The Legal Foundation of the Stimson Doctrine

Abstract

IN HIS article contributed to June number of PACIFIC AFFAIRS on The Recent Development of Stimson Doctrine, Mr. Kisaburo Yokota states fundamental objective of this doctrine to be peace and carefully balances pros and cons of the effectiveness of doctrine as an anti-war weapon. With Mr. Yokota's conclusions on these practical aspects I have no quarrel; I am happy to agree that The Stimson Doctrine may well turn out to be one of most constructive means for solution of international problems of Pacific area. It is perhaps less important to understand legal position of Stimson doctrine than to understand its political value, yet two are not unrelated, and it seems worth while to add to Mr. Yokota's discussion some consideration of grounds on which it has been considered that parties to League of Nations Covenant and to Pact of Paris are legally bound to observe doctrine, and grounds on which it has been considered that application of doctrine will have not merely a moral but a legal effect. Mr. Yokota's discussion suggests that doctrine is supplementary to Covenant and Pact, and that states are under no legal obligation to observe it unless such an obligation has been accepted by special agreement. Thus, he discusses binding force and generality of application of various resolutions and treaties in which doctrine has been embodied and concludes that from a status of particular or regional international law it has advanced to a status of quasi-general or quasi-world international law, but is not yet universal international law. This discussion appears to be based upon a misconception of legal theory of doctrine. It has not been considered a supplementary sanction to Pact or