Undoubtedly the generally recognized rules governing the exertion of military force at any given period are the outcome of social and economic conditions as well as of the development of new modes of attack upon life and property. Yet many believe that new forms of the exertion of military strength may be restrained by international agreement made in time of peace and in the name of humanity. Although such agreements have been made in the past, such as the Hague agreements of 1899 and 1907, not all have been viable. It is doubtful if effective ways of striking down the enemy will be limited by the bare plea of “humanity”. Restraint on the exercise of belligerent force for the sole reason that the sufferings of war are great and cruel is instinctive but not logical, for war is death and injury of persons and destruction of property by which the enemy is forced to submit. As to this matter Oppenheim says in his International Law:

The steady decline during the last half-century in the degree of effective control wielded by China over the borderlands of her great empire has been accompanied by widespread confusion concerning the international position of these areas. Obscured through the establishment by foreign nations of numerous special concessions, spheres of influence, and protectorates, the exact legal relationship existing between the central authority of China and the governors of these territories has been a cause for frequent and vigorous debate. Those groups which have sought to advance the claims of their governments to wider concessions in these regions, and those publicists who have made unsubstantiated statements about the imperialistic aims of various states in these areas, have profited by this confusion. This condition of uncertainty regarding legal status, which exists in some degree with regard to each of the four Chinese dependencies, is markedly present in the case of Outer Mongolia, a region of growing importance in Far Eastern affairs.

Among the problems recurrently agitating European chancelleries and military strategists is that of the status of the Aaland Islands. Located between Sweden and Finland athwart the entrances to the Gulfs of Bothnia and Finland, these islands long have played a role of importance in North European affairs which bids fair to increase in significance in the immediate future. The islands have a direct bearing upon the military and naval strategy of all countries bordering upon the Baltic Sea, and their status must be of concern to all nations having shipping interests in this region. The so-called Aaland Islands Question is now a complex of questions regarding sovereignty and title to the islands, as well as their neutralization and militarization.

The question of the admissibility of reservations to multilateral treaties continues to present problems of great theoretical and practical interest. In particular, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the procedure which should be followed where a signatory or adhering state desires to formulate reservations in the act of ratification or adherence. This question is of special interest to international organizations such as the Pan American Union and the League of Nations. As depositaries of treaties and of instruments of ratification and adherence, the procedural aspect of this problem is a matter of every day concern.

From time to time the slow and gradual administrative evolution of the Department of State has been accelerated by relatively sweeping changes in internal structure, notably in 1909, 1922, and more recently in 1937-1939, in an adjustment to meet new conditions. The series of changes which took place between May, 1937, and February, 1939, approached the proportions of a fundamental reorganization. Singularly enough, the Department of State made no complete explanation of the new dispensation, and the changes in personnel and organization were effected quietly by a series of Departmental orders. Widely publicized schemes of administrative reorganizaton are unlikely to meet with favor in Congress and in the press.