(3) With the reception of Turkey into the Family of Nations International Law ceased to be a law between Christian States solely. This reception took place expressly through Article 7 of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856, in which the five Great European Powers of the time, namely, France, Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia, and besides those Sardinia, the nucleus of the future Great Power Italy, expressly 'déclarent la Sublime Porte admise à participer aux avantages du droit public et du concert européens.' From that time until the outbreak of the World War Turkey was invited to send delegates to every general congress which took place. But her position as a member of the Family of Nations was anomalous, because her civilisation fell short of that of the Western States. It was for that reason that the so-called Capitulations 1 were still in force, and that other anomalies still prevailed. The Treaty of Peace between Turkey and the Allied Powers has not yet been concluded, and it is impossible at present to make any statement as to the position of Turkey within the Family of Nations after the World War.

(4) Another non-Christian member of the Family of Nations is Japan. A generation ago one might have doubted whether Japan was a real and full member of that family, but after the end of the nineteenth century no doubt was any longer justified. Through marvellous efforts, Japan has become not only a modern State, but an influential Power. Since her war with China in 1895, she must be considered one of the Great Powers that lead the Family of Nations, and was numbered among the five principal Allied and Associated Powers in the Treaties of Peace after the World War.

1 In September 1914, shortly before she became a belligerent, Turkey denounced the Capitulations (see A.J., viii. (1914), p. 873). This

act called forth immediate protests, and the question may be expected to be dealt with by the Treaty of Peace with Turkey.

(5) Before the World War the position of such States as Persia, Siam, China, Abyssinia, and the like, was doubtful. These States were certainly civilised States, and Abyssinia was even a Christian State. However, their civilisation had not yet reached that condition. which was necessary to enable their Governments and their population in every respect to understand, and to carry out, the rules of International Law. On the other hand, international intercourse had widely arisen between these States and the States of the socalled Western civilisation. Many treaties had been concluded with them, and there was full diplomatic intercourse between them and the Western States. China, Persia, and Siam had even taken part in the Hague Peace Conferences. All of them were making efforts to educate their populations, to introduce modern institutions, and thereby to raise their civilisation to the level of that of the Western. But as yet they had not accomplished this task, and consequently they were not yet able to be received into the Family of Nations as full members. Although they were, as will be shown. below (§ 103), for some parts within the circle of the Family of Nations, they remained for other parts outside. In the World War China and Siam took part on the side of the Allied and Associated Powers, and were represented at the Peace Conference at Paris. At the conclusion of the World War, Persia, Siam, and China became members of the League of Nations.1 Abyssinia was not invited to accede to the Covenant of the League, and its position would seem to be unchanged.

(6) It must be mentioned that a State of quite a unique character, the former Congo Free State,2 was, after the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, a member of the Family of Nations. But it lost its membership in 1908, when it merged in Belgium by cession.

Treat

ment of States

the

Nations.

(7) Changes have taken place in the membership of the Family of Nations as a result of the World War. Three new States-Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and the Hedjaz-have come into being. The former State of Serbia has united with peoples hitherto subject to Austria-Hungary to form the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. The Austro-Hungarian Empire has ceased to exist, and Austria and Hungary have become separate States. It is at present doubtful whether Montenegro will continue to exist as an independent State; the future position of Albania is also unsettled.1

(8) As a result of the dissolution of the Russian Empire further changes, still incomplete, are taking place in the Family of Nations. Finland has secured recognition as an independent State. Towards the other States which have arisen amid the ruins of Russia -Esthonia, Lithuania, and Latvia on the Baltic, and Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the Erivan Republic of Armenia in Asia Minor-the Great Powers have so far adopted a non-committal and provisional attitude. They have recognised their Governments as de facto Governments of autonomous territories (see §§ 71-75), but have so far declined to recognise them as independent States.1 The vexed Russian question is still undecided, and the leading Powers have refused to have diplomatic relations with the present Russian Government.1

§ 29. The Law of Nations, as a law between States based on the common consent of the members of the outside Family of Nations, naturally does not contain rules any Family of concerning the intercourse with and treatment of such States as are outside that circle. That this intercourse and treatment ought to be regulated by the principles of Christian morality is obvious. But actually a practice frequently prevails which is not only contrary to Christian morality, but arbitrary and barbarous. Be 1 This was the situation in May 1920, when this volume went to press.

that as it may, it is discretion, and not International Law, according to which the members of the Family of Nations deal with such States as still remain outside that family. But the United States of America apply, as far as possible, the rules of International Law to their relations with the Red Indians.

VI

CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, i. pp. 136-151-Ullmann, § 11-Despagnet, Nos. 67-68-Bonfils, Nos. 1713-1727-Mérignhac, i. pp. 26-28-Nys, i. pp. 174-193-Rivier, i. § 2-Fiore, i. Nos. 124-127-Martens, i. § 44— Holland, Studies, pp. 79-95-Bergbohm, Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts (1877), pp. 44-77-Bulmerincq, Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts (1874), pp. 167-192-Heilborn, Grundbegriffe des Völkerrechts (1912), § 16-Alvarez, La Codification du Droit international (1912), and in R. G., xx. (1913), pp. 24-52, 725-747— Cavalcanti in R.G., xxi. (1914), pp. 183-204-Raszkowski in R.I., xxi. (1889), pp. 521-531-Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, iv. (1910), pp. 208-227; v. (1911), pp. 256-337; x. (1916), pp. 149167-Nys in A.J., v. (1911), pp. 871-900.

ment in

on favour

of Codifi.

§ 30. The lack of precision which is natural to a Movelarge number of the rules of the Law of Nations account of its slow and gradual growth has created a cation. movement for its codification. The idea of a codification of the Law of Nations in its totality arose at the end of the eighteenth century. It was Bentham who first suggested such a codification. He did not, however, propose codification of the existing positive Law of Nations, but thought of a utopian International Law which could be the basis of an everlasting peace between the civilised States.1

Another utopian project is due to the French Convention, which resolved in 1792 to create a Declaration

1 See Bentham's Works, ed. Bowring, viii. p. 537; Nys in the Law

Quarterly Review, xi. (1885), pp.
226-231.

of the Rights of Nations as a pendant to the Declaration of the Rights of Mankind of 1789. For this purpose the Abbé Grégoire was charged with the drafting of such a declaration. In 1795 Abbé Grégoire produced a draft of twenty-one articles, which, however, was rejected by the Convention, and the matter dropped.1

It was not until 1861 that a real attempt was made to show the possibility of a codification. This was done by an Austrian jurist, Alfons von Domin-Petruschévecz, who published in that year at Leipzig a Précis d'un Code de Droit international.

In 1863 Professor Francis Lieber, of the Columbia College, New York, drafted the Laws of War in a body of rules which the United States published during the Civil War for the guidance of her army.2

In 1868 Bluntschli, the celebrated Swiss interpreter of the Law of Nations, published Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt. This draft code has been translated into the French, Greek, Spanish, and Russian languages, and the Chinese Government produced an official Chinese translation as a guide for Chinese officials.

In 1872 the great Italian politician and jurist Mancini raised his voice in favour of codification of the Law of Nations in his able essay, Vocazione del nostro Secolo per la Riforma e Codificazione del Diritto delle Genti.

Likewise in 1872 appeared at New York David Dudley Field's Draft Outlines of an International Code.

In 1873 the Institute of International Law was founded at Ghent in Belgium.3 This association of

1 See Rivier, i. p. 40, where the full text of these twenty-one articles is given. They do not contain a real code, but certain principles only.

See below, vol. ii. § 68 (4).

In 1912 the American Institute of International Law was founded at Washington as a pendant of the Institute of International Law.