In the controversy between Great Britain and the United States as to neutral rights from 1914 to 1917, both governments appealed again and again to precedents of the American Civil War. British prize courts as well as British diplomats made effective use of the Civil War decisions. Indeed, Professor A. Pearce Higgins has recently gone so far as to assert that, if one views the decisions as a whole, there was no greater extension of the principles of international law by the decisions of British prize courts during the World War than in the American cases.

The treaties for the protection of minorities were not made under the illusion that they would take from the particular state the grave burden of settling the differences resulting from the divergent nationality of its citizens. In order to prevent the internal disputes and quarrels of the state from becoming the cause for intervention by other states, the treaties created special processes by which such disputes can be legally settled. With a view to the accurate application of these provisions it was indispensable to establish a method of procedure, a system which might very well be compared in the field of constitutional law to that of the organic decrees which are indispensable for the execution of certain of the principles forming the kernel of each constitution.

Until the World War the rights of intellectual property were generallydivided into two classes: industrial and artistic or literary property, corresponding to two separate kinds of creations: those aiming at industrial results and those possessing an aesthetic or literary character. This classification, accepted as a matter of course, produced, as will be seen, some difficulties and led to unsatisfactory results in certain cases. Soon after the end of the war a new class of intellectual property began to be discussed: the scientific property. Its claim to existence and protection was not primarily due to theoretical speculation and developments of doctrine, but to practical causes.

The first non–stop flight to Europe was, perhaps, a victory for the cause of peace and international goodwill, but to those who have followed the developments in aerial warfare and the attempts which have been made in recent years to formulate rules for the conduct of belligerent operations in the air, this and successive flights come as a reminder of the still nebulous state of international air law.

During its session of October 31–December 2, 1927, the Hungarian–Czecho–Slovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal established under the Treaty of Trainon rendered several decisions condemning the Hungarian State to pay approximately five million Czech crowns indemnity on claims filed by Czechoslovak nationals in conformity with Article 232 of the Trianon Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty, the Hungarian Government accepted without question these decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.