An expert on foreign affairs has summarized the limitation upon the right of a government to make public the diplomatic papers which it has received from another government as follows: “ … one party to a negotiation cannot, in honor and in courtesy, publish the negotiation without the consent of the other party, on pain of forfeiting that good-will upon which … ‘the peace of the world ultimately depends.’ ” This principle of consent to publication is accepted, with some reservations and exceptions, by American practice. But American practice in this matter is not generally accepted by all foreign offices and it is not precisely and definitely written into international law. It has been generally observed in normal times by the Great Powers, which have had most to gain by its application, and it has frequently been disregarded by small powers and by Great Powers in times of stress. It rests upon comity and reciprocity, not upon international legislation.

Diplomacy has developed a large amount of formalistic ritual much of which is reflected in international law. The titles and ranking of diplomats constitute the most striking example. Curiously enough this tendency is not wholly reflected in the modern law and practice of treaty-making. It is of no legal consequence, for example, whether an agreement between or among states is called a treaty, a convention, a statute, an agreement, a protocol or a covenant or charter. Certain labels are used with a degree of consistency to signify the informal or temporary character of an agreement such as modus vivendi and “exchange of notes,” while others, such as “covenant” and “charter,” have been utilized to suggest the basic and over-all importance of the instrument. The labels do not, however, indicate whether the agreement registers a boundary settlement, the conclusion of peace, a political and military alliance, provisions for the extradition of fugitive criminals, arrangements for the distribution of radio frequencies, adjustment of double taxation, respect for copyrights, or facilities for travelling salesmen. The applicable substantive law similarly fails to distinguish among such diverse subjects and covers them all with the same rules concerning conclusion, interpretation, and termination. Such uniformity is convenient for the student, the statesman, and the judge, but it is not responsive to the needs of the international community in some important respects which will be discussed in this chapter.

The word “copyright” comes from the Latin copia, which is translated as “plenty” and which means, in general, the right to make plenty or to copy. In its specific application it means the right to multiply copies of those products of the human brain known as literature and art. It has also been defined as “the power to determine whether the work shall be published at all, the manner in which, if published, it shall be done, and to whom.”