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: 12 April 2017
On March 16, 1935, the Chancellor of the German Reich promulgated a law for the introduction of a system of general compulsory military conscription with a view to increasing the strength of the German army to twelve corps consisting of thirty-six divisions, aggregating, it was estimated, a total of 600,000 men. On the same day he convened the diplomatic representatives of the European Powers at Berlin and delivered to them the text of the law.
1 In an address to the German people issued on the day of the promulgation of the law for the introduction of conscription and the enlargement of the army. Text in New York Times, March 17, 1935. See also the Chancellor's address of May 21 to the Reichstag, ibid., May 22, 1935.
2 Text in New York Times, March 19, 1935.
3 Text in New York Times, March 22, 1935.
3a League of Nations Official Journal, 1935, p. 569.
4 Text of the communiqué in New York Times, April 15, 1935.
5 Ibid., April 17 and 18, 1935; League of Nations Official Journal, 1935, p. 551.
6 Text in New York Times, April 21, 1935.
7 S. B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (2d ed.), p. 456.
8 W. E. Hall, International Law (8th ed.), p. 408.
9 C. C. Hyde, International Law, II, p. 88.
10 A. Cavaglieri, “Règies Générates du Droit de la Paix,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, XXVI, p. 535.
11 C. Dupuis, “Les Relations Internationales,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, II, p. 340.
12 L. Oppenheim, International Law, 4th ed., I, p. 756.
13 J. B. Moore, Digest of International Law, V, p. 321.
14 F. Wharton, Digest of International Law, 2d ed., II, p. 60.
15 Quoted in Hooper v. United States (1887), 22 Ct. of CI. 408.
16 Moore, Digest of International Law, III, p. 205.
17 See Hyde, International Law, II, p. 90 and n. 1, citing American White Book, European War, IV, 415, 417.
18 See, e.g., Bruns, Forties Juris Gentium, Ser. B, sec. 1, torn. 1, pars 1, fasc. 2, pp. 791-795.
19 3 Dallas 199, 261.
20 229 U. S. 447.
21 Cf. In re Thomas (1874), 23 Fed. Cas. 927; Hooper v. U. S. (1887), 22 Ct. of CI. 408.
22 This Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 398.
23 The Permanent Court of International Justice has declared it to be a “well-known rule” that no one can be judge in his own suit. Publications of P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 12, p. 32. Cf. the following statement in the award in the Chilean-Peruvian Accounts case: “It is a well-established principle of international law that after a treaty, possessing all the elements of validity, has been formally executed, it can only be altered or amended before its proper expiration by the same authority and under the same formality of procedure, as the original; and especially is it not permissible for either party to interpret its provisions according to his own fancy.” Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations, II, p. 2102.
24 Schriften der Akademie für Deutsches Becht, No. 3, Berlin, 1934.
25 Texts in Kraus and Rödiger, Urkunden zum Friedensvertrage von Versailles vom 28. Juni 1919, p. 4 ff; summary in Temperley, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, I, p. 377 ff.
26 Kraus and Rödiger, op. cit., p. 1.
27 Cf. Temperley, op. cit., II, pp. 395-396.
28 Kraus and Rödiger, op. cit., p. 585.
29 Ibid., pp. 608, 609.
30 Kraus and Rödiger, op. cit., p. 609. Italics inserted. Cf. p. 611.
31 This, it would seem, is the view of General Tasker H. Bliss, one of those cited by Dr. Bruns as having recognized that the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon the parties other than Germany an equal obligation to reduce their armaments. General Bliss merely asserts that the other parties to the treaty “have pledged themselves to initiate, as soon as practicable, a general limitation of armaments after Germany shall have complied with her first obligation,” and again, that the Peace Conference merely “pledged itself to do what could be done” to bring about a limitation of national armaments. “The Problem of Disarmament,” in House and Seymour, What Really Happened at Paris, p. 372. There is some reason to believe that the principal object of the Peace Conference in limiting Germany's armaments was to insure the security of France against future attack by Germany and that the declaration that Germany's disarmament would render possible a general reduction of armaments was only a phrase, which, while no doubt expressing a desire and a hope, was not intended to record the assumption of an obligation on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers. A reading of the discussions in the Peace Conference Committee on Military, Naval and Air terms leaves one with this impression. See the summary of the discussions, in Temperley, op. cit., II, especially pp. 129-130.
32 Cf. the remarks of Dr. von Schubert to the League Assembly in 1926, at the time of Germany's admission to the League. Records of Seventh Assembly, Plenary, p. 1Q8.
33 Evidence of this was apparently shown in the marked increase of the German militarybudget for 1934-1935, and in subsequent increases. When inquiries were made of the German Government as to the reasons, especially for the increase in the air budget, vigorous denials were made as late as December 20,1934, that the German Government had any intention of disregarding the treaty limitations. Nevertheless, three months later the Chancellor was able to inform the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that in the matter of aircraft the Reich had already attained parity with the United Kingdom.
34 This Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), pp. 396-399.
35 See Dr. Bruns’ article, cited supra.
36 I n a letter of Dec. 12, 1924, to the Secretary-General, and in a memorandum to the members of the Council. League of Nations Official Journal, 1925, p. 232.
37 Ibid., pp. 490-491.
38 It was indicated, however, that while Germany would be bound “to contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League” if the occasion demanded, she would not be expected to do more than her “military situation” permitted. Records of the Special Session of the Assembly, March, 1926, p. 45.
39 Moore, Digest of International Law, V, p. 356.
40 They were instructed to require compensation for captures and condemnations contrary to international law and to the treaty of 1778, while the latter “remained in force.” They were also to consider it “as ultimated” that “the treaties of 1778 and the consular convention of 1788 be not revived in whole or in part… .” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, p. 306.
41 See ibid., II, pp. 317, 319, 320.
42 Ibid., II, p. 332.
43 Ibid., VI, pp. 144-145.
44 Ibid., II, p. 344.
45 Ibid., II, p. 345. For an account of the above case see Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations, pp. 4429-4432.
46 E. Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, II, pp. 1256-1257.
47 Ibid., Ill, pp. 1892-1895.
48 Excerpts from the correspondence may be found in Bruns, Fontes Juris Gentium, Ser. B, sec. 1, torn. 1, pars 1, fasc. 2, pp. 759-768. See also Das Staatsarchiv, LX, pp. 120, 123, 124-125, 127, 134-136, 140, 152, 180. Prussia, for political reasons arising out of Russian friendliness during the Franco-Prussian War, avoided any forthright expression of opinion.
49 Hertslet, op. tit., Ill, pp. 1898-1900.
50 Ibid., p. 1904; British and Foreign State Papers, LXI, pp. 1198-1199.
51 Hertslet, op. tit., I l l , pp. 1920,1922; British and Foreign State Papers, LXI, pp. 7-11.
52 M. O. Hudson, International Legislation, IV, p. 2378 (Art. 10).
53 Cf. Dupuis, “Les Relations Internationales,” Academie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, II, pp. 340-341.
54 C. Hill, “The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus in International Law,” University of Missouri Studies, Vol. IX, No. 3, p. 78.
55 See Article 27 of the Harvard Research draft convention on the law of treaties, and comment thereon, published as a supplement to this number of the Journal.
56 Thus Great Britain, by conceding in her naval agreement of June 18,1935, with Germany (text in New York Times, June 19) Germany's right to maintain naval forces in excess of those permitted by the Treaty of Versailles, in effect acquiesces in the German repudiation of the naval clauses. If, therefore, those clauses are terminated so far as Great Britain and Germany are concerned, it may be said that they have been terminated by agreement, not by Germany's unilateral action in pretending to repudiate them.
