familiar to students of international law. Instead of extracts from reviews, the opinion of Professor Nys in the second edition of his treatise on international law is quoted. "The recent work," he says, "of Mr. J. de Louter gives proof of a vast knowledge of the science, of a judicious spirit, and of a real power of reasoning. It is to be hoped that the two-volume Het Stellig Volkenrecht will be translated into French or into English, and thus rendered accessible to others than to Dutch and Flemish readers."

Lest it appear that the translation into French or English of de Louter's work would have what may be called merely an academic value, it should be said that during the trial of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries case at The Hague in 1910 British counsel relied upon certain statements contained in Professor de Louter's treatise, and American counsel were thus required to familiarize themselves with the doctrines of a work written in a language with which they were unfortunately unfamiliar, and which they could not in the limited time at their disposal master, as would have been the case, had it been written in a language more generally understood than Dutch.

Another illustration may perhaps be permitted. The distinguished Swedish publicist, Mr. Rikard Kleen, well known for his many writings on different phases of international law, which from time to time have appeared in French, had, like Professor de Louter, the patriotic desire to publish the first complete treatise on international law in his native language. This elaborate treatise is a sealed book except to those who read Swedish, and it is interesting to note in this connection that, although the volume dealing with the history and literature of international law was published a year after the appearance of de Louter's work, there is no mention of the latter in Mr. Kleen's text. A further illustration, if one were necessary, might be drawn from Russia, whose views upon international law must be admitted to have great importance in international relations. The treatise of the late Frederic de Martens has been translated both into German and into French, and by reason of this fact has had very great influence. The best work on the origin and nature of an international court which the Director knows was written in Russian by the late Count de Kamarowsky, and the history of the movement for its establishment, carefully traced by the learned author, is still the standard authority; but what influence would it have had, had it not been translated into French! The writings of contemporary Russian publicists, Messrs. Hrabar, Kasansky, Taube, and Nolde, are known only to the learned world by brief abstracts of them contained in book reviews, although Russian scholars rate them highly.

The Director believes that international peace can only be based upon justice, and that potent factors in bringing about and maintaining peace between nations are the development of a system of international law adequate to meet the needs of nations, and the dissemination of its just and enlightened principles.

The Director believes that one way to accomplish this is the translation of works of authority from the language of the original into foreign languages, so that they may be read and mastered by experts and students generally. He does not pretend that the mere translation and distribution of such works will effect an immediate change in public opinion or that the vast body of citizens or subjects of any country will avail themselves of the opportunity to read and to familiarize themselves with the works thus translated, but he does believe and states positively that the opinion of experts becomes ultimately the prevailing opinion, and that by means of journals of international law, societies of international law, instruction in the class room, and discussion in the press, the views of the few become the cause of the many.

Unwilling, however, to trust his own judgment on a matter of such importance and intricacy, the Director submitted the entire question to the Consultative Committee of the Institute of International Law at its meeting in Christiania, and the Committee unanimously recommended the translation, reprinting and dissemination, at a nominal price, of the best works on international law, and especially of works written in languages which reach but a limited circle of readers.

As the result of much thought and reflection, and after consultation with Professor Renault, it seemed best to organize a Bibliothèque Internationale du Droit des Gens and to place the series under the direction of a thoroughly competent person. It was felt by Professor Renault and others whom the Director consulted, that it might be advisable to translate a goodly number of books into English, French, German, and Spanish, and that for the German and Spanish section a German and a Spanish director should be appointed. It was decided, however, for the time being to try the experiment-for experiment it must be called on a limited scale, and to create a French section under the general editorship of Mr. A. G. de Lapradelle, professor of international law in the University of Paris. The Director laid such a proposition before the Executive Committee at its meeting on December 20, 1913, and the Executive Committee authorized the Director to establish at Paris a Bibliothèque Internationale du Droit des Gens under the directorship of A. G. de Lapradelle for the supervision and editing of the translation into the French language of such works on international law as may be authorized by the Executive Committee. Professor de Lapradelle had previously expressed his willingness to act as director, and, in consultation with Professor Renault and other distinguished publicists, he has recommended the translation of a number of volumes. Arrangements are now being made with Professor de Lapradelle and with the Clarendon Press, the Endowment's foreign publisher, for the publication and inclusion in the series of the following works: Lawrence-The Principles of International Law; Liszt-Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts; de Louter-Het Stellig Volkenrecht; Scott-The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907; Westlake: International Law.

Publication of Treatises on International Law

Closely related to, but not identical with, the proposal to translate works written by authors in languages making but a limited appeal to the outer world, is the suggestion which the Director makes to the Executive Committee and to the Board of Trustees, without, however, proposing to carry it out at the present time, that the publicists of countries not having a treatise on international law written in the national language by a publicist of the country, be encouraged to prepare and publish treatises on international law. In so far as the proposal relates to the translation of existing treatises or monographs on international law, it may be said to be identical; in so far, however, as it relates to the future—that is to say, to treatises or monographs to be prepared and published,-it is different. But notwithstanding the apparent partial similarity, the proposal is in reality different and is meant to subserve an entirely different purpose. The first project aims to place before students of international law books or tractates of importance to them by reason of the excellence of the writing. The fact that such works are published in languages little read or understood by the great international public is only an additional reason for their translation. The present proposal, however, aims to make generally known the views of publicists of the different countries-in so far as those views can be said to reflect national opinion and practicewithout making their translation depend solely upon the excellence or importance of their contents, the purpose being to make known these views and, by means of translation and publication, to familiarize the public with the conceptions of international law prevailing in each country forming a part of the society of nations. It is not maintained that these volumes have an official character, even though they may represent the views of the governments whereof the writers are subjects or citizens; but in the absence of an official declaration of their practice they are, it is believed, the nearest approach. They can not, for example, be compared to Professor Moore's International Law Digest, which, although prepared by a private citizen-for Mr. Moore was not connected with the government during its preparation, was issued as an official document, and rightly so, for, although Mr. Moore quotes the views of text writers and constantly states in his own language fundamental principles of international law, the work is based upon the practice of the United States as it is to be gathered from official communications of Secretaries of State, official opinions of Attorneys General, or decisions of courts of justice on matters of international law. The preparation and publication of such a work by the governments of the world would have a value which it is impossible to overestimate; but it is believed that governments could not be induced to follow the example of the United States which, in this matter, stands alone. If it could be done, the material for the codification of international law would exist in an official form, and it would be possible to undertake seriously the work of codification with the hope of success. In the absence, however, of such

a digest as Professor Moore's, the preparation, translation and publication of works of the kind specified would, as has been said, be the nearest approach to an official statement of the views of the different governments that can be hoped for at present. The case is comparatively simple with existing literature, although in case of more than one treatise, a sound discretion must be exercised in the choice of the work. The importance of the project, however, as the Director conceives it, lies in the inducement to competent publicists of the different countries which do not have treatises on international law to prepare works on international law in their native languages; for they will know that, in addition to appealing to their countrymen, they will also appeal to the outside world, if the work is well done, merits translation, and actually is translated, published and circulated in French or in some other language generally understood.

The project thus stated might appear to make an appeal solely to material or selfish interests, for it is supposed that the writer is induced to prepare the work in order to become known to his countrymen and the world at large. Such, indeed, may be the consequence, but it is not the moving cause. Messrs. Kleen and de Louter did not write their works respectively in Swedish and in Dutch from any such motive, but for the purpose of giving their countrymen what they had not hitherto possessed-authoritative treatises on international law in their native languages. It is believed that these are not isolated cases, and that there are many competent persons in many countries who are deterred from publishing treatises for the benefit of their countrymen only by the fact that there would be little demand at home and none abroad. If, however, we regard a knowledge of international law as of value to the people at large, the publication of such books popularizes international law by disseminating its principles, and, if we further believe that the cause of international peace is advanced as the result of a correct understanding of principles of international law, it is easy to see that the Endowment, through its Division of International Law, would be justified in aiding the preparation, publication and distribution of treatises on international law in countries where they do not exist. But, as stated before, there would inevitably result from the translation and distribution of such works a larger knowledge of international law and international practice, so that the world at large would be the beneficiary. There is a great advantage in such treatises, which, as it does not lie upon the surface, should be stated lest it be overlooked. The mere existence of these treatises would tend to force the governments to respect and apply the principles of law contained in them, because it is common practice for text-books in foreign languages to be regarded as expressing, to a greater or lesser degree, the views of the countries whereof the authors are citizens or subjects; and foreign nations cite the authorities and rely upon them with insistence when the views of the writers happen to support their contentions. In speaking of the importance of the views of publicists, Sir Robert Phillimore says

in his Commentaries upon International Law that "if the authority of Zouche, of Lee, of Mansfield, and, above all, of Stowell, be against the demand of England— if Valin, Domat, Pothier, and Vattel be opposed to the pretensions of France-if Grotius and Bynkershoek confute the claim of Holland-Puffendorf that of Sweden-if Heineccius, Leibnitz, and Wolff array themselves against Germany-if Story, Wheaton, and Kent condemn the act of America, it can not be supposed (except, indeed, in the particular epoch of a revolution, when all regard to law is trampled under foot) that the argumentum ad patriam would not prevail-at all events, it can not be doubted that it ought to prevail, and should the country relying upon such authority be compelled to resort to arms, that the guilt of the war would rest upon the antagonist refusing to be bound by it".* Sir Robert Phillimore here speaks as a writer, although he was a judge as well, and in the course of his career passed upon and decided many important questions of international law. As, however, his views in his Commentaries may be considered academic, or at least abstract, as he was not considering a particular case and applying the doctrine he stated, a famous passage may be quoted from the great Lord Stowell, who, in deciding the case of the Swedish convoy, said: "If authority is required, I have authority-and not the less weighty in this question for being Swedish authority; I mean the opinion of that distinguished person-one of the most distinguished which that country (fertile as it has been of eminent men) has ever produced-I mean Baron Puffendorf. *** In the opinion, then, of this wise and virtuous Swede * his words are memorable. I do not overrate their importance when I pronounce them to be well entitled to the attention of his country".

The treatises which the Director has in mind are not treatises to be prepared by young men who have studied in foreign countries and have lost the national point of view without perhaps having assimilated the international, but treatises by men trained in theory and chastened by experience. Believing, as the Director does, that every treatise on international law bears traces of the nationality of its writer, he ventures to suggest that the treatise to be prepared in any particular country should be a national treatise, one frankly national, which should not pretend to state international law as a universal system and render such statement nugatory by national interpretation. The idea is to set forth, in so far as possible, international law as understood and practised in a particular country, for as it is bound to be more or less true in any event, the book will be more valuable if it speaks with absolute frankness, sincerity and accuracy. It is not meant by this that the treatise should reject the idea that international law is a universal system, but that, admitting and stating it to be such, the book should at one and the same time show in what manner and to what extent the universal system has been accepted, interpreted and applied by his country. The Director does not *Sir Robert Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (3d edition), vol. 1,

pp. 64-65.