Panel 2: The Law: Interpretations of Legal History
Justifying Policy: Robert Lansing and the Misuse of the Law of Neutrality
Location
Campus Center, Room 3540, University of Massachusetts Boston
Start Date
29-3-2014 9:00 AM
End Date
29-3-2014 10:30 AM
Description
During the first months of World War I, Great Britain imposed a blockade against Germany and its allies. However, effectively deprive Germany of food and weapons shipments, Britain began to block shipping from neutral powers, most notably the United States. When pressed to defend American shipping, President Woodrow Wilson failed to act decisively and instead found excuses why he could not act. Scholarship on this issue primarily focuses on Wilson's motivations to acquiesce to British violations and if such actions were necessary to protect larger American interests. However, this analysis over the necessity Wilson's actions often ignores another issue: how effective were Wilson's actions?
This paper will focus on Wilson's use of international law to justify his inaction in acting against the British and how effective it was. This paper will argue that while blatantly incorrect interpretations of international law were used to justify Wilson's actions, such actions were effective to achieve Wilson's goals. The paper will examine memoranda prepared by Robert Lansing, a senior State Department official, on behalf of Wilson and show that in order to provide the necessary justification for American inaction, Lansing improperly interpreted then existing international law on neutral rights and duties. Wilson was able to use such arguments to deflect a Congressional inquiry until mid-1915, when German U-Boat attacks on American shipping minimized the impact of British violations.
This paper adds to this histography not only by looking at Wilson's policy from a different prospective, but also by incorporating legal history and using it to help explain how and why Wilson acted in a certain way during late 1914 and early 1915.
Justifying Policy: Robert Lansing and the Misuse of the Law of Neutrality
Campus Center, Room 3540, University of Massachusetts Boston
During the first months of World War I, Great Britain imposed a blockade against Germany and its allies. However, effectively deprive Germany of food and weapons shipments, Britain began to block shipping from neutral powers, most notably the United States. When pressed to defend American shipping, President Woodrow Wilson failed to act decisively and instead found excuses why he could not act. Scholarship on this issue primarily focuses on Wilson's motivations to acquiesce to British violations and if such actions were necessary to protect larger American interests. However, this analysis over the necessity Wilson's actions often ignores another issue: how effective were Wilson's actions?
This paper will focus on Wilson's use of international law to justify his inaction in acting against the British and how effective it was. This paper will argue that while blatantly incorrect interpretations of international law were used to justify Wilson's actions, such actions were effective to achieve Wilson's goals. The paper will examine memoranda prepared by Robert Lansing, a senior State Department official, on behalf of Wilson and show that in order to provide the necessary justification for American inaction, Lansing improperly interpreted then existing international law on neutral rights and duties. Wilson was able to use such arguments to deflect a Congressional inquiry until mid-1915, when German U-Boat attacks on American shipping minimized the impact of British violations.
This paper adds to this histography not only by looking at Wilson's policy from a different prospective, but also by incorporating legal history and using it to help explain how and why Wilson acted in a certain way during late 1914 and early 1915.
Comments
PANEL 2 of the 2014 Graduate History Conference features presentations and papers under the topic of "The Law: Interpretations of Legal History."