Mr. Graves called yesterday to give orally some British views on the question
of “hot pursuit” by UN planes of hostile aircraft over the Manchurian
border. He left a paper (copy attached), which he emphasized was not a
formal document but only an aid in reporting the views he had given. Mr.
Graves said that he was merely reporting on a research finding which would
be of interest, particularly as to Sir Eric Beckett’s comments on simpler
motives which might be used as a basis for pursuit.
[Annex]
Paper Handed to the Deputy Director of the Office of
Chinese Affairs (Perkins) by the Counselor of the British Embassy (Graves) on December 27,
1950
confidential
Oral Communication
Arising out of a consideration of a proposal to allow a limited pursuit
of hostile aircraft over the Manchurian border the doctrine of hot
pursuit came under examination by Sir Eric Beckett, Legal Adviser to the
Foreign; Office. Sir Eric also consulted the Legal Advisers to the
Canadian Department of External Affairs and the French Foreign
Office.
[Page 1617]
The three Legal Advisers found themselves in agreement that the doctrine
of hot pursuit is in no way applicable to the question of pursuit in the
air over the Manchurian border. Sir Eric Beckett pointed out, however,
that, from the purely legal angle, there do exist good grounds which
could, where necessary, be invoked for the pursuit of aircraft across
the border in the circumstances considered by the American authorities.
The first of these grounds might be that, since the United Nations
collective Police Force is engaged on a mission and is being obstructed
by force in carrying out that mission, this international Police Force
is legally entitled to take any action in any place which may be
necessary to enable it to complete its task, and to protect itself from
attacks in doing so. The second ground, which Sir Eric Beckett feels to
be an even simpler legal reason on which to base a crossing of the
Manchurian frontier, should it be desired that United Nations aircraft
should cross it, is that while it is a principle of international law
that frontiers should be inviolable, the right of any state to demand
the observance of the inviolability of its own frontier entirely depends
on that state observing the same, principles and not sending or allowing
any armed force to cross its frontiers into the territory of another
state.
Quite apart from political considerations, the Legal Adviser does not,
for the reasons given, consider that the invocation of the doctrine, of
hot pursuit would be at all applicable in the circumstances, though
there might be other grounds that could be invoked to support action,
should this at some later stage be considered necessary.
Washington
, 26
December, 1950
