We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
We are now approaching the end of the first decade following the World War. Perhaps we are sufficiently removed from the heat and passion of that struggle to attempt to gauge the progress which the world has made in the development of international law since it was ended. Ten years is a brief period in any field of history; but before this decade was begun, most of us felt that it was going to see great things accomplished toward broadening and strengthening and extending the law by which the relations of states are governed. The war brought a challenge to our international legal order which could hardly have failed to create for our generation an opportunity to leave an impression on international law, such as has been left by no other generation in the three hundred years since the time of Grotius. As the decade is ending, and as our generation begins to find its energies so absorbed in other tasks, an appraisal of the progress we have achieved may enable us to judge the use we have made of our opportunity and the extent to which it still exists.
A paper read before the Bar Association of the City of New York, February 16, 1928.
1 W. E. Hall, International Law (3rd ed.), p. x.
2 This Journal, Vol. 10, Special Supp., p. 88.
3 James Brown Scott, President Wilson's Foreign Policy, pp. 156-7.
4 This Journal, Vol. 12, p. 338.
5 John Bassett Moore, Principles of American Diplomacy, p. 114.
6 James Brown Scott, President Wilson's Foreign Policy, p. 211.
7 40 U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 1.
8 James Brown Scott, President Wilson's Foreign Policy, p. 319.
9 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 756; this Journal , Vol.21, pp. 542-544.See the excellent comment byEdwin, M. Borchard, this Journal , Vol.21, p. 764 Google Scholar.
10 3 U.S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 3116; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 16, p. 57.
11 See League of Nations Document, C. 559, M. 201, 1927, II.
12 See League of Nations Document, A. 13 (a), 1927, Annex.
13 3 U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 3139; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 16, p. 74.
14 For the general report of the Commission of Jurists, see Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1924, p.96; and Supplement to this Jouknal, Vol.17, p.242. For a valuable comment on the report, seeGarnerJames W. ,“Proposed Rules for the Regulation of Aerial Warfare,”this Journal, Vol.18, p.56.
15 “Whi]e the Government of the United States proposed the conclusion of conventions for the adoption of the rules prepared by the Commission of Jurists, I understand that only one government has favorably responded.” Charles, E. Hughes, in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1927, p. 4.Google Scholar
16 James Brown Scott, President Wilson's Foreign Policy, p. 156.
17 James Brown Scott, President Wilson's Foreign Policy, p. 281.
18 See, for instance, The Round Table, Vol. XV, p. 58; P. J. Noel Baker, The Geneva Protocol, pp. 164 ff.
19 The projects were published by the Pan American Union, in 1927. They are included in the Special Supplement to this Journal, January, 1928.
20 See The New York Times, November 11, 1927, p. 1.
21 See The New Republic, December 14, 1927, p. 86.
22 Records of the First Assembly of the League of Nations, Meetings of Committees, I,p. 422.
23 See, for example, Elihu Root, Men and Policies, p. 209.
24 See Manley O. Hudson, Current International Cooperation, pp. 1-29 (1927).
25 An excellent list of such instruments is to be found in the Catalogue of Treaties, 1814-1918, published by the U. S. Department of State in 1919, pp. 703-706.Google Scholar Of the 152 instruments included in that list, but 15 antedate 1876. See also, Dunn, F. S., “ International Legislation,” 42 Political Science Quarterly, p. 571. For a list of permanent international organizations,see League of Nations Handbook of International Organizations, Geneva,1926.Google ScholarOn the place of the new legislation in international law, see Hudson, Manley O., “The Prospect for International Law in the Twentieth Century,” 10 Cornell Law Quarterly, 419; L.Oppenheim, The Future of International Law (1921).Google Scholar
26 See, for example, Hall, International Law (8th ed. by A. Pearce Higgins, 1924).
27 Scott, James Brown, Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899and1907,p. 29 Google Scholar.
28 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 10.
29 The more important were the Convention on Aerial Navigation, October 13, 1919; the Convention on Liquor Traffic in Africa, September 10, 1919; the Convention on Traffic in Arms and Ammunition, September 10,1919; and the Convention revising the General Act of Berlin, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels, September 10, 1919. See 3 U. S.Treaties and Conventions, p. 3739 ff.
30 Twenty of the twenty-five conventions have been brought into force for certain states.A chart showing the action of the governments with reference to the Labor Conventions is published each month, as a supplement to Industrial and Labour Information, published by the International Labour Office, Geneva. See also, Morellet, “At What Moment Do The International Labour Conventions Become Applicable”, 16 International Labour Review,p. 755.
31 See League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1927, pp. 1501-1545. An annex to the annual supplementary report on the work of the Council and Secretariat of the League of Nations indicates the progress of ratifications of these various multipartite treaties. See League of Nations Documents, A. 7(a), 1925, Annex; A. 6(a), 1926, Annex; A. 13(a), 1927,Annex.
32 For the texts, see 7 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 12; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 18, p. 118
33 7 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 74; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 18, p. 167.
34 9 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 415; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 18, p. 130.
35 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 213; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 20, p. 178.
36 League of Nations Document, C. 82, M. 41, 1925, XI.
37 Ibid., C. 88, M. 44, 1925, XI.
38 7 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 332; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 15, p. 297.
39 19 League of Nations Document, C. 559, M. 201, 1927, II. For a comment, see Dupriez,“Le controls des Armes et Munitions et des MaUriels de Guerre,” 7 Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparie, p. 57.
40 League of Nations Document C. 586, M. 223, 1926, VI; Supplement to this Journal ,Vol. 21, p. 171. See an excellent commentary by A. L. Wamshuis, Joseph P. Chamberlain and Quincy Wright in International Conciliation, No. 236 (January, 1928). For the reasons why the United States failed to ratify the convention of 1919, see this Journal,Vol. 20,p. 151.
41 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 157; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 20, p. 194.
42 League of Nations Official Journal, Spec. Supp. No. 53, p. 16.
43 30 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 371. On the measures taken by various governments to give effect to the provisions of this convention, see League of Nations Official Journal, 1926, pp. 831-844; 1927, pp. 636-651, 1614-1631; and League of Nations Document,C. 354, M. 127, 1927, II.
44 League of Nations Document, C. 364, M. 137, 1927, V.
45 League of Nations Document, C. 559, M. 201,1927, II. This convention was signed on behalf of the United States on January 30, 1928.
46 Publications of the Court, Series D, No. 1; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 55 and 57.
47 9 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 212.
48 13 Ibid., p. 238.
49 19 League of Nations Official Journal, p. 1506.
50 12 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 413.
51 For lists of recent conventions, see League of Nations Treaty Series, General Index No. 1, p. 530; the British Year Book of International Law, 1925, p. 264; 1926, p. 277; 1927,p. 245.
52 See 45 and 46 League of Nations Treaty Series. See also Sly, “The Genesis of the Universal Postal Union,”International Conciliation, No. 233 (October, 1927).
53 17 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 46.
54 La Propri6t6 Industrielle, 1925, p. 221.
55 8 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 65.
56 57 Ibid., p. 135.
57 See the Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Fifth International Conference of American States, Washington, 1924; also the Special Handbook for the use of the Delegates at the Sixth Conference, published by the Pan American Union in 1927; and Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 92-113.
58 See Franck,“A New Law for the Seas,”42 Law Quarterly Review, pp. 25, 308; G. van Slooten,“La Convention de Bruxelles sur le Statut Jwridique des Naxires d'État,”7 Revue de Droit International et de legislation Comparie (3d ser.), p. 453.
59 See Kosters,“La Cinquieme Conference de Droit International Prwi,”7 Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparie (3d ser.), pp. 156, 245.
60 See Manley O. Hudson,“The Sixth Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice,”this Journal,Vol. 22, p. 1.
62 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 12.
63 See Manley O. Hudson,“The Progressive Codification of International Law,”this Journal, Vol. 20, p. 655;James Brown Scott, “ The Gradual and Progressive Codification of International Law,”this Journal,Vol. 21, p. 417.
63 Records of the Fifth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 125.
64 Concerning the subjects selected, the Government of the United States expressed the view, in reply to one of the committee's questionnaires, that“ international arrangements. . . would serve a useful purpose and would therefore be desirable, and that there would be no insuperable obstacles to the concluding of agreements on these general subjects.” See League of Nations Document, C. 196, M. 70. 1927. V, p. 160.
65 See League of Nations Document, C. 44. M. 21. 1928. V.
66 The material relating to the Conference set for 1929 has been collected in League of Nations Document, C. 548, M. 196, 1927, V.
