The Stimson Doctrine and the Hoover Doctrine

Current, Richard N.

doi:10.2307/1844715

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there were signifi cant differences between Hoover's and Stimson's conception of what exactly the policy entailed. In an authoritative analysis of the formulation of the nonrecognition doctrine, Richard Current (1954) argues that Hoover's position was that the nonrecognition doctrine was a substitute for action, something that obviated the need for any stronger sanction. Stimson instead sought to use nonrecognition as a way of signalling to Japan the potential for future more potent action.…”

Section: The Us and Nonrecognition In The Manchurian Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Denying the Spoils of War

O’Mahoney¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

provided excellent research assistance. Thanks also to Jenny Daly, for believing in the project.Particular mention must go to Davy Banks, who has indirectly made this book possible. Whether they be the intricacies of constructivism, the history of warfare or board games, Davy makes things fun.Most of all, I would like to thank my family. My parents for being encouraging throughout and my brother Tom for making me laugh. Nancy, Addy and Cam, you are the lights of my life.

show abstract

Section: The Us and Nonrecognition In The Manchurian Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Denying the Spoils of War

O’Mahoney¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…41 And President Hoover chose not to recognize Manchukuo in 1931. 42 The exercise of the de-recognition power usually follows internal regime change or war. For example, thirty years following the Chinese Civil War, President Carter de-recognized the Republic of China (ROC) as the sovereign government of China.…”

Section: A the Recognition Power -An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tribal Sovereignty and the Recognition Power

Sorenson

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars who criticize the Supreme Court's doctrine regarding Native American tribal sovereignty have not yet addressed a fundamental constitutional concern. The Supreme Court has appropriated the recognition power through the judicially created doctrine of implicit divestiture, by which the Court presumes that Indian tribes and nations have lost all aspects of tribal sovereignty the Court deems "inconsistent" with the tribes' "dependent status." This practice of "judicial de-Recognition" violates the separation of powers. Implicit divestiture has resulted in a presumption that "All sovereignty is lost except that which is specifically retained." Through implicit divestiture, the Court has gone far beyond its normal judicial duties of regulating boundaries among sovereigns, constructing appropriate federal common law or implementing federal policy. In light of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements regarding the recognition power, now is a good time for the Court to re-evaluate its own role in tribal recognition. Rather than appropriating the authority to derecognize tribal sovereignty, the Supreme Court should adopt a rule of "explicit divestiture." That is, "All sovereignty is retained except that which is specifically and constitutionally surrendered." Under this doctrine, the Court would give greater deference to the political branches to determine tribal sovereignty while simultaneously encouraging them to adopt clear statements of federal policy regarding the same, relieving the judiciary of the burden of sifting through the vast historical record to determine ambiguous federal policy and losses or retentions of sovereignty. The Court would also avoid violating the separation of powers. Such judicial deference to the political branches on the issue of recognition would not preclude the Court from fulfilling its judicial role of

show abstract

“…An absence of action by the League would have looked like approval or acceptance of Japan’s actions. Nonrecognition was suggested as an novel option (initially by Hoover (Current, 1954)) because there was no existing provision for a relatively cheap sanction that would nevertheless create common knowledge of the collective valuation of the rule of non-aggression (see O’Mahoney, 2011). As Stimson later pointed out, if the threat of nonrecognition did not deter the Japanese, ‘it would lay a firm foundation of principle upon which the Western nations and China could stand in a later reckoning’ (Stimson and Bundy, 1947: 258; see also 1947: 235).…”

Section: The Manchurian Crisis and The Genesis Of Nonrecognition Of Aggressive Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rule tensions and the dynamics of institutional change: From ‘to the victor go the spoils’ to the Stimson Doctrine

O’Mahoney

2013

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When and under what conditions do norms and rules change? Dominant conceptions of institutional change in International Relations theory are based on the idea that it is the result of a shift in power: new actors become able to impose their vision on the world. However, the source of change need not be the power or preferences of actors in society, but could come from the internal dynamics of the rule system governing these actors. This article develops recent research in this area by linking Sandholtz's model of norm change to recent dynamic institutionalist work and exploring and specifying particular mechanisms, or types of tensions, in rule systems that produce change. Institutions and complexes of rules exhibit rule tensions: inconsistencies, ambiguities, and inadequacies that can lead to disputes over the application of the rules. Actors then have to solve problems or disputes over rule interpretation. Change can thus occur without the introduction of new actors or a shift in the power of existing actors. I apply these ideas to a significant change in the rules of war in the early 20th century: the shift from the rule 'to the victor go the spoils' to the Stimson Doctrine, or the rule that states should not profit from aggression.

show abstract

The Stimson Doctrine and the Hoover Doctrine

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Denying the Spoils of War

Denying the Spoils of War

Tribal Sovereignty and the Recognition Power

Rule tensions and the dynamics of institutional change: From ‘to the victor go the spoils’ to the Stimson Doctrine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About