Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Everyone is a propagandist, wittingly or unwittingly. As such, it is possible that Professor Tammes made propaganda when writing “De Toestand” (the situation), the foreign affairs column in the daily “Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant” just before World War II. Were his articles pure information or proggganda, newsgathering or newsmaking? It is difficult to draw a sharp dividing line between these notions. If information as such should not be ‘coloured’, then propaganda has some colour if the author has the intention to spread ideas in order to affect the opinion and the behaviour of others. In that sense propaganda has a long history: from Peisistratos (600–527 B.C.) to World War II (Goebbels) and the present day. It depends on the contents of propaganda whether its effects have a national or an international character. First, the national start will be considered; second, the international effects of propaganda will be placed in the international law context; finally, some aspects of international state responsibility will be dealt with.
1. “The conflict between the men who make and the men who report the news is as old as time. News may be true, but it is not truth, and they never see it the same way We are changing the world faster than we can change ourselves, and are applying to the present the habits of the past.” Reston, James B. in Foreign Affairs (USA) 1966, p. 553.Google Scholar
2. The term ‘propaganda’ seems to be used for the first time by Pope Gregory XV on 22 June 1622 when founding the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the faith ‘De Propaganda Fide’, in order to regulate ecclesiastical affairs in the so-called ‘missionary countries’. On the history of propaganda see ProfEllul, Jacques: Histoire de la propagande, (Paris: 1967)Google Scholar; Sturminger, A.: 3000 Jahre politische Propaganda, (Vienna-Munich: 1960)Google Scholar; Erdmann, Carl: “Die Anfänge der staatlichen Propaganda im Investiturstreit”, in 154 Historische Zeitschrift (1936) p. 491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beller, E.A.: Propaganda in Germany during the Thirty Years War, (Princeton, 1940).Google Scholar
3. Propaganda and anti-propaganda are mixed up, all about the world, in a curious and contradictory way. See for instance the latest Constitution of the People's Republic of China, adopted on 17 January 1975, art. 28, para. 1: “Citizens enjoy freedom of speech, correspondence, the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration and the freedom of strike, and enjoy freedom to believe in religion and freedom not to believe in religion and to propagate atheism.” In Peking Review of 24 01 1975, p. 17.Google Scholar
4. Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete über den Ordnungsschutz, Abschnitt III: Unzulässige politische Propaganda, para. 7–13, Abschnitt IV: Schutz vor unwahren Nachrichten, para. 14–17, Verordnungsblatt 25 07 1941, No. 138, etc.Google Scholar
5. See the so-called Laws on the defence of peace, especially in socialist States, 1950, 1951. E.g;.the ‘Gesetz zum Schutze des Friedens”, 15 December 1950 (Gesetzblatt der D.D.R., Berlin 22 Dezember 1950Google Scholar, No. 141: “… Die Kriegspropaganda, unter welchen Formen auch immer sie sich vollziehen möge, ist eines der schwersten Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit.…”). Cf. (46)A.J.I.L. 1952, p. 99.
6. Trb. 1956, 40; UNTS 285–231.Google Scholar
7. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13418. See also a Report of the NOBIN: “Bevordering van de informatieverzorging in Nederland” The Hague 1975Google Scholar; de Mey, J.M.: De vrijheid en de verantwoordelijkheid van de pers, diss. Utrecht 1975, p. 61Google Scholar; Reich, Herbert: Die völkerrechtlichen Schranken der internationalen politischen Propaganda in Friedenszeiten, (Munich 1966), p. 84.Google Scholar
8. Lasswell, H.D.: “The structure and function of communication in society”, in Schramm, W. (Ed.): Mass communications, (Urbana Illinois 1960), p. 117/30Google Scholar, cited by Stappers, J.G.: Publicistiek en communicatiemodellen, diss. Nijmegen 1966, p. 139.Google Scholar
9. See Professor Tammes' article: “Taal en teken in de internationale betrekkingen”, in: Selectiviteit in de massacommunicatie, Essays in honour of Professor M. Rooy (Deventer: Kluwer, 1971), p. 242–50.Google Scholar
10. Reich, H.H.: Sprache und Politik, (Munich 1968), p. 15.Google Scholar Cf. Ehrlich, R., Gurst, G. and Küstner, H. (Hrsg.): Kleines Fremdwörterbuch (Leipzig 1974)Google Scholar: “Agitation: Methoden zur Entwicklung des sozialistischen Bewusztseins dutch Aufklärung über aktuelle politische Tagesfragen mittels Aussprache, Losung, Flugblatts u.a.”; Klaus, Georg: Sprache der Politik, ((Ost) Berlin 1971), p. 45, 47, 163, 204, 226, 267, 269.Google Scholar
11. ‘Was tun?’; idem: Ueber Agitation und Propaganda, Berlin 1929. Cf. ‘Agitprop’ with the Central Committees of the CPSU and other Peoples Republics.
12. Leisi, Ernst: “Die Kunst der Insinuation, Bemerkungen zu Max Frisch’ ‘Dienstbüchlein’”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 21 09 1974.Google Scholar
13. Schöne, W.: Das Gerücht, (Leipzig 1936)Google Scholar, Allport, F.W. and Postmann, L.: Psychology of Rumor, (New York 1947)Google Scholar, The Ancient World knew ‘pheme’ (Greek) and ‘fama’ (Latin).
14. Meynaud, Jean et Sidjanski, D., Les groupes de pression dans la Communauté Européenne, (Brussels 1971).Google Scholar
15. Whitton, John B. and Larson, Arthur: Propaganda, towards disarmament in the war of words, (New York 1964), p. 175–80 ‘False News’.Google Scholar
16. Prof MrBelinfante, A.D.: Vrijheid van demonstratie, (Alphen a/d Rijn 1966)Google Scholar, Bosshart, Jürg: Demonstrationen auf öffentlichen Grund. Verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtliche Aspekte zum Problem der Demonstrationsfreiheit, (Zürich 1973).Google Scholar In this respect see also: ‘Das Bundesgericht zum Recht auf Demonstrationsfreiheit’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung 10 March 1975.
17. Steenbeek, J.G.: “Het recht zich te doen horen en de toegang tot de microfoon” in Essays in honour of Professor Prins, (The Hague 1975), p. 181–98.Google Scholar
18. Codding, G.A.: Broadcasting without barriers, UNESCO 1959, p. 70/2.Google Scholar
19. “… The U.N. Conference on freedom of information, Solemnly condemns the use in peace-time of censorship which restricts or controls freedom of information, and Invites Governments to take the necessary steps to promote its progressive abolition …” (Resolution 13, as adopted by the U.N. Conference on freedom of information, Final Act E/CONF.6/79, 22 April 1948, p. 28/9.
20. Fenwick, C.G.: “The Use of the Radio as an Instrument of Foreign Propaganda”, 32 A.J.I.L. 1938, p. 339Google Scholar; Whitton, John B.: “Radio Propaganda, a Modest Proposal”, 52 A.J.I.L. (1958) p. 739.Google Scholar
21. See Gotlieb, A., Dalfen, Ch. and Katz, K.: “The Transborder Transfer of Information by Communications and Computer Systems: Issues and Approaches to Guiding Principles”, 68 A.J.I.L. (1974) p. 227–57Google Scholar (the Francis Déak Prize for 1975 has been conferred on the three authors for this article: 69 A.J.I.L. (1975), p. 622/3).Google Scholar
22. Trb. 1970 no. 24; L.N.T.S. 186–302 (still in force, but not in USA and USSR).
23. Three States made interesting reservations to this Convention: Belgium: “La délégation de la Belgique déclare considérer que le droit de brouiller par ses propres moyens les émissions abusives émanant d'un autre pays, dans la mesure où un tel droit existe conformément aux règies générales du droit international et aux conventions en vigueur, n'est en rien affecté par la convention.”; Spain: “La délégation espagnole déclare que son Gouvernement se réserve le droit de faire cesser par tous les moyens possibles la propagande qui peut nuire à son ordre intérieur et qui constitue une infraction à la convention dans le cas où la procédure envisagée par la convention ne permettrait pas de faire cesser immédiatement l'infraction.”; USSR: “La délégation de l'Union des Républiques soviétiques socialistes déclare que, selon l'avis du Gouvernement de l'Union des Républiques soviétiques socialistes, le droit d'appliquer, en attendant la conclusion de la procédure envisagée a l'article 7 de la convention, un régime de réciprocité au pays qui effectuerait a son encontre des émissions abusives, dans la mesure où un tel droit existe conformément aux règies générales du droit international et aux conventions en vigueur, n'est en rien affecté par la convention. La délégation de l'Union des Républiques soviétiques socialistes déclare que son gouvernement tout en étant prêt à appliquer, sur la base de réciprocité, les principes de la convention à l'égard de tous les Etats contractants, estime cependant que certaines des dispositions de la convention supposent, notamment en ce qui concerne la vérification des informations et les procédures prévues pour le règlement des litiges, l'existence de relations diplomatiques entre les Parties contractantes. Par conséquent, le gouvernement de l'Union des Républiques soviétiques socialistes est d'avis que, pour éviter les contestations et malentendus possibles entre les Etats parties à la convention qui n'ont pas entre eux de relations diplomatiques, il y a lieu de considérer la convention comme ne créant pas d'obligations formelles entre ces Etats.” (Trb. 1970 no. 24, P. 2).
24. This convention did not come into force. Text in Hudson, : International Legislation, (Washington, Vol. 7), p. 862.Google Scholar
25. U.N.T.S. 435–191.
26. Not yet in force (?); text in 65 A.J.I.L. (1971), p. 679.Google Scholar
27. (74) 26.
28. Trb. 1951 no. 154 and 1974 no. 215; U.N.T.S. 213–221.
29. Trb. 1966 no. 237 and 1972 no. 38; U.N.T.S. 660–195.
30. Trb. 1969 no. 99.
31. See note 26.
32. Trb. 1951 no. 75 and 1967 no. 130; U.N.T.S. 75–287.
33. Trb. 1967 no. 31 and 1969 no. 203; U.N.T.S. 610–205.
34. U.N.Gen.Ass. A/519, 8 January 1948, p. 14. See also U.N. Weekly Bulletin, 4 11 1947, p. 579Google Scholar; Wright, Q.: “The crime of war-mongering”, 42 A.J.I.L. (1948), p. 128.Google Scholar
35. Resolutions 2 and 3 of the Conference, Final Act E/CONF.6/79, 22 April 1948, p. 22–4. See also J.B. Whitton in (43) A.J.I.L. 1949, p. 73/87.
36. Documents on disarmament, 1962, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 545–52.Google Scholar
37. Europe, A. Western. Inkeles, A.: “The Soviet attack on the Voice of America, a case study in propaganda warfare”, Am.Slavic and East European Review (1953), p. 319–42Google Scholar; U.S. Information Agency: The Voice of America doubles its power, (Washington 1963)Google Scholar; Michie, A.A.: Voices through the iron curtain: The Radio Free Europe Story, (New York 1960)Google Scholar; Free Europe Committee, Communist and Free World International Broadcasts, (New York 1964)Google Scholar; Radio Free Europe: Steady Growth of Communist Propaganda, (1964)Google Scholar; Rowson, : “The American commitment to private international communications, a view of Free Europe Inc”, Law and Contemporary Problems, (1966), p. 458Google Scholar; Rush, Kenneth: “Department urges continued government support of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty”, Department of State Bulletin (9 07 1973, no. 1776), p. 72–7Google Scholar; Handlery, George: “Propaganda and Information: the Case of U.S. Broadcasts to Eastern Europe”, East European Quarterly (1975), p. 391–412.Google Scholar
B. East Europe. Morozov, G.I.: “Responsibility for War Propaganda”, Soviet Yearbook of International Law (1959), p. 312–26Google Scholar; Scheel, K.: Krieg über Aetherwellen 1933–1945, ((Ost) Berlin 1970)Google Scholar, Mader, J.: “Die subversive Rolle des ‘Radio Free Europe’, Deutsche Aussenpolitik (1968), p. 561–8Google Scholar; Schäfer, E.D. “Der Vorschlag der Sowjetunion für ein Abkommen über Satellitenfernsehsendungen”, Z.f. Luft- und Weltraumrecht (1975), p. 26–8.Google Scholar
38. U.N. A/1775, p. 13/4.
39. International Affairs (Moscow) 1973 no. 1, p. 50.Google Scholar
40. Europa-Archiv 1975, no. 17, p. D 437–84.Google Scholar
41. A J.I.L. (1940), p. 73.Google Scholar
42. (34) U.N. A/10010, p.20, 8 August 1975.
43. “The conduct of an organ of an entity which is not part of the formal structure of the State or of a territorial governmental entity, but which is empowered by the internal law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority, shall also be considered as an act of the State under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question.”
44. Reich, M, op.cit. (note 7) p. 172.Google Scholar
45. Staatsverlag der DDR 1974. Cf. art. 6, para. 5: “Militaristische und revanchistische Propaganda in jeder Form, Kriegshetze und Bekundung von Glaubens, Rassen und Völkerhass werden als Verbrechen geahndet.” See also A. von Verdross: “Die völkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Sowjetunion für die Handlungen der russischen kommunistischen Partei und der 3. Internationale”, Z.f. öff.Recht 1930, p. 577Google Scholar; Dambmann, G.: Propaganda im Friedensvölkerrecht, (Schotten 1953), p. 111Google Scholar; Murty, B.S.: Propaganda and World Public Order (New Haven: Yale U.P. 1968) p. 114–23Google Scholar (claims relating to the political Party and agencies of public information in a totalitarian State).
46. Z.f.a.ö.R.u. V. (1957/8), p. 723–4.Google Scholar See another incident between the Soviet Union and Austria in 1960, ibidem 1963, p. 348–9. Cf. Kolosov, Y.: “The Mass Media and International Law”, International Affairs (Moscow) 1973 no. 7, p. 53–8.Google Scholar
47. Report 1975 para. 40; the same expression was repeated in para. 43.
