Unilateral Declarations and Agreements about Spheres of Influence

  • Paul Keal


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.


American Continent Formal Agreement United States Government Cape Verde Island European Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    See W.A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe (London: Longmans Green, 1920) 2nd ed., pp. 210–57;Google Scholar
  2. L.A. Lawson, The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (New York: Columbia, 1922) passim; andGoogle Scholar
  3. S.F. Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundation of American Foreign Policy (New York: Knopf, 1949).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    J.A. Logan, No Transfer, An American Security Principle (New Haven: York, 1961) p. 6.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Dexter Perkins, Hands Off, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown, 1948) p. 79.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    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.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Perkins, op. cit., p. 231 and see R.E. Ruiz, Cuba, The Making of a Revolution (New York: Norton, 1970) p. 24.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    B.H. Warmington, Carthage (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) pp. 169–70.Google Scholar
  9. 16.
    A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1947) rev. eds., p. 11.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Trygve Mathisen, The Functions of Small States in the Strategies of Great Powers (Oslo: Universitets Forlaget, 1971) p. 68.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    C.R. Boxer, The Portuguese Seabourne Empire 1415–1825 (London: Hutchison, 1969) p. 64 and see p. 86 on Tordesillas and Brazil.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    Nussbaum, op. cit., p. 67. See also T.A. Walker, A History of the Law of Nations (Cambridge, 1899) vol. 1 pp. 160–1.Google Scholar
  13. See H. Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901) p. 222.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    C.H. Alexandrowicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) p. 47.Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    M.F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969) p. 207.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    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.Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    W.E. Hall, A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) p. 229.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 31.
    G.F. Hudson, The Far East in World Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1945) pp. 69–70.Google Scholar
  20. 32.
    J.V.A. MacMurray, Treaties and Agreements with and Concerning China: 1894–1919 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921) vol. I, pp. 54–5.Google Scholar
  21. 38.
    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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul Ernest Keal 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Keal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations