of England and Germany, have formally declared themselves in favor of a League of this kind.

The American Institute of International Law, for its part, cannot accept this League, because, in its opinion, such an association would in reality be nothing more than a repetition of the attempt made in 1815 by the great Powers to enforce peace in Europe, which only resulted in their intervention in the internal and international affairs of the weaker states.

The Institute believes that the results aimed at by the League to Enforce Peace can be attained by other means of a more practical and less dangerous character.

What should these means be? Experience has shown how precarious and dangerous were the foundations upon which the great Powers endeavored to establish peace in Europe during the nineteenth century, the balance of political power, alliances, and armed peace, and the solid foundations upon which rests the society of American states,-free coöperation between all countries, as well as the rapprochement of their political and economic interests. The same lessons of history and of contemporary life show us of how great value in the reconstruction of international society is the work in which all the states of the world were engaged for the purpose of developing their common interests, but by correcting and completing this work in conformity with the experience and unanimous sentiments which have come to light in the course of the present war.

In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, it is necessary to establish institutions in which the general interests of mankind and of each separate continent can be considered and discussed. There is a great difference in this respect between Europe and America. Old World the great Powers have assumed the right of watching over the general interests of mankind, the other states having no effective initiative in this respect. In America two institutions have been created, the Pan American Union and the Pan American Conferences, composed of representatives of all the states of the continent, whose mission is to watch over the common interests of the continent. In practice these institutions have produced beneficent results, which must become still greater in future. The institutions to be created must be of a universal character, that is to say, in which all the states of the world are represented, for matters of universal interest; and of a continental character for questions of interest to each continent, every continent having problems and situations of interest to itself alone. In this way the states of Europe will be prevented from interfering in American affairs and there will not be attempts to force the states of our continent to interfere in purely European matters.

States must pursue the internationalization of their administrative departments by the centralization of "international unions" and the creation of others. They must also form an economic and commercial union, for the purpose of coördinating everything that relates to international commerce and the freedom of land and sea routes, and of centralizing information with regard to agricultural and industrial production. The services which the International Agricultural Institute has already rendered show the advantages of this kind of institution.

The American Institute of International Law adopted at its second session, which was held at Havana last January, ten recommendations known as the "Recommendations of Havana Concerning International Organization," which seek to bring about through the coöperation of all the states a better guarantee of peace in future. We wish to call special attention here to two of these recommendations: the creation of a council or committee of conciliation for disputes of a political nature, and of a truly international court of justice for disputes of a legal character. If the former institution is a new idea, the latter is a project of longstanding, which harks back to the Second Hague Conference, but made more complete at the present time. In America especially there is a desire that the court be modeled after the Supreme Court of the United States and the Central American International Court, both of them prototypes of an international court. It shall also be the mission of this court to interpret and develop the law in case of omissions in its provisions. This is merely an extension of the privilege granted to the Prize Court by the Twelfth Hague Convention. The American Institute of International Law has referred also for study to the various national societies two projects, one with regard to the creation of a committee of conciliation of a continental character for political matters, and the other concerning a court of arbitral justice.

Likewise, for the purpose of strengthening the bonds of friendship and of preventing disputes between states, it is necessary, as the Hague Conferences have already proclaimed, to extend the domain of law, in order that as little room as possible may be left for politics and arbitrariness.

The need of creating an international legislative organ to formulate. the rules which shall govern the relations between states is strongly felt, and it is generally agreed that the best course to follow to this end is to organize the Hague Peace Conferences in such a way as to make them periodic, in order that international law may be gradually and progressively codified. The Institute favors this idea in its Recommendations of Havana.

We now come to a very delicate and complex question: the reconstruction of the law which should govern the society of nations. Should this law be reconstituted, or merely revised in certain of its provisions, so that it will be henceforth practically what it has been in the past? The American Institute of International Law has, ever since its foundation, devoted itself entirely to the study of this question, and has reached the conclusion that it cannot be answered a priori, but that the course already pointed out should be followed: the experience of the past century and the aspirations of mankind. Taking these facts into consideration, the Institute is of the opinion that hereafter there must be important changes in international law itself, in its fundamental principles, in their underlying bases, rather than a mere revision.

Let me outline what the Institute has done or is now doing in this respect, full and detailed information being contained in the various publications which the Institute has thus far issued.

In the first place, the Institute deemed it necessary to proclaim and clearly define the fundamental rights and duties of states, about which, in spite of their importance, people have not heretofore been in complete agreement.

The American Institute of International Law adopted at its first session, which took place in Washington in 1916, a "Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations." This Declaration proclaims five fundamental rights: independence, liberty, equality, free development, and the state's exclusive sovereignty over its own territory. The importance of such a declaration consists not in the rights proclaimed, but in the limitations that these rights must receive: the general interest and solidarity that bind the countries constituting the society of nations. These limitations will give to such rights a very different character from the character they have had until now, especially with regard to the rights or powers that the states can exercise in virtue of such fundamental rights thus limited. The American Institute of International Law is now studying this important question, particularly the right of necessity, the right of intervention, and the right of diplomatic claims, which, in the opinion of some, are to be derived from the right of self-preservation.

Furthermore, international law must be Americanized, that is to say, American doctrines and points of view with respect to certain matters must be incorporated in it, which doctrines are distinguished by their liberal and democratic character, especially those relating to freedom of commerce, to diplomatic claims, etc.

Moreover, the defects and shortcomings which the experience of the past century has shown to exist in international law must be corrected,

especially in the matter of the sources of legal rules and of the principles to be followed in settling questions where no rules exist; the observance of legal rules must be insured by means of effective sanctions; and there must be a peaceful means of satisfying certain social aspirations or needs, means which do not exist to-day. The Secretary-General of the American Institute has submitted to the consideration of the national societies projects aiming to supply some of these deficiencies.

A branch of international law which especially should be modified is that relating to war and neutrality. Without having any illusions with regard to the absolute abolition of war, we must endeavor not only to make it more humane, which was the dominant object of the Hague Conferences, but to see to it that its laws are really observed.

The conception of neutrality must be changed radically. In future it must consist, not in burdens imposed upon neutrals for the benefit of belligerents, as it is to-day, but in the sanction of and respect for the rights of neutrals, particularly their commercial intercourse, which should not be violated or restricted by a state of war between other countries. From the beginning of its independence the United States has made itself the champion of the extension of the rights of neutrals; and President Wilson, in his various messages relating to the war, has brilliantly upheld these same rights in what he calls "the freedom of the seas." Secretary of State Lansing requested the American Institute of International Law at its first session to draw up a project favoring the rights of neutrals and freeing them from the burdens which international law has laid upon them. The Secretary General of the Institute prepared a project and presented it at the second session held in Havana, which is radical in the objects it proposes, for not only does it remove all restrictions on the rights of neutrals, but it also contemplates adequate means to insure respect for those rights. This project makes no attempt to favor the interests of either of the two groups of belligerents, as might have been supposed; it is therefore neither pro-Ally nor pro-Teutonic; it is American, that is to say, it reflects the aspirations. and interests of our continent in this matter. On the other hand, the project is not intended for immediate practical application; it is a plan to be carried into effect after the war is over. It is possible that public opinion, weary of the present calamity, will then be ready to accept the project which has been submitted to the Institute.

Finally, in order that the reform in international law may be really effective, it must be made complete by two other modifications which are closely connected with it: a new conception of diplomacy and a new conception of the study of international law. As regards the former, secret

treaties must hereafter be abolished and public opinion must control the discussion and direction of international affairs. As regards the study of international law, it must not favor national chauvinism, but be guided by the fine maxim, "Above all nations is humanity." The divergent theories of different schools in this branch of legal science must be harmonized; some of these divergences are irreducible, but there are others of them that can be smoothed away by a good uniform method of study. In America we must, by means of comparison, bring more closely together the doctrines of the Anglo-Saxon school represented by the United States and those of the continental school represented by Latin America, in order to discover the reason for these differences, and if it is impossible to blend them, at least to draw them together in their efforts, so as to form an American continental school which, by the liberality of its doctrines will surely exert a great influence on the future development of international law.

The CHAIRMAN. According to the program, there is now opportunity for discussion.

Mr. C. D. PUGSLEY. I agree with Dr. Scott that force of itself and by itself does not settle disputes, either between individuals or between nations, except as to which is physically the stronger; but I cannot subscribe to the proposition that either the principles of international or municipal law are self-executing. Dr. Scott has stated that a nation will be actuated by self-interest as to whether it adheres to a treaty or not, and, in the same way, I believe it will be actuated by a self-interest, whether it conforms to a decision of a court of arbitral justice or to a council of conciliation or to a court of arbitration. I feel that when the principles of law are once determined by an impartial tribunal, there must be some sanction to give effect to that law, and that it cannot be, of necessity, selfexecuting. I feel to-day that we are living in a time of national consciousness, with national organizations, and until the time arrives when we come to think as Dr. Scott has intimated, which will come by a process of education, by inculcating into succeeding generations the idea of observing to a certain extent the interests of sovereignties in the preservation of order and the welfare of the world — until that period has arrived, we have got to have the beginnings only of some plan of world organization by which reference shall be made to a court, and that some forum such as has been proposed, a league with some means of a joint force to enforce those decrees, will be necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further discussion?