Federation in Central America. The organization of an international court in Central America was greatly facilitated by the fact that since their independence began the five Central American states have had a tradition of solidarity. This tradition has persisted in spite of frequent dissensions, and it has been expressed in numerous attempts at federation. Under the Spanish régime, the Vice-royalty of Guatemala included in its five provinces the territory of what is now the five states. It was this dependency which declared its independence in 1821. Two years later the Republic of the United States of Central America was formed, and it continued for some years. Later attempts at union were made in 1835, 1842, 1847, 1852, 1889, and 1895, all of them more or less abortive, as was the latest attempt in 1921. Unanimous agreement of the five states was always difficult to achieve; distances were great and communications difficult; and no pressing need made union imperative. Yet the attempts at federation were renewed from time to time, over a period of a century. They had the effect of encouraging cooperation in many fields, and led to the efforts in 1902, 1907 and 1921 to create a judicial agency for the handling of disputes between the five states.

The Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, which was signed at Geneva on April 20, 1929, was the natural outgrowth of a conviction, held by the majority of states, that the counterfeiting of currency was an international crime, and moreover, that it was one of a decidedly virulent and insidious character. Had this belief not been widely prevalent, the proposal of the French Government that the League of Nations should undertake the drafting of a convention for the suppression of this crime would have fallen on barren ground. As it was, the existence of the conviction that the whole community of states had an interest in the repression of this form of criminality was what made the agreement at all possible. Repeatedly, especially during the years immediately preceding the drafting of this convention, the states had had occasion to observe that purely national action against counterfeiters was often insufficient, and that international action was in many cases extremely difficult, if not, impossible. Thus, in the face of this common menace, with which separately the states were unable to cope, they came in time to realize that international cooperation was necessary, and what is more, that it was imperative, if they were to make any headway in the prevention and punishment of such crime.

Foreign missionary activities, religious, educational, and philanthropic, play an important part in the international relations of China. Christian missionary rights have been conferred by many of the treaties concluded with China since 1842. The protection of missionary life and property has been one of the major activities of foreign legations in China since 1860. Christian mission workers have been accorded the right to acquire property in the interior of China, whereas commercial interests have been restricted by treaty to ports, foreign settlements and concessions. Foreign Christian missionaries constitute the largest class of aliens in China, and their property holdings bulk large in the foreign investment. These facts make pertinent a study of the legal status of alien religious property in China.

International law, whether customary or conventional, has been assumed to rest ultimately on moral or non-physical sanctions. In speaking of the “sanctity” of international agreements more often than of the “sanctions” upon which their effectiveness may depend, we have placed ultimate faith in the non-coercive means of giving effect to international law and international obligations. The practice of states, however, shows a striking number of instances in which material self-help sanctions have been exercised in time of peace to give effect to international rights.

During the early years of independence there existed in America two schools of political thinking. The one, of which Alexander Hamilton was the great exponent, emphasized the rights of government as against those of the individual, while the other, which found its leader in Thomas Jefferson, stressed the rights of the individual as against those of government.