Councillor of State of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; and Professor Max Huber, Legal Advisor of the Swiss Political Department. M. G. Kaeckenbeeck, of the Legal Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, was appointed secretary of the commission.

The conclusions of the commission, announced on the 5th of September, 1920, after hearing the statements of both parties to the dispute were as follows:

(1) The dispute between Sweden and Finland does not refer to a definitive established political situation, depending exclusively upon the territorial sovereignty of a State.

(2) On the contrary, the dispute arose from a de facto situation caused by the political transformation of the Aaland Islands, which transformation was caused by and originated in the separatist movement among the inhabitants, who invoked the principle of national self-determination, and certain military events which accompanied and followed the separation of Finland from the Russian Empire at a time when Finland had not yet acquired the character of a definitively constituted State.

(3) It follows from the above that the dispute does not refer to a question which is left by international law to the domestic jurisdiction of Finland.

(4) The Council of the League of Nations, therefore, is competent, under paragraph 4 of Article 15, to make any recommendations which it deems just and proper in the case.8

To summarize this decision, it merely amounts to a statement that there is no absolute right of self-determination; that the fate of the Aaland Islands, as in the case of the Trentino or Poland, is to be determined ultimately by the concert of Powers. The commission remarks, concerning the recognition of new States during the late war, that:

In many cases they were only recognitions of peoples or nations, sometimes, even, mere recognitions of Governments. The precise determination of the territorial status of these States was usually left to the great diplomatic reconstruction of Europe which would follow the conclusion of peace, just as, in some cases, were certain peculiarities of their political constitution and legislation, especially concerning the protection of minorities, which were thus reserved for international settlement.1

On the general question of national self-determination, the commission appears to incline to the point of view of Finland when it says:

The fact must, however, not be lost sight of that the principle that nations must have the right of self-determination is not the only one to be taken into account. Even though it be regarded as the most important of the principles governing the formation of States, geographical, economic and other similar considerations may put obstacles in the way of its complete recognition. Under such circumstances, a solution in the nature of a compromise, based on an extensive grant of liberty to minorities, may appear necessary according to international legal conception and may even be dictated by the interests of peace.5

Though the commission seems to hold that revolution and insurgency is solely of domestic concern (idem., p. 6), it pronounced the following

3 Idem., p. 14.

♦ Idem., p. 8.

Idem., p. 6.

extraordinary obiter dictum, which has a portentous bearing on the question of the right of the League of Nations to intervene in such abnormal situations as that now existing in Ireland:

The Commission . . . does not give an opinion concerning the question as to whether a manifest and continued abuse of sovereign power, to the detriment of a section of the population of a State, would, if such circumstances arose, give to an international dispute, arising therefrom, such a character that its object should be considered as one which is not confined to the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but comes within the sphere of action of the League of Nations.6

In regard to the question of the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands, the commission decided that:

(1) The provisions of the Convention and Treaty of Peace of 30th March, 1856, concerning the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands are still in force.

(2) These provisions were laid down in European interests. They constituted a special international status relating to military considerations for the Aaland Islands. It follows that until these provisions are duly replaced by others, every State interested has the right to insist upon compliance with them. It also follows that any State in possession of the Islands must conform to the obligations binding upon it arising out of the system of demilitarization established by these provisions.7

In denying the claim put forward by Sweden that the convention of 1856 definitely created a "real servitude" attaching to the Aaland Islands, the commission went so far as to question in general the existence of international servitudes and cited in support of this the decision in the North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration. The commission would seem to have failed at least to appreciate the nature of a "negative servitude" such as the demilitarization of these islands would appear to be. However squeamish one may be concerning the use of the term servitude, with its unpleasant etymological connotation, there exist peculiar international situations constituting a distinct impairment of sovereignty which must be given a special classification. As Oppenheim remarked: "It is hardly to be expected that this opinion of the Court (Fisheries Arbitration) will induce theory and practice to drop the conception of State servitudes which is of great value.'' 8

In reaching its conclusion that the special status of the Aaland Islands was of general European concern and not merely a domestic concern of Finland, the commission took note of the fact that the Soviet Government notified the Council of the League of Nations on the 3rd of October, 1919, and the 1st of July, 1920, that no decision concerning the disposition of the Aaland Islands could have any value unless Russia gave its assent. It will be seen from the foregoing summary that while the main conclusion reached by the commission was inevitable and on the whole pro • Idem., p. 5. 8 International Law, 3d ed., p. 365.

7 Idem., p. 19.

forma, its report adumbrated matters of very great importance from the point of view of international law. It therefore warrants particular consideration and study.

PHILIP MARSHALL BROWN.

SAKUYEI TAKAHASHI

1865-1920

Within the memory of men now living, Japan opened its doors to Western civilization, and within the memory of those who are yet doing the world's work, Japan was admitted to full membership in the Society of Nations. Yet, short as is the time, Japan has produced, and unfortunately lost, an international lawyer of universal repute.

Sakuyei Takahashi-for the reference is to him-died on September 12, 1920, in the fifty-fifth year of his eventful life and useful career. His titles to respect were many and he is an exception to the rule that "a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." He was Professor of International Law in the Imperial University at Tokyo; member of the House of Peers of the Imperial Diet of Japan; member of the Academy of Japan. He was the moving spirit of the Japanese Society of International Law, and was Editor in Chief of the Japanese Review of International Law.

He was also an Associate of the Institute of International Law.

Armed with the learning of the West, Mr. Takahashi possessed the poise and balance which come from experience with affairs. For example, in the War of 1894-5 between China and Japan, he was legal advisor to the admiral commanding the Japanese fleet. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, he was a member of the Legal Committee in the Department for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, his Cases on International Law during the Chino-Japanese War, published in English in 1899, and his International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, with the decisions of the Japanese Prize Courts, published in 1908, have the value attaching to the work of a man who is not only learned in theory, but is chastened by practice.

To such an extent was sound learning combined with a capacity for business appreciated, that in the Okuma Cabinet he was appointed Director of the Bureau of Legislation, a governmental department charged with the work of drafting laws to be submitted to the Imperial Diet as measures of the government.

In him, the East and the West met and mingled; and nothing could be more delicate on Mr. Takahashi's part, or more interesting to the publicists of the Western World than dating, as he did, his International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, "On the 10th of April, 1908, the 325th Anniversary of Hugo Grotius' birthday."

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

CHRONICLE OF INTERNATIONAL EVENTS

FOR THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 1, 1920, TO FEBRUARY 15, 1921.

WITH REFERENCES

Abbreviations: Adv. of peace, Advocate of peace; Bundesbl., Switzerland, Bundesblatt; Clunet, Journal du droit international; Cmd., Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers; Commerce Reports, U. S. Commerce reports; Cong. Rec., Congressional Record; Contemp. R., Contemporary Review. Costa Rica, Ga., La Gaceta; Covenant, The Covenant (London); Cur. Hist., Current History (New York Times); Daily digest, Daily digest of reconstruction news; D. G., Diario do Governo (Portugal); D. O., Diario oficial (Brazil); Deutsch. Reichs., Deutscher Reichsanzeiger; E. G., Eidgenossiche gesetzblatt (Switzerland); Edin. Rev., Edinburgh Review; Evening Star (Washington); Figaro, Le Figaro (Paris); G. B. Treaty series, Great Britain Treaty series; Ga. de Madrid, Gaceta de Madrid; G. U., Gazetta Ufficiale (Italy); Guatemalteco. El Guatemalteco; I. L. O. B., International Labor Office Bulletin. J. O., Journal officiel (France); L. N. O. J., League of Nations, Official Journal; L. N. T. S., League of Nations, Treaty series; Lond. Ga., London Gazette; Monit., Moniteur Belge; Nation (N. Y.; N. Y. Times, New York Times; Naval Inst. Proc., U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings; P. A. U., Pan-American Union Bulletin; Press Notice, U. S. State Dept. Press Notice. Proclamation, U. S. State Dept. Proclamation; Rev. int. de la CroixRouge, Revue international de la Croix-Rouge; Staats. Netherlands Staatsblad; Temps, Le Temps (Paris); Times, The Times (London); Wash. Post, Washington Post.

June, 1920.

11 PERU-URUGUAY. Convention concerning equivalents of studies and diplomas (exchange of students) signed July 18, 1918, approved by Uruguay. P. A. U., Jan., 1921, p. 81.

October, 1920.

12 WAR SHIPS. Official list published showing disposition of each vessel in surrendered fleets of Austria and Germany. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 272.

17 OXFORD LETTER TO GERMAN INTELLECTUALS. Letter recommending reestablishment of friendly relations sent to professors of arts and sciences in Germany and Austria by a number of professors and doctors of Oxford University. Text: Times, Oct. 18, 1920.

18 AUSTRIA-FRANCE.

France notified Austria that following treaties were again put into effect: Treaty of extradition of Nov. 13, 1855, and Protocol of Feb. 12, 1869; Declarations of reciprocity for fraud; Declaration of Aug. 29, 1892, on transmission of documents of the civil list. Clunet, Nov./Dec., 1920, p. 944.

November, 1920.

2 CALIFORNIA'S ALIEN LAND LAW.

Referendum of Nov. 2 resulted in adoption by majority of 446-397. New law put into force on Dec. 10, 1920. Text of act: Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 119.

4 CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC-FRANCE. Preliminary commercial treaty signed. J. Int. Rel., Jan., 1921, p. 488.

6 CHILE-SWEDEN. Chile approved convention for arbitration of future differences. A Permanent Commission of Conciliation is to be appointed. N. Y. Times, Nov. 8, 1920, p. 22.

11 NEWFOUNDLAND QUEBEC. Boundary dispute referred for settlement to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Times, Dec. 7, 1920, p. 11.

12 BELGIUM-BRAZIL. Commercial treaty signed at Rio Janeiro whereby credit to Belgian Government of about $16,000,000 was opened at Bank of Brazil for Belgian purchases of Brazilian goods. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 117. Text: P. A. U., March, 1921, p. 292. 13 CZECHO-SLOVAK REPUBLIC-SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE. Preliminary convention for defensive alliance signed at Belgrade, Aug. 14, 1920, published. Text: Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 73.

14 NORWAY-PORTUGAL. By exchange of notes agreement made not to discriminate against commerce and shipping of either country without advance notice of three months. D. G., Dec. 10, 1920, Ser. I, p. 1694.

15 DANZIG. Constitution declared. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 80. 15 DANZIG-POLAND. Convention signed at Paris regarding diplomatic and commercial relations. Summary: Bd. of Trade J., Jan. 27, 1921, p. 95.

15 NORWAY-SPAIN. Norway gave requisite three months' notice to terminate commercial conventions of June 27, 1892, and Aug. 25, 1903. Ga. de Madrid, Nov. 15, 1920, p. 722; Bd. of Trade J., Jan. 6, 1921, p. 14.

18 GREECE SPAIN. Convention signed at Madrid on March 6, 1919, regulating rights of inheritance of deceased nationals, ratified by both countries. Ga. de Madrid, Dec. 3, 1920, p. 952.

19 to Dec. 31. RAPALLO TREATY, Nov. 12, 1920. Ratification voted by Cabinet of Serb-Croat-Slovene State on Nov. 19. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 65. Approved by law and royal decree in Italy on Dec. 19, 1920. D'Annunzio yielded control of Fiume to Italy on Dec. 29, 1920. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1921, 13 (pt. 2): 223. Protocol effecting settlement of Fiume question signed on Dec. 31, 1920. N. Y. Times, Jan. 1, 1921, p. 6.

20 GREAT BRITAIN SOVIET RUSSIA. British draft of proposed trade agreement handed to Krassin on Nov. 20 by Lloyd George. Text: Cur. Hist., Jan., 1921, p. 76; Bd. of Trade J., Jan. 27, 1921, p. 88. Note from Tehitcherin to Curzon requested a political conference. Text (in part): Temps, Dec. 14, 1920, p. 4. Text of Tchitcherin's telegram of Dec. 31 to British Government and reply of Lord Curzon of Jan. 6, 1921, made public. Times, Jan. 7, 1921, p. 9. Note of