Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
ter Meulen, Jacob
1940.
Der Gedanke der Internationalen Organisation in seiner Entwicklung.
p.
328.
Article contents
The Nature of American Foreign Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
In the present study the phrase “ foreign policy ” will be used to refer to the purposes or objectives and the corresponding program of action held in view by one nation in carrying on its relations with other nations. More especially it is intended to refer beyond the surface current of events which constitute the foreign affairs or diplomatic relations of a nation in an objective sense, and which are frequently confused with the rules or tenets of policy followed by the nation in conducting its foreign affairs, and to indicate solely the principles guiding the nation in this activity. Without interpretation in terms of principle, a record of the discontinuous incidents in the foreign affairs of a nation is as meaningless as a list of the names of the kings of England.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1927
References
1 To be rigorously scientific, each item in the survey which follows should be documented for the whole course of American foreign policy, and for American actions as well as American utterances. Such a method of treatment is out of the question here. Instead, for each item there will be given a citation to a sample of the utterances or actions of the United States in support thereof, such samples being regarded as representative of the general attitude of the United States on the points involved
2 Right of expatriation: Act of July 27, 1868, in 15 U. S. Stat. at Large, 223. This view was, apparently, not adopted until somewhat late in the formative period of American policy. Hyde, C. C., International Law, §378
3 Encouragement of immigration:“ Heretofore we have welcomed all who came to us from other lands except those whose moral or physical condition or history threatened danger to our national welfare or safety.” President Cleveland, message to House of Representatives, returning without approval the Immigration Bill of 1897, providing a literacy test for admission of aliens, in U. S. Congressional Documents, Sen. Doc. 185, 54th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1. The general attitude of the United States has not prevented us from opposing Oriental immigration from the beginning, artificially stimulated immigration, and –of late years–immigration at a rate too great to permit of assimilation into the national life, thus defeating the underlying purpose of the whole policy; see, below, at note 84.
4 Power to naturalize aliens to full citizenship: Act of July 27,1868, as cited above, note 2.
5 Recognition of popular revolutionary states and governments: Jefferson to Morris,Nov. 7, 1792, in Jefferson, T., Writings, Washington ed., Ill , 488. The early recognition policy is said to have been a policy of pure de factoism and the policy of popular legitimism to have been of more recent growth. Hyde, §44. But with circumstances what they were in the world in the period 1789-1825, de factoism necessarily meant encouragement of republican revolution. Moreover, it was common to state the de facto policy in a form which was actually equivalent to a policy of popular legitimism; thus: “ In its intercourse with foreign nations the Government of the United States has, from its origin, always recognized de facto governments. We recognize the right of all nations to create and reform their political institutions according to their own will and pleasure.” Buchanan to Rush, March 31, 1848, in Sen, Ex. Doc. 53, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., 3.
6 Refusal to recognize military dictators: President Wilson's refusal to recognize Huerta in Mexico in 1913 in message to Congress, Dec. 2, 1913, in House Doc. 339, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. We encouraged the Central American States to take the same position in a treaty signed at the Central American Conference in Washington, 1922-1923. See Conference on Central American affairs, Washington, 288 (Art. II of Treaty of Peace and Amity). This attitude has been taken only in more recent years as we have developed a more courageous attitude in matters of this sort and thrown off the lingering error that we were committed to a policy of pure de factoism. Hyde, §44, as already cited.
7 Embargo on arms: Joint Resolution of March 14,1912, in 37 Stat. at Large, 630.
8 Armed support of republican governments: Foreign Relations of the United States,1912, 1037-1044 (Nicaragua).
9 Opposition to visit and search in time of peace: Marcy to Cueto, March 28, 1855, in Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, 35th Cong., Spl. Sess.
10 Abolition of piracy: Act of April 30, 1790,1 Stat. at Large, 113.
11 Abolition of slave trade: Treaty of July 2, 1890 (General Act of Brussels), in Treaties Between the United States and Other Powers, ed. by Malloy, Charles, etc., II, 1964.
12 Restricting width of marginal belt: Fish to Thornton, Jan. 22,1875. Foreign Relations,1875,1, 649.
13 Restricting authority of riparian state. Bayard to Manning, May 28,1886, in Moore, J.B., Digest of International Law, I,718.Google Scholar
14 Opposition to inclosure of gulfs and bays: Argument of counsel for United States inNorth Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration in Sen. Doc. 870, 61st Cong., 3d Sess., XI, 2139.The mistaken position taken for a time by the United States in regard to Bering Sea (Hyde,I, 260, n.2) does not alter our general attitude, any more than does the treatment by us of the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays as territorial with the general consent of the nations(Hyde, §146).
15 “ Opening of interoceanic straits: President Wilson, message to Congress, Jan. 8, 1918,in House Doc. 765, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., 6.
16 Canals to be open: Treaty with Great Britain of Nov. 18, 1901, in I Treaties, 782.
17 Rivers: Jefferson to Carmichael and Short, March 18, 1792, in U. S. Congress, 17891828,American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 252.
18 Port discriminations opposed: Act of March 1, 1823, in 3 Stat. at Large, 740; treaty with Spain of July 3, 1902, in II Treaties, 1703.
19 No paper blockades: Lansing to Page, Oct. 21, 1915, in U. S. Dep. of State, European War (“ American White Books“), III, 25.
20 No blockade of neutral ports: U. S. Secretary of the Navy, Instructions Governing Maritime Warfare, June 30, 1917, Art. XXVI.
21 Capture only in area of operations: Declaration of London, Art. XVII, in U. S. Naval War College, International Law Topics, 1909, 49. We do not seem to have been compelled to consider this question until Civil War times. We were then led to imitate the extremeBritish theory of liability to capture off port of departure. More recently we have finally adopted what seems to be the sound doctrine. See Hyde, §§835, 836.
22 International definition of contraband: Cass to Mason, June 27,1859, quoted in Moore,Digest, ‘VII, 657.
23 Reduction of contraband lists: Same, 660.
24 Free-list favored: Report of American Delegates at the International Naval Conference,London, 1909, in Foreign Relations, 1909, 307.
25 Opposition to use of mines: Memorandum from United States Government to British Embassy, Aug. 13, 1914, in IV American White Book, 21.
26 Opposition to destruction of merchant vessels prospective or actual prizes: Bryan to Gerard, Feb. 10, 1915, in same, I, 54.
27 Opposition to war zones: Lansing to Gerard, April 18, 1916, in same, III, 241.
28 Restriction of law of unneutral service: U. S. Naval Instructions of 1917, Arts.XXXVI-XXXVIII.
29 Right of convoy: Treaty with Italy of Feb. 26, 1871, in I Treaties, 975.
30 Arming neutral merchant vessels: Lansing to Gerard, Nov. 7, 1914, in II American White Book, 45.
31 Immunity from capture of certain types of property: U. S. Naval Instructions of 1917, Art. LXIII.
32 “ Immunity of all private property: Address of American delegate at Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, in Deuxikme Conference Internationale de la Paix, Ades et Documents, III, 750.
33 Reception of allied merchants: Treaties with France, Great Britain and other Powers,1776-1789, especially treaty with Prussia of 1785, in II Treaties, 1477.
34 Most favored nation treatment: U. S. Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919, 453. The narrow interpretation long given to the most favored nation clause by the United States was naturally regarded as peculiarly inconsistent with her general policies in such matters. See Hyde, $536.
35 Open door policy: Hay documents in Foreign Relations, 1899, 128-141.
36 “ Equality in electrical communications: Fish to Motley, Nov. 23, 1869, quoted in Moore, ,Digest,II, 476.Google Scholar
37 Attitude toward large armies and navies: Address of President Harding to Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, 1921-1922, in Sen. Doc. 126, 67th Cong., 2d Sess., 37. Even in recent years, while we have been building a “ navy second to none, ” we have so far remembered the old faith as to inaugurate in the very hour of our triumph a movement to limit naval armaments which must prevent us from attaining a maritime supremacy otherwise certain to be'ours.
38 Reliance on volunteers and militia: See materials in Upton, E., Military Policy of the United States, being Sen. Doc. 379, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. The widespread disposition to regard the Selective Service Act of 1917 as contrary to American traditions and ideals is further evidence to the point.
39 Use of conversion: Act of March 3, 1891, in 26 Stat. at Large, 830. We have, however,opposed conversion at sea as involving too great perils to neutral shipping; International Naval Conference, Proceedings, in G. B. Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 5 (1909), 268.
40 Use of privateers: Buchanan to Marcy, March 24, 1854, in House Ex. Doc. 103, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., 10.
41 Abolition of prize money: Act of March 3, 1899, in 30 Stat. at Large, 1007.
42 “Favored disarmament: Instructions to American delegates to Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, in Foreign Relations, 1907, II, 1132.
43 Condemnation of conquest: Blaine to Trescot, Dec. 1, 1881, in Foreign Relations, 1881, 143.
44 Nature of American territorial expansion and colonial policy: Potter, P. B., “ Nature of American Territorial Expansion,” in this Journal , Vol. XV, No. 2 (April, 1921), 189.Google Scholar
45 Peace sentiment of America: Instructions to American delegates to First Hague Peace Conference, 1899, Annex A, in Foreign Relations, 1907, II, 1139.
46 Bryan peace treaties: See for example the treaty with Great Britain of Sept. 15, 1914,in III Treaties, 2642.
47 Right to remain neutral: Attitude of Washington and advisers in 1790; see “Washington to Lafayette, Aug. 11, 1790, in Washington, G., Writings, Ford ed., XI, 496; Jefferson,T., Writings, Ford ed., V, 198; Hamilton, A., Works, Lodge ed., IV, 20.
48 Protection of neutral rights: Attempt to secure observance of Declaration of London by belligerents in 1914-1918, Bryan to Page, Aug. 6, 1914, in I American White Book, 5.See also materials in Problems of Neutrality When the World is at War, by Fess, S. D.,being House Doc. 2111, 64th Cong., 2d Sess.
49 Neutral mediation: Loomis to Meyer, June 8, 1905, in Foreign Relations, 1905, 807.
50 See Potter, P. B. Myth of American Isolation 452-454.Google Scholar
51 No alliances: See materials set out in same, 455-459.
52 No territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere by non-American Powers: “ The American continents … axe henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” Message to Congress of President Monroe, Dec. 2, 1823, in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V, 246.
53 No intervention in domestic affairs of Latin-American states: “ We could not view any interposition (in the Latin American states) for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny … in any other light than a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.” Same, 250.
54 Quasi-mandates over Latin-American states: Protocol of Feb. 7,1905, with Dominican Republic, in message of President Roosevelt to Senate of Feb. 15,1905, in Foreign Relations, 1905, 334. The absence of express authorization from other nations lays the United States open to the charge of imperialism here, of course; but this charge seems to be well met by our consistent self-restraint and moderation in all these delicate ventures.
55 Reduction of importance of rank and precedence in diplomacy: Bayard to Phelps, July 2, 1885, quoted in Wharton, F., Digest of the International Law of the United States, II, 625. That this attitude regarding diplomatic methods was not merely one of obstruction or sabotage is shown by our eager participation in the game while voicing these objections to its rules and customs. Myth, 450.
56 Reduction of ceremony in diplomacy: “ No government can disregard formalities more than ours;” Jefferson to Genet, in Jefferson, Writings, Ford ed., IV, 92.
57 Use of vernacular: U. S. Dept, of State, Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States, 1897, Art. XCIV.
58 Development of international law: Act of Feb. 20,1897, in 29 Stat. at Large, 584.
59 Advocacy of recourse to law in international affairs: Instructions to American delegates to First Hague Conference, 1899, in Foreign Relations, 1899, 512.
60 Codification: Instructions to American delegates to Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, in Foreign Relations, 1907, II, 1137.
61 Submission of disputes to arbitration: Instructions to American delegates to First Hague Peace Conference, Annex A, cited above, note 45.
62 Conclusion of arbitration treaties: Instructions to American delegates to Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, in Foreign Relations, 1907, II, 1134.
63 Establishment of a permanent court: Instructions, 1907, as cited, 1135.
64 Judicial settlement preferred to arbitration: Instructions, 1907, as cited, 1135.
65 Compulsory arbitration favored: Instructions, 1907, as cited, 1135. Today we seem to be temporarily in opposition on this point.
66 International administration favored: International Sanitary Convention, Jan. 17,1912, in III Treaties, 2972. .
67 Pan-American movement: Address of Secretary of State Blaine to International American Conference, Washington, Oct. 2, 1889, in Sen. Ex. Doc. 231, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., I, 10.
68 International conference: Instructions to American delegates to Hague Conference, 1907, as cited (note 62, above), 1130. For a case where even abstention from conference seemed to prove a fundamental devotion to the method under all normal conditions, see President Pierce, message to Congress, Dec. 31, 1855, in House Ex. Doc. 1, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., 1. .
69 Encouragement of Central American federation: Ubico to Blaine, June 22, 1881, in Foreign Relations, 1881, 600.
70 Support of League of Nations in 1918: President Wilson, address to Congress, Jan. 8, 1918, in House Doc. 765,65th Cong., 2d Sess., 6. The story of the American attitude toward the League since 1919 is known to all; except for a brief period in 1920-1921, however, we do not seem to have ceased to hold at least that the League is a good thing for Europe and the world in general, even though we may not care to join. Today we certainly hold this view and cooperate more and more extensively with the League each month.
71 The summaries of the foreign policies of European Powers which follow are taken largely from a series of pamphlets published in 1914 and 1915 by the Oxford University Press, under the general title of “ Oxford Pamphlets.” In every case the material found in these pamphlets calls for correction and expansion by use of other sources.
72 Italian Policy Since 1870, by Feiling, K., being Oxford Pamphlet No. 10, 1914.Google Scholar
73 Austrian Policy Since 1867, byBeaven, M., being Oxford Pamphlet No. 9, 1914.Google Scholar
74 The Germans, by Fletcher, C. R. L., being Oxford Pamphlets Nos. 6 and 7, 1914.Google Scholar
75 French Policy Since 1871, by Morgan, F. Google Scholar and Davis, H. W. C. being Oxford Pamphlet No. 11, 1914.Google Scholar
76 For the following summary of British policy reference is made to: The Leading Ideas of British Policy, by Collier, G.,Google Scholar being Oxford Pamphlet No. 43,1914; The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, ed. by Ward, A. W.,Google Scholar and Gooch, G. P.; Traditions of British Statesmanship, by Elliott, A.D. (1918);Google Scholar British Foreign Policy in Europe, by Egerton, H. E. (1917);Google Scholar Our Foreign Policy and Sir Edward Grey's Failure, by Perris, G. H. (1912); and The Foreign Policy of Sir Edward Grey, by Murray, G. (1915).Google Scholar
77 Egerton, Chap. I.
78 On the Gladstonian foreign policy, see Cambridge History, III, 21.
79 British maritime policies are stated in Potter, P. B., The Freedom of the Seas, 39-41, 45-47, 59-61, 86-90, 152, 153, 197-198.
80 Cambridge History, III, 617.
81 To some extent the difference here noted is a difference in the treatment accorded the subject by writers or students in the different countries. Thus Moore, J. B., Principles of American Diplomacy, is arranged on a topical basis, the historical events recited by the writer being employed merely by way of illustration, while Egerton, previously cited, is arranged on a chronological basis, the Introductory Chapter alone being employed to set out the main ideas of British policy and even that chapter consisting of a general survey of the whole subject itself on a chronological basis. Another British student of the problem in correspondence with the present writer, referring to the summary of American policies in the text, above, declared that he knew of the existence of “ no such summary for British history (sic.).” It appears that this difference is attributable not merely to the historicalmindedness of certain writers (although see Adams, R. C., History of the Foreign Policy of the United States, where history is allowed to swamp analysis of policies), but to the inherently empirical quality of the British program. Let it be remembered in this connection that the situation is even worse when we leave supposedly empirical and non-theoretical England and turn to logical and analytical France!
82 Beaven, as cited, 4.
83 The facts alluded to in the following paragraphs are all so familiar that no citations to authority or evidence is believed to be necessary; the facts may, however, all be verified by reference to standard atlases and statistical publications such as the Statesman's Year Book.
84 See above, note 2.
85 In the paragraphs which follow, references are of purpose given to a leading non-American work on international law in the English language, Lawrence, T. J., Principles of International Law, 7th ed., and to certain strictly international evidences as to the content of that law. In referring to Lawrence it will not always be possible to cite statements directly in point, because of the form in which Lawrence is written. Instead, references will be made to sections of that text wherein certain topics are treated.
86 Nationality in international law (principle of indelible allegiance abandoned, naturalization permitted): Lawrence, § 96.
87 Recognition: Lawrence, §§ 46, 47. The nations are still largely following our earlier misconceived policy of de factoism; the necessity of popular support for obtaining stability in a new government must bring them as well as ourselves to the more mature position.
88 Freedom of the seas in time of peace: Lawrence, §§ 85-92.
89 Freedom of the seas in time of war: Lawrence, §§ 181-194, 241-262.
90 Status of alien merchants: Lawrence, §§ 97, 98.
91 Open door: Among other examples which might be given, the rule adopted for “ B” Mandates under the League of Nations provides the clearest illustration here. Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. XXII, Par. 5.
92 Neutrality: Lawrence, §§ 222-233.
93 Demilitarization and disarmament: See projects and plans adopted in’ Covenant, Art. VIII and IX.
94 Suppression of conquest: Again the Covenant provides the best though not the only example. Covenant, Arts. X and XXII (Par. 1).
95 General international organization: Covenant, entire.
96 Simplified diplomacy: Lawrence, §§ 123,127, 128.
97 Monroe Doctrine in the League Covenant: Covenant, Art. X XI; on interpretation of same, see Adams, 402.
98 Mandate system: Covenant, Art. XXII. On the special question of sovereignty (no conquest) over the mandated territories, see Wright, Q., “ Sovereignty of the Mandates,” in this Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 4 (Oct. 1923), 691.
99 Origins of the mandate system: Potter, P. B., “ Origins of the System of Mandates,” in American Political Science Review, Vol. XVI, No. 4 (Nov. 1922), 563, and Vol. XX, No. 4 (Nov. 1926,), 842.
100 For a general view, by a second non-American, of American contributions to international law, see Hall, W. E., Treatise on International Law, 8th ed., 46, 99, etc. (index, “ United States” ).
101 Adams, already cited, 134, quoting Turner, F. J., The Frontier in American History, 169: “ By this peaceful process of colonization a whole continent has been filled with free and orderly commonwealths, so quietly, so naturally, that we can only appreciate the profound significance of the process by contrasting it with the spread of European nations through conquest and oppression.”
102 Including the Near East.
103 It has been suggested to the writer by Mr. Harold A. Cranefield, a student at the University of Wisconsin, that the fundamental causes of the phenomena here under examination are to be found in the changing economic conditions and theories of succeeding periods in modem international history. The older European policies, territorial annexation, colonial exclusion, monarchical legitimacy, indelible allegiance, were based on primitive economic and political conditions of national life and on physiocrat and mercantilist economic and political theories. The conditions and policies of America were produced by the industrial and commercial and political revolutions of 1750-1850; increased production and transportation, increased demands for food and raw materials, surplus capital and population, all led to emigration, colonial independence, demands for open doors, freedom of navigation, and all the rest. The same developments made European Powers ready to listen to the American proposals, America being only a little ahead in the general evolution, and for obvious reasons. The whole movement, in this view, has been but a phase of world evolution in the field of economic and social relations, in which America played only an accidental part. With the general view thus expressed the writer is in full agreement, and the interpretation appears to him to be very suggestive and striking. But in estimating its exact scope there are several things to be noted. Some of the American policies seem to be attributable to ocauses independent of those to which reference has just been made; the policy of legalism seems to derive mainly from our English background and lack of military and diplomatic power in the United States, and only very remotely from the industrial revolution, unless we understand by the latter a peculiarly English event and the event responsible for English overseas colonization. In which case how explain Spanish overseas colonization and early English colonization? It were probably more accurate to attribute many of the American policies and the reception accorded them by the other nations to the evolution of the world state-system in general, the expansion of Europe, the appearance of national constitutional states to supersede personal principalities and empires, and the lapsing of the mercantilist system, but not the latter alone. Many of the typical policies of the European Powers have not disappeared with the mercantilist system, or, for that matter, with the general acceptance of American policies and ideas, but linger on today. In any case we are concerned here not so much with general cosmological causes, but with causes and effects within the order of thought of international relations. Studied on that plane, on the plane of relations among the nations as we know them, the problem seems to work out as indicated in the text.
- 1
- Cited by