¹ The writer is using the term “war materials” in the sense of arms, ammunition and implements of war as defined by President Roosevelt’s proclamation of May 1, 1937. Raw materials necessary for the conduct of war are not included in this definition.

² 12 Charles II, cap. 4 (Great Britain, 3 Stat. at L., p. 4).

³ 29 Geo. II, cap. 16 (6 Stat. at L., pp. 179-180).

⁴ 33 Geo. Ill, cap. 2 (9 Stat. at L., p. 437).

⁵ 6 Geo. IV, cap. 107 (20 Stat. at L., p. 365 ff.), Secs. 99 and 114.

⁶ The reference to copper was deleted in 1853. See note 7.

⁷ Act of Aug. 28, 1833, 3 and 4 Will. IV, cap. 52 (23 Stat. at L., p. 187 ff.), Sees. 104 and 118; Act of Aug. 4,1845, 8 and 9 Vict., cap. 86 (27 Stat. at L., p. 822 ff.), Sees. 112 and 126; Act of Aug. 20,1853,16 and 17 Vict., cap. 107 (31 Stat. at L., p. 702 ff.), Sec. 150. The reference to copper in category (b) was deleted by this act. Otherwise the list was identical to that given in the Act of 1825. Customs Consolidation Act of July 24, 1876, 39 and 40 Vict., ch. 36 (Great Britain, 11 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 171 ff.), Sec. 138.

⁸ 42 and 43 Vict., ch. 21 (14 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 35 ff.).

⁹ See below, p. 300.

¹⁰ See statements of Mr. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury, to the House of Commons, July 20 and 31, 1900 (Parl. Debates, Vol. 86, col. 641, and Vol. 87, cols. 230-232). This opinion was not shared by all members of Parliament, some of whom felt that the existing authority was fully adequate, and that it was somewhat belittling the prerogative of the Sovereign to give her power which she already possessed (Parl. Debates, Vol. 87, cols. 227-230). For further comment, see below, pp. 296-297.

¹¹ 63 and 64 Vict., ch. 44 (38 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 94).

¹² See the orders of Jan. 21, 1814, 1 British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 1278-1281. The general practice was to issue orders approximately every six months renewing the prohibitions for those intervals.

¹³ 3 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 1137-1138; Vol. 6, p. 519; Vol. 8, p. 575; Vol. 10, pp. 646-647. The prohibitions were maintained in effect by Orders in Council issued at approximate six-month intervals. The last order, valid for six months, with respect to Africa, was that of Nov. 24, 1828 (Ibid., Vol. 15, pp. 614-615).

¹⁴ The prohibited area was actually defined as: the West Indies and any part of the Amer ican continents except British territories in North America and the territories of the United States. The Spanish colonies were clearly the object of the prohibition, however, for arms exports were allowed to Portuguese America.

¹⁵ 1 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 293.

¹⁶ Note from Canning to Gordon, British Minister at Vienna, March 4, 1823, cited in Smith, Herbert A., in Great Britain and the Law of Nations (London, 1932), Vol. I, pp. 279–281 Google Scholar. At least three other instances of the peace-time use of arms embargoes by Great Britain occurred during the 19th century. All of them were isolated cases, and were apparently of brief duration. The first was a six-months’ prohibition on the export of guns and projectiles, imposed by an Order in Council of Sept. 30,1825, in pursuance of the Act of 1756 (12 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 529). Exceptions could be made by special permission of the government. This was apparently proclaimed with the Greco-Turkish War in mind, but it was allowed to expire at the end of the six-month period because it was alleged to have brought ruin to all the principal arms manufacturers in Great Britain. Foreign Minister Canning, in a letter of Aug. 4, 1826, pointed out that there was no treaty obliging Great Britain to forbid arms exports to the Greeks, and that whether or not she ought to do so, thereby inflicting calamity upon her own arms establishments, was only “a question of very nice morality.” (Cited by Garner, James W. in this Journal, Vol. 10 (1916), pp. 765–766 Google Scholar.)

The second instance took place during the war between Denmark and Prussia when the British customs officers were instructed on June 2, 1848, to prohibit the export of arms which might be intended to be used against Denmark. This action was taken on the basis of treaties concluded between Denmark and Great Britain in 1670, 1780, and 1814, under which the two Powers agreed not to assist the enemies of each other with supplies of arms or ammunition. (Cited in Calvo, Charles, Le Droit International (5th ed., Paris, 1896), Vol. IV, pp. 510–511 Google Scholar.)

The third instance was a proclamation of April 18, 1878, based on Section 138 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, prohibiting the export of torpedoes, torpedo-boats, and torpedo apparatus and machinery (69 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 615-616). The writer has been unable to discover what motive lay behind this prohibition.

¹⁷ From Feb. 18, 1854, to April 9, 1856. 46 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 31, 61. The prohibition was made under the authority of the Customs Act of 1853. See above, note 7.

¹⁸ See orders of April 11 and 24, 1854. 46 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 48, 52.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 239.

²⁰ The French system, known as the régime of “acquits-à-caution,” requires the exporter of war materials to deposit a security bond with the French customs authorities as a guarantee that the goods will arrive at the declared destination. The bond may only be released upon presentation of a certificate signed by a French consul in the port of destination, stating that the goods have actually arrived, have been imported into the country, and that they have not been re-shipped to any third country. The certificate may be issued only after an interval of three months following the arrival of the goods. (See Art. 5 of the decree of Sept. 3, 1935, France, Journal Official, Sept. 11, 1935, pp. 9930-9931.) The system of “acquits-à-caution” was not designed exclusively for use in connection with regulating arms exports, for it had been used in similar fashion since at least 1791 with respect to all goods subject to export restrictions.

²¹ 51 Br. and For. State Papers, pp. 170-173.

²² See above, pp. 293-294.

²³ Customs (Exportation Prohibition) Act of Aug. 28, 1914. 4 and 5 Geo. V, ch. 64 (52 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 378); and the Customs (Exportation Restriction) Act of Nov. 27, 1914, 5 and 6 Geo. V, ch. 2 (63 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 9).

²⁴ Licenses for exports to the European neutral Powers, for example, were made conditional upon the goods being consigned to a responsible organization (such as the Netherlands Oversea Trust) which guaranteed their domestic consumption, or else were issued only for shipments to countries which had prohibited the export of the goods in question. In other instances, licenses were granted with more or less facility depending upon approval or disapproval of the neutral’s conduct, or according to the need of the Allies for commodities or services controlled by the neutral Powers. For a fuller discussion of this question, see Jessup, Philip C. (ed.), Neutrality, Its History, Economics and Law, Vol. III, The World War Period, by Turlington, Edgar, pp. 69–70 Google Scholar.

²⁵ The general license was a sort of “blanket dispensation,” authorizing the export of the designated materials without a specific license. It could be revoked at any time by the Board of Trade, but so long as it was in effect, all exporters in the United Kingdom could ship the designated materials out of the country freely to whatever destinations were specified. The general licenses were issued in the form of public announcements, and were published in the Board of Trade Journal. Revocations were made in the same way. The use of such general licenses had developed during the war in connection with the regular export licensing system.

²⁶ Board of Trade Journal, 1919, Pt. 1, pp. 626, 654, 736-737.

²⁷ Art. 2 of the Convention prohibited the export of arms to specified native areas in Africa and the Middle East except under license from the exporting country. The rest of the Convention dealt with the general regulation of the international traffic in arms by means of a system of national licensing and publicity for exports. It never came into effect, but the provisions of Art. 2 were nevertheless applied informally by the five Powers mentioned above. For the text of the Convention, see Hudson, Manley O., in International Legislation, Vol. I, p. 323 Google Scholar ff.

²⁸ Board of Trade Journal, 1919, Pt. 2, p. 749 (Dec. 11,1919), and 1920, Pt. 1, p. 63 (Jan. 8, 1920).

²⁹ Ibid., 1920, Pt. 1, p. 285 (Feb. 19, 1920).

³⁰ Great Britain, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1921, pp. 130-131.

³¹ London Gazette, March 29, 1921, pp. 2463-2464. The new order was based upon the authority of Sec. 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1879.

³² The only previous instances which the writer has been able to discover where arms export licenses were specifically required by order or proclamation were the prohibitions during the Crimean War and again in 1861 upon the export of arms from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man without a license from the governing officer of the islands. See above, pp. 295-296. A form of licensing system had of course existed in connection with the arms export restrictions from 1816 to 1829. See above, p. 294.

³³ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, pp. 327 and 335.

³⁴ Great Britain had been a party to the joint declaration made to the Chinese Government on May 5, 1919, under which twelve Powers had agreed to restrain their nationals from ex porting to China arms and munitions of war and material destined exclusively for the manufacture of arms and munitions until the establishment of a government in China which was recognized throughout the country. (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1919, Vol. I, p. 670 ff.) In pursuance of this obligation, the British Government withheld licenses for the export to China of both arms and munitions (except sporting arms in small quantities), as well as machinery and raw materials used in the manufacture thereof. It did not at first consider commercial aircraft as being included in the embargo, but after early 1921, and until the middle of 1926, it discouraged the export of all aircraft to China. (Ibid., 1919, Vol. I, p. 673; 1921, Vol. I, pp. 542-544.) From July, 1926, until the termination of the embargo agreement in 1929, commercial aircraft were not considered as included in the prohibition.

The embargo agreement was not very effective in cutting off the supply of arms from China, and on April 26, 1929, the several Powers agreed to terminate it. The reason given for this action was the changed situation resulting from the establishment of the National Government of China, which government had been recognized by practically all of the Powers concerned. (London Times, April 26, 1929, p. 16.) Arms exports to China from Great Britain remained subject to license, however, and the current practice of the British Government is to grant such licenses only when the Chinese Government has authorized the import. (See below, p. 315.)

³⁵ 11 and 12 Geo. V, ch. 32 (59 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 125 ft.).

³⁶ Statutory Rules and Orders, 1921, pp. 135-136. The list of prohibited materials was identical to that covered by the order of March 24, except that the list of industrial explosives exempted from the provisions of the order and from the requirement of specific export licenses was somewhat larger. Neither list included aircraft, aircraft engines, tanks, armored cars, bayonets, swords or lances, or poison gas. These materials, with the exception of poison gas, were added in 1931; poison gas, in 1937.

³⁷ See above, p. 298.

³⁸ Board of Trade Journal, 1922, Pt. 1, p. 22 (Jan. 5, 1922).

³⁹ Ibid., 1922, Pt. 2, p. 746 (Dec. 28, 1922). Announcements of the existence of this license, as well as of the others in effect, were repeated in the Board of Trade Journal every three months.

⁴⁰ Board of Trade Journal, 1922, Pt. 2, p. 113 (July 27, 1922).

⁴¹ Ibid., 1926, Pt. 1, p. 28 (Jan. 7, 1926). Under the Firearms Act of Aug. 16, 1920 (recently replaced by the Firearms Act of Feb. 18, 1937), no one was permitted to acquire, possess or carry any firearms or ammunition without a firearms certificate issued by the chief of the local police. (10 and 11 Geo. V, ch. 43, 58 Law Reports, Statutes, p. 283 ff.)

⁴² For criticism of the open general licenses, see below, pp. 303, 311-313.

⁴³ This treaty between the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Ethiopia was designed to apply the provisions of the Arms Traffic Convention of June 17, 1925, to Ethiopia pending the general coming into effect of that convention. The general effect of it was to prohibit the import into Ethiopia of arms, ammunition and implements of war listed in Categories I, II, IV and V (i.e., all except war vessels and their armament) without export licenses from the exporting Powers. Licenses for materials in Categories I, II and IV were not to be issued unless the application was accompanied by an order or endorsement from the Ethiopian Government. By the protocol of signature attached to the treaty, the signatories agreed that pending the entry into force of the treaty they would act in conformity with its spirit, and would put its provisions into force as soon as possible. The treaty was subsequently ratified by all four signatories. For the text, see League of Nations Official Journal, March, 1931, pp. 547-557.

⁴⁴ Bayonets, swords, lances and component parts thereof; aircraft and aircraft engines; tanks, armored cars and parts thereof; fire-control and gun-sighting apparatus and parts thereof; and appliances for use with arms and apparatus designed for land, sea or air warfare.

⁴⁵ They could thereby be prohibited under the Exportation of Arms Act of 1900. Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, p. 333. See also above, pp. 293, 296-297 for similar opinions expressed in 1900.

⁴⁶ Great Britain, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1931, pp. 252-253.

⁴⁷ For the text of this license (No. G.L.110), see Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, pp. 336-337.

⁴⁸ For the texts of these licenses (Nos. G.L.111 and 112) see ibid., p. 337.

⁴⁹ These “special zones” were the same as the areas specified in Art. 12 of the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925, into which the import of arms was prohibited except under the approval of the government authorities there. These “special zones” represented a somewhat smaller area than the native area indicated in the Convention of Saint-Germain into which arms could not be imported. In the general license of June 1,1931, the “special zones” were substituted for the prohibited areas of the Convention of Saint-Germain. The latter had been used since 1919 in the general license concerning the free export of shotguns and ammunition.

⁵⁰ Aircraft fitted with arms or military equipment such as gun mountings or bomb racks were not permitted to be exported freely under this general license, but were subjected to specific license.

⁵¹ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Report (Cmd. No. 5292, 1936), pp. 49-50.

⁵² Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 275, col. 1592.

⁵³ League of Nations Official Journal, Spl. Supp. No. 134, p. 65; Official Journal, September, 1935, p. 985.

⁵⁴ Sir John Simon to the Secretary General, July 23, 1934. Official Journal, November, 1934, p. 1695.

⁵⁵ Ibid., pp. 1595-1596.

⁵⁶ See report of this committee of Jan. 16, 1935. League of Nations Official Journal, Spl. Supp. No. 133, p. 49.

⁵⁷ League of Nations Official Journal, September, 1935, p. 985.

⁵⁸ Paraguay was not formally declared by the League Assembly or Council to be an “aggressor,” but it had declined to accept the peace proposals of the League, whereas Bolivia had accepted them. On this ground, the League Chaco Committee, in its report of Jan. 16, 1935, suggested that the arms embargo be raised with respect to Bolivia and continued against Paraguay alone.

⁵⁹ Notices in the Board of Trade Journal of July 12 and Oct. 4, 1934 (1934, Pt. 2, pp. 64, 514), indicated that aircraft and aircraft engines could be exported to all destinations except Ethiopia without specific licenses.

⁶⁰ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, pp. 335, 340.

⁶¹ Board of Trade Journal, 1935, Pt. 1, p. 424; Pt. 2, p. 169.

⁶² Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 304, col. 2016.

⁶³ Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 304, cols. 1814-1815. Two applications were pending before the Board of Trade on July 15, 1935, but on the basis of technical points were considered out of order. (Ibid., col. 735.) No license for an arms shipment to Ethiopia actually seems to have been issued since September, 1934 (Ibid., col. 2483), but there is no indication as to whether any applications were made between then and the beginning of the four-month period referred to above by Mr. Runciman.

⁶⁴ Proposal I. League of Nations Official Journal, Spl. Supp. No. 150, pp. 2-3.

⁶⁵ Mr. Eden to the Secretary General, Oct. 12, 1935. Ibid., p. 57.

⁶⁶ War vessels, certain aircraft parts, and products and projectors for use in chemical or incendiary warfare.

⁶⁷ Statutory Rules and Orders, 1935, pp. 1309-1315.

⁶⁸ Board of Trade Journal, 1935, Pt. 2, p. 601 (Oct. 31, 1935).

⁶⁹ Germany had subjected the export of war materials to license by law of Nov. 6, 1935, but there seems to be no definite indication that licenses were withheld for shipments to Italy. (Documents on International Affairs, 1935, Vol. II, pp. 255-261.)

⁷⁰ See above, note 20.

⁷¹ I.e., the Board of Trade, acting in consultation with the Foreign Office and the Defense Departments.

⁷² Sec. I (4) of the order of October 25. See above, note 67.

⁷³ I.e., “war material” in the strict sense of the word, not including sporting weapons, personal firearms, industrial explosives, fuses or civilian aircraft.

⁷⁴ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, pp. 334, 344.

⁷⁵ July 15, 1936.

⁷⁶ Cmd. No. 5300, Spain No. 2 (1936), pp. 10 and 17.

⁷⁷ Board of Trade Journal, 1936, Pt. 2, p. 284 (Aug. 20, 1936).

⁷⁸ The Assembly of the League of Nations on Oct. 6, 1937, did adopt a resolution expressing its moral support for China, and recommending that its members (a) refrain from any action which might weaken China’s resistance, and (b) consider how far they could individually extend aid to China. (League of Nations Official Journal, Spl. Supp. No. 177, p. 35.) The League Council in February and again in May, 1938, strongly urged that the members of the League give effect to the above recommendations. (Official Journal, February, 1938, pp. 120-125; May-June, 1938, pp. 378-380.) Finally, on Sept. 30, 1938, following the Chinese appeal that Art. 17 be applied to the situation, and after Japan had declined the Council’s invitation to participate in the discussion, the Council declared that Art. 16 was thenceforward applicable and that the members of the League were entitled to act individually and adopt the measures provided for in Art. 16 (economic sanctions). (Official Journal, November, 1938, pp. 878-880.) On Jan. 20, 1939, the Council recalled its previous recommendations on the subject, and invited the member states, particularly those concerned in the Far East, to examine the Chinese proposal for taking effective measures, especially measures of aid to China. (London Times, Jan. 21, 1939, p. 11.) These resolutions, it will be noted, only recommended individual action by the member states, and did not provide for any program of collective sanctions.

⁷⁹ Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 330, col. 2162 (Dec. 23, 1937); and Vol. 334, col. 348 (April 6,1938). It might be observed that this argument was not raised at the time of the temporary embargo in 1933. See above, p. 304.

⁸⁰ Prom July 1, 1937, to June 1, 1938, the total value of arms, ammunition, military and naval stores (including sporting arms and industrial explosives) shipped from the United Kingdom to Japan was £107,081 (about $535,000). The value of these materials shipped to China during the same period was £245,580 (about $1,225,000). Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 334, col. 920; and Vol. 338, col. 188.

⁸¹ London Gazette, June 8, 1937, pp. 3661-3662.

⁸² Spain and Spanish territory had been excepted from the application of the open general licenses of June 1,1931, since August, 1936, so their inclusion in the list of prohibited areas in the new 1937 licenses did not mean any change in effect of the licenses.

⁸³ For texts of the two new general licenses, see Board of Trade Journal, 1937, Pt. 1, p. 810 (June 10, 1937).

⁸⁴ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Report (Cmd. No. 5292, 1936), pp. 49-50. See above, p. 303.

⁸⁵ Statement Relating to Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, May 4, 1937 (Cmd. No. 5451), p. 19.

⁸⁶ Board of Trade Journal, 1937, Pt. 2, p. 88 (July 15, 1937). Following the formal recognition by the United Kingdom of Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia in November, 1938, the reference to Ethiopia was deleted from this open general license. (Ibid., Jan. 5, 1939, p. 19.)

⁸⁷ Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trade in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, p. 329. See also above, pp. 305-306.

⁸⁸ Statement Relating to Report of the Royal Commission, on. cit. (note 85), p. 19.

⁸⁹ Belgium, under decree of Aug. 19, 1936; Czechoslovakia, under decree of June 19, 1936; France, under decree of Sept. 3, 1935; Norway, under Royal Proclamation of Sept. 11, 1936; Sweden, under Royal Proclamations of March 3, 1933, and Oct. 18, 1935; United States, under Acts of Aug. 31, 1935, and May 1, 1937. Germany, under a notice of Nov. 16, 1935, prohibits the export of military aircraft without permission of a government commissioner. (League of Nations, National Control of the Manufacture of and Trade in Arms, Doc. Conf. D.184 (April, 1938), passim.)

⁹⁰ United States Department of State, First Annual Report of the National Munitions Control Board (Nov. 30, 1936), p. 37.

⁹¹ United States Department of State, First Annual Report of the National Munitions Control Board (Nov. 30, 1936), p. 36.

⁹² See above, note 87.

⁹³ The export of war vessels from Great Britain is not within the scope of the Arms Export Prohibition Orders, but is instead subject to the independent control of the Admiralty. Under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, control has been exercised by Admiralty Overseers in the various shipbuilding centers to make sure that no vessels of war are fitted out in Great Britain or dispatched therefrom in time of peace in violation of the country’s neutral obligations. Under the Treaties of Washington Act of July 20, 1922, and the London Naval Treaty Act of July 30, 1937, the construction as well as the export of war vessels is subject to the license of the Admiralty. Licenses may only be refused, however, if it appears necessary to do so to secure observance of these treaties. This provision differs from the procedure of the arms export licensing system under which the granting of licenses is entirely at the discretion of the government, and may be based upon considerations of policy as well as upon treaty obligations. (Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27,1935, pp. 341-343.) Texts of the Treaties of Washington Act and the London Naval Treaty Act may be found in 12 and 13 Geo. V, ch. 21, and 1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, ch. 65 (Law Reports, Statutes, Vol. 60, pp. 398-401, and Vol. 75, pp. 756-758).

⁹⁴ Sporting weapons, personal firearms, industrial explosives or fuses, for example. Specific export licenses are required for several items which are not war material proper (e.g., sporting rifles, small firearms and ammunition therefor), and owing to the fact that there is a much larger export trade in these articles, the number of licenses for non-war material exports is considerably larger than those for war material exports. The following figures will indicate the proportion:

Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 27, 1935, p. 340, supplemented by a statement obtained by the writer from the Board of Trade on June 30, 1938.

⁹⁵ Ibid., p. 325.

⁹⁶ Ibid., p. 334. Sir John Simon, British Foreign Minister, reported to the House of Commons on May 9,1934, that during the four years, 1930-1933, the Foreign Office had on seven occasions advised the Board of Trade not to grant export licenses on the ground that it was contrary to the public interest. In 3 cases, the consignees were government authorities in China, in 2 cases, government authorities in Brazil, in 1 case, a private individual in Austria, and in 1 case, a private firm in Belgium. (Parl. Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 289, col. 1065.)

⁹⁷ Licenses for arms exports to Bolivia and Paraguay in 1934 were withheld for several months prior to the formal announcement of British participation in the Chaco embargo. Licenses were likewise withheld with respect to Italy and Ethiopia for three months before the sanctions embargo went into effect in October, 1935. See above, pp. 304-305, and 306.

⁹⁸ Sec. 5 (f) of the United States Neutrality Act of May 1, 1937, Public Res. No. 27, 75th Cong. This Journal, Supp., Vol. 31 (1937), p. 147.

⁹⁹ Royal Commission, Report, Cmd. No. 5292 (1936), pp. 48-49, 69-70.

¹⁰⁰ Statement Relating to Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, Cmd. No. 5451 (1937), pp. 16-17.