Talk:Stimson Doctrine

Validity?
Is, or was a policy? Territorial changes from Germany to Poland were eventually recognized, correct? 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * territorial changes by violence were target of Stimson policy. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead currently says "The Stimson Doctrine is a policy of. . .". Should it be "was"? It's also a policy of the United Nations though so it would make sense for it to also be a US federal policy, but . . . ~ 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * there are 2 angles: 1) what is the policy: "is" = appropriate 2) it the policy still in effect? that is not at issue.  Rjensen (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Jus Cogens
The doctrine represents jus cogens in international law nowadays. Heiko Meiertöns: The Doctrines of US Security Policy – An Evaluation under International Law. Cambridge University Press 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-76648-7, p. 98 --5glogger (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)