The Conference on the Limitation of Armament at Washington adopted at its sixth plenary session on the 4th February, 1922, a resolution for the appointment of a Commission representing the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan to consider the following questions:

(a) Do existing rules of international law adequately cover new methods of attack or defence resulting from the introduction or development, since The Hague Conference of 1907, of new agencies of warfare?

(b) If not so, what changes in the existing rules ought to be adopted in consequence thereof as a part of the law of nations?

The sixteenth year of the Permanent Court of International Justice was not marked by a great increase in the volume of its jurisprudence, but three judgments were handed down and several events of importance are to be chronicled for this period.

Pan-Americanism and imperialism appear to be mutually exclusive. Whether they are so in effect is a matter of definition. Neither term in current usage conveys a precise meaning. Pan-Americanism fails because it has not yet emerged into a distinct and easily recognizable form, and imperialism because it has evolved in the course of history through a variety of forms from which a doubtful choice must be made. In the one case the problem is to decide what meaning, and in the other, which meaning. The "what" is the more difficult to determine, since new concepts such as Pan Americanism acquire meaning with time and circumstance. It is not strange, therefore, that the attempts at formal definition have thus far proved unsatisfactory. Not even the genus to which Pan-Americanism belongs has been agreed upon. One author calls it an advocacy, another an idea, another a sentiment, and sti l others an aspiration, a tendency, or a doctrine. Obviously it does not fall indifferently into all these categories. If it is a sentiment merely, it is less than a doctrine; if it is a doctrine it is more than a tendency; and to call it a tendency is not the same as to say it is an aspiration or an idea. Moreover, none of these classifications when considered separately seems to fit the case.

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?

Autocracy and Democracy are mutually antagonistic. A dictatorship, whether that of the proletariat or one established by a totalitarian state, is a menace to popular government. We have all seen in the recent past how it has shown itself a foe to liberty; to freedom of the person, freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, and hostile to religious toleration. Autocracy, relying upon force, is necessarily militaristic and readily assumes an aggressive attitude towards other forms of government.

No more acrid struggle raged in Soviet legal circles during the year 1937 than that over the search for a suitable theory of international law. For eight years lawyers had turned to Eugene B. Pashukanis as the leading Soviet theoretician in this field, but today his position is gone, his books are banned, and he is called an enemy of the people.

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.

In 1881–2, during discussions of a committee of the Board of Trade, which was considering the question of a tunnel under the English Channel, the following question was asked: “Is it possible that war would be declared against us, as we might say out of a clear sky, without any previous strain or notice that a quarrel was impending?” To answer this question, the Adjutant-General ordered a special investigation concerning the extent to which wars had been made without previous declaration. The report, when completed, evidenced the surprise of the author at the great number of undeclared wars, and incidentally remarked:

Josephus Daniels, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Government of Mexico, and Jose Manuel Puig Casauranc, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States, duly authorized, have agreed on behalf of their two governments to conclude the following protocol:

The term “refugee” is generally held to refer to those who have left or been forced to leave their country for political reasons, who have been deprived of its diplomatic protection and have not acquired the nationality or diplomatic protection of any other state. This includes those from whom the state has taken away protection and assistance but without suppressing juridically their nationality, and those whom the state has deprived of their nationality, thus making them stateless. While in strict law the position of these different categories of refugees is not uniform, in practice it is identical.

The opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, delivered January 28, 1937, in the case of Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney- General for Ontario,1 voids certain “new deal” measures 2 of the Dominion of Canada. This opinion is important not alone because it has given a harsh blow to social legislationin the Dominion, and because the judgment is a reminder of one of the last vestiges of Imperial authority over Canada, these aspectsof the judgment being internal to the British Commonwealth, but also important are the external aspects. These involve the power of Canada to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Dominion as a member of the international community.