Слике страница

zation and systems of law, and calculated not only to do justice between nations without fear or favor, but to their satisfaction. One dream of the ages has been realized in our time.


DRAGO AND THE DRAGO DOCTRINE Luis Maria Drago, the distinguished Argentine jurist, publicist and statesman, best known to our world as the author of the so-called Drago Doctrine, died during the past summer on June 9, 1921, in his sixty-third year, having been born on May 5, 1859, at Buenos Ayres. Trained as an advocate, the author of various legal works, occupant of important judicial positions, professor of civil law, elected this very summer an Associate of the Institute of International Law, his death is a grievous loss to his country, to the science of public law and to the world of letters.

His advocacy of a principle which would limit the use of force between states for the recovery of contract debts is of special interest to us because in a sense it was intended as a substitute for our Monroe Doctrine. That doctrine was originally founded on the theory that European intervention in the affairs of the Latin-American states was dangerous to our own peace and safety and to the integrity of our institutions. But it grew with our growth in power and has become a piece of paternalism which the states to the south of us resent. On the other hand, in spite of our disclaimers, it has been hard to avoid a certain responsibility for the conduct of the states which we endeavored to protect, a responsibility decidedly embarrassing.

So that there was a motive on both sides for desiring that instead of a protective policy there should be a self-denying ordinance in treaty form, which would bind European states not to intervene at least except in the plainest case of denied justice, and in no case on financial grounds.

Señor Charles Calvo must have the credit of being first in trying to bring this about. The Calvo Doctrine, however, was too broad, too thoroughgoing. It denied the validity of both diplomatic and armed intervention by one state in the affairs of another, for the enforcement of “any or all private claims of a pecuniary nature, at least such as are based upon contract or are the result of civil war, insurrection, or mob violence," claiming that foreigners are not entitled to greater protection than nationals in case of injury. Our own practice negatives this theory; it was narrowed and simplified by Dr. Drago.

The Drago Doctrine forbade the forcible collection of public debts. It was contained in a note to the Argentine Minister at Washington, written by Drago as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was called out by the threat

1 Hershey, Int. Law. p. 162, n.

ened intervention in Venezuela of three European Powers. It was widely commented on. This was in December, 1902.

Arguing that forcible collection of debts implies territorial occupation; that such occupation easily entails conquest; that a state is bound to pay its debts but may choose its own time and convenience, that any other course is in derogation of State sovereignty, Dr. Drago suggested that the United States recognize the principle that "the public debt of an American state can not occasion armed intervention, nor even the actual occupation of the territory of American nations by a European Power.” Secretary Hay answered in a non-committal way, but President Roosevelt in his message of December 5, 1905, gave this doctrine his warm approval, asserting that our own practice had always been in accord with it. For a full discussion of these two doctrines the reader is referred to Professor Hershey's article on the subject in the very first number of this JOURNAL.

The third Pan-American Conference in Rio de Janeiro, in 1906, presented this subject to the attention of the Second Hague Conference with such effect, backed as it was by the United States, that the Conference adopted a convention respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts. The gist of this is found in Article 1 as follows:

The contracting Powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its nationals. This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor state refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or after accepting the offer, prevents any compromise from being agreed on, or after the arbitration fails to submit to the award.

This was by 1914 ratified by only seventeen out of the forty-five participants in the Conference and there were many reservations to the signatures. Yet it is a long step forward toward the avoidance of conflicts between states on pecuniary grounds. It is neither the Calvo nor the Drago Doctrine, being narrower than either and conditionally authorizing the use of force in debt collection as an eventuality. But both the Calvo and Drago Doctrines led up to it, particularly the latter.

With the German fleet at the bottom of Scapa Flow, a limitation of armament conference on the tapis, and the world in a chastened frame of mind, probably the efforts of Dr. Drago are nearer fruition than they ever were during his lifetime.


ERNEST NYS, 1851-1920 In the death of M. Ernest Nys on September 5, 1920, the science of international law lost one of its most fruitful contributors, internationalism a leading advocate, the University of Brussels perhaps its most distinguished professor, and Belgium one of her most eminent jurists and publicists.

Professor Nys was born at Coutrai, Belgium, in 1851, and received his higher education at the Universities of Ghent, Heidelberg, Leipzig, and Berlin. Later he was granted honorary degrees by the Universities of Oxford, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. He began life as a member of the bench at Antwerp—his judicial career culminating in his appointment as member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and President of the Chamber in the Court of Appeals at Brussels.

It was, however, in pursuance of his duties as Professor of International Law at the University of Brussels, and as one of the editors of the Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, that he was most active as a contributor to the science of international law. For many years preceding the Great War, the files of the Revue bear witness to his prolific researches in the history of international law, more particularly during the Middle Ages. In 1894 many of these studies were published in book form under the title Les Origines du Droit International. This interesting collection was followed by two others (in 1896 and 1901 respectively) bearing the title Etudes de Droit International et de Droit Public. These volumes constitute a treasure containing a mine of historical research for any library that possesses them.

It would be impossible for us to give anything like a complete résumé or even bibliography of the many and various writings of Professor Nys. They include, for example, a valuable introduction to the text and translation of Francisci de Victoria's De Indis et de jure belli relectiones, published by the Carnegie Institution at Washington, in 1917. Suffice it to say that the work of Professor Nys as an authority on international law culminated in a sense in the publication (in three volumes, 1904-06) of a treatise entitled Le Droit International, Les Principes, Les Theories, Les Faits. This work was characterized by great learning, originality and vigor, and is a distinct contribution to the history and theoretical development of our science.

M. Nys was a distinguished member of a number of learned societies, including the Institute of International Law, of which he was a very active member, and the American Society of International Law, of which he was one of the few honorary members.

The writer of this memorial notice never had the good fortune of personal contact with Professor Nys; but if a deep and sympathetic appreciation of a man's writings confers a title of friendship, then one may perhaps be permitted to express a strong sense of personal sorrow over the passing of this wise, cultivated and liberal spirit. Certainly the cause of internationalism has suffered a great loss.




With the advent of peace in Europe, consequent upon the deposit of rati. fications of the Treaty of Versailles on January 10, 1920, the trustees of the Nobel Peace Prize were able to consider in an atmosphere of peace the services rendered to the cause of peace.

The peace prize was not awarded in 1914, 1915 or 1916. It was felt that the award for 1917 might properly be made to the International Red Cross of Geneva. This was accordingly done. No further award was made until December 10, 1920, when the peace prize for the year 1919 was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, then President of the United States, and for 1920 to Léon Bourgeois, of France.

The awards to these eminent publicists are not difficult to understand. Mr. Wilson had, before the entry of the United States into the World War, labored incessantly to bring the war to a close. After the armistice of November 11, 1918, he sought to secure a peace which would, in his opinion, render less likely, if it could not wholly prevent, the recurrence of future wars.

The case of Mr. Bourgeois, if not stronger, extends over a longer period of years. His advocacy of arbitration at the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, was largely responsible for the acceptance of the Pacific Settlement Convention of that body. To his championship of peaceful settlement at the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907, is likewise due in large measure whatever was accomplished in that line at that gathering, in which Germany blocked, as it seemed to many, every approach to peace. Mr. Bourgeois' advocacy of the League of Nations was the advocacy in concrete form of an intimate association of nations of which he had been the champion for many years.

That the award to each falls within the scope of the Nobel Prize is evident from the following extract from the will of Alfred Nobel, which creates, “a fifth [prize] to the person who shall have done most or the best work in the interest of the brotherhood of peoples, of the abolition or reduction of standing armies, as well as of the formation and propagation of peace congresses."

It is interesting to note the manner in which each recipient acknowledged the prize. Thus, Mr. Wilson said in a letter read by the American Minister to Norway:

In accepting the honor of your award, I am moved by the recognition of my sincere and earnest efforts in the cause of peace, but also by the very poignant humility beforo the vastness of the work still called for by this cause.

« ПретходнаНастави »