Brierly, “Sanctions,” Proceedings of Grotius Society, 1931; Root, Am. Jour. Int. Law, Vol. 2, p. 452.

¹⁷ Wright, Control of American Foreign Relations, New York, 1922, pp. 209–214; Col. Law Rev., Feb. 1920, Vol. 20, pp. 145–150.

¹⁸ Habicht, op. cit., introduction.

¹⁹ These treaties are discussed in detail by Young, Japan’s Jurisdiction and International Legal Position in Manchuria, 3 Vols., Baltimore, 1931, and in Willoughby, Foreign Rights and Interests in China, 2 Vols., Baltimore, 1927, and more briefly in Blakeslee, op. cit.

²⁰ For an account of action to apply these treaties in the fall of 1931, see Wright, “The Manchurian Crisis,” Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., Feb. 1932, Vol. 26, pp. 45–76; Lowell, “Manchuria, The League and the United States,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1932, Vol. 10, pp. 352–368.

²¹ League of Nations, Minutes of 65th Sess. of Council, pars. 2954.

²² League of Nations, Minutes of 65th Sess. of Council, pars. 2913, 2953, 2957.

²³ Japanese note to U. S., Jan. 16, 1932, and Secretary of State Stimson’s letter to Senator Borah, Feb. 23, 1932. U. S. Dept. ofState Press Releases, Jan. 16, 1932, p.68; Feb. 27, 1932, p. 201.

²⁴ League of Nations, Monthly Summary, Oct. 1929, Vol. 1, p. 311.

²⁵ Wright, “When Does War Exist?” Am. Journ. Int. Law, April, 1932; “Effects of the League of Nations Covenant,” Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., Nov. 1919, Vol. 13, p. 559.

²⁶ League of Nations, Council Resolution, Sept. 30, 1931, MM. 65th Sess. of Council, par. 2913.

²⁷ Council Res. Dec. 10, 1931, ibid., par. 2964.

²⁸ Ibid., par. 2912.

²⁹ Moore’s Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, pp. 409–411.

³⁰ League of Nations, Min. 65th Sess. of Council, par. 2954.

³¹ Supra, note 23.

³² League of Nations, Monthly Summary, Oct. 1927, Vol. 7, p. 308; Jan. 1928, Vol. 7, pp. 356, 376–378; Conwell-Evans, The League Council in Action, Oxford, 1929, pp. 282–285.

³³ League of Nations, Min. 65th Sess. of Council, pars. 2953, 2954.

³⁴ Supra, note 32.

³⁵ The articles of the Covenant relied on in 24disputes before the Council are listed by Conwell-Evans, op. cit., pp. 278–280.

³⁶ Supra, note 32.

³⁷ These resolutions dealt with radio, air and motor vehicle communication (L. of N. Monthly Summary, Vol. 9, p. 310; Vol. 10, p. 200).

³⁸ Ibid., Vol. 11, p. 276.

³⁹ U.S. Treaty Series, No. 723, Art. 7.

⁴⁰ “Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such states forthwith. Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it” (Permanent Court of International Justice, Statute, Art. 63).

⁴¹ Wright, “Neutrality and Neutral Rights following the Pact of Paris,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1930, p. 82.

⁴² “Self-help and intervention on the part of other states which sympathize with the wronged one are the means by which the rules of the law of nations can be and actually are enforced” (Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 11). “War is the last and the most formidable of the sanctions which in the society of nations maintains the law of nations” (Salmond, Jurisprudence, London, 1902, p. 14).

⁴³ Bentham (Theory of Legislation, Chap. 7) included in the term sanctions used in the broadest sense all pleasures and pains which might be anticipated from the violation of a rule, whether from physical, moral, political or religious sources, and anthropologists include in the term unorganized social disapproval, reprobation, ridicule, and retaliation, as well as organized penalties and taboos. In international law the term has often been used in this broad sense, as by Hall (op. cit., p. 13), who notes that in the case of municipal law “a machinery exists for securing obedience, in international law no more definite sanction can be appealed to than disapprobation on the part of the community or a section of it.” Potter includes “spontaneous fear of retaliation inducing action by a state” as “an element of external sanctions and not of voluntary discharge of obligations” (“ Sanctions and Security,” Geneva Special Studies, February, 1932, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 7). See also Root, “The Sanctions of International Law,” Am. Journ. Int. Law, 1908, Vol. 2, p.451; Wright, The Enforcement of International Law through Municipal Law, 1916, pp. 14, 229; “The Effect of the War on International Law,” Minn. Law Rev., 1921, Vol. 5, pp. 440–445; “The Outlawry of War,” Am. Journ. Int. Law, 1925, Vol. 19, pp. 96–97; Mandates under the League of Nations, Chicago, 1930, pp. 216–218.

⁴⁴ Sanctions and guarantees in international law correspond to the means adopted in national law to enforce legal decisions” (Philip J. N. Baiter, Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 19, p. 930). Baker points out that as a result of concentration on the problem of security since the war, and the effort to effect it through the League of Nations, the use of force in international affairs has been conceived as analogous to its use within the state, and the word “sanction” has tended to replace the older words “alliance” and “guarantee.” (See also Wright, Research in International Law since the War, 1930, pp. 28–29.) The following quotations illustrate the concept of sanctions in municipal law: “Those parts of laws liy which punishments are established against transgressors” (Justinian, Institutes, II, sec. 1, par. 10); “the pleasures and pains which may be expected from the action of the magistrate in virtue of the laws” (Bentham, Theory of Legislation, Chap. 7); “intimation that the author of commands will see to their being obeyed; not necessarily by a threat of punishment as such, but also by a promise of interference to prevent disobedience or to reinstitute things in the position in which they were before the act of disobedience” (Holland, Jurisprudence, 11th ed., Oxford, 1910, p. 22); “the instrument of coercion employed by any regulative system” (Salmond, Jurisprudence, London, 1902, p. 14); “that part of a law which inflicts a penalty for its violation or bestows a reward for its observance” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); “a provision of a law which enforces obedience by the enactment of rewards or penalties” (Century Dictionary); “a provision for securing conformity to law, as by the enactment of rewards or penalties or both” (Standard Dictionary).

⁴⁵ The terms moral and physical sanctions have sometimes been used in a different sense to distinguish the anticipated consequences of wrong-doing according as they result from the opinion of the community or from natural causes (Bentham, Theory of Legislation, Chap. 7).

⁴⁶ Supra, notes 42, 43.

⁴⁷ Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 1, p. 54; Vol. 2, p. 9; The Federalist, Nos. 15, 16, 21; Borah Resolution, Feb. 13, 1923, Sen. Res. 441, 67th Cong. 4th sess.; Senate debate, Jan. 22, 1926, Cong. Rec., Vol. 67, pp. 2235x20132;2242; Wright, Enforcement of International Law through Municipal Law, 1916, p. 18; “The Outlawry of War,” Am. Journ. Int. Law, 1925, Vol. 19, p. 98 if.; “For judgements are efficacious against those who feel that they are too weak to resist; against those who are equally strong, or think that they are, wars are undertaken” (Grotius, Prolegomena, sec. 25); Potter Geneva Special Studies, Feb. 1932, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 13–19; Moore, International Law and some Current Illusions, pp. 309–315; Brierly, “Sanctions,” Publications of the Grotius Society, 1931; Dewey, “Peace by Pact or Covenant?” New Republic, March 23, 1932, p. 145; Acting Secretary of State Castle, “Recent Developments in the Kellogg Pact,” Dept. of State press release, May 7, 1932, p. 415.

⁴⁸ Supra, note 32. See also Rutgers’ Memorandum on Arts. 10, 11, and 16 of the Covenant, Feb. 3, 1928, Art. 209, L. of N. Disarmament, 1928, IX, 3, p. 39.

⁴⁹ Wright, “When does War Exist?” Am. Jdurn. Int. Law, April, 1932.

⁵⁰ Canadian resolution on Art. 10, L. of N., 4th Assembly, Sept. 24–25, 1923; Secretary General of the League of Nations, note on Article 16, May 17, 1927, Pub. L. of N., Legal, 1927, V, 14, p. 83; Wright, “The Future of Neutrality,” International Conciliation, Sept. 1928, No. 242, pp. 354, 368–369.

⁵¹ “ House Joint Res. 288, 72nd Cong. 1st Sess., substantially incorporating the suggestions of Professor J. B. Whitton (“What Follows the Pact of Paris?”, International Conciliation, Jan. 1932, No. 276). See also Hull resolution, Feb. 24, 1932, H. J. Res. 317, authorizing an embargo on loans only; Capper resolution, April 7, 1932, Sen. J. R. 140, and remarks of Senator Capper, Cong. Rec., April 21, 1932, reprinting Report of Committee on Economic Sanctions of the Twentieth Century Fund.

⁵² Spaight, Pseudo-Security, London, 1928, pp. 12–16; Lefebure, Scientific Disarmament, New York, 1931.