Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:16:41.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Responsibility of States for International Propaganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Vernon Van Dyke
Vernon Van Dyke*
Affiliation:
DePauw University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The tendency in recent world history toward the establishment of political parties based on class or racial ideologies in which no place of respect is given to established territorial boundaries has greatly intensified the problem of the responsibility of states in connection with international propaganda. Two main questions arise: (1) Are states themselves obliged under international law to refrain from spreading propaganda in a foreign country hostile to its government? and (2) Are they obliged to use due diligence to prevent private individuals and organizations from engaging in such activity? The purpose of this study is to seek the answer to these questions through an analysis of the sources of international law referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice: (a) international conventions, (b) diplomatic exchanges, giving evidence of international custom, (c) general principles embodied in municipal laws and judicial decisions, and (d) the attitude of writers on international law. Treatment of the subject will begin here with the period of the French Revolution and will be limited to peace-time political propaganda. The problem is, of course, much older and broader than these limits suggest, but it is believed that their extension would not contribute materially to the purpose at hand.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1940 , pp. 58 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The principle is well established that an obligation upon a government to abstain from certain activities does not necessarily involve an obligation to prevent private individuals within its territory from engaging in them. This is indicated by the fact that the Hague Conventions allow governments to permit their subjects to carry on activities forbidden to themselves (see particularly the Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, Arts. 6 and 7), and by the attitude of various writers (see, for instance, Clyde Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law (1928), p. 79).

2 Printed in this Journal, Supp., Vol. 32 (1938), p. 113.

3 Lascaris, S. Th., “La première alliance entre L. Grèce et la Serbie (Le traité de Voeslau du 14-26 août 1867),” Le monde slave, N.S., Vol. 3 (1926), pp. 430, 436Google Scholar.

4 Art. 3 of this treaty reads in part as follows:

“The two contracting parties, wishing in so far as it is in their power to contribute to the tranquillity of their respective governments, mutually oblige themselves not to permit any of their subjects to carry on any correspondence whatever, direct or indirect, with the internal enemies of the existing government of the two states, to propagate there principles contrary to their respective constitutions, or to incite disorders.” ( Martens, , Recueil de traités [1817-1836], Vol. 7 [1800-1803], p. 387 Google Scholar.)

5 Robinson, J. H. (ed.), “The Restoration and the European Policy of Metternich, 1814-1820,” Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History (University of Pennsylvania, 1894), Vol. 1, Ser. 1, p. 17 Google Scholar.

6 Pribram, A. F., in The Secret Treaties of Austria-Hungary, 1879-1914 (1920), pp. 51–53 Google Scholar.

7 The wording of the pledges in these treaties is not uniform, and, of course, the obligation in each case is only between the contracting parties. The treaties included in this list may be found at the following sources: League of Nations Treaty Series: Vol. 2, No. 52, p. 97; Vol. 9, No. 257, p. 249; Vol. 64, No. 1511, p. 387; Vol. 87, No. 1971, p. 215; Vol. 174, No. 4044, p. 133; Vol. 186, No. 4319, p. 303; Vol. 190, No. 4402, p. 27; Martens, , Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3rd ser.: Vol. 3, pp. 94–101 Google Scholar; Vol. 30, pp. 689-690; Vol. 34, p. 331; Pan American Union, Law and Treaty Series: No. 7, p. 6; No. 8, p. 6; Documents on International Affairs, 1937, p. 529; League of Nations, Official Journal, 1933, Part 1, p. 549.

8 Probably with the same end in view, Napoleon forced five neighboring principalities to refuse asylum to French émigrés; Austria and Russia in 1792, and Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1834 made similar agreements among themselves.

9 In paragraph 4 of the Soviet-American agreement, the U.S.S.R. declared that it would be its “fixed policy”:

“Not to permit the formation or residence on its territory of any organization or group—and to prevent the activity on its territory of any organization or group, or of representatives or officials of any organization or group—which has as an aim the overthrow or the preparation for the overthrow of, or the bringing about by force of a change in, the political or social order of the whole or any part of the United States, its territories or possessions.” (Exchange of Communications between President Roosevelt and Litvinoff, M., in People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Nov. 16, 1933 Google Scholar, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 28 (1934), pp. 3–4.Google ScholarPubMed)

This clause is closely modeled after agreements made by the Soviet Union with most of its border states, the proper interpretation of which is also in doubt. In fact, the latter were not taken to require the suppression of, or restraint on, the activities of the Third International, and most of the contracting parties seem to have acquiesced tacitly in this interpretation. But whether the Soviet Union could rightly say that the interpretation given to these agreements was necessarily carried over to the agreement with the United States is doubtful, particularly when an opposite interpretation is so clearly supported by the text when studied in connection with official statements of the aims of the International.

10 Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 (1862-), Vol. 35, pp. 442–443 Google Scholar; Vol. 36, p. 618.

11 Ibid., Vol. 42, pp. 217-218; Debrett, J. (ed.), A Collection of State Papers Relative to the War against France (1794-1802), Vol. 1, pp. 21, 28Google Scholar; von Vivenot, A. R. (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserpolitik Oesterreichs während der französischen Revolutionskriege, 1790-1801 (1883-1890), Vol. 1, pp. 470–474 Google Scholar; Vol. 2, p. 378. Cf. Clapham, J. H., in The Causes of the War of 1792 (1889 Google Scholar).

12 Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. 58, p. 133 Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., Vol. 53, p. 474.

14 Laprade, W. T., in England and the French Revolution (1909), p. 106 Google Scholar; Sorel, Albert, L’Europe et la Révolution française (1889-1904), Vol. 3, pp. 226–227 Google Scholar; Annual Register, Vol. 35 (1793), “State Papers,” p. 117; Papiers de Barthélémy, ambassadeur de France en Suisse 1792-1797 (1886-1910), Vol. 1, pp. 433, 436, 441.

15 Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. 56, p. 104; Vol. 57, p. 14; Vol. 58, pp. 141, 152.

16 See King George’s statement to Parliament, Jan. 28, 1793, in Annual Register, Vol. 35 (1793), “State Papers,” p. 128. Laprade (pp. cit.) builds a forceful case to show that the decree of Nov. 19, 1792, and the propaganda issue constituted an excuse rather than a reason for war. “ Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. 62, p. 3.

17 Archives parkmentaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. 62, p. 3.

18 Robinson, op. cit., p. 21.

19 Britain, Great, Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Papers (1841-), Vol. 8 (1820-1821), p. 1162 Google Scholar.

20 Metternich-Winneburg, Richard (ed.), Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren (1880-1884), Vol. 5, p. 19 Google Scholar.

21 Ibid, pp. 18, 116, 122, 129, 173, 576; de Guichen, Eugène, La révolution de juillet 1830 et l’Europe (1917), pp. 163, 179Google Scholar; Guizot, François P. G., Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de mon temps (1858-1867), Vol. 4, p. 36 Google Scholar.

22 Martens, , Nouveau recueil général (1843-1875), Vol. 12 (1848), p. 69 Google Scholar.

23 Boghitschewitsch, M., Die auswärtige Politik Serbiens, 1903 bis 1914 (1928-1931), Vol. 2, p. 87 Google Scholar.

24 Great Britain, Foreign Office, Collected Diplomatic Documents Relating to the Out break of the European War (1915), pp. 5-8.

25 Ibid., pp. 506-514.

26 Albert Kaas and Pedor de Lazarovics, Bolshevism in Hungary (1931), pp. 179-182.

27 New York Times, Dec. 10, 1933, IV, 3:7; Jan. 24, 1938, 4:2.

28 Ibid., July 12, 1936, 20:2.

29 United States, Executive Documents, 1836-1837 [24th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 301], Vol. 1, Doc. 2, p. 58.

30 American Foundation, Committee on Russian-American Relations, The United States and the Soviet Union (1933), p. 39. Letter from Charles Evans Hughes to Samuel Gompers, July 19, 1923.

31 See, for example, New York Times, March 30, 1939, 9:5.

32 Ibid., Feb. 3, 1934, 6:3.

33 See the example cited by Robson, W. A., “The Progress of Socialization in England,” Foreign Affairs (N. Y.), Vol. 11 (April, 1935), p. 506 Google Scholar.

34 Baumgarten, Hermann, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der französischen Revolution (1861), p. 338 Google Scholar.

35 Daudet, Ernest, Histoire des conspirations royalistes du Midi sous la Révolution (1790-1798) (1881), pp. 155–156 Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., p. 118.

37 Ibid.

38 Vidal, C., Mazzini et les tentatives révolutionnaires de la Jeune Italie dans les états sardes (1833-1834) (1927), pp. 10, 12 Google Scholar; idem, Louis-Philippe, Metternich et la crise italienne de 1831-1832 (1931), pp. 55-58.

39 Matter, Paul, Cavour et l’unité italienne, Vol. 3, 1856-61 (1927), pp. 198–199 Google Scholar and passim. Cavour’s methods were described by Mussolini to the Chamber of Deputies in March, 1938, for the purpose of extenuating Hitler’s conduct in Austria (New York Times, March 17, 1938, 6:3).

40 Finlay, George, History of Greece from Its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time (1877), Vol. 6, p. 100 Google Scholar; Yakschitch, Grégoire, L’Europe et la résurrection de la Serbie (1804-1834) (1917), p. 377 Google Scholar.

41 Léonoff, R. (ed.), Documents secrets de la politique russeen Oriente, 1881-1890 (1893)Google Scholar passim.

42 Villari, Luigi (ed.), The Balkan Question (1905), pp. 138–141 Google Scholar, 149, 157, 187, 195; H. N. Braüsford, Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future (1906), pp. 121, 188; H. W. V. Temperley, History of Serbia (1919), p. 257; L. von Südland, Die südslawische Frage und der Weltkrieg (1918), pp. 367-368. Cf. the treaties between Greece and Serbia, cited supra, note 3.

43 Friedjung, Heinrich, Das Zeitalter des Imperialismus, 1884-1914 (1922), Vol. 2, pp. 204–209 Google Scholar; Boghitschewitsch, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 27; Schmitt, B. E., in The Coming of the War, 1914 (1930), Vol. 1, pp. 120, 179, 182–183 Google Scholar, and passim.

44 Britain, Great, arliamentary Debates (Official Report), 5th Ser. (1909-), Vol. 138, pp. 2043–2044 Google Scholar.

45 New York Times, Aug. 14, 1920, 1:6.

46 See the statement of Chicherin in Lenin, Nikolai and Trotsky, Leon, The Proletarian Revolution in Russia, ed. by Fraina, Louis C. (1918), p. 409 Google Scholar.

47 Kaas and Lazarovics, op. cit., pp. 125, 179.

48 This statement is based on the assumption that the government is responsible for the actions of the Nazi party—in view of the fact that they have been legally united—and for press and radio utterances, in view of the fact that they are strictly controlled. Cf. Preuss, Lawrence, “International Responsibility for Hostile Propaganda against Foreign States,” this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), esp. pp. 666–667 Google Scholar.

49 Note should be made of the fact that this statement refers to the spreading of propaganda within foreign countries. Governments are free in certain circumstances to issue and circulate within their own territory pronouncements which other governments regard as hostile to their interests (for instance, a declaration that another government is guilty of aggression), but, aside from releasing the news via the radio and press, it is doubtful whether direct, official steps could legally be taken to make a foreign people cognizant of such pronouncements, unless it be done as a measure of reprisal. The latter basis for action would probably exist in connection with the illustration cited in view of the obligations of the Pact of Paris and other instruments. On this question see Wright, Quincy, “The Denunciation of Treaty Violators,” this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), pp. 526–535 Google Scholar.

50 See especially Papiers de Barthélémy, Vol. 1, pp. 4-5; Sorel, Albert, “ Un Général diplomate au temps de la Révolution. I. Dumouriez aux affaires étrangères, ” Revue des deux mondes, Vol. 64 (1884), pp. 310–311 Google Scholar.

51 See especially Vivenot, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 376, 568.

52 Papiers de Barthélémy, Vol. 1, pp. 433, 436, 441.

53 Annual Register, Vol. 45 (1803), “State Papers,” p. 661.

54 von Tillier, Anton, Geschichte der Eidgenossenschaft während der sogenannten Restaura tionsepoche (1848-1850), Vol. 2, p. 257, n. 1Google Scholar.

55 Guizot, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 36; Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. 81 (March 26, 1833), p. 615; Vol. 82 (March 30,1833), pp. 33-34, 36.

56 Martens, , Nouveau recueil général, Vol. 10 (1846), p. 133 Google Scholar.

57 Br. and For. State Papers, Vol. 42 (1852-1853), pp. 402, 410-411, 415-416, 418-419, 425.

58 Martens, op. cit., Vol. 11 (1847-1848), pp. 142-149, 156; Vol. 14 (1843-1852), p. 561.

59 Br. and For. State Papers, Vol. 46 (1855-1856), pp. 124-125.

60 Paul Servais, Les codes et les lois spéciales les plus usuelles en vigueur en Belgique (1937), “Law of March 12, 1858,” Art. 3, p. 285.

61 Br. and For. State Papers, Vol. 42 (1852-1853), pp. 422-423.

62 Archives diplomatiques (1861-1914), 1876, Vol. 2, p. 298.

63 Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 506-514.

64 New York Times, Sept. 4, 1935,15:6. As a rule, however, states imputing a responsibility to the U.S.S.R. for acts of the Communist International allege that it is connected in one way or another with the government.

65 Seton-Watson, R. W., “King Alexander’s Assassination: Its Background and Effects,” International Affairs, Vol. 14 (1935), p. 30 Google Scholar.

66 New York Times, Apr. 4,1938,1:2; May 7, 1938, 5:6; July 29, 1938, 6:5; Dec. 19,1938, 1:5; Dec. 20, 1938, 26:3; Jan. 12, 1939, 12:6.

67 League of Nations, Appeal from the Chinese Government in Virtue of Article 15 of the Covenant, Explanatory Note Communicated by the Japanese Government (Geneva, March 2, 1932; Official No. A. Extr. 6. 1932. VII).

68 For example, see United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (1852-), 1911, pp. 392-393.

69 League of Nation Official Journal, Vol. 15, Part 1 (No. 5, 1934), “Fifty-seventh Periodical Report of the Governing Commission,” p. 459.

70 Supra, note 61. In 1928, however, the British Government requested Prince Carol to leave the country when it appeared that he intended to send to Rumania by aeroplane copies of a manifesto printed in London in which he urged the ousting of King Michael and his own recall to the throne. It is probable that this action was taken for purely political rather than legal reasons; the Home Secretary in Parliament ignored a question concerning the requirements of international law (Parl. Debates, Vol. 217, pp. 175, 390, May 8 and 10, 1928; London Times, May 8, 1928, 16:1; May 9, 1928, 16:1).

71 G. M. Stekloff, History of the First International (1928), passim.

72 Archives diplomatiques (1874), Vol. 3, esp. pp. 86, 204, 212, 242-243, 251; Otto Fürst von Bismarck, Gedanken und Erinnerungen (1898), p. 569; von Beust, F. F. Count, Memoirs (1887), Vol. 2, p. 273 Google Scholar.

73 Popov, N. N., in Outline History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1934), Vol. 1, pp. 102, 136, 184, 236, 269, 281.Google Scholar

74 See, for instance, the report concerning the British National Council of Labor’s mani festo to the German people in the New York Times, July 2, 1939, 1:1.

75 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 398.

76 The countries included in this list, together with the date of publication of the material studied, are as follows:

Special statutes concerning this topic were found in the legislation of Czechoslovakia and France. The Rumanian penal code was not available, but that country is included in this compilation in view of the fact that press laws which were available seem to cover the subject.

77 The Press Laws of Foreign Countries (1926).

78 Feller, A. H. and Hudson, Manley O. (eds.), A Collection of the Diplomatic and Consular Laws and Regulations of Various Countries (1933)Google Scholar.

79 Japan grants special protection if the foreign sovereign or president is within its jurisdiction (W. J. Sebald [tr.], the Criminal Code of Japan [1936], p. 67, Art. 90). For the Russian penal code see Great Britain, Foreign Office, The Penal Code of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic. Text of 1926, with amendments up to December 1, 1932 (1934).

80 Schwarz, Otto, Strafgesetzbuch mit allen wichtigen Nebengesetzen und Verordnungen (1936), p. 174 Google Scholar, Art. 103 and comment thereon. The draft German penal code of 1925 proposed to eliminate the discrimination between foreign sovereigns and other heads of states, but then, following the Japanese practice, to grant protection to such persons only when they are in Germany (Amtlicher Entwurf eines allgemeinen deutschen Strafgesetzbuchs nebst Begründung. Veröffentlicht auf Anordnung des Reichsjustizminisieriums [1925], pp. 14-15, Art. 111).

81 King v. Gordon, 22 Howell’s State Tr., esp. pp. 233-234; King v. Vint, 27 ibid., esp. p. 641; King v. Peltier, 28 ibid., esp. pp. 617-618; “Trial of William Cobbett for Libel. In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. November, 1797,” Wharton State Tr., esp. p. 325. In the case of King v. Antonelli and Barberi (1906) (70 J. P. 4), the British court ruled that the common law does not afford protection to foreign governments or sovereigns against seditious libel, but referred approvingly to the earlier decisions on criminal libel.

82 Bourdeaux, Henry (ed.), Les codes d’audience Dalloz, 20th ed. (1934), p. 371 Google Scholar, Art. 36 of the law of July 29, 1881.

83 Great Britain, Foreign Office, Penal Code of the Kingdom of Italy (1931), p. 84, Art. 297.

84 The Italian law applies only “in so far as the foreign law guarantees, reciprocally, to the Head of the Italian State . . . equality of penal protection.” The German code contains a similar stipulation.

85 This latter conclusion is also reached by Reeves, J. S. (Reporter), “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities,” this Journal, Supp., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 94 Google Scholar.

86 Dr. Dalcke, Strafrecht und Strafverfahren, 30th ed. (1938), pp. 86-87, Art. 102. Cf. the Belgian law, cited supra, note 60.

87 Arts. 84 and 85. It is doubtful, however, whether these articles could be invoked solely because of propaganda activities which lead to diplomatic complications. See Rapoport, S., “Attentats et complots contre la sûreté de l’Etat,” Répertoire de droit international, Vol. 2 (1929), pp. 237–239 Google Scholar.

88 Code of 1932, Art. 134.

89 India, Italy, Sweden, and several other countries also have legislation of this kind.

90 Feuille fédérale, 86 année, 1934, Vol. 1, p. 867. Switzerland has in fact acted against the publication within its own borders of propaganda hostile to foreign governments, as indicated by its expulsion of at least two alien journalists (London Times, March 13, 1934, 13:7; Journal des Nations [Geneva], Dec. 15, 1936; Jan. 11, 14, 16, 23, 25, 1937; March 2, 1937), and by its application of the law quoted in connection with the Journal des Nations and other Swiss papers (London Times, Feb. 7, 1936, 13:4; New York Times, Oct. 8, 1938, 9:2).

91 Art. 58 of the code of the R.S.F.S.R., cited supra, note 79.

92 E. C. Stowell, Intervention in International Law (1921), p. 378.

93 Martens, F. F., Traité de droit international (1883-1887), Vol. 1, sec. 74 Google Scholar. Cf. de Vattel, M., Le droit des gens (1916), Bk. 2, ch. 4, sec. 56Google Scholar; Pradier-Fodéré, P., Traité de droit international public européen et américain (1885-1906), Vol. 1, sec. 238Google Scholar; Hall, W. E., in A Treatise on International Law (1924), p. 339 Google Scholar, sec. 91.

94 See, for instance, SirPhillimore, Robert, ommentaries upon International Law, 3d ed. (1879-1889), Vol. 1, sec. 394Google Scholar; Funck-Brentano, T. and Sorel, Albert, Précis du droit des gens (1877), p. 216 Google Scholar.

95 See, for instance, Hall, op. cit., pp. 339-340. At Cannes in 1922 the Supreme Council adopted a resolution declaring:

“Nations can claim no right to dictate to each other regarding the principles on which they are to regulate their system of ownership, internal economy, and government. It is for every nation to choose for itself the system which it prefers in this respect.”

98 Rivier, Alphonse, Principes du droit des gens (1896), Vol. 1, No. 52, p. 266 Google Scholar, sec. 20. Cf. Calvo, Carlos, Le droit international théorique et pratique (1896), Vol. 3, sec. 1298Google Scholar; Triepel, Heinrich, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (1899), p. 340 Google Scholar; Fauchille, Paul, Traité de droit international public (1922), Vol. 1, secs. 255, 441 (24), and 472Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L., in International Law, 4th ed. (1928), Vol. 1, sec. 316Google Scholar.

97 Hall, op. cit., p. 50, sec. 7; cf. p. 269, sec. 65.

98 Gemma, Scipione, “Les gouvernements de fait,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International (1924), Vol. 3, p. 365 Google Scholar.

99 Lauterpacht, H., “Revolutionary Activities by Private Persons against Foreign States,” this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 105–130 Google Scholar; idem, “Revolutionary Propaganda by Governments,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 13, Problems of Peace and War (1928); Preuss, loc. ăt., pp. 649-668. The work of these writers is reflected in both the fourth and fifth editions of Oppenheim’s International Law.

100 Dickinson, E. D., “The Defamation of Foreign Governments,” this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 844 Google Scholar. Cf. Stowell, E. C., “Respect Due to Foreign Sovereigns,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), pp. 301–302 Google Scholar.

101 Oppenheim, L., in International Law, 5th ed. (1937), Vol. 1, pp. 230–231 Google Scholar. Cf. idem, International Law (1912), Vol. 1, p. 222; also Phillimore, op. cit., Vol. 2, sec. 103, p. 129.