[11] See also the Memorandum on the Signature by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of the Optional Clause of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Cmd. 3452, Miscellaneous Number 12, 1929).
[12] It is the same train of thought developed by Brierly, Some Implications of the Pact of Paris (Br. YB 1929).
[13] “Tout le mécanisme prévu pour le maintien de la paix s’est dialogue.”
[14] Parliament Debate, H. C., Volume 332, Column 226 et sequentes.
[15] Parliament Debate, H. C., Volume 353, Number 198, Column 1178 (21 November 1939).
[15a] See Jahrreiss Plea, Annex, Exhibit Numbers 35 and 36.
[16] Resolutions of the Assembly and the Council of 14 December 1939.
[17] Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session of the 70th Congress of the U. S., Volume LXX, Part 2, Pages 1169/99. See also Ellery C. Shotwell, Responsibility of the United States in Regard to International Cooperation for the Prevention of Aggression (A. J., Volume 26, 1932, Page 113).
[18] See also Brierly, J. L., Some Implications of the Pact of Paris (Br. YB 1929). He thinks that a violation of neutrality is impossible. In 1936 the same thought was expressed by the Englishman McNair: Collective Security (Br. YB).
[19] See, for instance, Eagleton, Clyde, An Attempt to Define Aggression (International Conciliation Number 264, 1930). Cuten, A., La notion de guerre permise, Paris 1931. Wright, Quincy, The Concept of Aggression in International Law (A. J., Volume 29, 1935, Page 395 et sequentes).