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: 16 January 2009
With these apocryphal words from the proverbial doughboy, Charles Homer Haskins lightened his presidential address to the American Historical Association in December 1922. Haskins's theme was the historical and historiographical relevance of Europe to Americans, two subjects on which he could speak authoritatively. Dean of the Harvard Graduate School, an outstanding scholar of medievalism and the Mediterranean, Haskins was best known to his contemporaries as a member of Woodrow Wilson's research team at the Paris Peace Conference, the so-called Inquiry. In the course of his address Haskins surveyed the current state of American writing on European history and pronounced it moderately satisfying; but his underlying anxiety could not be disguised. Since he believed that all the “great European wars” had been “in every instance…American wars” and therefore “world wars,” Haskins feared the consequences of any American political and academic neglect of Europe. In Haskins's ambiguous formulation: “European history [was] of profound importance to Americans.”
1 Charles, Homer Haskins, “European History and American Scholarship,” American Historical Review, 28 (01 1923), 215–27, 217.Google Scholar
2 Gelfand, Lawrence E., The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917–1919 (New Haven, Ct., 1963; Westport, Ct., 1976).Google Scholar
3 Haskins, , “European History,” 215, 224–26.Google Scholar
4 Michael, Kammen, ed., The Past before US: Contemporary Historical Writing, in the United States (Ithaca and London, 1980)Google Scholar, especially the essay of Charles S. Maier, “Marking Time: the Historiography of International Relations,” ibid. 355–87; cf. Hunt, Michael H. et al. , “Responses to Charles S. Maier, ‘Marking Time: the Historiography of International Relations,’” Diplomatic History 5, (Fall, 1981), 353–82Google Scholar; Raymond, Grew, “The Comparative Weakness of American History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16 (Summer 1985), 87–101.Google Scholar
5 5 vols. (White Plains, N.Y., 1985). The volumes have been reviewed by Howard, Temperley, “America through the Looking Glass: the Hanke Guide,” Journal of American Studies, 21 (08 1987), 249–52Google Scholar. See also the special issue of Reviews in American History, 14 (12 1986)Google Scholar on “The Viewfrom Abroad: the Bellagio Conference on American History”; and Robert Kelley, “The Study of American History Abroad,” ibid.15 (March 1987), 140–51.
6 Hanke, , “Introductory Remarks and Explanations,” Guide, I, 1–30, 22.Google Scholar
7 Maier, “Marking Time,” provides a selective introduction; and for more recent confirmation see, for example, the special issues of Central European History, 19 (06 1986)Google Scholar on “One Hundred Years of German Historiography in America” and Journal of Modern History, 59 (March 1987) on National Socialism.Google Scholar
8 Today's World Court (officially known in English as the International Court of Justice: ICJ) came into existence in 1946. Its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) is the subject of this essay. For an introduction to the ICJ, see Shabtai, Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 2 vols. (Leyden, 1965).Google Scholar
9 The Nation (New York), 30 January 1935, 115–16Google Scholar “The World Court”; Lindley, Ernest K., New York Herald-Tribune, 31 01 1935, 2Google Scholar; New York Times, 31 January 1935, 18Google Scholar: “Rejecting the Court.” The essential texts are listed in Richard, Dean Burns, ed., Guide to American Forezgn Relation since 1700 (Santa Barbara, 1983), 572.Google Scholar
10 The two best English-language studies of the PCIJ remain Fachiri, Alexander P., The Permanent Court of International Justice: its Constitution, Procedure and Work, 2nd ed. (London, 1932)Google Scholar, which is concise and penetrating; and Hudson, Manley O., The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942: a Treatise (New York, 1943)Google Scholar, which is exhaustive. Hudson served as a Judge of the Court and he was the most prolific American advocate of adherence: see Kenny, James T., “The Contributions of Manley O. Hudson to Modern International Law and Organization” (Ph.D. diss., University of Denver, 1976).Google Scholar
11 The present-day World Court exercises an advisory function. For the complexities and the tradition, see Kenneth, James Keith, The Extent of the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Leyden, 1971)Google Scholar; Michla, Pomerance, The Advisory Function of the International Court in the League and U.N. Eras (Baltimore, 1972)Google Scholar; and Dharma, Pratap, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court (Oxford, 1972).Google Scholar
12 Herbert, Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929–1941 (New York, 1951), 62.Google Scholar
13 The best brief study remains Franz, Vali, Die deutsch-österreichische Zollunion vor dem Ständigen Internationalen Gerichtshof (Vienna, 1932)Google Scholar; though this and some other important works are absent from the multilingual compilation by Low, Alfred D., The Anschluss Movement, 1918–1938: Background and Aftermath. An Annotated Bibliography of German and Austrian Nationalism, Garland Reference Library in Social Science, Vol. 151 (New York and London, 1984).Google Scholar
14 Walter, Lippmann, “Defeat of the World Court,” New York Herald- Tribune, 2 02 1935, 15Google Scholar; Literary Digest (New York), 9 February 1935, 5–6Google Scholar: “The Senate’s Rejection of the World Court.”
15 Denna, Frank Fleming, The Cold War and its Origins, 1917–1960, 2 VOlS. (Garden City, N.Y., 1961)Google Scholar. In the same ‘neo-isolationist’ vein areFleming's The Origins and Legacies of World War I (New York, 1968)Google Scholar, America's Role in Asia (New York, 1969Google Scholar) and The Issue of Survival (Garden City, N.Y., 1972).Google Scholar
16 Denna, Frank Fleming, The United States and the World Court (Garden City, N.Y., 1945)Google Scholar. An enlarged edition of this work was published in 1968 entitled The United States and the World Court, 1920–1966. (All subsequent references are to this enlarged edition.) Fleming states in the Preface, p. 6, that “no changes” had been made to the text covering the years to 1945. The quotations come from pp. 3–5 in which Fleming summarizes his criticism of the violent swing from isolationism to “globalism.”
17 Fleming, , The Treaty Veto of the American Senate (New York, 1930)Google Scholar; The United States and the League of Nations, 1918–1920 (New York, 1932Google Scholar) [reprinted with an additional chapter, “After Fifty Years” (New York, 1968)]Google Scholar. All subsequent references are to this enlarged edition; The United States and World Organization, 1920–1933 (New York, 1938).Google Scholar
18 Kenneth, Colegrove, The American Senate and World Peace (New York, 1944), 199Google Scholar. Fleming called this a “trenchant book”: United States and the World Court, 159; while Colegrove spoke of Fleming's “outstanding contribution” to the anti-Senate cause: Colegrove, ibid., 197–98. Colegrove thought highly of the lengthy study by Wallace, McClure, International Executive Agreements: Democratic Procedure under the Constitution of the United States (New York, 1941)Google Scholar. McClure, who held various offices in the Department of State, was a determined opponent of the Senate's treaty-making power and a strong pro-Leaguer: see below n. 48.
19 Holt, W.Stull, Treaties Defeated by the Senate: a Study of the Strugglebetween President and Senate over the Conduct of Foreign Relations (Baltimore, 1933)Google Scholar; Haynes, George H., The Senate of the United States: its History and Practice, 2 vols. (Boston, 1938)Google Scholar; Dennison, Eleanor E., The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Stanford Books in World Politics (Palo Alto, Ca. 1942).Google Scholar
20 Dangerfield, Royden J., In Defense of the Senate: a Study in Treaty-Making (Norman, Okla., 1933), esp. 126–29; 142–52; 306–13Google Scholar. The concession is granted by Colegrove, ibid., 198.
21 See also Cranston, Alan, The Killing of the Peace (New York, 1945)Google Scholar; and, more ambivalently, Bailey, Thomas A., Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal (New York, 1945).Google Scholar
22 Haynes, , Senate of the United States, 11, 569–720Google Scholar; Denna, Frank Fleming, “The Role of the Senate in Treaty-Making: a Survey of Four Decades,” American Political Science Review, 28 (08 1934), 583–98Google Scholar; Dennison's book is introduced by one of Borah's opponents, Senator Elbert. D. Thomasof Utah.
23 See the two very different earlier studies, Quincy Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations (New York, 1922Google Scholar) and Lindsay, Rogers, The American Senate (New York, 1926).Google Scholar
24 See esp. Dennison, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ch. 5. The author explains her method and makes some interesting and justifiable distinctions: ibid., 105, n. 1. The temptation to rely solely upon The New York Times stems, of course, from its excellent Annual Index.
25 Fleming, , United States and the World Court, 92–93Google Scholar and Dennison, ibid., 126, both citing Haynes, , Senate of the United States, II, 711Google Scholar. On senatorial delaying procedures, see Burdette, Franklin L., Filibustering in the Senate (Princeton, 1940).Google Scholar
26 Everett Colby to Herbert, Hoover, 17 March 1931Google Scholar: Herbert Hoover Papers, West Branch, lowa; The World (New York), 10 December 1929, 1, 2Google Scholar; United States Daily (Washington), 17 December 1931, 1.Google Scholar
27 Haynes, , Senate of the United States, 11, 712–13Google Scholar; Dennison, , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 137–38Google Scholar; Fleming, United States and the World Court, Ch. 8.
28 Fleming, , Treaty Veto, 178–80Google Scholar; Dennison, ibid., 112–14.
29 Three historians who judge the Senate's vote adversely – and miss the substantive continuity – are Robert, Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932–1945 (New York, 1979), 96Google Scholar; Guinsburg, Thomas N., The Pursuit of Isolationism in the United States Senate from Versailles to Pearl Harbor (New York, 1982), 160Google Scholar ff.; and Cole, Wayne S., Roosevelt and the Isolationsts, 1932–1945 (Lincoln, Nebr., 1983), Ch. 9.Google Scholar
30 The most scathing attack is Selig, Adler, The Isolationist Impulse: its Twentieth Century Reaction (New York, 1957)Google Scholar. Valuable bibliographical surveys are provided by Doenecke, Justus D., The Literature of Isolationism: a Guide to Non-Interventionist Scholarship, 1930–1972 (Colorado Springs, 1972)Google Scholar; idem, “Beyond Polemics: an Historiographical Re-Appraisal of American Entry into World War II,” History Teacher, 12 (02, 1979), 217–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Literature of Isolationism, 1972–1983: a Bibliographical Guide,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 7 (Spring, 1983), 157–84.Google Scholar
31 Robert, Domenic Accinelli, “The United States and the World Court, 1920–1927” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1968)Google Scholar; “Peace through Law: the United States and the World Court, 1923–1935,” in Canadian Historical Association, Historical Papers/Communications Historiques, 1972, 247–61,Google Scholar; “Was there a ‘New’ Harding? Warren G. Harding and the World Court Issue, 1920–1923,” Ohio History, 84 (Autumn, 1975), 168–81,Google Scholar; “The Hoover Administration and the World Court,” Peace and Change, 4 (Fall, 1977), 28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat, 1935,” The Historian, 40 (05, 1978), 463–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Militant Internationalists: the League of Nations Association, the Peace Movement, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1934–38,” Diplomatic History, 4 (Winter, 1980), 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Pro-U.N. Internationalist and the Early Cold War: the American Association for the United Nations and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1947–52,” ibid., 9 (Fall, 1985), 347–62.
32 For two technical studies which reflect the changing political context of such constitutional questions, see Byrd, Elbert M. Jr., Treatis and Executive Agreements in the United States: their Separate Roles and Limitations (The Hague, 1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and Louis, Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution (New York, 1975).Google Scholar
33 Some of the evidence for Harding was discussed in my paper to the Ohio Academy of History, Columbus, Ohio, April 1984: “The Harding Administration and the World Court.” The evidence for Hoover and Roosevelt is discussed below.
34 Lash, Joseph P., Eleanor and Franklin: the Story of their Relationship based upon Eleanor Roosevelt's Private Papers (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Jason, Berger, A New Deal for the World: Eleanor Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Nathan, Miller, FDR: an Intimate History (Garden City, N.Y., 1983).Google Scholar
35 Accinelli, “Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat”; Kahn, Gilbert N., “Presidential Passivity on a Nonsalient Issue: President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1935 World Court Fight,” Diplomatic History, 4 (Spring, 1980), 137–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarOstrower, Gary B., Collective Insecurity: the UnitedStates and the League of Nations during the Early Thirties (Lewisburg, Pa., 1979), 188–98;Google ScholarSargent, James E., “F.D.R., Foreign Policy and the Domestic-First Perspective, 1933–1936: an Appraisal,” Peace and Change, 3 (Spring, 1975), 24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 See the clues given by the (pro-Court) editors of the survey published by the Council on Foreign Relations, United States in World Affairs, 1934–1935 (New York, 1935), 226.Google Scholar
37 A brief account in Charles, DeBenedetti, “The American Peace Movement and the State Department in the Era of Locarno,” in Solomon, Wank, ed., Doves and Diplomats: Foreign Offices and Peace Movements in Europe and America in the Twentieth Century (Westport, Ct., 1978), 202–16Google Scholar. Still valuable is Barlett, Ruhl J., The League to Enforce Peace (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1944)Google Scholar. A recent historiographical survey which employs the term “peace” rather loosely is Glen, Zeitner, “A Place for All: Recent Trends in American Peace History Writing,” American Studies International, 19 (Spring–Summer, 1981), 49–57.Google Scholar
38 Evidence can be found in Terry, Lattau Deibel, “The League of Nations and American Internationalism, 1919–1929,” 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1972)Google Scholar; Revoldt, Daryl L., “Raymond B. Fosdick: Reform, Internationalism and the Rockefeller Foundation” (Ph.D. diss., University of Akron, 1982).Google Scholar
39 George, Harry Curtis, “American Participation in the Advisory Committee of Jurists: the United States and the Founding of the World Court, 1919–1920” (M.A. Thesis, American University, 1964)Google Scholar; idem, “The Wilson Administration, Elihu Root and the Founding of the World Court, 1918–1921” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 1972)Google Scholar; Philip, Caryl Jessup, Elihu Root, 2 vols. (New York, 1938)Google Scholar. Jessup came to prominence in 1929 as Root's legal secretary in Geneva.
40 Sondra R. Herman, Eleven Against War: Studies in American Internationalist Thought, 1898–1921, Hoover Institution Publications no. 82 (Stanford, 1969), esp. Ch. 2; and Marchand, C.Roland, The American Peace Movement and Social Reform, 1898–1918 (Princeton, 1972)Google Scholar; Martin, David Dubin, “Elihu Root and the Advocacy of a League of Nations, 1914–1917,” Western Political Quarterly, 19 (09, 1966), 439–55Google Scholaridem, “Toward the Concept of Collective Security: the Bryce Group's ‘Proposals for the Avoidance of War,’ 1917,” International Organization, 24 (Spring, 1970), 288–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Advocacy of a League of Nations, 1914–1918,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 123 (Dec., 1979), 344–68Google Scholar; Patterson, David S., “The United States and the Origins of the World Court,” Political Science Quarterly, 91 (Summer, 1976), 279–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Patterson's broader study, see Towards a Warless World: the Travail of the American Peace Movement, 1887–1914 (Bloomington, Ind., 1976)Google Scholar. Calvin, DeArmond Davis, The United States and the First Hague Peace Conference (Ithaca, N.Y., 1962)Google Scholar and The United States and the Second Hague Peace Conference: American Diplomacy and International Organization, 1899–1914 (Durham, N.C., 1976)Google Scholar; Kuehl, Warren F., Seeking World Order: the United States and International Organization to 1920 (Nashville, Tenn., 1969).Google Scholar
41 Colcord, Samuel, The Great Deception: Bringing into the Light the Real Meaning and Mandate of the Harding Vote as to Peace (New York, 1921).Google Scholar
42 Charles, Chatfield, ed., Peace Movements in America (New York, 1973)Google Scholar. This collection of essays broadens the range of his own monograph, For Peace and Justice: Pacifism in America, 1914–1941 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1971)Google Scholar. Charles, DeBenedetti, Origins of the Modern American Peace Movement, 1915–1929 (Millwood, N.Y., 1978)Google Scholar; The Peace Reform in American History (Bloomington, Ind., 1980)Google Scholar; Peace Heroes in Twentieth Century America (Bloomington, Ind., 1986)Google Scholar; Harold, Josephson, James T. Shotwell and the Rise of Internationalism in America (Rutherford, N.J., 1975)Google Scholar; idem, “Outlawing War: Internationalism and the Pact of Paris,” Diplomatic History 3 (Fall, 1979), 377–90; Terry L. Deibel, “Struggle for Cooperation: the League of Nations Secretariat and Pro-League Internationalism in the UnitedStates, 1919–1924.” (Mémoire presented for the Diploma of the Institute, Graduate School of International Studies, Geneva, 1970.)
43 John, Braeman, “Power and Diplomacy: the 1920's Reappraised,” Review of Politics 44 (07, 1982), 342–69Google Scholar; Alexander, DeConde, ed., Isolation and Security: Ideas and Interests in Twentieth-Century American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C., 1957)Google Scholar; Ferrell, Robert H., Peace in their Time: the Origins of the Kellogg–Briand Pact (New Haven, Ct., 1952)Google Scholar; Kaplan, Lawrence S., The United States and NATO: the Formative Years (Lexington, Ky., 1984)Google Scholar; Osgood, Robert E., NATO: the Entangling Alliance (Chicago, 1962)Google Scholar; Stromberg, Roland N., Collective Secruity and American Foreign Policy: from the League of Nations to NATO (New York, 1963)Google Scholar. Transitional works include Divine, Robert A., Second Chance: the Triumph of Internationalism in America during World War II (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Stuhler, Barbara, Ten Men of Minnesota and American Foreign Policy, 1898 –1968 (St. Paul, minn., 1973)Google Scholar; and Wittner, Lawrence S., Rebels against War: the American Peace Movement, 1933–1983 (Philadelphia, 1984).Google Scholar
44 Gilbert, Felix, To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy (Princeton, 1961)Google Scholar; cf. Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest: a Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1951).Google Scholar
45 The exceptions are Fleming's enlarged reprints: see ns. 16, 17 above.
46 The Nation, 13 February 1935, 172: “Our Surrendering President.”
47 Kahn, , “Presidential Passivity,” 137–39.Google Scholar
48 For the Monroe Doctrine reservation (which the Department of State rightly saw as a huge obstacle), see the Cordell Hull–Arthur Vandenberg correspondence of 11, 15 Jan. 1935: reprinted in U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1935 (Washington, D.C., 1953), 1, 387–89Google Scholar. The drive for the League is developed at length in the memorandum of Wallace McClure, “The Present Situation in Respect of the Court and the League,” sent as enclosure, McClure to Francis B. Sayre, 3 Jan. 1935: copy in R. Walton Moore Papers, Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. For the uncertainty of the League, see Root to Hamilton Fish Armstrong (editor of Foreign Affairs), 11 May 1935: Root Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (cited below as MD, LC). Both the broad perspective and the detailed evidence is lackingin much of the Roosevelt worship: see, e.g. Barron, Gloria J., Leadership in Crisis: FDR and the Path to Intervention (Port Washington, N.Y., 1973)Google Scholar; Kinsella, William E. Jr., Leadership in Isolation: FDR and the Origins of the Second World War (Cambridge, Ma., 1979).Google Scholar
49 Fleming, , Treaty Veto of the American Senate, 186–87Google Scholar; United States and the World Court, 49–50.
50 Hudson, Manley O., ed., In re The World Court: the Judgment of the American Bar as Expressed in Resolutions of National, State and Local Bar Associations, 1921–1934 (Chicago, 1934).Google Scholar
51 Kahn, Gilbert N., “Pressure Group Influence on Foreign Policy Decision-Making: a Case Study of United States' Efforts to Join the World Court–1935” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1973).Google Scholar
52 The prime example is Accinelli: “United States and the World Court”, 425–26; “Hoover Administration and the World Court”, 32, n. 1; “Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat”, 463, n. 1; cf. Kahn, “Presidential Passivity”, 138, n. 1.
53 One scholar has recently admitted the bias of Fleming and then written a similar history of the Court defeat, although the political context of the Court debate is treated differently: see Christer, Olsson, Congress and the Executive: the Making of United States Foreign Policy, 1933–1940. Lund Studies in International History no. 16 (Solna, Sweden, 1982)Google Scholar, esp. Ch. 3.
54 Fleming, , Treaty Veto, 179, 276–77, 291–94Google Scholar; United States and World Organization, 240–41; United States and the World Court, 42, 51.
55 Accinelli's writings are the best example: “United States and the World Court”, 434–36; “Peace through Law”, 250–252; “Hoover Administration and the World Court”, 28. In the same tradition is Robert, Dallek, Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 95Google Scholar; idem, United States and World Organization, 240–41; Democrat and Diplomat: the Life of William E. Dodd (New York, 1968), 251; idem, The American Style of Foreign Policy: Cultural Politics and Foreign Affairs (New York, 1983), esp. 114–118.Google Scholar
56 Ostrower's title is revealing; but the problem is not addressed in Collective Insecurity. More analytical is his essay, “Historical Studies in American Internationalism”, International Organization, 25 (Autumn, 1971), 898–916.Google Scholar
57 James, Barros, The Corfu Incident of 1923: Mussolini and the League of Nations (Princeton, 1965)Google Scholar; Betryal from Within: Joseph Avenol, Secretary-General of the League of Nations, 1933–1940 (New Haven, 1969)Google Scholar; The League of Nationsand the Great Powers: the Greek–Bulgarian Incident, 1925 (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar; Office without Power: Secretary-General Sir Eric Drummond, 1919–1933 (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar; Britain, Greece and the Politics of Sanctions: Ethiopia, 1935–1936 (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Baer, George W., The Coming of the Italian–Ethiopian War (Cambridge, Ma., 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Test Case: Italy, Ethopia, and the League of Nations (Stanford, Ca., 1976)Google Scholar; Egerton, George W., Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations: Strategy, Politics, and International Organization, 1914–1919 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1979)Google Scholaridem, “Collective Security as Political Myth: Liberal Internationalism and the League of Nations in Politics and History”, International History Review, 5(11, 1983), 496–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf Birn, Donald S., The League of Nations Union, 1918–1945 (Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar
58 For League actors see, e.g.: (Edward Algernon) Robert, Cecil, A Great Experiment: an Autobiography of Viscount Cecil (Lord Robert Cecil) (London, 1941)Google Scholar; idem, All the Way: by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (London, 1949)Google Scholar; Walters, F. P., A History of the League of Nations, 2 vols. (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Zimmern, Alfred, The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918–1935 (London, 1936)Google Scholar. For contemporary League critics see, e.g.: Carr, Edward Hallett, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939: an Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London, 1939)Google Scholar; Dell, Robert, The Geneva Racket, 1920–1939 (London, 1941).Google Scholar
59 The Root Papers are cited at n. 48 above: the James Brown Scott Papers arein the Lauinger Library, Georgetown University. For Scott's writings, see esp., Une Cour de Justice Internationale (New York, 1918)Google Scholar; idem, The Project of a Permanent Court of International Justice and Resolutions of the Advisory Committee of Jurists: Report and Commentary. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Division of International Law, Pamphlet no. 35. (Washington, D.C., 1920). For an introduction toprinted materials, see Aufricht, Hans, Guide to League of Nations Publications: a Bibliographical Survey of the Work of the League, 1920–1947 (New York, 1951), 386–97Google Scholar and Yves, Victor & Ghebali, Catherine, A Repertoire of League of Nations Serial Documents, 1919–1947, 2 vols. (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1973), 1, 140–45.Google Scholar
60 Deibel's use of League materials is not primarily directed towards analyzing the Court campaign.
61 Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, Règime Douanier entrel' Allemagne et l'Autriche (Protocole du 19 mars 1931). Sèrje C. Plaidoiries, Exposès Oraux et Documents, no. 53, (Leyden, 1931).
62 Kahn, Ostrower and Sargent all ignore the case; Accinelli provides less than three sentences in three articles; Guinsburg, , Pursuit of Isolationism, p. 172Google Scholar has a footnote.
63 Hudson, Manley O., ed., World Court Reports: a Collection of the Judgments, Orders and Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1934–1943)Google Scholar. From the time of the Court's establishment Hudson also contributed annual reviews of its activities to the American Journal of International Law.
64 A valuable study is Verzijl, J. H. W., “Die Rechtsprechung des Ständigen Internationalen Gerichtshofes, 1922 bis Mai 1926” Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 4 (1926), 489–543.Google Scholar
65 League of Nations, Conditions of Voting on Requests for Advisory Opinions addressed to the Permanent Court of International Justice: Report Submitted by the First Committee to the Assembly. Official no. A68. 1935 V (Geneva, 1935).Google Scholar
66 Scott, Project of a Permanent Court, passim. Phillimore, a Roman Catholic, shared some of Scott's ideas on the religious basis of international law: see Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace and their Teaching (London, 1917).Google Scholar
67 United States Daily, 11 March 1929, 1; ibid., 13 March 1929, 1; ibid., 14 March 1929, 1, 2. For the same judgement advanced by a friendly neutral, see the editorial “Hughes in het Hof van Internationale Justitie”, Algemeen Handelsblad (Amsterdam), 10 May 1929: copy in Charles Evans Hughes Papers, MD, LC.
68 For Bourgeois's role in the creation of the League and Court, see (apart from his own many publications), Barrère, Camille, Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de M. Léon Bourgeois, 1851–1925 (Paris, 1928).Google Scholar
69 The following three works give some sense of the issues: Kluyver, C. A., ed., Documents on the League of Nations (Leyden, 1920)Google Scholar; Schücking, Walther and Wehberg, Hans, Die Satzung des Völkerbundes, 2nd ed., rev. (Berlin, 1924)Google Scholar; and Ray, Jean, Commentaire du Pacte de la Société des Nations selon la Politique et la Jurisprudence des Organes de la Société (Paris, 1930).Google Scholar
70 Root stressed the distinction between adjudication and arbitration: Root to Will H. Hays, 29 March 1919: International Conciliation (New York) Special Bulletin, April 1919, 73–95.
71 Manley O. Hudson to Secretary-General Drummond, 28 January 1926: Manley O. Hudson Papers, Harvard Law School Library, Cambridge, Ma.; Frank B. Kellogg to William R. Castle, Jr., 6 February 1935: William R. Castle, Jr., Papers, Hoover Library, West Branch, lowa.
72 Scelle, Georges, Une crise de la Société des Nations, la réforme du Conseil et l'entrée de l' Allemagne à Genève (mars–septembre 1926) (Paris, 1927)Google Scholar; Schúcking, Walther, Die Revision der Vőlkerbundssatzung im Hinblick auf den Kelloggpakt (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar; Wehberg, Hans, Der Kampfum die Reform des Völkerbundes, 1920 bis 1934 (Geneva, 1934)Google Scholar; Margueritte, Victor, The League Fiasco, 1920–1936 (London, 1936)Google Scholar; de Beaupoil, Auguste–Félix-Charles, de Saint-Aulaire, Comte, Genève contre la Paix (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar; Swanwick, H. M., Collective Insecurity (London, 1937)Google Scholar. The most recent general study is Northedge, F. S., The League of Nations: its Life and Times, 1920–1946 (Leicester, 1986).Google Scholar
73 Though the present ICJ exercises an advisory function, the decision in the Austro-German Customs Unions case severely damaged the PCIJ's authority and led to the procedure atrophying in the 1930s.
