The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XV. 60
refusing to settle its dispute with that Member (Covenant, Article 17, paragraph 3).
Suppose at the time of the Corfu dispute, Italy had gone on {90} to war against Greece, and the British had
deemed it their duty to apply an economic blockade against Italy.
Suppose another case; suppose that Russia attacked Poland and that the British deemed it their duty to apply
the economic blockade against Russia. We are speaking here in both of these cases merely of the provisions of
the Covenant; and the question raised is what attitude might the United States take in such a case as one of
these.
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?
The first question is a question of law. Would the United States have the right under international law to
object to such a blockade? As a preliminary to the answer to this question, it must be pointed out that a
blockade of Russia by the British might result in two different situations. Russia could undoubtedly regard
such a blockade as being war, and if she did, no other country, neither the United States nor any other country,
could then object to the blockade. The reason for that is that, without going into the much debated question as
to the "legality" of war, under present international law it can at least be said that a neutral may not object to
the belligerent status of two countries at war with each other. Of course a neutral may object to the manner of
carrying on the war, or to particular incidents during the fighting; a neutral may protest that a particular
blockade is not binding because not effective, and so on; but these things are not immediately important here.
The important thing here is that if the blockade resulted in war, we could not object to the fact of war and its
incidents.
On the other hand, a blockade might continue merely as a blockade, without the technical status of war
arising. This is, I suppose, not very likely in the case of the blockade of a Great Power, but still it is legally
possible under the terms of the Covenant.
The situation created would be new under international law. It would have to be considered as arising wholly