Obrázky stránek

science, he discovers who are international persons, investigates the position of states in the family of nations and their responsibility in general for international delinquencies because of the acts of their official members and of private persons.

Before the recent Venezuelan commissions sitting at Caracas, no question was more discussed than that of the responsibility of states for the acts of unsuccessful revolutionists, and, speaking broadly, all the Americans connected with those commissions held that no such responsibility existed, save in the case of proven negligence. It is possible to cite European authors taking the contrary position, but we are pleased to note the following as the language of Oppenheim upon this point:

The majority of writers maintain correctly the fact that the responsibility of states does not involve the duty to repair the losses which foreign subjects have sustained through acts of insurgents and rioters. Individuals who enter foreign territory must take the risk of the outbreak of insurrection or riots just as the risk of outbreak of other calamities.

The state itself never has by international law the duty to pay such damages.

Following the subjects above indicated, Professor Oppenheim discusses the objects of the law of nations treated geographically, including in this methods of physical acquisition or loss. Rules pertaining to the open sea receive due consideration. The position of individuals in international law is analyzed, as we believe, with greater correctness than by the majority of writers on international law. Oppenheim points out what is denied or ignored by many writers — that it is entirely possible for a man to be without recognized citizenship in any country - and has treated, with correctness as we believe, the subject of double citizenship. These topics also received special consideration before the Caracas commissions and the conclusions arrived at were in general accord with those offered by the writer.

Next, the author reviews the powers and position of the organs of the state in its international relations, including the executive, diplomatic envoys, consular representatives, and other agencies. Negotiations, congresses, conferences, and other transactions lead to the concluding head of treaties.

The second volume opens with a discussion of state differences and their settlement either by amicable means or by compulsion short of war. The institution of the Hague Tribunal under the convention of 1899 receives attention, but the specific cases decided by it are not referred to, important as were at least two of them in the history of international law. We refer particularly to the Pious Fund Case, which authoritatively, as we believe, established the sanctity of international arbitral judgments as res judicata whenever and wherever they should be invoked; and the Venezuelan preferential question, the correctness of the decision in which case has been and will undoubtedly continue to be the subject of much discussion. The greater part of the volume, however, is devoted to the discussion of the rules of war and of the state of neutrality incidentally created. Differing with a large number of writers, Oppenheim does not apparently consider that a pacific blockade involves in itself an absolute anomaly. In this he has been influenced, it would seem, by the rules laid down by the Institute of International Law and, it may be, by the recent attitude of England, Germany, and finally Italy toward Venezuela. As perliaps is to be expected of a writer influenced, consciously or otherwise, by the English school of thought, Professor Oppenheim is critical of the rule of “due diligence” as laid down by the Alabama arbitrators, although recognizing the three rules of Washington as “the starting point of the movement for the general recognition of the fact that the duty of impartiality obliges neutrals to prevent their states from filling and fitting out, on order of belligerents, vessels intended for warlike purposes. It is interesting to note that, discussing the question of blockade, he differs with some writers, finding no special justification necessary, adding that “the fact is that the detrimental consequences of blockade for neutrals stand in the same category as the many other detrimental consequences of war for neutrals. Neither the one nor the other need be specially justified.”

In discussing the subject of contraband, the author, perhaps wisely, does little more than indicate prevailing differences of opinion upon the subject without largely committing himself, although he maintains that states have a right, when going to war, to declare what shall be recognized as contraband. If nations in such position must have, as he says, a free hand in increasing or restricting

the list of articles of absolute contraband,” we are unable to give full force to his words when he adds that “the article concerned must be “ by its character primarily and ordinarily destined to be made use of for military or naval purposes."

The text of the work closes with a discussion of the visitation, capture, and trial of neutral vessels. Appendices of the most important English acts and international conventions relating to war, neutrality, and the settlement of disputes are added.


Les Deur Conférences de la Paix, 1899 et 1907. Recueil des Textes

arrêtés par ces Conférences et de différents Documents complémentaires. With prefatory note. By Louis Renault, Member of the Institute, Professor of the Law Faculty of the University of Paris and in the School of Political Sciences, delegate from France to both of the conferences. Arthur Rousseau, 14 Rue Soufflot, Paris, publisher. 1908. pp. 219.

It is peculiarly appropriate that M. Louis Renault should edit for the student, general reader, and man of affairs the various texts of the two Hague conferences, for tradition credits him with a large share in the preparation of the documents formulated by the First Hague Conference, and it is within the personal knowledge of the reviewer that every text adopted by the Second Conference passed under his critical eye, and that not only was each text revised by his hand, but that many of the texts as well as the felicitous preambles were conceived in his own busy brain. M. Bourgeois paid him no idle compliment when he publicly proclaimed him the “ Rédacteur-en-chef de la Conférence.”

The aim, purpose, and scope of the little volume are so clearly set forth by M. Renault in the prefactory note that it would be ungracious not to yield the floor to him. In translated form it is as follows:

For use in teaching, I have thought it necessary to gather together the texts adopted by the two peace conferences, as well as the circulars which preceded them. I have added to them the documents which are naturally associated with the work of The Hague, such as the Declaration of Paris, 1856, the Declaration of St. Petersburg, the conventions of Geneva. The collection forms the beginning, and no negligible beginning, of the great work of codifying public international law, undertaken at Paris half a century ago, and which, I do not doubt, will be continued with determination. Doubtless all the acts here brought together are not, at present, expressly accepted by all the states of the world. It can be said that certain countries, for various reasons, have not yet adhered to the Declaration of Paris, although it has the approval given by lapse of time. represented at the last conference have not all signed as yet the conventions which they helped to make; several have wished to profit by the long interval allowed for signature. That has only a passing interest. From the point of view which I take that is, from the scientific and also political point of view — the work of The Hague, taken as a whole, is henceforth the firm basis of theoretical and practical international law; that is why I have thought it useful to make it easily accessible, not only to students, but to all those who are interested in well-regulated international relations.

The documents at the conclusion of this little volume are of only historic interest; for one, " The instructions of the United States,” concerns one country only, and the other, “The project of Brussels of 1874,” has never been approved

The powers by the powers. They have, nevertheless, great importance. The great service which the United States has rendered to the world in initiating a careful regulation of the customs of land warfare must be recognized. The Brussels Con. ference did not arrive at any immediate result, but it rendered easy the work of codification which the First Peace Conference was able to consummate. It is not uninteresting to compare the solutions given in these various documents.


I have decided to limit myself to texts of an official character; otherwise I would have added the excellent little Manual of the Laws of War, prepared in 1880 by the Institute of International Law, and founded upon the project of Brussels.

I cherish the hope that if anyone takes the trouble to study the texts col. lected here, which is easy and within the possibility of everyone, instead of glancing merely at the title of the conference, he will agree that the work done at The Hague by the conscientious efforts of the delegates from forty-four countries, if not perfect, is worth more than superficial criticism and condescending irony.

The two Russian circulars of the 12th (24th) August, 1898, and 30th December, 1898, show that the idea of the conference originated with Ilth January, 1899, Russia, and the two American circulars of the 21st of October and the 16th of December, 1904, show as conclusively that the Second Conference originated with the President of the United States, which facts sufficiently and accurately appear in the preamble of the final act of the 29th of July, 1899, and the preamble of the 18th of October, 1907. The little volume can not be too highly recommended, and it is hoped that a work of the same kind may shortly appear in English.


L'Oeuvre de la deuxième Conférence de la Paix. Exposé juridique et

texte des conventions. By Antoine Ernst, Chief of Division in the Ministery of Justice, secretary of the second plenipotentiary of Belgium at the Second Peace Conference. Misch and Thron, Brussels; Marcel Riviere, Paris; 1908. pp. 175, iii.

The purpose of this little book is entirely different from that of M. Renault. The latter contains the texts of the two conferences; the former the text of the second. The one is prepared primarily for academic use and instruction; the other is meant for the public, more particularly the Belgium public, and aims in a brief but comprehensive introduction of some fifty-four pages to set forth the work actually accomplished by the conference. The Belgium author does not forget the rôle of Belgium, but the secretary of Mr. Van den Heuvel (the second Belgian plenipotentiary) does not overestimate - indeed the reviewer believes that he understates — the value and importance of his brilliant and amiable chief.

The work of the conference is adequately summarized, from the Belgian point of view, be it said, for it is doubtful if the thirty-two nations that voted in favor of a general treaty of obligatory arbitration would subscribe to Mr. Ernst's preference for the special instead of the universal treaty, and some of them would find an inconsistency between a favorable address at the beginning and an adverse vote at the end of the conference on the subject of arbitration.

Again, there are some who might question the propriety of Mr. Ernsts criticism of the recommendation of the court of arbitral justice as a simple voeu, for the first commission adopted the project as a declaration by the substantial vote of thirty-eight for, three against, and three abstentions. It was the refusal of Belgium, Switzerland, and Roumania to permit the project to figure in the final act unless reduced to the more modest form of a voeu that degraded the court project from the high position assigned to it by the overwhelming majority of the conference.

Again, it is questionable if many people would subscribe to the author's list of personalities of the conference, which, while admitting M. Beldiman “le Délégué roumain à l'argumentation précise et serrée," excludes Messrs. Choate and Porter, of the United States, M. Renault, of France, Dr. Kriege, of Germany, Dr. Lammasch, of Austria-Hungary, and Dr. Drago, of the Argentine Republic.

And finally there are not a few who would consider the solemn precedent of the preamble of the final act — namely, the actual proposal of the Second Conference by President Roosevelt as inconsistent with the gush of the plenary session of September 21, wherein Messrs. Beldiman, M. de Merey, Baron Marschall, et al., affected to consider the initiative of Russia as definitely acquired in the calling of future conferences.

The point of view of the little volume is progressive, but Belgian, and if the present reviewer does not share this view-point it is because he is an American, not a Belgian. Honest difference of view does not necessarily imply disrespect or a lack of appreciation.

The texts of the conference are given subject to correction by the official edition, and the volume concludes with a brief but serviceable index.


« PředchozíPokračovat »