« PředchozíPokračovat »
post-Armistice licenses for the resumption of trade, orders relating to industrial property, arrangements for the settlement of prewar debts, rules of procedure of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, the German reparations law, etc.
It is not derogatory to the work to say it is largely a compilation, for without the studious, painstaking research among documents, to which this volume is a testimonial, we in America would not have easy access to this body of valuable material and we should be grateful for this convenience.
L. H. WOOLSEY.
Traité de droit international public. By Paul Fauchille. Tome II, Guerre et Neutralité. Paris: Librairie Arthur Rousseau, 1921. pp. xi, 1095.
, 35 francs.
In 1894 appeared the first edition of M. Henry Bonfils' Manuel de droit international public. Because of the author's death, the subsequent editions were edited by M. Paul Fauchille. The second edition appeared in 1898, and showed the condition of international law just before the first of the Hague conferences. The preface to the seventh edition bore date June 30, 1914; and thus it happened that the seventh edition of the Manuel must have value forever as a picture of international law just before the outbreak of the World War—a pathetic picture of a hopeful science that was soon to be strained and twisted and insulted.
And now comes, in place of the Manuel, M. Fauchille's Traité, in two volumes, carefully explaining on the title page that it is in a sense an eighth edition of the Manuel, rewritten and brought to date. The first volume, dealing with peace, has not yet arrived; but the second volume, dealing with war and neutrality, shows at a glance the propriety of replacing the modest designation of Manuel with the more appropriate designation of Traité and of assigning to the present work the name of M. Fauchille; for omissions and additions and rearrangements are countless, the space now given to war and neutrality is three times the space given to those subjects in the first edition by M. Bonfils, and the treatment includes discussions not expected in a handbook. Yet much more important than the changes in title and in method is the fact that this earliest edition of M. Fauchille's Traité will have permanent value as a faithful picture of international law as it has been left by the World War. The Traité is not warped by national prejudices. M. Fauchille points out, as occasion arises, departures from earlier doctrine by the several belligerents, and his spirit is moderate and judicial.
The text abounds in events of the World War, and in comments showing that it is now difficult to affirm what former doctrines of international law are to be recognized as having been altered through new inventions or new practices. In his last ten pages, M. Fauchille gives the generalization that in the World War the practices of the belligerents included a reversion to the barbarous conception of war as a contest not between states but between individuals, an enlargement of the doctrines of contraband and of blockade, and a disregard of the rights of neutrals. He does not affirm that international law has been changed, but he does infer that in the respects named, and also in the use of barbarous scientific inventions, future wars will disregard former doctrines unless the rules are made clear and unless there is further international organization and unless there is an actual and active wish on the part of individuals to do international justice—a wish based largely upon a perception of the relation which the welfare of each country sustains toward the welfare of all other countries.
What has happened to international law since 1894 may be easily discovered by comparing M. Bonfils' Manuel with M. Fauchille's Traité. On angary the first edition of the Manuel had hardly more than a dozen lines. The seventh edition was word for word the same, with the addition of one citation. There was no intimation of the importance to be achieved by the topic in some future war. The Traité gives five pages, covering both the old and the new applications of angary; and then it goes into the novel question whether angary is applicable in the air. Likewise, aerial warfare, necessarily lacking in the first edition of the Manuel, and covering only eleven pages in the seventh edition, covers thirty-five pages in the Traité. Similar specifications might be given regarding submarine warfare, contraband, blockade, prize, the Hague conferences, the Declaration of London, and countless other topics. Such comparisons, whether meant to show the relation between the contributions of M. Bonfils and of M. Fauchille or to discover the changes in international doctrine and practice, are facilitated by M. Fauchille's plan of retaining, so far as practicable, the numbers assigned to the paragraphs in the first edition of the Manuel.
The Traité resembles the Manuel in giving ample bibliographies, and also in presenting briefly the views of very many authors. Indeed, besides being a systematic presentation of international law, it is a work of reference throwing open to the investigator vast stores of learning.
Leading American Treaties. By Charles E. Hill, Ph.D. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1922. pp. 399.
This volume of fifteen chapters, partly based on a course of lectures given by President Angell at the University of Michigan, presents the "historical setting and chief provisions of fifteen leading American treaties”: Treaties of 1778 (France), 1783 (England), 1794 (England), 1800 (France), 1803 (France), 1814 (England), 1818 (England), 1819 (Spain), 1842 (England), 1848 (Mexico), 1854 and 1858 (Japan), 1867 (Russia), 1871 (England), 1898 (Spain) and the various Panama canal treaties (of 1850 with England,
1901 with England, 1903 with Colombia, and 1903 with Panama). Appended to each chapter is a brief selected bibliography.
The treaties chosen were well selected, and may be regarded as central landmarks in the study of American diplomatic history. The French treaty of alliance made the United States a party in determining the balance of power in Europe (19). The treaty of independence of 1783 was of incalculable value in giving to America a period of rest during the period of European war which began in 1793. Jay's treaty is justified by its result in saving the United States from British and Indians at a critical period. The treaty of 1800 was successful in ending "hostilities which if continued would have made the future annexation of Louisiana improbable”. In the treaty of Ghent, although it failed to settle the causes of the war, "the United States had to yield only one point which she had hoped to secure" (indemnity for captures of American ships and goods under the orders in council). The short convention of 1818 with Great Britian, the nego tiations of which were doubtless hastened by the critical situation with Spain in regard to Florida, is regarded by the author as “one of the most important to which the United States has become a party". The WebsterAshburton treaty was the happy result of friendly negotiations of fair minded and well chosen diplomats to reach a just conclusion on a series of issues of paramount importance, some of which "had led more than once to open hostilities locally and had threatened to involve the countries in war". The author states that Webster's declaration on one point-the American principle of protecting crews of American vessels from imprisonment-although omitted from the treaty, “became just as binding upon Great Britian as any separate article in the treaty could possibly have made it". In the number of issues involved, and in the number of questions of long standing dispute settled, he states that "the treaty of Washington (1871) ranks easily as one of the most important in American history"; and, by its enunciation of the principles of international law relating to obligation of neutrals, he says it took rank as "one of the first in the world's history".
In connection with the treaty of peace following the Spanish American War, the author states that the international situation as to Cuba in 1823 and American interests therein was the chief factor which inspired the Monroe Doctrine (pp. 316-317).
The last chapter is the longest in the book. It reviews the evolution of the early interest in the canal, the origin and purpose of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the evolution of the American policy of a canal under exclusively American control and the negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty with England, the Hay-Concha draft treaty and the Hay-Herran treaty with Colombia, and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty with the newly established state of Panama, and the later negotiations with Colombia to remove distrust of the United States and to establish friendly relations between Colom
bia and Panama. The action of the United States in the case of Panama is justified.
It will be observed that territorial expansion and adjustment of boundaries are among the most prominent facts in relation to these treaty negotiations. Some attention is given to conflicts arising between the executive and the Senate in regard to the treaty-making power.
Considerable attention is given to historical setting of the treaties and their influence on later national development.
While adequacy of treatment has often been restricted by the limits of space, the author has succeeded in presenting a clear narrative of leading facts which will doubtless prove very useful both to college students and to the general reader.
A few minor errors of statement appear. Jefferson resigned from the office of Secretary of State on December 31, 1793 instead of in 1792 as stated (p. 51). The President proclaimed the Florida treaty on February 22, 1821, instead of in 1822 as stated (p. 174). The international controversy concerning seals in Bering Sea arose in 1886 and not in 1868 (p. 260). It was Article IV, and not Article IX (p. 136) of the convention of 1818 which renewed the commercial convention of July 3, 1815. The American policy to purchase Cuba began with the Polk negotiations of 1848, instead of in 1850 (p. 317). The peace commissioners at the close of the Spanish American War met at Paris on October 1, 1898 instead of 1899 (p. 331). President Hayes' Secretary of State was not James G. Blaine as stated by the author (p. 355). The author probably exaggerates English opposition against the United States Government in the American Civil War (pp. 276-277).
Although the narrative is usually clear, the arrangement of materials possibly could have been improved in several instances. Articles II-VII of the Alaska treaty (pp. 274-75) and the paragraph (pp. 259-60) relating to the contents of the treaty might more logically appear following the negotiation of the treaty and before the discussion of it in Congress. The Geneva arbitration (beginning on p. 298) logically belongs after the completion of the brief statement concerning the contents of the Treaty of Washington. The negotiation and provisions of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty (pp. 383-86) should follow the statement of the recognition of Panama (p. 377).
An example of a loose sentence is found on page 286 (2nd paragraph). Another appears on page 329. Examples of paragraphs which lack unity or clearness appear on pages 355 and 359.
There are only a few typographical errors. On page 307 (third line) "among" should begin a new sentence. On page 382 (line 12) "accurred" should be “occurred". Evidently "surprize" (p. 172) should preferably be
J. M. CALLAHAN.
Le Principe des Nationalités et les Guerres. Son Application au Problème
Colonial. By Bernard Lavergne. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1921. pp. xii, 211.
With this volume on the principle of nationalities, published in the series Les Questions Actuelles under the direction of Emile Borel and Georges Dumas of the Sorbonne, Bernard Lavergne, professor in the faculty of law of the University of Nancy, has made an interesting contribution to a difficult subject. His starting point is the absolute failure of the present League of Nations, as he sees it, due mainly to its own shortcomings, its disregard for the fundamental problems which should have formed its very basis. One of these problems, passed over in silence by the League, according to the author, is that of giving scientific form to the principle of nationalities, which has become such a burning issue during and after the war.
Professor Lavergne divides his book into three chapters: 1. The Complex Theory of Nationalities; 2. The Principle of Nationalities in its Relation to the Colonial Problem; 3. The General Peace Problem and the Pact of the League of Nations.
Calling attention in the first chapter to the fact that the writers on international law are practically unanimous in ignoring or passing briefly over the principle of nationalities, the author reaches his own rather unusual definition of a nation as being "every population that is prevented from becoming a state only by the oppression of a foreign government”. In other words, a nation is a state in the making, while a state is a completed, achieved organic structure. He develops two forms of the theory of nationalities, the active form manifested by a demand of the "nation" for secession in order to become an autonomous state, and the more frequent passive form appearing in the desire to be reunited with the mother country.
Five conditions are necessary to entitle a “nation” to become an autonomous state in the active manner, namely: 1. Desire for autonomy; 2. Distinct historical development and traditions; 3. Ability to govern itself; 4. Possession of a population and economic wealth, also a sufficiently extended territory; 5. Sufficient scientific culture. The Russian provinces of Europe, as the Ukraine and the Baltic provinces, do not satisfy these requirements, according to the author, as they have no distinct historical traditions, although the outlying former provinces of Russia, such as Georgia, fulfil the conditions.
For the passive form of achieving autonomy only the desire of reuniting with the mother country is requisite. The desire of Austria to unite with Germany is an example of this. But in certain cases, as when small ethnic groups are located in the midst of a large state, or when the desire is manifested by backward peoples having no developed national consciousness (Macedonia, Albania), the wishes of the population can not be legitimately respected. Nor is Ireland entitled to autonomy, according to the author's