Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]

It was largely owing to the Latin American representation that some thirty nations agreed to ratify the convention of 1911-2 and to pass the necessary legislation to enforce it. It was seen by the European diplomats that there were no serious difficulties between the United States and the sister republics of the American continent, and that Article 22 of the convention had simply proved that on large diplomatic, economic and humanitarian questions the twenty-one republics would stand shoulder to shoulder.

Yet, during the nine days of the Second Conference the American delegates were frequently reminded that the United States and the Netherlands acting together had not been able to persuade Peru to accept the convention of 1911-2, with a large financial loss to herself. But Minister Pezet was watching the action of the Second Conference.

The delegates of some thirty Powers representing Europe, America and Asia had no sooner affixed their signatures to a protocol which ratified the International Opium Convention and provided for its general effectuation, than came a cablegram to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands notifying him that the Peruvian Government had instructed its minister plenipotentiary to sign the convention and agree to its ratification.

This action of Peru was noble; especially in view of the fact that as a Treaty Power with China, neglect on her part would have meant irreparable damage to the large plan of the United States, and evil consequences to China in her great effort to shake herself loose from the opium traffic.

Thus when the Second International Opium Conference adjourned at The Hague on July 9, 1913, every Latin American state had favorably answered the call of the American Government of April 15, 1912. Europe saw that the Americas were as one on any sane issue designed to be accomplished at The Hague.

The recent Second Pan American Scientific Congress stamps this great fact beyond dispute. He who runs may read.



This Congress met at Washington December 27, 1915, and adjourned on January 8, 1916, after what has been universally considered a remarkably successful meeting. The programs of the Subsections on International Law, Public Law, and Jurisprudence, printed in the JOURNAL for October, 1915, pages 916, 921 and 922 were carried out in general, with the modifications that always have to be made in a congress of a non-political kind, and even in political congresses. It is stated on high authority that there are two things you can always expect from them. One is that it will do something, and the other that it will not carry out its program. It is not necessary to restate the programs, which were only slightly modified, or to dwell upon the nature, scope or value of the proceedings, because the Final Act of the congress will shortly be published, with an official report in the nature of an interpretative commentary.

The complete list of recommendations of the congress are unfortunately both too numerous and too lengthy to be reproduced here, but it is proper briefly to refer to the recommendations on the subject of international law.

In the first place, it should be said that the articles of the Final Act dealing with international law are based upon the recommendations of the Conference of American Teachers of International Law, held at Washington, April 23-25, 1914, upon the invitation of the American Society of International Law at its eighth annual meeting. The recommendations of the Teachers' Conference were submitted to and approved by the Executive Council of the Society, which in turn transmitted the recommendations involving the expenditure of money to the Division of International Law of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with the recommendation that steps be taken to carry them into effect. The Executive Committee of the Endowment approved the recommendations referred to, expressed its willingness to co-operate with the American Society of International Law in rendering them effective, and the Trustees of the Endowment have approved this action of their committee.

The recommendations thus vouched for and now approved by a scientific congress of the Americas and signed by the official delegates of twenty-one nations authorized to sign the Final Act thereof, have more than a passing interest since they make an international as distinguished from a national appeal, and are therefore worthy of very great consideration.

Briefly summarized, the recommendations are:

The preparation and publication of a bibliography of international law and related subjects, and of a carefully prepared index-digest of

Printed in the Proceedings of the Society for 1914, p. 315.

the heads and subheads on international law, with references thereto; the collection and publication, in cheap and convenient form, of official documents, both foreign and domestic, bearing upon international law; the publication of an international law reporter of judgments of national courts involving questions of international law, the sentences of arbitral tribunals, and the awards of mixed commissions. This recommendation was intended to supply the public with material both interesting and indispensable to the study of international law. Another recommendation aims to increase the courses and the time devoted to international law in American institutions of learning. Another article concerns the teaching of international law, and recommends that emphasis be laid upon the positive nature of the subject and the definiteness of the rules; that international law be not made the occasion of a universal peace propaganda; that concrete cases be considered; that accepted rules of international law be distinguished from questions of international policy; and that the experience of no one country be allowed to assume undue importance; that the higher students of American institutions of learning be encouraged to continue their studies in different countries, preferably in the Academy of International Law at The Hague when that institution is started; that international law be treated on a plane of equality with other subjects in the curricula of colleges and universities; and that professorships or departments devoted to its study be established where they do not exist; that law schools be earnestly requested to include international law in their courses of study; that in institutions where instruction in international law is lacking, steps be taken to secure the presence of visiting professors, who should be invited to give courses, not isolated lectures on matters of passing interest; that specialized courses be established in institutions in preparation for the diplomatic and consular services; that the study of international law be required in specialized courses in preparation for business; that in studying and teaching international law in American institutions, special stress be laid upon problems affecting the American public, and upon doctrines of American origin; and, finally, the congress extended to the American Institute of International Law "a cordial welcome into the circle of scientific organizations of Pan America, and records a sincere wish for a successful career, and the achievement of the highest aims of its important labors.” The recommendations will, it is to be hoped, not fall upon deaf ears, for, as Mr. Root has so often pointed out, democracy has come to its own; and, if it is to ex


ercise a high and fruitful influence in international relations, the people must be impressed with a sense of their duties as well as with a knowledge of their rights.




[ocr errors]

Pursuant to the arrangements previously announced," the ninth annual meeting of the Society was held in Washington, December 28– 30, 1915, in connection with the meeting of the Subsection on International Law of the Second Pan American Scientific Congress.

The meeting was opened on Thursday evening by the Honorable Elihu Root, President of the Society, who delivered his presidential address before an audience that taxed the capacity of the large meeting place. The subject of his address was “The Outlook for International Law"2 in which, while recognizing the difficulties under which international law now labors, he asserted that its development into a more definite body of rules with less uncertain means for insuring their enforcement will be a necessary prerequisite to the re-establishment and maintenance of the normal relations of intercourse between nations, and he indicated in a general way the steps which must be taken in order to place the science upon a firmer and more practicable basis. This address made a fitting keynote for the remarks which followed throughout the remainder of the meeting.

The opening session being a joint meeting with the Subsection on International Law of the Congress, Mr. Root was followed by two speakers on the program of the Subsection, namely, the Honorable John Bassett Moore and Professor George Grafton Wilson, who delivered scholarly papers upon "The Relation of International Law to National Law in American countries.” The session ended with a suggestive discourse by Professor Norman Dwight Harris of Northwestern University, who spoke for the Society upon "The Duties and Obligations of Neutral Governments, parties to the Hague Conventions, in case of actual or threatened violations by Belligerents of the stipulations of the said Conventions."

The second session, held on Wednesday morning, was likewise a joint meeting between the Society and the Subsection on International Law.

See the JOURNAL for October, 1915, p. 915. 2 Reprinted in this JOURNAL, p. 1.

[ocr errors]

On this occasion Professor Theodore S. Woolsey and Mr. Edward A. Harriman appeared upon the Society's program. The former made a valuable contribution to the subject of “Retaliation and Punishment in International Law," and the latter discussed “The means to be provided and procedure adopted for authoritatively determining whether the Hague Conventions or other general international agreements, or the rules of international law, have been violated? In case of violation, what should be the nature of the remedy and how should it be enforced?" For the Subsection on International Law, Messrs. Jackson H. Ralston and Walter S. Penfield gave interesting historical presentations of "The Attitude of American Countries toward International Arbitration and the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.”

The third session was held on Wednesday night, the Society meeting jointly with the American Political Science Association and the Amercan Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes. Professor Jesse S. Reeves, of the University of Michigan, representing the Political Science Association, made a careful analysis of international disputes, pointing out the fundamental difference between those of a justiciable nature and those of a non-justiciable nature. The nature and form of the agreement for the submission of justiciable disputes to an international court were carefully treated by Dr. James Brown Scott, speaking for the Judicial Settlement Society, and the session closed with a well considered address by Professor A. de Lapradelle, of the University of Paris, who covered the following topic on the program of the Society: “Is a uniform law of neutrality for all nations desirable or practicable? If so, what are the principles upon which such a law should be based, and what generally should be its provisions?"

The fourth session, held Thursday morning, was devoted to a consideration of the following subject upon the program of the Society: “What modifications, if any, should be made in the law and practice as now applied by the principal maritime nations concerning the following subjects of international naval law in order, under the conditions of the modern interdependence of nations, adequately to safeguard the interests of both neutrals and belligerents?" Blockade and continuous voyage were taken up and considered by President Harry Pratt Judson, of the University of Chicago, and Contraband and Visit and Search by Professor George C. Butte, of the University of Texas.

The concluding session took place on Thursday afternoon, this being a joint meeting of the Society with the Subsection on International Law

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »