« ПретходнаНастави »
results, and it is easily seen that the unfortunate Englishman may find his status suspended indefinitely between the devil and the deep blue sea.
In conclusion, it may be said that this little book will doubtless prove of considerable value, especially to those practitioners who may have occasion to bring or defend suits in France or to advise clients as to the conduct of business in that country.
RALEIGH C. MINOR.
The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth. By Hiram Bingham.
Yale University Press. 1913. pp. ix, 154. $1.15 net. The name chosen for this book is more startling than the proposals which it makes. It has had the desired effect of attracting attention; but because of it the book has probably met with more condemnation than praise, in the United States at least. What the author proposes to do could be done without any abandonment either formal or informal of the Monroe Doctrine. It is not so much a substitute for as an extension of the old doctrine.
In his preface the author says:“What has been attempted is to sketch the growth of the Doctrine, to indicate the obligations and disadvantages it entails, and, more particularly, to portray the attitude toward it, and toward us, of our neighbors to the south. I have also suggested, very briefly, the outlines of a new foreign policy. It is evident that the problems which are likely to arise in the future will require something more than the mere negation of outgrown doctrines.”
He admits that the doctrine “has had a very decided effect upon the history of the western hemisphere," and that without it “the American republics would have found it very much more difficult to maintain their independence." But he shows that there have been changes in the Latin states which he thinks makes it no longer a necessity for them. Furthermore, he shows that there have been great changes in the doctrine itself as it has been interpreted by recent administrations, and that in its later form it is much more distasteful to the Latin states. Secretary Olney's declaration in 1895 in connection with the Venezuela boundary controversy he finds chiefly responsible for this "new Monroe Doctrine." He argues that several of Mr. Olney's assertions were based on false assumptions, and cites very good authority in support of his views. Several extracts from messages of President Roosevelt show the further development of the new doctrine during his administration; and the Lodge resolution of 1912 illustrates the “last phase."
He cites more than a dozen acts of the United States during the last thirty years which were insulting to the Latin states and for which the only justification is the Monroe Doctrine; and says that it "interferes with the natural desires," and "clashes with the sovereign rights of independent states.” He shows that the United States is continually in danger of complications with European states because of unavoidable interferences in their dealings with Latin American states. Foreign loans made to the Latin countries by capitalists in Europe are the chief source of danger. He asserts that “European countries have the right to look to us to do that which we prevent them from doing.”
In his section on Latin American opinion concerning the doctrine he declares that its continuance “is insulting and is bound to involve us in serious difficulties with our neighbors.” He dwells on the territorial, numerical, and commercial strength of the three leading countries, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, and declares that they are "abundantly able to take care of themselves and are in a position to laugh at the old Monroe Doctrine." He quotes from many prominent South Americans showing their hatred of and contempt for the attitude of the United States. He has discovered a considerable agitation in these countries of which the purpose is to induce their governments to prepare to resist what they regard as “The North American Peril.” Even sincere declarations of good will and sympathy on the part of the United States for the Latin countries are looked upon with suspicion, and considered mere polite statements intended to hide a real desire for aggrandizement. Secretary Root's speeches during his South American tour were so misinterpreted.
He asserts that the doctrine is a hindrance rather than a help to the United States in maintaining not only the friendship and good will of the Latin Powers, but in opening up profitable commercial relations.
The constructive part of this very interesting and suggestive essay contained in the closing pages. He says: “Let us bury the Monroe Doctrine and declare an entirely new policy, a policy that is based on intelligent appreciation of the present status of the leading American Powers; let us declare our desire to join with the 'ABC' Powers in protecting the weaker parts of America against any imaginable aggressions by the European or Asiatic nations." A little further on, he says: "If it is necessary to maintain order in some of the weaker and more restless republics, why not let the decision be made, not by ourselves, but by a congress of leading American Powers? If it is found necessary to send
armed forces into Central America to quell rebellions that are proving too much for the recognized governments, why not let those forces consist not only of American marines, but of the marines of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile as well?"
It is correct to call this "an entirely new policy" so far as its having been tried is concerned. The idea is not entirely new, however, although it had not been discussed widely before this book was published. The Adams-Clay administration within three years after the original declaration were expressing ideas very similar to this in their instructions to ministers. They did not propose a formal alliance, indeed, and it is a serious question as to whether that would be a wise course now, or necessary to accomplish the end proposed. They suggested that the governments of other American countries be invited to declare sentiments similar to those contained in Monrae's message. Their idea seems to have been to have any or all join in the declaration, instead of limiting it to the most powerful as now suggested. To so limit the understanding would involve invidious distinctions. As suggested in the beginning of this review, it is not necessary to “bury the Monroe Doetrine" in order to adopt the new policy.
Wm. R. MANNING.
The Neutrality Laws of the United States. By Charles G. Fenwick.
Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1913.
pp. xii, 201. This report on the neutrality laws of the United States was prepared by the author in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “that the Division of International Law, be, and it is hereby directed to examine and report to the Board upon the neutrality laws of the United States, and to suggest in their report improvements tending to make them more efficient.” It is not unlikely that the resolution was inspired by events in Mexico, but the breaking out of a great European war comparable to that which called the neutrality laws of the United States into existence makes the publication of the report especially opportune.
A short chapter is devoted to the character and scope of neutrality laws. The author then takes up more in detail the history and development of the neutrality laws of the United States, their authoritative interpretation, and the deficiencies in them. He then gives the draft of an amended neutrality act and concludes with an appendix containing
statutes, resolutions, proclamations and instructions bearing on the text.
It is not an uncommon error to confuse traffic in contraband articles, which may be suppressed by the belligerent whom it would injure, with the unneutral conduct of individuals which, within its borders, it is the duty of the neutral state to suppress. It is hard for the uninitiated to see why a neutral government should allow the clearance for a belligerent port of a ship loaded with munitions of war and yet refuse to a belligerent war ship within its ports a slight addition to its armament. Especially is this so where the neutral and the belligerent with whom the traffic is maintained are contiguous so that the other belligerent has no opportunity to suppress the traffic. The continuance or the discontinuance of the traffic may mean the success or failure of the belligerent's cause. It was considerations such as these that probably prompted the joint resolution of March 14, 1912, by which the President was authorized to regulate traffic in arms and munitions of war with any American country in which “conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States." When the domestic violence' does not assume the proportions of international war, it is clear that the international law of neutrality is not involved, but were the parties to the domestic violence recognized as belligerents by the United States there would be danger of confusing the dictates of the joint resolution with the requirements of the international law of neutrality, and this our author tells us was true even in the discussion arising out of the recent troubles in Mexico. So also the British Foreign Enlistment Act goes beyond the requirements of the international code in prohibiting British subjects from quitting British dominions with the intention of enlisting in the service of any foreign state at war with a friendly state. States may as a matter of policy go further than international obligation dictates and it is necessary to keep clearly in mind where the international obligation ends and the purely municipal regulation begins.
Of more importance, however, is the question whether the full measure of international obligation has been met, and the author points out numerous places where the Act of 1818 falls short of present standards of neutrality. It was the United States under the presidency of Washington which led the way to the modern law of neutrality, and it behooves us not to allow to slip from us the leadership which is so fittingly ours. The author has placed within easy reach the information on which a scientific overhauling of the Act of 1818 can be made and has drafted an amended Neutrality Act which may well be made the starting point of Congressional action. In an era of constructive legislation we should produce a Neutrality Act which will be a model for the world to follow.
La Autarquia Personal: Estudio de Derecho Internacional Privado. By
Dr. Antonio S. de Bustamante y Sirven. Habana: Imprenta “EI
Siglo XX” de Aurelio Miranda. 1914. pp. 269. "La Autarquia Personal,” being a study of private international law, by Dr. Antonio S. de Bustamante y Sirven, Professor of Public and Private International Law in the University of Havana and a member of the Hague Court, has just come from the Cuban press. It is a book of 270 pages, divided into fourteen chapters.
In seeking the meaning of the title, one looks in vain in Spanish dictionaries, but on reading the work, it is found that the author has had recourse to Greek words in order to express the exact meaning he wishes to convey. The word “autarquia” is derived from two Greek words, “autos," meaning one's self, and "arjo," meaning to command or to rule. These words he says express perfectly the idea of a zone or region of law in which one can act freely by himself and indicates also that this power does not result from a concession of another sovereign entity, but comes from the particular situation and the exigencies of that one who enjoys them.
As the sphere of international action of man grows, there is increase also of the necessity of recognizing the efficacy of his voluntary acts and of permitting that he select his law in all that which does not affect the collective interest of the state.
Chapter two is devoted to a discussion of Autarquia Personal in the science of law, as stated by different authors and international conferences. Chapter three deals with Autarquia Personal as found in the positive law, and the author quotes examples as seen in the codes of different countries of the world.
In chapter four the author states that laws of a country may be reduced for the national who lives in it to two great categories, imperative and voluntary or suppletory. For the stranger, law may be divided into three great groups, imperative, voluntary and inapplicable.
Chapter five deals with the concept of the laws of private order. The right which persons have to regulate, according to their will, a certain