Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

barrier between the aggressors and the hemisphere whose security is our security.

Department of State, V Bulletin, no. 121, pp. 291, 292 (Oct. 13, 1941). See also the arrangement effected by exchange of notes with Great Britain on Sept. 2, 1940, by which the United States acquired the right to lease naval and air bases in British territory in the Americas, and the agreement between the United States and Great Britain of Mar. 27, 1941, for the use and operation of such bases. Department of State, III Bulletin, no. 63, pp. 199 et seq. (Sept. 7, 1940); IV idem, no. 92, pp. 387 et seq. (Mar. 29, 1941); H. Doc. 158, 77th Cong., 1st sess. With respect to the agreement of Apr. 9, 1941, for the defense of Greenland, see Department of State, IV Bulletin, no. 94, pp. 443-448 (Apr. 10, 1941).

President Roosevelt in his speech broadcast on September 11, 1941 recounted the attacks that had been made by German submarines upon American merchant-ships and warships in the Atlantic Ocean, spoke of the American need of self-defense, and said:

In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, American naval vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis submarines lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface of the sea, strike their deadly blowfirst. our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships-not only American ships but ships of any flagengaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders.

From now on, if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters the protection of which is necessary for American defense they do so at their own peril.

Department of State, V Bulletin, no. 116, pp. 193, 196, 197 (Sept. 11,

1941).

In his letter of June 10, 1941 transmitting to Congress his report upon operations under the Lend-Lease Act, President Roosevelt said with respect to the period before the adoption of that measure:

In those dark days when France was falling, it was clear that this Government, to carry out the will of the people, had to render aid over and above the matériel coming off the assembly line. This Government, therefore, made available all that it possibly could out of its surplus stocks of munitions. In June of 1940, the British Government received from our surplus stocks rifles, machine guns, field artillery, ammunition, and aircraft in a value of more than 43 million dollars. This was equipment that would have taken months and months to produce and which, with the exception of the aircraft, cost about 300 million dollars to produce during the World War period. Most of this maté

riel would not have been usable if we had kept it much longer. This equipment arrived in Britain after the retreat from Dunkirk, where the British had lost great quantities of guns and other military supplies. No one can appraise what effect the delivery of these supplies had upon the successful British resistance in the summer and fall of 1940 when they were fighting against such terrific odds.

Since June 1940, this Government has continued to supply war matériel from its surplus stocks, in addition to the matériel produced by private manufacturers.

S. Doc. 66, 77th Cong., 1st sess., pp. iii-iv.

Cf. Woolsey, "Government Traffic in Contraband", 34 A.J.I.L. (1940) 498. With respect to arms, ammunition, and implements of war turned back by the United States to manufacturers and by them sold to Great Britain and France, see Fifth Report of the National Munitions Control Board (H. Doc. 876, 76th Cong., 3d sess.) 159; Sixth Report of the National Munitions Control Board (H. Doc. 127, 77th Cong., 1st sess.) 180-181.

"An Act To Promote the Defense of the United States", approved Lend-Lease March 11, 1941 and commonly known as the "Lend-Lease Act", pro- Act, 1941 vides in section 3(a) that:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government

(1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

(2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article.

. . .

(3) To test, inspect, prove, repair, outfit, recondition, or otherwise to place in good working order, to the extent to which funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for any such government, or to procure any or all such services by private contract.

(4) To communicate to any such government any defense information, pertaining to any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

Section 3(b) provides:

The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or

property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.

55 Stat. 31. See Quincy Wright, "The Lend-Lease Bill and International Law", 35 A.J.I.L. (1941) 305.

With respect to operations under the Lend-Lease Act, see: S. Doc. 66, 77th Cong., 1st sess.; S. Doc. 112, 77th Cong., 1st sess.; S. Doc. 149, 77th Cong., 1st sess.; H. Doc. 661, 77th Cong., 2d sess.

The report of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs with respect to the lend-lease bill stated:

"... In the first place, it is a firmly established principle of international law that a nation is justified in acting in its own self-defense. Secondly, mutuality is an accepted principle of international law as well as of equity, and a nation which violates the basic rules of international law is not in a position to claim that another nation, in the interests of its own defense, is not complying with the less basic rules of international law. Furthermore, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which is a part of international law not only was intended to outlaw force as a means of resolving international disputes, but its violation has also been regarded by many distinguished international lawyers as giving any signatory the power:

'to decline to observe toward the State violating the Pact the duties prescribed by International Law, apart from the Pact, for a neutral in relation to a belligerent; [and to] Supply the State attacked with financial or material assistance, including munitions of war; ..? Germany, Italy, and Japan are parties to the Pact. So, too, are China, Ethiopia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Albania, and Greece. The United States is also a party to the Pact. The Pact is consistently interpreted by distinguished international law experts to mean that a violator of the Pact, such as Germany, cannot legally renounce the Pact by its violation.

"It should also be noted that Hague Convention No. XIII of 1907, which is often erroneously given as a reason in international law for prohibiting the supplying of material aid of the kind in question, is inoperative by its own terms. Article XXVIII of the Hague Convention specifically provides that the Convention shall not apply unless ‘all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.' Great Britain and Italy are not parties to the Convention."

H. Rept. 18, 77th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 5-6.

In the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with respect to the lend-lease bill it was stated:

"Section 3(a) (1) of the bill, in providing for the manufacture or procurement by the United States Government of defense articles for those nations whose defense is deemed vital to ours, contains no violation of international law. As is the way with individuals, nations may, under international law, take such measures to defend themselves as seem just and needful in relation to the peril they face. Nor must a nation remain idle while others plot her harm. The doctrine of mutuality prevails in international law as in equity and clearly proscribes the attempt by any sovereign to sin with the one hand and admonish with the other. In line with that doctrine, the Kellogg-Briand Pact is recognized by eminent scholars of international law to give any signatory the power, where the pact's provisions are violated by another nation, to cease to abide by the neutrality laws which govern in normal times, and to 'Supply the State attacked with financial or

material assistance, including munitions of war; .' Italy, Japan,
and Germany are signatories of the pact, as are Austria, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Denmark, Norway, Ethiopia, the Netherlands, Belgium, China,
Albania, and Greece. So, also, is the United States."

S. Rept. 45, 77th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4.

PAN AMERICAN SOLIDARITY

§691

On April 8, 1917, two days after the entry of the United States into the World War, Guatemala offered her cooperation in the prosecution Central of the war. She thereafter severed diplomatic relations with Ger- American republics, many and placed her "waters, harbors, and railroads at the disposal 1917 of the United States to be used in the mutual defence of both countries". In a note addressed to the Secretary of State (Lansing) on April 27, 1917 the Guatemalan Minister stated that his Government was supporting the attitude of the United States "in the defense of the rights of nations, the liberty of the seas, and of international justice". On September 14 the Guatemalan Special Mission, sent to the United States to arrange for effective cooperation and for American assistance, referred to the cause of the United States as "the common cause of America". Guatemala declared the existence of a state of war with Germany on April 21, 1918.

1917 For. Rel., Supp. 1, pp. 257–259, 268–270, 271–272, 326–327.

After the entry of the United States into the World War in 1917 the Tinoco government of Costa Rica, which had not been recognized by the United States, wrote Secretary Lansing on April 9, 1917:

The Costa Rican Government considers that it is the duty of all American Republics to support, at least morally, the noble attitude assumed by the United States in defense of the highest ideals of law, of right and justice, and of democracy.

The Republic of Costa Rica regrets that, because of its lack of material strength, it cannot in this crisis tender to the United States more substantial cooperation; but if it might be permitted to demonstrate its solidarity with the Government and people of its great sister Republic of the North in such manner, for instance, as by permitting the use of its waters and ports for war needs by the American Navy, that form of cooperation would be undertaken with the greatest satisfaction.

Costa Rica severed diplomatic relations with Germany on September 21, 1917.

The agent of the de facto government of Costa Rica (Fernández Guardia) to the Secretary of State (Lansing), Apr. 9, 1917, MS. Department of State, file 763.72/3752; the Counselor for the Department of State (Polk) to the

Brazil

Secretary of the Navy (Daniels), May 2, 1917, ibid. /4167; 1917 For. Rel. 321-322; 1917 For. Rel., Supp. 1, p. 274.

By a telegram of May 17, 1917 the Honduran Minister of Foreign Affairs offered the United States his Government's "cooperation in every possible way" in connection with the war, stating that Honduras was "impelled by the cordial friendship existing between Honduras and the United States of America, by their common interests and the sentiment of American solidarity". On June 20 Secretary Lansing accepted this tender of cooperation and on July 19, 1918 Honduras declared the existence of a state of war with Germany.

1917 For. Rel., Supp. 1, pp. 291-292, 302-303.

On May 19, 1917 the Nicaraguan Chargé d'Affaires informed the Department of State that on May 18 the Congress of Nicaragua had passed a resolution severing diplomatic relations with Germany, and pursuant to that resolution offered the United States "for the use of the present war, the ports and territorial waters of Nicaragua”. On May 8, 1918 she declared the existence of a state of war with Germany.

Ibid. 289–290.

In 1917 the Government of Salvador adopted an attitude of "friendly neutrality", which it later explained as meaning that both naval vessels and armed merchant vessels of the United States could enter, remain in, and leave ports of Salvador at will and that American naval vessels would be treated in the same way as naval vessels of Salvador itself.

Ibid. 330, 347, 370, 371.

Brazil on June 2, 1917 revoked its neutrality in the war between the United States and Germany, the Brazilian Ambassador in Washington stating:

The Republic has thus recognized the fact that one of the belligerents is a constituent portion of the American Continent and that we are bound to that belligerent by traditional friendship and the same sentiment in the defense of the vital interests of America and the accepted principles of law.

On June 28, 1917 Brazil revoked its neutrality with respect to France, Russia, Great Britain, Japan, Portugal, and Italy. The war vessels of the United States and of the Allies were not subjected to the restrictions placed upon belligerent war vessels after such revocation of neutrality, and the Brazilian Navy cooperated with the United

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »