I have suggested two instances for the reason that there is a slight difference between them. That difference lies in the fact that in the first instance supposed, Italy, as a Member of the League, would have agreed to the application of the sanctions; they would have been applied by the British as a result of Italy breaking her treaty. But in the second instance, Russia never having agreed to the Covenant, the sanctions would be applied by the British solely as a result of the British agreement to apply them and not because of any legal breach by Russia, however morally wrong her attack on Poland might be. I do not think that the difference between the two supposed cases would make any difference legally in the attitude that the United States might take in the one case or the other. The blockade would arise from the provisions of the Covenant in either case. To that document the United States is not a party. In each case our correct legal position would be that our international rights were not limited by the agreement of others. Accordingly, let us consider the case of the blockade of Russia by the British, recalling that, under the hypothesis, Russia has attacked Poland and that the economic and financial blockade of the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Covenant has come into full force. Now, so far as that blockade cut off relations between Great Britain and Russia, it would be none of our business. But the language of Article 16 includes "the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals (residents)[5] of the Covenant-breaking State (Russia, under the hypothesis; {91} see Covenant, Article 17) and the nationals (residents) of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not." What this would mean would be that all intercourse between Russia and the United States would be cut off by the British Fleet so far as they could do it. The questions suggested are: Could the United States protest; and would we protest?