Editing Stimson Doctrine

{{short description|U.S. foreign policy doctrine}}
[[File:Henry Stimson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1929.jpg|thumb|225px|right| [[United States Secretary of State|U.S. Secretary of State]] [[Henry L. Stimson]]]]
The '''Stimson Doctrine''' is the policy of nonrecognition of states created as a result of a [[war of aggression]].<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/States-in-international-law#ref794950 States in international law], by [[Encyclopædia Britannica]].</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=O’Mahoney|first=Joseph|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1tqx9nb|title=Denying the Spoils of War: The Politics of Invasion and Non-recognition|date=2018|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|isbn=978-1-4744-3443-0|jstor=10.3366/j.ctt1tqx9nb }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=O’Mahoney|first=Joseph|date=2014-09-01|title=Rule tensions and the dynamics of institutional change: From 'to the victor go the spoils' to the Stimson Doctrine|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113483781|journal=European Journal of International Relations|language=en|volume=20|issue=3|pages=834–857|doi=10.1177/1354066113483781|s2cid=145748179 |issn=1354-0661|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The policy was implemented by the [[Federal government of the United States|United States government]], enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932, to the [[Empire of Japan]] and the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]], of [[diplomatic recognition|nonrecognition]] of international territorial changes imposed by force. The doctrine was an application of the principle of ''[[ex injuria jus non oritur]]''.<ref name=gen>{{cite book|title=General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals|author=Bin Cheng, Georg (FRW) Schwarzenberger|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qE52nT_aD20C&dq=ex+injuria+jus+non+oritur+stimson&pg=PA187|isbn= 978-0-521-03000-7}}</ref> Since the entry into force of the [[Charter of the United Nations|United Nations Charter]], international law scholars have argued that states are under a legal obligation not to recognize [[annexation]]s as legitimate,<ref name=":0" /> but this view is controversial and not supported by consistent state practice.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |last=Turns |first=D. |date=2003-01-01 |title=The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition: Its Historical Genesis and Influence on Contemporary International Law |journal=Chinese Journal of International Law |publisher=Oxford University Press (OUP) |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=105–143 |doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.cjilaw.a000464 |issn=1540-1650}}</ref>

Named after [[Henry L. Stimson]], [[United States Secretary of State|U.S. Secretary of State]] in the [[Presidency of Herbert Hoover|Herbert Hoover administration]] (1929–1933), the policy followed Japan's unilateral seizure of [[Manchuria]] in northeastern China following [[Mukden incident|action]] by Japanese soldiers in [[Shenyang]] on September 18, 1931.<ref>{{cite web|title=Stimson Doctrine, 1932|publisher=[[United States Department of State]]|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/16326.htm|access-date=2009-05-02}}</ref> The doctrine was also invoked by U.S. Undersecretary of State [[Sumner Welles]] in the [[Welles Declaration]] on July 23, 1940, which announced nonrecognition of the Soviet annexation and incorporation of the three [[Baltic states]]: [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], and [[Lithuania]].<ref>{{cite book|title=The Baltic question during the Cold War|author1=John Hiden |author2=Vahur Made |author3=David J. Smith |year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jx4JQycHtnkC&dq=stimson+doctrine+baltic+states+1940&pg=PA38 |publisher=Routledge | isbn=978-0-415-37100-1}}</ref> This remained the official U.S. position until the Baltic states regained independence in 1991.

It was not the first time that the U.S. had used nonrecognition as a political tool or symbolic statement. President [[Woodrow Wilson]] had refused to recognize the Mexican Revolutionary governments in 1913 and Japan's [[Twenty-One Demands|Twenty-One Demands upon China]] in 1915.<ref>Securing Japan: Tokyo's Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia, Author=Richard J. Samuels{{full citation needed|date=July 2020}}</ref>

The [[Japanese invasion of Manchuria]] in late 1931 placed Stimson in a difficult position. It was evident that appeals to the spirit of the [[Kellogg–Briand Pact]] had no impact on either the Chinese or the Japanese, and Stimson was further hampered by President [[Herbert Hoover]]'s clear indication that he would not support [[economic sanctions]] as a means to bring peace in the [[Far East]].<ref name=colony>{{cite book|title=From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776|author=George C. Herring|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press US|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fODT-qOVoiIC&dq=stimson+doctrine+depression&pg=PA489 | isbn=978-0-19-507822-0}}</ref>

On January 7, 1932, Stimson sent similar notes to China and Japan that incorporated a diplomatic approach that had been used by earlier secretaries facing crises in the Far East. Later known as the Stimson Doctrine or sometimes the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine the notes read in part as follows:

:[T]he American Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Imperial Japanese Government and the Government of the Chinese Republic that it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognize any treaty or agreement entered into between those Governments, or agents thereof, which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those that relate to the sovereignty, the independence, or the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China, or to the international policy relative to China, commonly known as the [[Open Door Policy|open door policy]]; and that it does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty, or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris of August 27th, 1928, to which treaty both China and Japan as well as the United States are parties.<ref>{{cite book|author=Reginald G. Bassett|title=Democracy and Foreign Policy|year=1968|publisher=Routledge|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=26I8h3K2j-cC&dq=American+Government+deems+it+to+be+its+duty+to+notify+both+the+Imperial+Japanese+Government+and+the+Government+of+the+Chinese&pg=PA75 | isbn=978-0-7146-2209-5}}</ref>

Stimson had stated that the U.S. would not recognize any changes made in China that would curtail American treaty rights in the area, that the "open door" must be maintained, and would refuse any legitimacy to territorial changes made in violation of the 1928 Pact. The declaration had few material effects on the [[Western world]], which was burdened by the [[Great Depression]], and Japan went on to establish a [[Manchukuo|puppet state in Manchuria]] and later bomb [[Shanghai]].<ref name=colony/> The doctrine was criticized on the grounds that its only effect was to alienate the Japanese.<ref>{{cite book|publisher=Columbia University Press|year=1988|author=Marc S. Gallicchio|title=The Cold War Begins in Asia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SCG_f4a_5ngC&dq=stimson+doctrine+critics&pg=PA9 | isbn=978-0-231-06502-3}}</ref>

The Stimson Doctrine, originally intended only as a political declaration, attracted the attention of the [[League of Nations]], which adopted a resolution on March 11, 1932, that "it is incumbent upon members of the League of Nations not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the [[Covenant of the League of Nations]] or the Pact of Paris." It also acquired legal force for the members of the [[Organization of American States]] after it was included in the [[Saavedra Lamas Treaty]] and the [[Montevideo Convention]] of 1933, later followed by the [[Charter of the Organization of American States]] of 1948.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Hofmann |first=Rainer |title=Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law |year=2020 |chapter=Annexation |chapter-url=https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376}}</ref>

After the entry into force of the UN Charter, international law establishes a general prohibition on the use of force. Consequently, international legal doctrine argues that annexations are illegal, and states are under a legal obligation to comply with the Stimson Doctrine by not recognizing as legitimate territorial changes made through annexations.<ref name=":0" /> This view, however, is controversial and not supported by consistent state practice.<ref name=":1" />

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* Clauss, Errol MacGregor. "The Roosevelt Administration and Manchukuo, 1933–1941," Historian (Aug. 1970) Volume 32, Issue 4, pages 595–611 [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6563.1970.tb00380.x/full online]
* Current, Richard N. "The Stimson Doctrine and the Hoover Doctrine," ''American Historical Review'' Vol. 59, No. 3 (Apr., 1954), pp.&nbsp;513–542 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1844715 in JSTOR]
* Findling, J. E. (1980). ''Dictionary of American Diplomatic History'', Westport: Greenwood Press, pp.&nbsp;457–458.
* Meiertöns, Heiko (2010): ''The Doctrines of US Security Policy - An Evaluation under International Law'', Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-521-76648-7}}.
* Wright, Quincy. "The Legal Foundation of the Stimson Doctrine," ''Pacific Affairs'' Vol. 8, No. 4 (Dec., 1935), pp.&nbsp;439–446 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2751244 in JSTOR]

{{Foreign relations of the United States |expanded=DPC}}

[[Category:Foreign policy doctrines of the United States]]
[[Category:United States foreign relations legislation]]
[[Category:Soviet Union–United States relations]]
[[Category:1933 in the United States]]
[[Category:1933 in international relations]]
[[Category:Japan–United States relations]]
[[Category:Prelude to the Second Sino-Japanese War]]
[[Category:1932 in Manchuria]]
[[Category:Presidency of Herbert Hoover]]
[[Category:Crime of aggression]]
[[Category:Annexation]]