« ПретходнаНастави »
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
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 aegis 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 Maitre 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
Status of Submarines,” a “Report of the Committee on Nationality and Registration,” a “Note on the Construction of the Definition of ‘British Subject’ in Sect. 1 of the Nationality Act, 1914,” by Sir Francis Piggott, “The Barbary States in the Law of Nations,” by J. E. G. de Montmorency, “A Maxim and a Wrong Deduction” (relating to the doctrine of “free ships, free goods”) by Sir Graham Bower, and “The Right of a Belligerent to Make War on a Neutral,” by J. Delatre Falconbridge. This paper is a reply to Professor Visscher, with whom the writer disagreed in respect to the legal effect of the violation of the Fifth Hague Convention relating to the ordinary rights of neutrality as applied to Belgium. (See Problems of the War. Wol. II.) JAMES L. Tryon.
PERIODICAL LITERATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
[See Table of References, p. 774.]
Aerial Navigation. De l'internationalité de la navigation aérienne. P. Contuzzi.
Finland. Finland and Germany during the war. Werner Soderlyelm. Current