¹ Wright, Quincy, “The Present Status of Neutrality,” American Journal of International Law, July, 1940, pp. 414–415.Google Scholar See also Schuman, Frederick L., Europe on the Eve (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; ibid., Night over Europe; The Diplomacy of Nemesis, 1939–1940 (New York, 1941); Mousley, Edward, Man or Leviathani (London, 1939)Google Scholar; Carr, Edward H., The Twenty Years' Crisis (London, 1940)Google Scholar; and Birdsall, Paul, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York, 1941).Google Scholar

² See my article, “Germany's Lebensraum,” in this Review, Oct., 1940, pp. 964–975. Cf. Cassin, René, “Que subsiste-t-il du droit international?,” Revue des Questions de Défense Nationale, Jan., 1940, p. 68Google Scholar: “Depuis quelque temps, l'espace vital (Lebensraum) a été presenté par Hitler comme sa plate-forme de politique extérieure.” Schmitt, Carl, “Raum und Grossraum im Völkerrecht,” Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1940.Google Scholar

³ Muller-Sturmheim, E., “From Kant to Hitler,” Quarterly Review (London), Jan., 1941, p. 84.Google Scholar See also Adolf Hitler's order to the German army on April 6, 1941, “to march into Yugoslavia and Greece in order to secure a ‘living space’ for the German family.”

⁴ Essen, J. v., “Frankreichs kontinentaler Hegemonietraum,” Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Leipzig), Vol. 30, No. 4, 1940.Google Scholar

⁵ “Marshal Pétain and the ‘New Order’,” Foreign Affairs, Apr., 1941, p. 673.

⁶ Bruce Hopper, “The War for Eastern Europe,” ibid., Oct. 1941, p. 23.

⁷ Prinzing, Albert, “Die europäische Bedeutung des Mittelmeers,” Zeitschrift für Politik, Jan., 1941, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar

⁸ Merriam, Charles E., Prologue to Politics (Chicago, 1939), p. 1.Google Scholar The appendix to this book (pp. 101–108) contains bibliographies and suggestive lines of research and exposition. See also Brooks, Robert C., “Reflections on the ‘World Revolution’ of 1940,” in this Review, Feb., 1941, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

⁹ Crowther, Geoffrey, “Anglo-American Pitfalls,” Foreign Affairs, Oct., 1941, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Quoted from editorial in Free World, Vol. I, No. 1, Oct., 1941.

¹¹ Peffer, Nathaniel, “Omens in the Far East,” Foreign Affairs, Oct. 1941, p. 50.Google Scholar

¹² Wright, Quincy, “Dilemmas for a Post-War World,” Free World, Oct., 1941, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

¹³ Among others, see Maddox, William P. (ed.), European Plans for World Order (Philadelphia, American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1940)Google Scholar; “When War Ends,” Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1940; Hill, Helen and Agar, Herbert, Beyond German Victory (New York, 1940)Google Scholar; Ralston, Jackson H., A Quest for International Order (Washington, D. C., 1941)Google Scholar; German “New Order” in Europe, Bulletin of International News, Jan. 25, 1941; Dean, Vera Micheles, “Plans for Post War Reconstruction,” Foreign Policy Reports, May, 15, 1941Google Scholar; Stiewe, Friedrich, “Um die Zukunft Europas,” Berliner Monatshefte, Jan., 1941Google Scholar; Fay, Sidney B., “Problems of Peace Settlement,” Events, Apr., May, June, 1941.Google Scholar

¹⁴ “Commission to Study the Organization of Peace,” Preliminary Report, Nov., 1940, p. 9. See also comments thereon in this Review, Apr., 1941, pp. 317–324.

¹⁵ For instance, Streit's, Clarence remarkable books Union Now (1939)Google Scholar and Union Now with England (1941) put leaven into human thinking in the Anglo-Saxon world. See also Davies, Lord, A Federated Europe (London, 1940).Google Scholar A proposal for a “confederation,” not as close or as centralized as “Union Now” and including all states which accept the Western tradition of rule by law. The organic concepts expressed by the Holy See may be found in the papal encyclical of June 1, 1941.

¹⁶ Triepel, Heinrich, Die Hegemonie; Ein Buch von führenden Staaten (Stuttgart und Berlin: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1938).Google Scholar The volume combines in a unique manner sociological and historical approach with analytical jurisprudence. Since it is the principal work on its subject, revealing hegemony as a universal phenomenon, the writer is drawing extensively from it.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 294.

¹⁸ “Triepel's book proves to what extent such a broadly stated frame of description may be useful.” Comment in Zeitschrift für Politik, June-July, 1940, pp. 325–326.

¹⁹ The so-called general theory of the state should have included “hegemony” within its field of researches. Neither in general books on the theory of the state or on general public law or political science, nor in monographs on international relations, can anything suitable be found. In most of these works, the word “hegemony” is not even mentioned. There appears to be one exception: Rehm, , Allgemeine Staatslehre (1899).Google Scholar But this discussion is not very exhaustive. Little, if anything, will be found on the subject in books on international law, except in chapters relating to the “equality” of states. See, for instance, Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, L., International Law, 5th ed., Vol. 1 (New York, 1937), p. 221.Google Scholar

²⁰ In the more recent literature, the word “hegemony” is correctly replaced by “preponderance” or similar expressions, if it is not concerned with genuine leader ship.

²¹ Triepel, op. cit., p. 138.

²² See Wieser, F. v., Gesetz der Macht (Wien, 1926)Google Scholar; Merriam, Charles E., Political Power; Its Composition and Incidence (New York, 1934)Google Scholar; Russell, Bertrand, Power; A New Social Analysis (New York, 1938)Google Scholar; Burnham, James, The Managerial Revolution; What is Happening in the World (New York, 1941).Google Scholar

²³ For interesting schedules, showing the variety of dependence, Gmelin, Hans, Politische Abhängigkeit von Staaten (Sonderabdruck aus der Festgabe für Richard Schmidt, 1932)Google Scholar; Kunz, Josef L., Staatenverbindungen (Stuttgart, 1929).Google Scholar

²⁴ Dickinson, E. D., The Equality of States in International Law (Cambridge, 1920), Chaps. VI, VII, VIII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Wright, Quincy, Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago, 1930), p. 276.Google Scholar

²⁶ Both of these descriptions are well separated by Alvarez, Alejandro, Le Panaméricanism et la dixième Conférence panaméricaine (1928), p. 46et seq.Google Scholar

²⁷ Martens, F. de, Nouveau Recueil Général, 3. série, Vol. X, p. 37.Google Scholar

²⁸ Triepel, op. cit., p. 140.

²⁹ Ibid., op. cit., p. 47 et seq.

³⁰ L. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., pp. 224–226: “The end of the World War found Germany and Austria-Hungary defeated and the latter dismembered. Russia had undergone far-reaching internal changes and had, at that time, adopted a new international outlook. The importance of the remaining five, who are described in the Treaties of Peace as the ‘Principal Allied and Associated Powers,’ was recognized by Article 4 of the Covenant of the League in the composition of the Council, whereon Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan (the United States having abstained from joining the League) acquired permanent seats. Thus the political hegemony of the Great Powers was, for the first time, given a legal basis and expression in the most international instrument.” In the former editions of this treatise, the view was expressed that the Covenant had not altered the law in this respect.

³¹ Triepel, op. cit., p. 204.

³² Gierke, Otto v., Das Wesen der menschlichen Verbände (1902), p. 33.Google Scholar

³³ Westlake, John, International Law, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1904), p. 308et seq.Google Scholar; ibid., Collected Papers (Cambridge, 1914), p. 99 et seq.; especially Lawrence, T. J., Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1885), p. 208Google Scholaret seq., principally pp. 227, 230, 232; also, ibid., Principles of International Law (7th ed., 1923), p. 245.

³⁴ Bilfinger, Carl, Völkerbundsrecht gegen Völkerrecht (Munich, 1938), p. 10Google Scholar, and Chap. V, “Garantie des Status quo durch Hegemonie und Sanktionen”; also Keeton, G. W. and Schwarzenberger, G., Making International Law Work (London, 1939).Google Scholar

³⁵ Triepel, op. cit., p. 205.

³⁶ Ibid., op. cit., pp. 206–208.

³⁷ Department of State Bulletin, Vol. III, No. 54 (July, 6, 1940); also “The Monroe Doctrine in 1940,” American Journal of International Law, Oct., 1940.

³⁸ Perkins, Dexter, Hands Off; A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston, 1941)Google Scholar, foreword.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 376–379. See also Baldwin, Hanson W., United We Stand; Defense of the Western Hemisphere (New York, 1941).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Triepel, op. cit., p. 211.

⁴¹ Ibid., op. cit., p. 212.

⁴² Kienast, Walter, Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 153 (Munich, 1936), p. 270Google Scholaret seq.

⁴³ Fragmente aus der neuesten Geschichte des politischen Gleichgewichts in Europa (1806; Staatsschriften und Briefe, by v. Eckardt, 1921), Vol. 1, p. 121. Similar Statements occur in Wolff, Chr., Jus gentium (1759), par. 644Google Scholaret seq.

⁴⁴ Triepel, op. cit., p. 212.

⁴⁵ Triepel, op. cit., p. 213.

⁴⁶ Wright, Quincy, “The Munich Settlement and International Law,” American Journal of International Law, Jan., 1939, pp. 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Schuman, Frederick L., International Politics (New York, 1937), p. 724.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Berber, Fritz, Prinzipien der Britischen Aussenpolitik (Berlin, 1939), p. 31Google Scholar; Grewe, W. G., “Das Gleichgewichtsprinzip in der Britischen Völkerrechts- und Aussenpolitik,” Monatshefte fur Auswärtige Politik, Feb., 1939Google Scholar; Bargatzki, Walter, Der Sinn der englischen Festlandspolitik (Munich, 1939)Google Scholar; Feldmann, Erich, “Das europäische Gleichgewicht,” Deutschlands Erneuerung, Oct., 1940Google Scholar; Jentsch, Gerhart, Das Ende des europäischen Gleichgewichts (Berlin, 1940)Google Scholar; Wolgast, Ernst, “Über die Gesetze der auswärtigen Politik und die Machtauffassung der Staaten,” Zeitschrift fur öffentl. Recht. Vol. XX, No. 3, 1940.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Klein, Friedrich, “England und der Grundsatz des politischen Mächtegleichgewichts,” Wissen und Wehr, Aug., 1940, pp. 289–299.Google Scholar This article contains lengthy citations from. Triepel's Die Hegemonie.

⁵⁰ Triepel, op. cit., p. 213, n. 38, cites various authorities for comparative purposes.

⁵¹ Conti, Luciano, “Die Stellung der Grossmächte in der internationalen Ordnung,” Monatshefte für Auswärtige Politik, Apr., 1939, p. 308Google Scholar, asserts that the principle of balance describes primarily a political system, but that it is impossible to deny its close relationship with international law. A similar theory has been advanced previously—for instance, by Somló, F., Juristische Grundlehren (1917)Google Scholar, but it was subsequently abandoned by modern science. Conti considers the time opportune to revive this theory, as has recently been done in Drost, H., Grundlagen des Völkerrechts (Munich, 1936), p. 15et seq.Google Scholar

⁵² Bruns, V., Völkerrecht und Politik (Berlin, 1934), p. 11Google Scholar, refers to a European legal order.

⁵³ Reference is occasionally made to the balance in the Balkans, or in Eastern or Central Europe. Schmitt, B. E., From Versailles to Munich, 1918–1938 (Chicago, 1938), p. 41Google Scholar, states: “The interests of all its [Czechoslovakia's] allies were so obviously bound up with the preservation of the state, as the key to the balance of power in Central Europe, that any defection seemed inconceivable.”

⁵⁴ Triepel, op. cit., p. 214.

⁵⁵ Keeton-Schwarzenberger, op. cit., p. 35.

⁵⁶ Wirsing, Giselher, “Die wahre Wurzel des Konflikts,” Das XX. Jahrhundert, Sept., 1939.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Triepel, op. cit., p. 215.

⁵⁸ Baker, P. J., “The Doctrine of Legal Equality of States,” British Year Book of International Law, 1923–24, p. 1.Google Scholar Only a few are stricter in this respect. T. J. Lawrence even assumes a superiority of the Great Powers before the law. Essays, p. 230; ibid., Principles, p. 245.

⁵⁹ Lorimer, James, The Institutes of the Law of Nations, Vol. I (1883), p. 168Google Scholar: “… the rights of states are equal in themselves, and not merely the right of asserting their rights.”

⁶⁰ Heilborn, , Das System des Völkerrechts (1896), p. 305Google Scholar; Jellinek, G., System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte (1905), p. 319.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The history of the dogma of equality is treated in Dickinson, E. D., The Equality of States in International Law (1920), pp. 3–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goebel, , The Equality of States (1923).Google Scholar See also McNair, Arnold D., “Equality in International Law,” Michigan Law Review, Dec. 1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wild, Payson S., “What Is the Trouble with International Law?”, in this Review, June, 1938, pp. 478–494.Google Scholar

⁶² Of the same opinion, among others, Pillet, , Revue générale de droit international public, Vol. 5 (1898), p. 70Google Scholaret seq.; Hicks, , in American Journal of International Law (1908), Vol. 2, p. 530Google Scholaret seq.; Brown, ibid.; Vol. 9 (1915), p. 326 et seq.; Somló, op. cit., p. 156; Bilfinger, , Zeitschrift für ausi, öffentl. Recht und Völkerrecht, Vol. IV (1934), p. 481.Google Scholar

⁶³ For example, the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations, adopted by the American Institute of International Law in 1916, states in Article III: “Every nation is in law and before the law the equal of every other nation belonging to the society of nations.” American Journal of International Law, Vol. X (1916), p. 125.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ In reply to the German peace security memorandum of March 31, 1936, the French government on April 8, 1936, formulated its standpoint and under item 1 demanded: “La base première des relations internationales doit être la reconnaissance de l'égalité de droit et de l'indépendance de tous les états …,” and under items 5 and 7 proposed the elimination of “hegemony.” Le Temps, Apr. 9, 1936. Presumably this elimination refers to “legal” and not to “factual” hegemony.

⁶⁵ Huber, M., Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Vol. 12 (1923), p. 10.Google Scholar Still more outspoken is Mussolini, who in a speech on November 1, 1936, called it “un assurdo,” a great illusion, a conventional lie. Giornale d'Italia, Nov. 3, 1936.

⁶⁶ Lorimer, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 260 n.

⁶⁷ Aside from Dickinson, op. cit., Chap. VII, on “External Limitations upon the Equality of States,” see also for the frequent and varied application of these institutions of international agency the recent study by Sereni, Angelo Piero, “Agency in International Law,” American Journal of International Law, Oct., 1940, pp. 638–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The same author discusses “The Legal Status of Albania” as an example of hegemony, in this Review, Apr., 1941, pp. 311–317. Triepel's Die Hegemonie is repeatedly referred to by Grewe, Wilhelm G., in “Protektorat und Schutzfreundschaft,” Monatshefte für Auswärtige Politik, Apr., 1939Google Scholar, dealing principally with the protectorate of “Bohemia and Moravia” and the “protective friendship” of Slovakia.

⁶⁸ Huber, M., in “Rechtswissenschaftlichen Beiträgen,” Juristische Festgabe des Auslandes für J. Kohler (1909), p. 106.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Triepel, op. cit., discusses these methods in detail on pp. 218–240.

⁷⁰ “Effective law is impossible without some basic standards held in common by a substantial majority of those subject to it. Totalitarianism both in principle and practice rejects all standards above the legislation of the totalitarian government. Governments professing such a doctrine cannot be reliable subjects of law, and for this reason international law has always been a weak law. When governments practice such professions, international law disappears altogether. The relation of totalitarianism to international law is therefore one of incompatibility. If totalitarianism triumphs in the present war, international law will suffer a severe decline from which it may not recover.” Wright, Quincy, “International Law and the Totalitarian States,” in this Review, Aug., 1941, pp. 738–743.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Treitschke, Heinrich v., Politik, 5th ed., Vol. I (1922), p. 42.Google Scholar

⁷² Triepel, op. cit., p. 218.

⁷³ L. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 224.