Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920)Holland, Thomas Erskine
History
Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920)
Holland, Thomas Erskine
Neutrality; War (International law)
It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert that I am fully
aware of the formidable, though perhaps not insuperable, difficulties
which would beset any efforts to carry out my suggestions. He may have
inferred so much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the
question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the existing
state of things as beyond the competence of an outsider, I describe it
as one which can be answered "only by the diplomatists whose business it
is to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the various
nations concerned."
On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert is unwilling that
the contents of Part XIII. should be removed to their natural context,
on the ground that the Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were
done. I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent
not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles in which it is
interested were made an integral part of a Convention constituting a
League of Nations; the League being already solely charged with giving
effect to the articles in question.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, December 20 (1919).
Sir,--Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in attributing to
me a belief that the task of amending the Treaty of Versailles is "not
beyond the powers of competent diplomatists." No such belief is
expressed in my letter of December 16, in which I was careful to admit
that the question, "whether it is now too late to attempt" the reform
which appears to me to be desirable is one "which can be answered only
by the diplomatists."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, January 5 (1920).
* * * * *
SECTION 2
_Pacific Reprisals_
The four letters next following were suggested by the ambiguous
character of the blockades instituted by France against Siam in
1893, by the Great Powers against Crete in 1897, and by Great
Britain, Germany, and Italy, against Venezuela in 1902. The
object, in each case, was to explain the true nature of the
species of reprisals known as "Pacific Blockade," and to point
out the difference between the consequences of such a measure
and those which result from a "Belligerent Blockade." A fifth
letter, written with reference to the action of the Netherlands
against Venezuela in 1908, emphasises the desirability of more
clearly distinguishing between war and reprisals. On the
various applications of a blockade in time of peace, see the
author's _Studies in International Law_, pp. 130-150.
THE BLOCKADE OF THE MENAM
Sir,--Upon many questions of fact and of policy involved in the quarrel
between France and Siam it may be premature as yet to expect explicit
information from the French Government; but there should not be a
moment's doubt as to the meaning of the blockade which has probably by
this time been established.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account