REAL SANCTIONS OR NONE [To the Editor of T uE
oS: NEco-rnaet,, o,
appeared My article Real Sanctions
in your issue of September 6th, there is a mistake of a single word. which makes an important difference in the sense. The sentence which, as printed, runs " It is true that if unanimity, of this kind (i.e., apait from the disputants) is not secured one of the disputants could resort to force without waiting for the delays and procedure in Articles 12 and 15' without making itself necessarily liable to League sanctions," should be read with the substitution of the word " after "
for " without." The next sentence indeed " In a case of flagrant resort to war while that procedure is still incomplete, or after a rejection of the procedure, the provision of Article 16 is imperative," indicates that this was the sense intended.
My main point was that, while action should be " collectiYe," sanctions do not, as has often been staled, require, unanimity
apart from the disputants. A single, and possibly corrupt, vote by another State could not make the provisions as to sanctions legally inoperative in the case of a flagrant breach
of the Covenant. am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Previous page
