No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 20 April 2017
1 Whitton, and Herz, , “The Radio in International Politics,” in Childs and Whitton, Propaganda by Short-Wave. , Princeton, 1942, Chapter I.Google Scholar
2 UN Weekly Bulletin, September 16, 1947, p. 369.
3 Text proposed by the Legal Committee (Moral Disarmament), Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Conference Documents, Vol. II (IX. Disarmament. 1935. IX. 4), p. 702:
The H. C. P. undertake to adopt legislative measures empowering them to penalize: . . . Inciting public opinion by direct public propaganda with a view to forcing the State to embark upon a war of aggression. 3. Participation in or support of armed bands organized in the territory of the State, which have invaded the territory of another State; 4. The dissemination of false news, reports or of documents forged, falsified or inaccurately attributed to third parties, whenever such dissemination has a disturbing effect upon international relations and is carried out in bad faith. 5. Causing prejudice to a foreign State by maliciously attributing to it acts which are manifestly untrue and thus exposing it to public resentment or contempt.
4 U. N. Committee on the Progressive Development of International Law and its Codification, Report of the U. S. Representative (Philip C. Jessup), Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 420 (July 20, 1947), pp. 121-127. UN doc. US/A/AC.10/4, June 19, 1947.
5 Pella, , La Répression de s Crimes contre la personanté de l’Etat, in Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours. , Vol. 33 (1930), pp. 677, 805Google Scholar.
6 While the international law of this subject is still uncertain and incomplete (another reason why it is worth the study of experts on codification), there seems to be agreement that subversive activities against foreign states, if emanating directly from the Government or organizations receiving from it financial support, engage the international responsibility of the state: Preuss, L., “International Responsibility for Hostile Propaganda against Foreign States. ,” in this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 649 ffGoogle Scholar. See Potter, P. B., L’Intervention en droit international moderne, in Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours. , Vol. 32 (1930), p. 622 Google Scholar. Also see Oppenheim, (Lauterpacht), International Law. , Vol. I, Peace, pp. 238–240 Google Scholar, and authorities therein cited; Hyde, C. C., International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States. , 1945 (2d ed.), Vol. I, p. 605 ffGoogle Scholar.
7 After Yugoslavia appealed in 1934 to the League of Nations with regard to alleged activities of Yugoslav terrorists in Hungary, the Council set up a committee of experts to study the matter (O. J., 1934, p. 176). This committee prepared a draft convention considered later by the Assembly (Off. J., 1936 Assembly, Special Suppl. No. 155, p. 135). The Council, in 1937, decided to convene an international conference to consider the matter : Monthly Summary, May, 1937, p. 102. See also Kuhn, “The Complaint of Yugoslavia against Hungary with Reference to the Assassination of King Alexander,” this Journal, Vol. 29 (1935), p. 87.
8 Hyde, p. 606 ; Raestad, A., Le projet de convention sur la radiodiffusion et la paix, in R. D. I. et L. C, Se série. , tome XVI (1935), p. 289 ff.Google Scholar; Fenwick, C. G., “The Use of the Radio as an Instrument of Foreign Propaganda. ,” in this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 339 ffGoogle Scholar.
9 Report of Program Commission, adopted by the General Conference, Paris, November 19-December 10, 1946. UNESCO/C/23/46 (rev), pp. 15-16.
10 General Assembly Journal, No. 75. Supplement A-64, Add. 1, pp. 856-857.
11 E/441, 5 June 1947.
12 The signatories undertook to prohibit the transmission within their territories of anything detrimental to good international understanding, or which might incite the population of any of their territories to acts incompatible with internal order or security; they promised to see that transmissions from their stations should not constitute an incitement to war; and to prevent the making of incorrect statements. Text in this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 113. Signed at Geneva, September 23, 1936, and ratified by 19 states, including Soviet Russia (but not by Germany or Italy, the states whose broadcasts were the most objectionable). Van Dyke, , “The Responsibility of States for International Propaganda. ,” in this Journal, Vol. 34 (1940), pp. 58, 69Google Scholar.
13 E/Ac.7/30, 1 August 1947.
14 For instance, see Article II, “Correspondents from each signatory (together with their equipment) shall have free ingress to and egress from the territories of each other, ...” and Article IV, “All copy of correspondents or information agencies of each signatory shall be permitted free egress from the territories of the other without censorship, deletion or editing.” The New York Times, September 8, 1947.
15 E/Ac.7/38, 7 August 1947.
16 The need for an international convention to curb pernicious propaganda is only too evident today. See Siepmann, Charles A., “Propaganda and Information in International Affairs,” in Yale Law Journal. , Vol. 55 (1946), p. 1261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “To reestablish good manners in communication, some form of international convention may be necessary by means of which the evil and aggressive aspects of the use of propaganda are eliminated.” For an enlightening discussion of the problem, and a proposal for a draft treaty on freedom of information which includes provisions to “outlaw” certain acts defined as “psychological aggression,” see Warburg, James P., Unwritten Treaty. , New York, 1946, p. 151 ffGoogle Scholar.
Soviet Russia might find it difficult to respect her obligations under such a convention and still carry on the kind of pernicious propaganda in which, both at home and abroad, she is indulging today. On the other hand would the United States, under such a treaty, be obliged to curb newspapers and individuals who speak loosely today of a “preventive war”
You have
Access