It is the existence of such a "sanction" which is the clearest way of enforcing obedience, and gives a rule of conduct the force of law.
Two definite proposals are made in Lord Parker's scheme.

(1) "If an act of war be committed against any member of the League, the Council is to notify it, and thereupon every member should (_a_) break off diplomatic relations with the nation guilty of such act; (_b_) prohibit and take effective steps to prevent all trade and commerce between itself and the guilty party; (_c_) place an embargo upon all ships and property of the guilty nation found in its territorial waters or within its territories." A very similar suggestion, though not quite so definite, was made by the present writer in an article on "Sanction in International Law," which appeared in the Italian Journal "Scientia" in 1916.

"The nations might agree that any belligerent which wilfully violates or invades neutral territory shall be treated as a moral leper.

Without actually going to war they should cease to have dealings with the invader, forbid all intercourse of their subjects with the country which violates the neutral territory." For the sake of brevity this may be called the "economic boycott," but it is really very much more than simply economic pressure.

It is a common habit in political discussions to confuse very different things, to which the same name is given, and the term "economic boycott" is being used to cover three proposals of very different character.