When disarmament started to interest the major states and international lawyers at around the time of the 1899 Hague Conference, two distinct positions concerning the law of disarmament became apparent: proponents and opponents. The proponents, with their community-oriented aspirations, found much merit in establishing the law of disarmament, while the opponents, with their individual security concerns, saw nothing but negative consequences for such a possibility. Given these two forces in the disarmament debate, one could wonder how the 1921–1922 Washington Conference was able to produce a treaty limiting the naval armament. This article tries to show that the Washington Naval Treaty was different from the law of disarmament that the proponents had envisioned, and that it was made possible by carefully crafted provisions to limit its own impact on the security of the naval powers.

在 1899 年海牙会议前后，当裁军开始引起主要国家和国际律师的兴趣时，关于裁军法的两种截然不同的立场变得明显：支持者和反对者。支持者以社区为导向，认为建立裁军法有很多好处，而反对者则出于个人安全考虑，认为这种可能性只会带来负面后果。鉴于裁军辩论中的这两种力量，人们可能想知道 1921 年至 1922 年的华盛顿会议如何能够产生一项限制海军军备的条约。这篇文章试图表明华盛顿海军条约不同于支持者所设想的裁军法，