On the Legality of the Chinese Boycott

Abstract

TN VIEW of the general principles of international law, SinoJapanese treaty relations, and the Chinese internal law, the legality of the Chinese boycott may broadly be outlined under the following seven heads: (1) If the National Government of China either openly or secretly participated in the boycott movement, international jurists would unanimously agree in holding that it constitutes a palpable and serious breach on the part of the National Government of the obligations imposed upon it by the treaties existing between China and Japan. Notably it would constitute an infringement of Article IV of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1896, which among others guarantees to Japanese subjects the right to reside and to carry on trade in the treaty ports of China. It may, according to the types which a particular boycott may assume, involve also a breach of the agreements contained in other provisions of the same Treaty as well as of those contained in the provisions of the treaties between China and other Powers, which are applicable to Japan by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause. Since, however, the Chinese boycott is carried on, at least nominally, by nongovernmental agencies, and the National Government of China takes the position that it has officially nothing to do with such movement, the governmental participation, if any, is kept in strict secrecy and the evidence of such governmental participation is naturally difficult to obtain. But in regard to the boycott which was carried on in China proper after the occurrence of the Manchurian Incident, some such evidence seems available. As to boycott conducted as a measure of reprisal, see my statements under (7). (2) If the Kuomintang Party has openly or secretly participated in the boycott movement, my personal opinion is that, in view of the organic and constitutional relationships subsisting between the Kuomintang Party and the National Government of China, such conduct on the part of the Party should legally be