Abstract
The question arises as to how it is that a region comes to be regarded as being in the sphere of influence of a particular power. To this there is no one answer, for it varies from case to case. In some cases, that a region comes to be so regarded derives from a unilateral declaration, by the power concerned, that the region in question is in its sphere of influence. In other instances spheres of influence have been established as the result of mutual agreement between two or more powers, while in other cases again whatever agreement there is has come after spheres of influence have already been established. Such agreement need not be formal but rather may be informal or unspoken. Moreover, that a unilateral declaration commands respect or that powers agree, either before or after the establishment of spheres of influence, may or may not be a reciprocal undertaking. Each of these possibilities will be discussed in subsequent chapters. This chapter will first discuss unilateral declarations and then formal agreements while the next will deal with informal or unspoken understandings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
See W.A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe (London: Longmans Green, 1920) 2nd ed., pp. 210–57;
L.A. Lawson, The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (New York: Columbia, 1922) passim; and
S.F. Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundation of American Foreign Policy (New York: Knopf, 1949).
J.A. Logan, No Transfer, An American Security Principle (New Haven: York, 1961) p. 6.
Dexter Perkins, Hands Off, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown, 1948) p. 79.
The Monroe Doctrine has been recently summed up as meaning in contemporary international politics that ‘the domination or control of the political institutions of any American State by the international communist movement, extending to this hemisphere the political system of an extra-continental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American states, endangering the peace of America’, T.M. Franck and E. Weisband, Word Politics, Verbal Strategy among the Superpowers (New York: Oxford, 1972) p. 57.
Perkins, op. cit., p. 231 and see R.E. Ruiz, Cuba, The Making of a Revolution (New York: Norton, 1970) p. 24.
B.H. Warmington, Carthage (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) pp. 169–70.
A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1947) rev. eds., p. 11.
Trygve Mathisen, The Functions of Small States in the Strategies of Great Powers (Oslo: Universitets Forlaget, 1971) p. 68.
C.R. Boxer, The Portuguese Seabourne Empire 1415–1825 (London: Hutchison, 1969) p. 64 and see p. 86 on Tordesillas and Brazil.
Nussbaum, op. cit., p. 67. See also T.A. Walker, A History of the Law of Nations (Cambridge, 1899) vol. 1 pp. 160–1.
See H. Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901) p. 222.
C.H. Alexandrowicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) p. 47.
M.F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969) p. 207.
E. Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty, 3rd edn (London, 1896, repr. by Frank Cass: London, 1967) vol. III, p. 883. British and Foreign State Papers, ed. by E. and E.C. Hertslet (London: William Ridgway, 1893) vol. LXXVII, 1885–6, p. 1130.
W.E. Hall, A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) p. 229.
H.W.V. Temperley and L.M. Penson (eds), Foundations of British Foreign Policy from Pitt (1782) to Salisbury (1902) (Cambridge University Press, 1938) p. 503.
G.F. Hudson, The Far East in World Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1945) pp. 69–70.
J.V.A. MacMurray, Treaties and Agreements with and Concerning China: 1894–1919 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921) vol. I, pp. 54–5.
Although the Kellogg-Briand Pact contained no reservations, various statements were made which would have provided grounds for them. The United States, for instance, insisted that the Pact left the Monroe Doctrine untouched. See A. Zimmern, The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918–1935 (London: Macmillan, 1939) pp. 401–2.
Copyright information
© 1983 Paul Ernest Keal
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keal, P. (1983). Unilateral Declarations and Agreements about Spheres of Influence. In: Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06224-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06224-9_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-06226-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06224-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)