The doctrine which is here being discussed has been stated as follows:

There are some problems of international law which at times are felt to be in the air. Today without doubt one of these questions is that of original acquisition of territorial sovereignty. Arbitration cases such as those concerning the Island of Palmas and Greenland started a heated discussion of the principles involved in the field of scientific research.

It is now an established principle of modern international law, that there exists in every independent State but one body of law. This body of law is administered by all the courts alike over all persons and things within its territorial limits. These courts, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, do not discriminate between the various inhabitants of the State. The origin, nationality or religion of the people who appear before the courts is not questioned, and is not of any importance.

The Chinese Empire conveniently dates from 221 B.C., when the King of Ch’in coined the title which has since served for Emperor, and with considerable justness designated himself The First Emperor. Conqueror though he was, he left much still to be done in the process of consolidating under one imperial sovereignty all the kingdoms and tribes of the area which is now north and central China. During the pre-imperial era, intercourse among the rulers of the independent units naturally had a customary pattern, an Asiatic analogue to the rudimentary interstate law of the Greek city states. Two bloody centuries preceding The First Emperor have left much martial romance and philosophy both militant and pacifistic, but meager history. From a relatively quiet earlier period, 722-481, however, the classic annals transmit an abundance of critically acceptable history in palpable detail, with interstate incidents suitable for the purpose of case studies. This paper is limited to the first twenty years of that period, the earliest possible for its purpose, which is to induce interstate custom solely from episodes credibly recorded in Chinese classics. Only a few illustrative cases are quoted here, but all the generalizations rest wholly upon case studies unless specifically noted otherwise.

In its attempt to forge a lien between the process of pacific settlement outlined in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the judicial process provided for by the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Special Assembly of the League of Nations dealing with the Chaco dispute has broken some new ground. The effort made in its report of November 24,1934, was not successful, or not wholly so; but it may have established a precedent which will serve in the future, and for this reason it seems to deserve some special attention.

The comprehensive revision of the nationality laws of the United States, now being formulated in pursuance of an Executive Order issued by President Roosevelt on April 25,1933, lends special interest and value at the present time to a comparative study of the laws of foreign states relating to nationality at birth and to the loss of nationality.

Jefferson’s importance as a political theorist tends to be overshadowed by his success as diplomat and statesman. The practical accomplishments of his forty years in public office often obscure the breadth and consistency of the philosophy behind all of his official conduct, and his tremendous influence in formulating and disseminating the principles on which the modern democratic state rests is too often forgotten. His genius consisted, not so much in the originality of his political ideas, as in his ability to select from the conflicting theories of his day all that could be practically applied, and to transmute a diverse intellectual heritage into a working philosophy of the state. Against the sovereign whose command is law, Jefferson sets up a legal theory seeking justice as well as order, and by which ruler and subject are alike bound. It is a theory which transcends national lines, recognizing that isolation, in any rigorous sense, means stagnation and death, both to the individual and to the state. So when Jefferson asks for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations–entangling alliances with none,” only the second phrase is negative, and it means no more than it says. Peace and commerce are both relations external to the individual state; and both presuppose for their maintenance some form of international organization–some system of international law. Both Jefferson’s writings and his official acts testify to his belief that the intercourse of nations must be governed by some body of legal rules.

Since the Treaty of Versailles—more in the nature of an armistice than a treaty of peace—we have from time to time heard rumors of wars; and today a state of war exists. Therefore neutrality is no longer a mere conception, it is a fact; and, as wars are contagious—at least they were a few years ago—many people there are who look upon a world war as a dread possibility, unless the present machinery of peace proves itself competent to bring about and to preserve peace.