¹ This Journal,Vol. 38, Supplement, pp. 2–3.

² Report, January 21 and 22,1944.

³ See London Economist, March 2, 1944, as quoted in New York Times, March 3,1944, p. 2, and War Secretary Grigg’s statement on enforcing peace, ibid. Cf. Herridge, W. D. (former Canadian Minister to the United States), Which Kind of Revolution?, Boston, 1943, p. 23 Google Scholar: “Versailles was not a treaty of peace but a declaration of war.

⁴ United States v. La Jeune Eugenie, Cir. Ct., 2 Mason 409 (1822).

⁵ Edwin, Borchard, “The Relation Between ‘State’ and ‘Law’” (1926–27), 36 Google Scholar Yale L. J. 767, 1086.

⁶ Cf. Charles Seymour, “Versailles in Perspective” (Oct. 1943), 19 Va. Q. Rev. 481, 497.

⁷ Coercion of States: In Federal Unions, by Harrop Freeman and Theodore Paullin, Philadelphia, 1943; to be followed by a study of coercion in international organizations, by Mr. Freeman.

⁸ “The Relation Between ‘State’ and ‘Law’” (1926–27), 36 Google Scholar Yale L. J. 1, 757, 1039.

⁹ Thomas Baty correctly makes “certainty” one of the four canons of international law. (Baty, Canons of International Law, London, 1930.) Of “certainty” he says (pp. 27–28):

And the rule must be certain. To cast doubt or questioning on an established rule of International Law is to go far to destroy it. Deriving its force from the common belief of a multitude of heterogeneous elements, the Law of Nations contains an element of weakness, due to the fact that this common belief is exceedingly difficult to create and to prove. International Law cannot bear novel theories and subtle questionings. Harmless as these may be in the sphere of municipal law, where they dash their waves with a pleasing splash against the solid rocks of daily practice, they are infinitely mischievous in the realm of International Law, where intercourse is sparse and rudimentary, and where the common understanding, so painfully created and established, rests to a great extent on accepted theories. All the efforts of the jurist ought to be devoted to reinforcing this basis of understanding, as the engineer reinforces a dyke against the sea. To wreck it is to bring chaos in again. It is the inevitable tendency of the academic mind to seek credit by advancing spectacular innovations. When we are dealing with the Law of Nations, such a course is fatal. It does not introduce, as in other sciences, a pleasantly piquant corrective to established notions;—in so far as it is effective, it destroys the subject-matter of the science which it pretends to advance.

¹⁰ The anti-legal nature of the new conceptions has been discussed in an editorial in this Journal,“War, Neutrality and Non-Belligerency,” Vol. 35, p. 618 (Oct. 1941).

¹¹ Assistant Secretary of State A. A. Berle in address, November 23,1943, printed in the Department of State Bulletin, November 27,1943, pp. 384–388: “Nor have we any intention to scrap the well-settled policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other states. The policy of non-intervention in other people’s affairs is and must be the first principle of sound doctrine. Unless this is the settled practice of nations, there may be no principle of sovereign equality among peace-loving states and probably no permanent peace at all.”

¹² Cf. the remarks of Sir Eyre Crowe in his famous memorandum of January 1,1907, Gooch, and Temperley, , British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914, Vol. III, p. 397 Google Scholar at 417: “Further, it would be neither just nor politic to ignore the claims to a healthy expansion which a vigorous and growing country ... . has a natural right to assert in the field of legitimate endeavour. The frank recognition of this right has never been grudged or refused by England to any foreign country.”

¹³ Arnold, Wolfers, “In Defense of the Small Countries,” Yale Review, Vol. 33, pp. 201–220 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Cf. Baty, , International Law, New York, 1909, p. 18 Google Scholar: “Consequently, to restrict the equality of states to such ‘legal’ rights as the major states in the exercise of their supposed ‘political’ rights may think fit to concede, is to abolish the equality of sovereignty which at present subsists, and virtually to abolish the sovereignty of small states altogether.”

¹⁵ Cf. Sumner, Welles in New York Herald-Tribune, December 1, 1943 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Report, pp. 8–9.