About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


14 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 125 (1933)
Boycott in International Relations

handle is hein.journals/byrint14 and id is 129 raw text is: BOYCOTT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS By H. LAUTERPACHT, LL.D. I THE Report of the Lytton Commission appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to inquire into the dispute between China and Japan contains a long chapter on the boycott of Japanese goods by China as one of the essential factors of the dispute.1 The Commission found that although the boycott had its origin in a spontaneous popular movement it was organized and largely directed and controlled by a powerful party closely associated with the Government. It also questioned whether the Chinese Government could be absolved from responsibility both for isolated acts of direct support of the boycott movement by governmental departments and for indirect assistance as the result of the failure to suppress acts punishable under Chinese law. On the question of responsibility for the boycott movement as a whole the Commission showed some degree of hesitation. It did not deny the right of individual Chinese to decline to have commercial relations with Japanese subjects or to make propa- ganda, in a lawful manner, for the idea of the boycott. At the same time the Commission preferred to dissociate itself from any intention of pronouncing authoritatively on the subject. In doing so, it seemed to imply that it is controversial from the point of view of international law whether the organized application of the boycott to the trade of one particular country is consistent with friendly relations or in conformity with treaty obligations -.2 Accordingly, the Commission expressed the hope that in the interest of all states, this problem should be considered at an early date and regulated by international agreement . It will be 1 League of Nations. Appeal by the Chinese Government. Report of the Commission of Inquiry, Doc. C, 663, M. 320, 1932, VII, pp. 112-21. 2 Op. cit., p. 120. Apparently the Commission had in mind treaty obligations of ordinary commercial treaties. 3 Ibid., p. 120. The Report of the Assembly under Art. 15, para. 4--a report which embodied the substance of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry-did not make the matter clearer. It stated (on p. 17) that the use of the boycott by the Chinese previous to the events of 18 September, 1931, to express their indignation at certain incidents or to support certain claims could not fail to make a situation which was already tense still more tense, but that the use of the boycott by China, subsequent to the events of 18 September, 1931, falls under the category of reprisals. While the first statement refers to the Chinese the second refers to China. If the word reprisals is used in its technical sense-and there is a strong presumption that this is the use of a term in an