Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T14:22:07.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Arms Embargo and Neutrality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Edwin M. Borchard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 1933 , pp. 293 - 298
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 Some of the legal consequences of such a boycott, which the proponents of an arms embargo against a single belligerent may not adequately have considered, are set out by Messrs. Hyde, and Wehle, in their article, “The Boycott in Foreign Affairs, ” this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 1. Google Scholar

2 Moore, John Bassett “ Candor and Common Sense, ” Address before Bar Association of New York, Dec. 4, 1930, p. 20. Google Scholar

3 The Report of the Committee of Nineteen does not characterize Japan as an “ aggressor ” ; it is said that this omission was intentional, to prevent the sanctions of Art. 16 from coming into force.