The recent annexation of Austria to the German Reich (the terms “incorporation” or “absorption” are preferred by some) has raised certain questions of international law or practice with which other states have already had, or will have, to deal and upon some of which Germany also will be called upon to take a position. Among the questions already raised or which may be raised are the following: (1) Assuming that the annexation was brought about by the use of armed force against Austria without her consent and in violation of treaties or international law, should those states which have bound themselves by treaties not to recognize the validity of territorial annexations made under such circumstances, accord de jure recognition to the German annexation of Austria? (2) What effect did the annexation have on the status and obligations of Austria as a member of the League of Nations? (3) What effect did it have on the status of the treaties between Austria and other countries which were in force at the time of the annexation? (4) Did the application of Germany’s treaties with other states extend automatically, following the annexation, to the territory of Austria? (5) Is Germany bound by the generally recognized rules of international law to assume the payment of the debts of the former Austrian state, including those of the local governments of Austria?

The Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, Inc., has issued its fourth Annual Report for the year 1937 in a volume containing some 790 pages.

The Report shows that during 1937 the Council was concerned with twenty-six situations in twenty different countries involving 254 bond issues of an approximate face value of $1,800,000,000. During the year two temporary adjustments were announced with Poland, two permanent adjustments with China, also permanent adjustments covering Uruguayan national and municipal bonds.

Twelve casebooks on international law have been published in the United States, England and Canada during a period of slightly more than fifty years, and six of them have appeared during the last ten years.

The Special Mexican Claims Commission has just completed its task of deciding 2,833 claims of American citizens against Mexico arising out of the revolutionary disturbances in Mexico during the period from 1910 to 1920. The Commission commenced its work in September, 1935. The decision of this large number of claims marks an important chapter in the development of international reclamation, not only because of the disposition of such a large number of cases in a comparatively short period of time, but also because of new departures made in the case of this commission in procedure and rules of decision.

The British Dominions prior to the World War had already achieved practically unrestricted freedom with respect to technical and commercial treaties. They had not attained any comparable freedom with respect to “political” treaties. They were, with rare exceptions, excluded from participation in the conclusion of such treaties but were, nevertheless, bound automatically by the obligations undertaken by the mother country. The Government of the United Kingdom, subject to its responsibility to the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, exercised sole authority in all matters relating to the conduct of foreign policy, the maintenance of peace, and the declaration of war. That authority, Prime Minister Asquith declared at the Imperial Conference of 1911, could not be shared with the Dominions. Yet at the close of the War the Dominions were given separate representation at the Paris Peace Conference.

The submission by the Government of the United States to the Government of Canada on May 28, 1938, of a rewritten draft of a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway treaty brings to the forefront again the desirability of concluding a comprehensive agreement between the two Governments for a mutually advantageous utilization of the available navigation and power resources along the boundary basin. In view of the heightened interest in both the United States and Canada, a reexamination of the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and Great Britain and Canada since the end of the nineteenth century regarding the diversion of waters in the United States or in Canada which affected interests in the other country is opportune. It is of significance to note the positions taken by the United States and Great Britain and, later, Canada, in diplomatic negotiations and by significant municipal acts, as to the legal rights of the United States and Canada to the use or diversion of (1) boundary waters, (2) waters which are tributary (and entirely within the territory of one country) to boundary waters, and (3) waters of rivers flowing across the boundary. The distinction between the first situation and the second and third is an important one to observe.