"C" type of the provision that the territories concerned are to be administered as integral parts of the possessions of the mandatory Powers, or the question whether such mandates can ever be brought to an end. If such termination is possible, there would clearly be a certain incongruity in granting the right to compel the acceptance of the nationality of the mandatory. There seems, however, no ground of principle on which exception would be taken to the exercise by the mandatory of the right of granting his nationality to such inhabitants of the mandated territory as may desire to receive it, and this arrangement would seem to meet all possible needs, and to be applicable to mandates of any type.

In the case of Mesopotamia and Palestine the draft mandates 1 contemplate the event of the termination of the mandate in either case, and impose on the Council of the League of Nations the duty of making such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for securing under the guarantee of the League that the new Government will fully honour the financial obligations legally incurred by the mandatory during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions and gratuities, and in the case of Palestine the obligations imposed on the mandatory regarding the sacred places of Palestine. The provision is important, as it definitely negatives the possibility of the mandatory Power, on resigning the mandate, finding its commitments to public servants and concessionaries repudiated by the new administrations.

The International Court of Justice.-Finally, a provision of the highest value in the mandates provides an effective means of dealing with any disputes which may arise between the mandatory and other Powers, members of the League, as to the interpretation or application of the provisions of the mandates. In any such case, if the matter proves incapable of settlement by negotiation, it must be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice contemplated by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and now duly constituted by the agreement of the powers.' The power to insist on such a reference does not, it should be noted, extend to the question whether the mandate itself conforms to Article 22 of the Covenant; as the responsibility for approving the mandates rests with the Council, it is doubtless assumed that the possibility of such a discrepancy ought to be ruled out of account. No provision is made for arbitration between the League and the 1 Parl. Pap. Cmd. 1500, pp. 6, 13. 2 Ibid., pp. 9, 10, articles 13 and 14. • Ibid., Cmd. 1276.

1

mandatory; such an arrangement would clearly be inconsistent with the relation which is held to exist between the League and the mandatories. There is further no procedure by which inhabitants of the mandated territories, who represent that the terms of the mandate are being violated, can bring their plea before either the League or the Court; but in certain cases, of course, the same end could be attained indirectly if some power, member of the League of Nations, could be induced to take up the issue. It may, indeed, be argued that a complaint can only be made by a member of the League in respect of some injury inflicted on its own subjects or interests in respect of the territory; but this would clearly limit indefinitely the scope of the general provision for arbitration, which can be fairly interpreted only if it is assumed to give any member of the League the right to obtain from the Court of International Justice a binding declaration on the true meaning of the mandate and on the just method of its application. It must be recognised that in this provision there lies the possibility of considerable embarrassment for the mandatory; Germany, for instance, if admitted a member of the League, might insist on referring to the Court her views as to the effect of the Union mandate for SouthWest Africa, and Japan could similarly ask for a ruling on the effect of the Australian mandate for German New Guinea. But such liability is an essential feature of the system which aims at substituting some measure of international control for national dominion. Yet the existence of such possibilities goes far to explain the lack of enthusiasm for the mandatory system which is discernible in the British Dominions, in France, and in Japan.

Finance. This feeling of dissatisfaction is reinforced by the fact that the mandatory system differs in one essential from any general doctrine of agency or trusteeship. It is not contemplated in the Covenant of the League or, directly at any rate, in any of the mandates that the mandatory should be entitled to be recouped for expenditure incurred on the mandated territory, a position which stands in sharp contradiction with the doctrine of the Judicial Committee finding the British South Africa Company entitled to the repayment of its administrative expenditure on Rhodesia, although such repayment had not been provided for in any agreement with the Company or in its Charter. Possibly in the case of the man1 Suggested by the British League of Nations Union, Assembly Document 246, P. 17.

[1919] A.C. 211.

8

dates for Mesopotamia and Palestine the terms used1 would cover a claim by the mandatory that the Council of the League on the termination of the mandate should insist on the Mesopotamian or Palestinian Government assuming responsibility for the sums expended by the mandatory during the period of the mandate; but in any case it is clear that such an arrangement would be impracticable. In probably the majority of cases the mandates will involve some expenditure by the mandatory, which cannot either at once or later be refunded from the resources of the territory. This consideration must be of weight in the deliberations of the Commission when it feels inclined to suggest reforms, for obviously it would be unreasonable to place heavy pecuniary obligations on a mandatory except in the case of absolute necessity.

1 Arts. 20 and 28 respectively.

THE STUDY OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN

FRANCE AND ENGLAND.

[Contributed by PROFESSOR H. C. GUTTERIDGE.]

THE inaugural lecture of M. Edouard Lambert, Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Lyons, delivered at the commencement of the present Session,' comes as an opportune reminder to English lawyers of the marked progress which is being made in the teaching of Comparative Law in France. Chairs in this subject have been established both in the University of Paris and in the principal provincial Universities, and its study now occupies a well-recognised place in the curricula of the various Faculties of Laws in France. The University of Paris possesses, in fact, two Chairs of Comparative Law; one of these relating to Comparative Civil Law in the strict sense of the word, and the other to Maritime Law and Comparative Commercial Legislation. The method of instruction is, in general, based on a division of the laws of the civilised world into three categories: (a) The Latin Group; (b) the Germanic Group; and (c) the Anglo-American Group; and takes the form of a comparison of the juristic principles underlying each group. It would seem that in practice special attention is being paid to English and American Law. Professor Levy-Ullmann, of the University of Paris, is, for instance, responsible for a valuable and illuminating course of lectures on the fundamental principles of English law in which the distinctions between the essential characteristics of the English and French law are brought out with great lucidity, and traced back to their origins in legal history. Professor Lambert, of the University of Lyons, Professor Lerebours-Pigionnière, of the University of Rennes, and Professor Escarra, of the University of Grenoble, are working on similar lines. The investigations which are being made are by no means merely academic in character. The English law relating to Joint Stock Companies is a case in point,

1 L'Institut de Droit Comparé, son programme et ses méthodes d'enseignement. A. Rey (Lyons, 1921).

and is attracting a very considerable amount of attention from French practising lawyers at the present time. The study of comparative commercial law is not being very actively pursued at the moment, though the importance of this particular branch of the subject has not been overlooked, and developments in this direction may be expected. Professor Percerou, of the University of Paris, is the foremost exponent of this branch of the subject, both as a teacher of comparative commercial law at the École libre des sciences politiques" and as editor of the Annales de Droit Commercial.

Professor Lambert is the originator of a bold and interesting experiment; and his inaugural lecture is devoted to an explanation of the new scheme for the study of Comparative Law which owes its inception to him. A separate study section entitled "The Institute of Comparative Law" (L'Institut de Droit Comparé) has been established under the ægis of the Faculty of Laws of the University of Lyons in co-operation with the Faculty of Economics. The scheme is based on a threefold course of seminar instruction combined with teaching according to the case book method. The student is given the facts of some English or American leading case which raises a question of interest to lawyers of all nationalities, and his first duty is to submit these facts to a critical examination from the social and economic point of view under the guidance of a teacher of economics. The next stage is to study the Anglo-American law bearing on the case, more particularly as laid down in the judgments of the English or American Court. Finally the French law applicable to the case is examined, and the student then makes a reasoned statement expressing his views on the points at issue.

This method of teaching is a striking innovation so far as the French Universities are concerned, and without expressing any opinion as to the suitability of the case book system for the purpose, it is safe to say that the future developments of this experiment will be watched with great interest by teachers in other schools of law. It must not, however, be thought that the activities of the Institute are to be confined to this scheme. Candidates for higher degrees in law are to be encouraged to deal with subjects relating to comparative law in presenting their theses for those degrees. English lawyers will be interested to learn that research students of the University of Lyons are at the moment engaged in compiling a monograph on the life and work of Maitland. It is further pointed out by Professor Lambert that the proximity of Lyons to the Italian