« ПретходнаНастави »
It is to be hoped that the terrible lessons of the last five years will not fail to make their proper impress upon the choice of the road in foreign policy which Japan will decide to follow.
GEO. A. FINCH.
Cuestiones Internacionales: Bolivia-Paraguay. By Américo del Val
(E. Diez de Medina). La Paz: Imprenta Nacional. 1918, pp. 83. 3130720 Bolivia-Chile: Cuestiones de Actualidad. By E. Diez de Medina.
La Paz: Arnó Hermanos. 1919, pp. vi, 154.
The first of these two interesting pamphlets is a reproduction of a series of articles published by Señor Diez de Medina under the pen name of Américo del Val, in the newspaper El Norte of La Paz, in answer to another series of articles published by Dr. Cecilio Baez, Minister of Paraguay to France, England, Italy, and Spain, upon the mooted question of boundaries between Bolivia and Paraguay.
The subject-matter of this boundary controversy between Bolivia and Paraguay is a piece of territory situated between the western bank of the River Paraguay, from the north boundary of the Brazilian possessions of Bahía Negra to the left bank of the Pilcomayo River, which flows out across Asunción, the capital city of Paraguay. This boundary dispute has indeed been the subject of many extended discussions among the most distinguished writers and statesmen of Bolivia and Paraguay, and is, perhaps, today, the most important and best known boundary dispute of Latin America, both on account of the extent of the territory in controversy and the length of time over which this controversy has extended.
While it is not our present purpose to join in this famous dispute, and much less to show any partiality in the same, or, still less, to pass judgment on the ultimate question of who is right and who is wrong, we cannot refrain from admiring the clear statement of the Bolivian case by Señor Diez de Medina and heartily congratulate him upon his patriotic and scholarly efforts.
The other pamphlet contains three valuable essays on international politics, which it must be admitted are not lacking in importance and interest. The first deals with what the author calls the fundamental rights of Bolivia. Among these rights he cites those of self-preservation, independence, and international communication. “A treaty," he says, "which is based upon conquest and sets a limitation to the fundamental rights of a state, cannot be eternal, nor perpetually binding. . . . The modern doctrine establishes that, in principle, a state cannot relinquish such permanent rights as constitute the foundation of its own independence: thus treaties which entail a violation of such rights can have no validity nor even an obligatory character. In practice the value of such treaties has just been shown by the undoing of the cession of Alsace-Lorraine forced upon France by Germany by the Treaty of Versailles of 1871.".
The next essay relates to the war of 1879 between Bolivia and Chile, which brought about the enclosure of the former within land boundaries and excluded her from the sea. In this essay the author reviews the causes and responsibilities of that war, giving us a clear conception not only of the Bolivian point of view on this question, but also on the ethical aspects of the same from an international point of view.
In the last essay, which refers to the Toco question, the author reveals himself, as Señor C. Rojas says in the introductory note to this pamphlet, to be a diplomatist who has been officially engaged in obtaining the recognition of private rights in the territories transferred to Chile.
Pedro Capó RodrígUEZ.
Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question. With texts
of treaty stipulations and other official documents. By Lucien Wolf. London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Company, Ltd. 1919. Printed for the Jewish Historical Society of England.
pp. x, 133.
Chapelle (1818). By Max J. Kohler. New York: American
The conception of the Jew as a subject in international relations is a somewhat novel one to the Gentile, even if he may be generally well-informed concerning the history of international law. The Jewish publicists who have produced these two monographs have not only justified their scholarship in the task, but have shown themselves in what is apparently a minority of one among international
istic pleaders of the present: they have not concluded that the world will be committing the crime of centuries if it does not forthwith recognize their particular nationality as a sovereign state. It is therefore the more pleasant to review their works as contributions to the history of international relations.
Mr. Wolf's book is a general view of the whole subject of the diplomatic history of the Jewish question, done in the summary form of short historical statements, supplemented by appropriate documents, several of which are published for the first time. Mr. Kohler's book puts the publicists' microscope on two incidents of that whole history.
“The Jewish question is part of the general question of religious toleration,” says Mr. Wolf. With the exception of isolated incidents running as far back as 1498, it first came to public attention in England during the Commonwealth as a national policy. In 1744-45 an interesting intervention in behalf of the Jews of Bohemia was made by the English Government, with the result that a decree banishing many thousands of Jews was revoked and that they were permitted to return to their homes.
The Congress of Vienna in 1815 was the scene of the next appearance of the Jewish question. Its consideration there, says Mr. Kohler, “proved of considerable importance in the history of Jewish emancipation, though the narrative of the subject has been very much neglected.” France, under Napoleon, had provided for an effective scheme for Jewish emancipation in the Kingdom of Westphalia; and Prussia in 1812, and Bavaria in 1813, had voluntarily followed the French precedent. Frankfort and the Hanseatic cities, on the other hand, were unsympathetic with Jewish toleration, either as a free gift or by purchase. At the Congress of Vienna, Prince Metternich for Austria, Friedrich von Gentz and Wilhelm von Humboldt were the principal proponents of Jewish rights among the negotiators. The Jews of Frankfort, Bremen, Hamburg, and Lübeck were represented by delegations at the Congress and were in constant correspondence and contact with the delegates mentioned. These men considered that the Napoleonic reforms had left the condition of the Jew in non-Germanic Europe in a satisfactory condition and they tackled the problem of securing civil rights within Germany. The measure of their success is found in Article 16 of the Confederative Constitution of Germany, which is Annex 9 of the Final Act of Vienna:
The difference of the Christian confessions in the countries and territories of the Germanic Confederation shall not entail any prejudice in the enjoyment of civil and political rights.
The Diet shall take into consideration the means of effecting, in the most uniform manner, the amelioration of the civil state of those who profess the Jewish faith in Germany and shall pay particular attention to the measures by which the enjoyment of civil rights shall be assured and guaranteed to them in the states of the Confederation, on condition that they submit to all the obligations of the other citizens. Meantime, the rights already accorded members of this religion by any particular state shall be secured to them.
The last sentence of this provision in its final form was a changeling successfully substituted at the last moment by Senator Smidt, of Bremen. Frankfort and the Hanseatic States at the time were, respecting the treatment of Jews, still under the French law. The last sentence of the article quoted originally related to “the privileges already accorded members of this religion in any particular state,” it being the intention to make permanent all gains of the Jews under the existent French laws. But just before the signing of the Constitution of the Germanic Confederation on June 8, 1815, ostensibly as a matter of editing, the “in” was changed to “by,” so that the provision as officially adopted guaranteed the Jews only the rights accorded them by the states themselves. The Jews of Frankfort particularly suffered from this circumstance.
The Congress of Aix-La-Chapelle in 1818 had the Jewish question brought before it as a result of the memorial by the Rev. Lewis Way of Stanstead, England, who curiously enough had assumed as his object in life the conversion of the Jews to Christianity. Way presented to that Congress, which also had before it a scheme of the Tsar Alexander for Jewish emancipation, a memorial in which the Prussian statesman, Christian Wilhelm Dohm, also collaborated. Conditions at Frankfort were left untouched by the Congress, which in the protocol of November 21, 1818, declared sympathy “for the praiseworthy object” of the Tsar's proposals, and declared that the Jewish question was a matter which should “equally occupy the statesman and the friend of humanity."
There is little question, that this accomplishment of the protag. onists of Jewish rights created, in the early days of the nineteenth century, a psychology of humanitarian interest in international relations which has since redounded very greatly to the advantage of other oppressed nationalities. For this reason the exceptional fullness of Mr. Kohler's work respecting Vienna and Aix-La-Chapelle is enlightening. With a careful scholarship he follows through to the final decision all the projects relating to his subject which came before the gatherings, recounts in detail the social and political influence of Jewish individuals upon members of the conference, and takes pains to detail the personal relations of the principal delegates to Jewish personalities. Humboldt, for instance, is presented as having been in a measure educated by a Jewess, whose home at Berlin was a haven for a brilliant circle of literary tendencies. In fact, all through Mr. Kohler's restricted study the workmanship is exceptionally detailed and comprehensive. His device of combining his index and bibliography is one that I do not recall to have seen elsewhere.
The next appearance of the Jewish question, as Mr. Wolf points out in his narrative, was at the conference of London respecting Greece in 1830. The Powers found themselves under the political necessity of insuring in Greece rights to Roman Catholics, in deference to Europe, and to Mohammedans, in deference to Turkey. The Jew benefited by a provision, which then amounted to a servitude, in the protocol of February 3, 1830 :
That all the subjects of the new state, whatever may be their religion, shall be admissible to all public employment, functions, and honors, and be treated on the footing of a perfect equality, without regard to difference of creed, in all their relations, religious, civil, or political.
At the Congress of Paris of 1856, the London Jewish Board of Deputies appeared first as an active element in the struggle for Jewish rights. A Turkish Hatti-Humayoun of February 15, 1856, granted full civil rights to all non-Mussulman subjects of Turkey. The treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, confirms the decree in Article IX, and this was made more definite by Article XLVI of the Paris convention of August 10, 1858. It is well-known that when Turkey was still further divested of opportunities for misgovernment by the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Jewish and other religious rights were guaranteed not only in Bulgaria, Rumania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also in European and Asiatic Turkey.
The fact that Rumania has never lived up to the engagement taken at that time is notorious. Mr. Wolf shows how, by a constitutional provision, the Bucharest Government succeeded in divesting