is due above all to international convention. He shows that, according to Savigny, a system of universal justice is considered as the foundation of the extra-territoriality of laws, but that his theory lacks scientific value. His conclusion is that extra-territoriality is not founded on the principles of justice.

This work shows a large amount of study and research. The standing of the distinguished writer justifies its careful study in order that those who are interested in international law may profit by the views he offers and by the examples he sets forth. The book is among the notable contributions of South American internationalists during the past year. WALTER S. PENFIELD.

Éléments d'Introduction générale à l'Étude des Sciences juridiques. I: La Définition du Droit. By Henri Lévy-Ullmann. Paris: Recueil Sirey. 1917. pp. 176. 10 fr.

The remark of Kant that jurists still are attempting to discover an acceptable definition of law is as true today as it was when the Critique of Pure Reason was first printed. There are only a handful of sciences which can successfully construct definitions-mathematics, pure mechanics, logic. The rest, which do not deal with an arbitrary subject-matter, never arrive at more than provisional, utilitarian, and hypothetical definitions. Would it not be more useful if the effort had been made, not to attempt another hypothetical definition to be added to an already considerable list of ventures in this direction, but to investigate the bases of legal definitions, the considerations which may or do enter into the construction of such definitions? No thoroughgoing effort of this kind seems to be recorded. That at least would be a novelty, which the search for a definition of law is not. Among such considerations (some of which are discussed by the author in a criticism of previous definitions) are the various metaphysical and practical points of view, the genetic, historical, comparative, and dogmatic approaches, causal and teleological methods, sources, forms of expression, forms of application, sustaining factors, etc.

There are two general types of definitions, the material (of which the sociological definitions are examples, e.g., Jhering, Duguit) and the formal (of which the author notes the definition of Zachariæ as an example). The author takes a middle ground by departing from the method of Jhering to arrive at a new formal method. Juridical

definition, says the author, has a double task, that of precision or the disengaging from the idea to be defined of the specific characteristics which distinguish it from other notions of the same kind, and that of evocation, which exhibits its relations. His provisional formula of precision is that "law is the delimitation of what may be done or may not be done without incurring [the risk of] a judgment, attachment, or a special use of force." With the aid of evocation, his definition reads: "law is the delimitation of what man and human groups have the liberty of doing or not doing without incurring [the risk of] a judgment, an attachment, or a special use of force."

The author has consciously made a definition broad enough to transpose international practice from the field of morals or deportment to the realm of law. ALBERT KOCOUREK.

The Grotius Society. Problems of the War. Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1916. London: Sweet and Maxwell, Limited. 1917. pp. xxv+178. 6 s. net.

This volume contains an introduction by Professor H. Goudy, Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford, Vice President of the Grotius Society (founded in 1915), and the following papers: "The Treatment of Enemy Aliens," by Sir Ernest Satow, "The Appam," by Hugh H. L. Bellot, "The Principles Underlying the Doctrine of Contraband and Blockade," by J. E. G. de Montmorency, "War Crimes: Their Prevention and Punishment," by Hugh H. L. Bellot, "The Nationality and Domicil of Trading Corporations," by Ernest J. Schuster, "Neutrals and Belligerents in Territorial Waters," by Sanford D. Cole, "De la Belligerance dans ses Rapports avec la Violation de la Neutralité," by Professor Ch. de Visscher, "The Effect of the War on International Law," by Rev. T. J. Lawrence, "International Leagues," by W. R. Bisschop, "The Enforcement of the Hague Conventions," by W. Evans Darby, "The Treatment of Civilians in Occupied Territories," by Sir Alfred Hopkins, "War Treason," by Professor J. H. Morgan, "Destruction of Merchantmen by a Belligerent," by Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart.

It is impossible to summarize the papers here presented, but suffice it to say that they are practical discussions of questions relating immediately to the war, in which there is interwoven historical matter of technical value relating to the origin and progress of the legal doc

trines considered. Although the writers represent an avowedly British society, their viewpoint is international. Their moral tone is severe, as is evidenced by their condemnation of Germany's extension of the law of military necessity, but it is high, and while there is justification of reprisals, there is no vengeful insistence upon retaliation. Throughout the volume there is manifested a desire for reform that will appeal to men of good heart everywhere, although they may not accede to all the suggestions offered. At the end of some of the papers is a questionnaire as to points raised in the text which encourages the reader to investigate them for himself. Of speculation as to reorganization for permanent peace after the war, in which Americans are apt to be especially interested, there is very little, but there is a realization of the difficulties in the way, which we often overlook, and a critical analysis of the plan of the League to Enforce Peace.

Looking forward to improvements in the laws of war and neutrality, Dr. de Montmorency favors putting upon neutrals the burden of restraining their citizens in the export of munitions rather than imposing it upon belligerents. In his opinion their enforcement of the law of contraband is but a form of self-help, which is a crude stage of the law; and he believes that if, in 1793, the United States had forbidden traffic in duly notified lists of contraband and put a ban on running cargoes through adequately blockaded areas, instead of justifying trade in arms, this country would have conferred a lasting benefit on mankind. Mr. Cole, following a tendency in the other writers to exalt international public opinion above force as a sanction, proposes that laws regulating the rights and obligations of belligerents in neutral territorial waters should not be referred as formerly to the physical force that one nation, the offended neutral, can exercise, but should be based on the sanction of the general opinion of civilized people, in whose interest international law should be made. He proposes strengthening the position of neutrals and restricting the facilities allowed to belligerents. Voicing the popular demand for the punishment of war crimes, Dr. Bellot suggests that during the war the Allies should notify the Central Empires that not only the authors and instigators of outrages upon humanity, but also the actual perpetrators of all violations of the laws and usages of war, whether the offenders are acting under orders or not, will be held as war criminals. He proposes an after-the-war conference of the Powers for the revision of the rules of war in the light of present experience, and suggests

that to each offense there should be attached an appropriate penalty, but he would also provide for appeals in certain cases from courtsmartial to higher criminal courts of the captor country or to a Hague criminal court of appeal, if instituted, and he suggests that this Hague court might be given original jurisdiction for the trial and punishment of offenders. Dr. Lawrence, who feels that in respect to atrocities the situation is worse than it was when Grotius wrote his great book, believes that a more comprehensive revision of the Hague règlement and other texts is required, and that it may be necessary to establish neutral tribunals to try breaches of it. Like his colleagues, he realizes that this war, fought under new conditions, by whole nations in arms instead of armies alone, has evolved new methods and established new precedents, some of which are of doubtful validity. He is against the indiscriminate sowing of mines in the seas. Allowing for differences in the spirit and method of the belligerents, he criticizes the wide extension of war zones as an infringement of the freedom of the seas. He deplores the illegal use of submarines, but sees in their increase in size a possibility of their conforming, except that they travel under sea, to the customs of regular cruisers in respect to search and capture. He is of opinion that there will have to be a new statement of the law of contraband and blockade. Sir Walter Phillimore favors reprisals now, but after the war a convention for the better protection of the lives and property of neutrals.

The two writers who turn aside from the laws of war and neutrality to discuss international peace reorganization see merit in the plan for the League to Enforce Peace as compared with the present chaos, but neither accepts it. Dr. Bisschop, however, who discusses unions, likes its leading idea of creating machinery to secure delay before a power can go to war. Dr. Darby objects to the military aspect of the plan of enforcement as a peace-making measure and regards it as a setback to the Hague procedure. He prefers the sanction of public opinion to that of armed force. He is inclined to suspect the proposition of the League as an alliance for the domination of the world by the United States in the interests of peace and the regulation of backward nations, but comes out for the anticipative and preventive principle of international federation, of which he cites the United States. as an example. We fear, however, that Dr. Darby misunderstands. the origin of the plan of the League and that he may also have confused the treaties for the advancement of peace, sometimes called

the Bryan treaties, with the Hay or with the Taft arbitration treaties. But now that our troops are in France he can no longer, as in 1916, say that our national attitude towards the issues of the war is one of sensitiveness towards our own selfish interests, but of silence towards the nonobservance of Hague conventions or violations of international law that only concern other countries. JAMES L. TRYON.

La Neutralidad y la Beligerancia de la República de Cuba durante la Guerra actual. By Gustavo Gutierrez. Habana: Imprenta "El Siglo XX" de Aurelio Miranda. 1917. pp. 154.

This little brochure was prepared by the author for his doctorate degree in the University of Habana and is likely to prove useful for those who desire some information relative to the Cuban point of view of the pending war and of the steps leading up to the declaration of war by Cuba. The author finds Cuba in war with the German Government for two reasons, one referring to the law of nations, and the other to its international political situation, determined in this case by the bonds uniting it to the United States. He strongly dissents, however, from the position which he finds taken by the Cuban President, that there exists a veritable alliance between Cuba and the United States.

The writer apparently takes satisfaction in the fact that Cuba, in making use of the right to declare war and peace, which belongs to all sovereign nations, has affirmed its international personality as an independent nation, while, because of its physical situation, with reference to the Panama Canal and the nations of the south, he believes that its military, commercial and political importance is bound to augment very rapidly. He looks forward to Cuba bringing forth all its forces on the termination of this war to the end that the nations of America and others of the world may be induced to maintain the neutrality of his country. As giving a glimpse, therefore, of the attitude of some Cubans, the work has its special value.

JACKSON H. RALSTON.

BOOKS RECEIVED

(Mention here does not preclude an extended notice in a later issue of the JOURNAL.)

North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration at The Hague Argument