« ПретходнаНастави »
native Jews of civil rights by failing to consider them as Rumanians per se, and then making naturalization to depend upon the relinquishment of a foreign protection. Secretary Hay's note of July 17, 1902, laying bare the injustice of Rumania's anti-Semitism, is highly praised by the author and reprinted textually. That the American note narrowly missed becoming the basis of an international protest is perhaps not so well-known as the circumstance of the document itself.
The Conference of 1912-13 closing the Balkan Wars brought forward the London Jewish Conjoint Committee as the principal champion of racial rights. Its work was highly statesmanlike, and at the outbreak of the war it had secured a substantial assurance that territorial changes in the Near East would be ratified by the Powers only on condition of the protection of Jews and other members of minorities.
So much of Mr. Wolf's book is considered by him as instances of intervention on grounds of humanity. He next considers intervention by right under treaty, and cites a very interesting incident in 1815, when Turkey successfully claimed rights for her Jewish subjects resident in Austria, by virtue of the Treaty of Carlowitz of 1699. Between 1827 and 1855, Switzerland showed a distinct desire to discriminate against the Jew in her treaties. Mr. Wolf contrasts in favor of the action of the United States the negotiations respecting Jewish rights conducted by America and England under our Treaty of 1832 and the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1859, respectively. It will be recalled that the resolution of the House of Representatives of December 13, 1911, called for the abrogation of the American Treaty because of Russian discrimination against American Jews.
The consular protection of Jews as Jews in Morocco by England, and the establishment of a system of such protection internationally by the Conference of Madrid of 1880, confirmed by that of Algeciras of 1906, adds an interesting feature to the study.
The Palestine question and the restoration of the Jews forms a section of Mr. Wolf's monograph. He finds that the Jews themselves were notably cold to the proposition from the time of its first seeing the light in 1621 until the arising of the Zionist movement twenty years ago. Col. Charles H. Churchill, then British consul in Syria, drew up such a project in 1841, to which the London Jewish Board of Deputies did not respond. About that time there were several similar official propositions, but the idea of Palestine for the Jews did not really make headway until it was taken up by Herzl two decades ago. It is now apparently in process of realization, a number of the Allied and Associated Powers having officially expressed themselves as favorable to it.
DENYS P. MYERS.
Transactions of the Grotius Society. Problems of the War. Vol. IV.
Papers read before the Society in the year 1918. With an Appendix (The Freedom of the Scheldt). London: Sweet & Maswell. pp. lvi, 295. Price to non-members, ten shillings net.
The fourth of a series of practical studies of problems of international law in its relation to the World War, these papers were read at different meetings held by the Grotius Society during the year 1918. Prepared by men who know what they are writing about and are doing a kind of thinking that is worthy of serious scholars, this whole series of studies is a substantial contribution to the international law of the present day. It serves as much as any literature can serve to bring up to date treatises that were printed after the Second Hague Conference and before the beginning of the war. Although by no means technical in their literary style, these papers might prove to be too solid reading for the average layman; but they should be highly prized by college instructors, publicists; or legal advisers, who are more or less familiar with the topics treated and have occasion to refer to the latest discussions of them in authoritative form. Published for the advancement of truth, taking into consideration the welfare of humanity, pointing the way to rational international conduct, and showing a conscientious respect for international law, with no attempt to impose upon others a particular set of views, but full of suggestions for the reform of the laws of war and peace made in the general interest of the family of nations, the Grotius papers have a commendable scientific spirit.
Lord Parmoor, in an address on “The League of Nations," spoke before the Covenant of the League of Nations was drawn up at Paris, but that document is likely to be one of the chief topics in the report of the proceedings of the year 1919. He recognized, however, that the idea of the League is a feature of the intervention of America in the war and approved the platform of the League to Enforce Peace, which is in some respects reproduced in the Covenant. Without going into detail, he expressed preference for judicial settlement of international disputes by a permanent court composed of the highest available jurists, rather than specially created arbitral tribunals for the determination of particular controversies, which was advocated in the United States before the agitation for the League of Nations in its present form began.
In the “Sequestration of Merchantmen,” Dr. W. R. Bisschop supports in a short paper a timely article by Dr. K. Jansma, of Amsterdam, who, writing on "How to Avoid Destruction of Neutral Mer. chantmen,” proposes that the “destruction of neutral prizes should be replaced by a guaranteed and generally recognized sequestration in a neutral port until the conclusion of the war.”
In “The Highways of the Sea,” Sanford D. Cole, with recognition of the proposals of President Wilson, Professor Van Vollenhoven, and Dr. Schueking, argues that the system of international government that has been set up already by various conventions should, by the coöperation of the Great Powers, be further extended to include a strong executive branch by the absorption of means of coercion now sometimes used for destructive purposes by individual nations, and that international police thus acquired should be used for the common protection. Part of the duty of this internationalized force should be to regulate intercourse over the highways of the sea, keeping it free and open at all times and under all circumstances in the interest of all nations. This course of action would mean that John Bull would have to stop singing “Rule Britannia,” but the writer would be disposed to sacrifice some national advantage for the sake of the world at large.
A paper by F. W. Hirst on “What the Americans Mean by Freedom of the Seas," although brief, is historical and comes up in chronological paragraphs to the end of the Second Hague Conference, with mention of the attitude of the United States Government on the treatment of neutral mails, merchandise, and ships at the outbreak of the war. True, immunity from capture of private property at sea, except contraband, in time of war, has been advocated by statesmen as well as by propagandists of peace in this country, and has generally been opposed by the British Government and by those who profess to guard the maritime interests of Great Britain; but if, in the future, war is to be conducted not merely by armies and navies, but by whole peoples against whole peoples, blotting out the distinction made by Rousseau, as in the case of the recent European conflict, it is doubtful whether the United States can with good sense maintain its traditional attitude on this question.
This whole topic, as well as that of the treatment of private property on land, is elucidated in a concise way, but with an insight into fundamental principles by Sir Graham Bower in a paper entitled “The Nation in Arms—Combatants and Non-Combatants.” After showing that from the French Revolution, instead of leaving the waging of war to professional soldiers, we returned to barbarism under the régime of militarism, with its universal conscription and its methods of frightfulness, in Napoleonic times adopted and lately carried to excess by the Germans, Sir Graham, recognizing that the limitations on warfare laid down by the Hague Conventions were disregarded, pleads for a newly affirmed distinction between combatants and non-combatants both on sea and land. Realizing that submarines have changed the nature of cruiser warfare, and noting that they have caused the death of 15,000 merchantmen, non-combatants, he proposes measures to forbid the destruction of merchant ships, to prohibit absolutely their armament even for defensive purposes, and to grant the right of asylum in neutral ports to prizes manned by prize crews; but he would not thereby have invalidated the right of recapture on the high seas outside neutral territorial waters.
In close connection with the foregoing paper should be read an. able and comprehensive study of "The Future Law of Neutrality," by George Grenville Phillimore. He explains the apparently illegal departure of Great Britain from the customs of the past, in respect to measures taken by her against neutral trade, as a temporary policy based on the principle of retaliation, or “the application of force to meet the enemy's system of force, and his departure from international law." Neutrals, he thinks, should be prepared to have their commercial freedom limited by the “rationing system, by the extension of the right of angary or its equivalent, and by the principle of retaliation in case one of the belligerents commits a breach of international law. He favors the establishment of prize tribunals independently of the executive branches of governments and recommends that an International Prize Court of Appeal be set up such as was agreed upon at The Hague in 1907. But one might observe that
until we know whether the League of Nations Covenant is to go into effect, and is tested in war, we are uncertain whether there will be any neutrality hereafter, unless it be among pacifically inclined states that are either outcast or withdrawn from the League and not obligated to fight to protect its covenants; so that one hardly knows whether to encourage a revival of the Hague Conventions or to fall in with the prevailing fashion and forget them.
“The Treaty-making Power of the Crown,” by Judge AtherleyJones, is in line with the modern movement for popular control of foreign policies, and is suggestive to one who has followed the discussion of the treaty-making power under the Constitution of the United States by Dr. David Jayne Hill. Dr. W. Evans Darby, authority on plans for world government, deals historically with “Some Schemes for a League of Nations,” and shows that, among the lesser known of these, a plan by a German thinker, Karl Christian Friedrich Krause, for a European League of States, published in 1814, deserves examination, as it is more closely related to the present discussion than previous schemes. Dr. Darby thinks that the present situation of the rights of nationalities which have been established and enforced by the results of the war, portends a new world; but is of opinion that peace cannot be enforced, and that it would be a mistake to attempt to enforce it by alliance, reintroducing the idea “under the ægis of the enfranchised nationalities.”' Referring to the Westminster Gazette, he says it is not merely a change of label that is required.
In “Divergences Between British and Other Views on International Law," by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, there is a topical study of the differences in viewpoints by Great Britain, France, and Germany that one may have long desired to read, but did not know just where to find. “The Freedom of the Scheldt” is dealt with in a clever historical paper by Maître Albert Maeterlinck, to whose views several leading men like Lord Reay, Professor Goudy and Dr. Bisschop take some exceptions, particularly as to the legal position of Belgium under the Fifth Hague Convention relating to neutrals, and to the question of the free navigation of international rivers in time of war.
“German War Legislation in Belgium,” by Dr. W. R. Bisschop, is an informing digest of that subject upon which he may comment later, now that he has brought the facts together. Among other papers in this volume are a "Report of the Committee on the Legal