-----
[1] Note of Secretary of State Kellogg to the French Ambassador of 27
February 1928.
[2] Note of the United states Government to the Governments of Great
Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan of 13 April 1928.
[3] “Considérée jadis comme le droit divin et demeurée dans l’éthique
internationale comme une prérogative de la souveraineté, une pareille
guerre est enfin destituée juridiquement de ce qui constituait son plus
grave danger: sa légitimité. Frappée désormais d’illégalité, elle est
soumise au régime conventionnel d’une véritable mise hors la loi....”
The speech by the French Foreign Minister is reproduced in The
Department of State; _Treaty for the Renunciation of War_. United States
Government Printing Office; Page 309.
[4] _Commentaire du Pacte de la Société des Nations selon la politique
et la jurisprudence des organes de la Société_. Paris 1930. (See
especially Page 73 et sequentes) Further in the supplements for 1931-35;
1er Supplément au Commentaire du Pacte (1931) Page 13 et sequentes; 2ème
Supplément (1932) Page 17 et sequentes; 3ème Supplément (1933) Pages 18,
39; 4ème Supplément (1935) Pages 19, 99.
[5] Congressional Record, _Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session
of the 70th Congress of the U. S._, Volume LXX, Part. 2, Page 1333.
[6] See Baker, Ray Stannard, _Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement_, New
York 1922, passim.
[7] See Kuhn, Arthur K., _Observations of Foreign Governments upon
Secretary Hull’s Principles of Enduring Peace_ (A. J., Volume 32, 1938,
Pages 101—106). Also: Wilson, Woodrow, _War and Peace_. Presidential
Messages, Addresses and Public Papers, 1917-24 (edited by Ray Stannard
Baker and William E. Dodd), New York 1927.
[8] Commentaire, Page 74.
[9] On the indisputable fact of the collapse, and the guilt of the great
powers therein, cf. the bitter statements of Fenwick from the period
immediately preceding the second World War. (_International Law and
Lawless Nations_; A. J., Volume 33, 1939; Pages 734-745.)
[10] _Neutrality and Unneutrality_ (A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 778 et
sequentes.)
[11] See also the Memorandum on the Signature by His Majesty’s
Government in the United Kingdom of the Optional Clause of the Statute
of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Cmd. 3452,
Miscellaneous Number 12, 1929).
[12] It is the same train of thought developed by Brierly, _Some
Implications of the Pact of Paris_ (Br. YB 1929).
[13] “Tout le mécanisme prévu pour le maintien de la paix s’est
dialogue.”
[14] _Parliament Debate_, H. C., Volume 332, Column 226 et sequentes.
[15] _Parliament Debate_, H. C., Volume 353, Number 198, Column 1178 (21
November 1939).
[15a] See Jahrreiss Plea, Annex, Exhibit Numbers 35 and 36.
[16] Resolutions of the Assembly and the Council of 14 December 1939.
[17] _Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the Second
Session of the 70th Congress of the U. S._, Volume LXX, Part 2, Pages
1169/99. See also Ellery C. Shotwell, _Responsibility of the United
States in Regard to International Cooperation for the Prevention of
Aggression_ (A. J., Volume 26, 1932, Page 113).
[18] See also Brierly, J. L., _Some Implications of the Pact of Paris_
(Br. YB 1929). He thinks that a violation of neutrality is impossible.
In 1936 the same thought was expressed by the Englishman McNair:
_Collective Security_ (Br. YB).
[19] See, for instance, Eagleton, Clyde, _An Attempt to Define
Aggression_ (International Conciliation Number 264, 1930). Cuten, A.,
_La notion de guerre permise_, Paris 1931. Wright, Quincy, _The Concept
of Aggression in International Law_ (A. J., Volume 29, 1935, Page 395 et
sequentes).
[20] Note of the United States Government to the Governments of Great
Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan of 13 April 1928; draft treaty of the
20 April 1928 drawn up by the French Government; Note of the British
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of 19 May 1928 to the American
Ambassador; Note of 23 June 1928 from the U. S. Government to all nine
participants in the negotiations; Note of the British Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs of 18 July 1928; Note of the Soviet Commissar for
Foreign Affairs to the French Ambassador of 31 August 1928.
[21] Note of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs of 31 August 1928.
[22] Note of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs of 31 August 1928.
[23] See also Kellogg, F., _The War Prevention Policy of the United
States_ (A. J., Volume 22, 1928, Page 261 et sequentes).
[24] _Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the Second
Session of the 70th Congress of the United States_, Volume LXX, Part 2
(5 January 1929 to 26 January 1929, Page 1169 et sequentes, Washington
1929).
[25] _International Lawlessness_, (A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 775).
[26] _Collective Security_ (Br. YB, 1936, Page 150 et sequentes).
[27] _Neutrality and Unneutrality_ (A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 778 et
sequentes).
[28] _International Law and Lawless Nations_ (A. J., Volume 33, 1939,
Pages 743-745).
[29] See also Seelle, George, _Théorie juridique de la révision des
traités_. Paris, 1936; further: Kunz, Josef, _The Problem of Revision in
International Law_ (“peaceful change”), (A. J., Volume 33, 1939, Pages
33-35).
[30] _International Lawlessness_ (A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 775).
[31] Brierly, _Some Implications of the Pact of Paris_ (Br. YB 1929,
Page 208 et sequentes).
[32] The well-known “Budapest Articles,” International Law Association:
_Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris_, London 1934, Page 63 et sequentes.
[33] Commentaire, Page 371.
[34] Of 8 March 1930. See also Rutgers in the _Recueil des Cours_
(Académie de Droit International), Volume 38, Page 47 et sequentes.
Further: “Budapest Article 7” and Kunz, Josef, “Plus de loi de la
guerre?” (_Revue Génerale de Droit International Public_, 1934).—Cohn,
_Neo-Neutrality_ (1939).
[35] The Peruvian delegate, Senor Cornejo, in the Committee of the
League of Nations Assembly in 1929 said (Assemblée 1929, C III J. O.,
Page 201): “Neutrality no longer exists!” Stimson, The Pact of Paris,
Address 8 August 1932. Hull, Declaration on the Neutrality Law of 17
January 1936. Pact of Rio de Janeiro of 10 October 1933. Speech by the
Swedish Foreign Minister Sandler of 6 December 1937 (see Jahrreiss Plea,
Annex Exhibit Number 27). 3 October 1939: Declaration of Panama; the
exchange of notes by the 21 American Republics with Great Britain,
France, and Germany (23 December 1939, 14 January, 23 January, 14
February 1940) is based completely on the classic Neutrality Law. The
“Budapest Articles.”—_Literature_: D’Astroy, B. (1938); Baty, Th.
(1939); Bonn, M. J. (1936/37); Borchard, E. M. (1936, 1937, 1938, 1941);
Brierly, J. L. (1929, 1932); Brown, Ph. M. (1936, 1939); Buell (1936);
Cohn (1939); Descamps, de (1930); Eagleton, Clyde (1937); Fenwick,
Charles G. (1934, 1935, 1939); Fischer Williams, Sir John (1935, 1936);
Garner, James Wilford (1936, 1938); Hambro, Edvard (1938); Hyde, C. C.
(1937, 1941); Jessup, P. C. (1932, 1935, 1936); Lauterpacht (1935,
1940); Mandelstam (1934); Miller, David Hunter (1928); McNair (1936);
Politis, N. (1929, 1935); Rappard, W. E. (1935-1937); Schindler, D.
(1938); Stimson, H. (1932); Stowell, Ellery C. (1932); Tenekides, C. C.
(1939); Whitton, J. B. (1927, 1932); Wright, Quincy (1940).
[36] Réserves de la Délégation Suisse (M. Motta) of 10 October 1935.
[37] Udenrigspolitiske Meddelelser 4. Aergang, Numbers 4-5, Page 122 et
sequentes (see Jahrreiss Plea, Annex Exhibit Number 30).
[38] Actes de la IIe Assemblée, séance des commissions, I, Page 396 et
sequentes.
[39] Actes de la IXe Assemblée, Page 75.
[40] Department of State, Press Releases, 9 January 1932, Page 41.
[41] Actes de l’Assemblée extraordinaire (J. O., Supplément special,
Number 101, Page 87).
[42] Jean Ray, 4e Supplément du Commentaire, 1935, Page 10: “Un homme
d’État a dit un jour en parlant de l’article 16 que, s’il s’appliquait,
il ne s’appliquerait sans doute, qu’une fois. On peut dire la même chose
de tout le mécanisme qui doit faire obstacle à la guerre.”—See also
Fischer Williams, Sir John, _Sanctions under the Covenant_ (Br. YB 1936)
and McNair, Arnold D., _Collective Security_.
[43] With reference to the Stimson Doctrine and the case of Abyssinia
see also the works and papers of Borchard (1933), Fischer Williams
(1936), McNair (1933), Sharp (1934), Stimson (1932), Wild (1932), Wright
(1932, 1933).
[44] With reference to the system of collective security see from the
literature concerning the whole position in international law: Brierly
(1932); Bourquin (1934); Brouckere (1934); Cuten (1931); Descamps
(1930); Eagleton (1930, 1937, 1938); Elbe (1939); Fenwick (1932, 1934,
1935, 1939); Fischer Williams (1932, 1933, 1935, 1936); Giraud (1934);
Garner (1936); Graham (1929, 1934); Hill (1932); Hyde (1941); Jessup
(1935); Mandelstam (1934); Politis (1929); Ritgers (1931); Shotwell
(1928); Wickersham (1928/29); Whitton (1932); Wright (1942).
[45] Parliament Debates H.L. 5th series, Volume 95, Cols. 1007, 1043.
[46] Lauterpacht, _The Pact of Paris and the Budapest Articles of
Interpretation_ (Transactions of the Grotius Society, XX, 1935, Page
178), draws his conclusions from the fact that the states can accept or
refuse, as logically established as law in Budapest. Jessup
(_Neutrality, Its History, Economics, and Law_, Volume IV, _Today and
Tomorrow_, 1936) finds that the states failed to accept the Budapest
Articles.
[47] See A. J., Volume 31, 1937, Pages 680-693.
[48] See the concurring statements by Kuhn, Arthur K., _Observations of
Foreign Governments upon Secretary Hull’s Principles of Enduring Peace_
(A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Pages 101, 106).
[49] See Wright in A. J., Volume 34, 1940, Page 680 et sequentes;
particularly Stimson’s speech of 6 January 1941 should be mentioned
here.
[50] Fischer Williams also stresses this, (_Sanctions under the
Covenant_, Br. YB, 1936, Page 130 et sequentes). Also Kelsen,
_Collective and Individual Responsibility_... 1943, Page 531.
[51] An all too appropriate warning against mistaken conceptions in
connection with the term “crime international” is given by Fischer
Williams; _Sanctions under the Covenant_, (Br. YB, 1936, Page 130 et
sequentes).
[52] _Actes de l’Assemblée_ 1927, P., Page 153. Also Jean Ray,
Commentaire, Pages 74/75.
[53] Correctly Fischer Williams, _Sanctions under the Covenant_ (Br. YB,
1936).
[54] _Collective and Individual Responsibility_..., Pages 534, 530, 539,
540, 542.
[55] Scott, James Brown, stresses the great merit gained by the American
delegates at that time in the interests of law and justice (see
House-Seymour, _What Really Happened at Paris_; New York
1921).—Williams, E.T., _The Conflict between Autocracy and Democracy_
(A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 663 et sequentes).—Kelsen, _Collective
and Individual Responsibility_..., Page 541.—Also Borchard, Edwin,
_Neutrality and Unneutrality_ (A. J., Volume 32, 1938, Page 778 et
sequentes).
[56] Kelsen seems to think that no such state exists. (_Collective and
Individual Responsibility_..., Page 543).
[56a] Compare Jahrreiss Plea. Annex Exhibit Number 42.
[57] Kelsen, _Collective and Individual Responsibility_, Page 546.
Editor’s Note: _In respect to the presentation of the final
pleas by Counsel for the Defense, the Tribunal in several
instances directed that written speeches of excessive length be
shortened for oral presentation in Court and that notice would
be taken by the Tribunal of the paragraphs omitted. In the
sessions to follow such passages have been reproduced in small
type._
_Afternoon Session_
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I shall read the letter dated 22 June 1946,
sent to the International Military Tribunal:
“Mr. President:
“During the cross-examination on 6 June 1946, the British
Prosecution presented Document C-139 to the Defendant Jodl,
obviously thinking that the document showed evidence of
preparatory measures for occupying the Rhineland as early as 2
May 1935 ...”
[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the
interpreting system._]
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Exner.