There was recently published in the pages of this Review an article from the pen of Professor William E. Rappard, entitled “The Beginnings of International Government,” in which the author took issue with the use of that phrase and challenged the validity of the concept to which it refers. He took as his text, more or less, a volume published in the United States some years back which employed the contested phrase in its title. And he concluded that the term is a misnomer, and that the phenomenon referred to does not—in the possible alternative sense of supernational government—exist today to any appreciable extent.

There has subsequently appeared another volume carrying the neat title “International Government;” and another volume with somewhat the same designation is promised shortly. Some ten years ago, the writer of the present comment, in composing a similar work, was compelled to face the problems of theory and of verbal expression here involved, and decided in favor of “International Organization.” To that he has adhered in subsequent editions, with ample reference to the functional side of international government (“procedure,” “coöperation”), but, as originally, for reasons not involving a denial of the validity of the contested concept. He would like to discuss briefly the criticism of the idea of “international government” offered in his accustomed brilliant and trenchant style by Professor Rappard.

The main difficulty lies not so much in accepting the definition of government adopted by Professor Rappard (orderly exercise of authority); but that is the first point at which the writer would take issue.