¹ Julius Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict xxxiii-xxxiv (1954). Cf. in various respects Lauterpacht, H., “The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War,” 29 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 361-382 (1952)Google Scholar; Kunz, J. L., “The Chaotic Status of the Laws of War and the Urgent Necessity for Their Revision,” 45 A.J.I.L. 37-61 (1951)Google Scholar; idem, “The Laws of War,” 50 A.J.I.L. 313-337 (1956). Cf. also Max Huber, “... Sur une Revision Eventuelle des Conventions de la Haye . . . ,” 37 Rev. Int. Croix Rouge 417-433 (1955) ; Wright, Quincy, “Outlawry of War and the Law of War,” 47 A.J.I.L. 365-376 (1953)Google Scholar ; W. G. Downey, Jr., “Revision of the Rules of Warfare,” 1949 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 102; R. R. Baxter, “The Role of Law in Modern War,” 1953 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 90; Dunbar, N. C. W., “The Legal Regulation of Modern Warfare,” 40 Grotius Society Transactions 83-95 (1955)Google Scholar (see esp. 93-95 asking for a declaration of human rights applicable in time of war, as necessary to fix the limits at which necessities of war must yield to humanity) ; idem, “Military Necessity in the War Crimes Trials,” 29 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 444 (1952); idem, “The Significance of Military Necessity in the Law of War,” 67 Juridical Review 201-212 (1955) ; Jessup, P. C., “Political and Humanitarian Approaches to Limitation of Warfare,” 51 A.J.I.L. 757-761 (1957)Google Scholar; and the article by McDougal, M. S. and Feliciano, P. P., “International Coercion and World Public Order,” 67 Yale Law J. 771-845 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

In 1953 the American Society of International Law referred to a special committee a proposal for the study of a modern code of warfare. A project on “Reconsideration of the Principles of the Law of War” is referred by the Institute of International Law to its 25th Commission. See the initial report of F. E. Coudert, J. P. A. François and H. Lauterpacht in 45 Annuaire 555-558 (1954, I), and Rapports Provisoires et Définitifs of J. P. A. François, 1957, 1958.

² Diritto Bellico (2d rev. ed., 1954).

³ Nozioni di Diritto Internazionale Bellico (2d rev. ed., 1954).

⁴ The publication incorporates the Preliminary Draft of 1955 at 139-150. And see Julius Stone, op. cit. note 1 above, Supp. to revised impression of 1959, pp. 896-898, and literature there cited.

⁵ There was a conference of U.K. and U.S. experts on revision of the Manuals in May, 1953. The U.S. Manual of 1940 was superseded by the Law of Land Warfare, U.S. Army Basic Field Manual, 1956, in July, 1956. For a useful comparison, see J. L. Kunz, 51 A.J.I.L. 388-396 (1957). Hague Convention No. 4 and Regulations, and the Geneva Conventions, 1949, are incorporated. Par. 7 states that treaties quoted therein, since declaratory of the unwritten law, will be observed and enforced whether or not technically binding on the U.S. Part I of the revised British Manual of Military Law was issued in 1954. And see U.S. official Law of Naval Warfare, 1955, prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Naval War College (R. W. Tucker, Special Consultant), superseding the Instructions Governing Maritime Warfare of 1917 as revised in 1941.

⁶ See, e.g., J. Constant, Les Sanctions Pénales des Conventions Humanitaires . . . (1954); G. Erler and H. Strebel, “Die strafrechtliche Sicherung Humanitärer Abkommen,” 15 Zeitschrift f. ausi, öffent. Reeht u. Völkerrecht 31-75 (1953); Grevy, R. and Cornil, L., “Avant-Projet de Loi Organisant la Repression des Infractions aux Conventions de Genève de . . . 1949 . . . ,” 36 Rev. de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie 591-633 (1956)Google Scholar; J. L. Kunz, “The Conventions of August 12, 1949,” in G. A. Lipsky (ed.), Law and Politics 279-316. There are commentaries on these conventions by J. S. Pictet published by the International Red Cross; and a valuable historical note and collection of documents on the protection of victims of war, in U.S. Naval War College, International Law Situations 1950-1951. See specifically on the Civilians Convention, Castrén, E., “La Protection juridique de la Population civile dans la Guerre moderne,” 59 Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public 121-136 (1955)Google Scholar; H. Kraus, “Der Schutz der Civil Personen in Kriegszeiten . . . ,” in Niemeyer Festschrift 177-193 (1953); Thélin, G., “La Protection des Enfants en Temps de Guerre,” 8 Rev. Croix Rouge 763-777 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see A. Von Reding, Die rechtliche Stellung der Kriegsgefangenen . . . (1952; Wilhelm, E. J., “Peut-on modifier le Statut des Prisonniers de Guerre?” 6 Rev. Croix Eouge 516-543, 681-690 (1953)Google Scholar ; J. Hinz, Das Kriegsgefangenenrecht (1954); Florey, M., “Vers une nouvelle Conception du Prisonnier de Guerre,” 58 Rev. Gén de Droit Int. Public 53-93 (1954)Google Scholar ; F. Siordet, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 (1953); Pictet, J. S., “La Croix Rouge et les Conventions de Genève,” 76 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 5-119 (1950)Google Scholar.

⁷ See pp. 367-377.

⁸ Preface, p. vii.

⁹ See Stone, Julius, “Problems Confronting Sociological Inquiries concerning International Law,” 89 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 158 ff. (1956)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Examples within his treatment of technical war law are the author’s accounts of enemy character (pp. 575-577), of treachery as opposed to ruses (pp. 317-322), of bombardment of the hinterland (pp. 332-349), curiously unintegrated with the treatment of big bombs and atomic weapons (pp. 367-377), of repatriation of prisoners of war against their will (pp. 609-614). A particularly good example of the difficulty is at p. 550, note 75, where he cites this reviewer’s Legal Controls of International Conflict 38-84, 408-413 (1954), on the distinction between neutral state trading and neutral private trader, but fails to cite the related work of Wolfgang Friedmaim (see esp. idem, “The Growth of State Control over the Individual . . . ,” 19 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 118-150, esp. 130-137 (1938); idem, “Some Impacts of Social Organization in International Law,” 50 A.J.I.L. 475-513, at 478-491 (1956)). Nor does he cite the acute further discussion of the reviewer’s position on this matter by E. W. Tucker in Law of War and Neutrality at Sea 215-218, note 1 (1957). The result is that his account (pp. 533-534, 548-550) does not really raise the final issues.

¹¹ Pp. 21-29, 540 ff.

¹² Contrast p. 540, admitting preventive military action against neutrals, with pp. 27-28, condemning it as against an “enemy” from which an atomic attack is believed imminent, taking account neither of the modern technological or strategic realities, nor of the legal difficulties concerning the meaning of aggression as aggravated by these realities, to cheek his rather over-dogmatic legalism of interpretation.

¹³ Basically, insofar as war law operates both in lawful and unlawful war, the wider questions can, if necessary, be omitted, though they are obviously, if adequately treated, valuable background for the reader.