« PředchozíPokračovat »
of a single state, only the state of their situs has jurisdiction over the applicants for concession, resp. grantees of concessions. The right to protest against such works, resp. against their effect upon the adjoining territory is always a matter concerning exclusively the respective states in the absence of express or tacit agreement to the contrary.
Neither international law nor any other law applicable in any way to the determination of the question of jurisdiction over the Rhine between Zurich and Schaffhausen require the consent of one riparian state to the works erected on the territory of the other as an absolute condition precedent; there is a right of protest only, the Federal Court deciding as to its reasonableness and extent.
23. Since the concessions granted by a state, resp. the private rights acquired under them do not conflict with the international rights of other states, the only correct mode of proceeding must be deemed to be to submit to the neighboring state the plans of all works against which protest on its part seems possible before the definite granting of the concession so as to give it an opportunity to file such protests if desired. Changes in the plan submitted must be made within a reasonable time.
24. If co-ownership with regard to the river or to the water could be assumed, the rules of law governing its use would be the same on the whole as those given where there is a division realiter.
25. The Federal Court in its jurisdiction over suits between cantons can decide all disputes resulting from a collision of sovereignty over boundary rivers.
26. The Federal Court cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground that there are no rules governing the intercantonal jurisdiction over rivers.
27. The Federal Court decides as to the validity and extent of protests and in the case of co-ownership or joint ownership it would be competent to supply a consent wrongfully withheld."
5 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht (1906), pp. 213-217.
BOOK REVIEWS: BOOK NOTES
American Diplomacy: Its Spirit and Achievements. By John Bassett
Moore, LL.D., Professor of International Law and Diplomacy in Columbia University. New York and London: Harper and Brothers. pp. xii, 286. 1905.
Professor Moore was happily inspired to prepare a series of articles for Harpers' Magazine on the spirit and achievements of American diplomacy, and author and publisher have put the reading public under obligation to them by rescuing the articles from the magazine and giving them a separate and permanent form.
In the new form the articles have undergone some revision and amplification and a chapter on the fisheries question has been added.
Professor Moore does not aim to present even in outline a history of our diplomatic relations. His book is a series of episodes in diplomatic history, well chosen and carefully treated.
The book, therefore, necessarily lacks the continuity of John W. Foster's Century of American Diplomacy and the two works, different in origin and purpose, differ not unnaturally in execution. They do not cover the same field although they deal with the same general subject, nor do they compete in any way. They are both good books, and place the general reader and lay public under a personal obligation.
After a brief introductory note on the conduct of foreign intercourse with a list of the secretaries of state, Professor Moore takes up the scattered threads of his subject and weaves them into a graceful and consistent whole. The chapter on the beginnings (pp. 1–32) is historical and in a sense introductory. It is, as is its fellows, interesting and capitally written. The account of the treatment of Arthur Lee in Berlin, and the dastardly theft of his papers by the British minister, one Hugh Elliot, is likely to bring a blush to the face of the Briton. Such a transaction is, it is to be hoped, impossible today among men of honor and nations of respectability.
Professor Moore passes from the beginnings to the system of neutrality (pp. 33-62), the establishment of which he rightly attributes to American publicists. This claim even Hall, no lover of things American, is forced to admit. Then follows the freedom of the seas (pp. 63-86), in which matter the American navy and American publicists happily and
successfully coöperated. It cannot be said that American diplomacy has scored a triumph in the fisheries questions (pp. 87–104) but that chapter is not finished yet and it may well be that the final settlement of the fisheries questions will be favorable, at least more favorable to the American contention. The contest with commercial restrictions (pp. 105–130) shows American energy and effort in a more favorable and pleasing light. The next chapter on non-intervention and the Monroe doctrine (pp. 131-167) appeals peculiarly to readers in this part of the world, and rightly or wrongly we ascribe great importance to Monroe and the doctrine which bears his name, although John Quincy Adams would seem to have a right to father it. The claims of Richard Rush and George Canning cannot be overlooked in any just apportionment of credit for the doctrine of non-intervention and its application to America in the twenties. The doctrine of expatriation (pp. 168–199) is peculiarly American, as was to be expected from a nation that exterminated the only natives of the country. The American is an expatriated foreigner one or more degrees removed. But it must be confessed that we are somewhat inconsistent, proclaiming as we do the right of expatriation for others without being equally anxious to allow the right to our citizens. When inconvenience arises, we shall doubtless make theory and practice square. As was to be expected, Professor Moore's treatment of the often misunderstood Koszta case is clear and accurate. International arbitration (pp. 200-222) may be dismissed with the statement that Professor Moore is the recognized American authority on this subject. The chapter on the territorial expansion of the United States (pp. 223247) traces the growth of the republic from seaboard to seaboard and conducts the reader without the danger of wetting his feet across vast wastes of water. An excellent map shows the continental expansion of the United States more clearly than language.
In the concluding chapter (pp. 248–266) Professor Moore deals with influences and tendencies. The influence of the United States he finds to consist in the establishment of liberty and self-government at home and in blazing the way for European reforms. He calls attention to the patent fact that we have carried on an intellectual not an armed propaganda, as did the French revolution for ideals of liberty. The liberty of the country was necessarily reflected in our diplomacy.
The influence of the United States in behalf of political liberty was clearly exhibited in the establishment of the principle that the true test of a government's right to exist and to be recognized by other governments is the fact of its existence as the exponent of the popular will.
American diplomacy was also employed in the advancement of the principle of legality. American statesmen sought regulate the relations nations by law, not only as a measure for the protection of the weak against the aggressions of the strong, but also as the only means of assuring the peace of the world.
American diplomacy has been characterized by practicality. It has sought to attain definite objects by practical methods. * * * American diplomacy has also exerted a potent influence upon the adoption of simple and direct methods in the conduct of negotiations. Observant of the proprieties and courtesies of intercourse but having, as John Adams once declared, “no notion of cheating anybody," American diplomatists have relied rather upon the strength of their cause, frankly and clearly argued, than upon a subtle diplomacy, for the attainment of their ends.
In commending this book without reserve to the general reader, for whom it is primarily intended, the reviewer congratulates the reader on the fact that specialists and men of affairs, such as Professor Moore and John W.Foster, have found time and taken a pleasure in laying before the public the results of a lifetime in a simple, accurate and attractive form. May other publicists imitate their example.
JAMES BROWN SCOTT.
Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaui. Tome Premier, 1798-1855. By
Professor A. de Lapradelle, of the University of Grenoble, and Porfessor N. Politis, of the University of Poitiers. Paris: Pedrone. pp. liv, 863. 1905.
We note in this publication one of the most valuable productions yet issued covering questions of international law as administered upon references either to mixed commissions, or to special persons, and believe the words of the preface, appreciatively written by Professor Renault, are within bounds in saying that the editors "have rendered an eminent service to the practice and the science of international law.”
The present volume covers the period from 1798 to 1855 and will be followed by others bringing the subject matter up to the date of final publication. The editors have commenced with the arbitrations under the Jay treaty and, among other important arbitrations, include the affair of the Duchy of Bouillon; the tolls of the Levantine Valley; the Holland debt between Holland and France; the four mixed commissions between the United States and Great Britain following the treaty of Ghent; arbitration of Alexander I., over the application of the first article of the treaty of Ghent to slavery; the Northeast boundary line;
the mixed commission of 1842 between the United States and Mexico; the Portendick affair between France and Great Britain; the arbitration between France and Mexico under the treaty of 1844 relative to responsibility for acts of war; the Pacifico affair between Great Britain and Greece; arbitration under the treaty of 1852 between France and Spain; the arbitration between the United States and Portugal relative to the destruction of the General Armstrong; and conclude with an account of the mixed commission of 1855 between the United States and England.
Pursuant to their general plan and in connection with each arbitration, the editors state very fully the circumstances leading up to it, the procedure in connection therewith, the protocol and the questions decided by the commission, the cases being grouped according to their nature and each particular question being made the subject of extensive and valuable doctrinal notes. Where the arbitrations are of a single dispute, the text of the arbitral sentence is given. The doctrinal notes in question were many of them written by the editors, but, in addition, we note, as adding to the value of the work, the names subjoined of Stoerk, Asser, Laband, Fauchille, Kleen and Strisower.
The editors have carefully distinguished between international arbitrations in the strictest sense on the one hand, and internal commissions appointed for the purpose of adjusting claims against foreign nations assumed by the home government, and arbitrations really diplomatic arrangements, on the other. Observing strictly this line of cleavage, many of the boards whose proceedings were quite fully reported in Moore's International Arbitrations receive no attention at the hands of the editors, who consider that their opinions are not in the fullest sense evidence of international law.
In their avant-propos, the editors discuss in an interesting and able manner the vices and virtues incident to the various forms of arbitration, contrasting judiciously the earlier form of the mixed commission, wherein there sat one of the nationals of each contending party with an umpire who by lot or agreement was chosen from the citizenship of the contesting nations, with the plan of referring a dispute to a sovereign, pointing out as well later developments in form tending to secure absolute impartiality among all the arbitrators, the authors anticipating as the best and final development a court on which no national shall appear. The evils incident to the older form of mixed commissions are indicated with sufficient clearness. The dangers of an improper decision in the event of a reference to an outside power are clearly defined, more so than in any other publication to which we can refer.
The work under review will naturally be contrasted with Moore's